Journal des débats 1997-oct-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. You will be aware that I've written to you giving you notice of my intention to raise this issue under the new rules requirements.

As you know, standing order 21 is quite clear: "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

My point of privilege relates directly to my ability and the ability of all opposition members to serve and to do their legislative duties. I believe my privileges as an MPP have been breached, and I'd like to explain.

You will be aware that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing had promised he would release the figures related to the municipal download on October 6, 1997. Yesterday these numbers were sent by courier to some municipalities across the province. We have reports that some municipalities have received them while some have not. For example, municipalities in the north have not yet received these numbers.

But my point relates directly to the method used for giving this information to members of the Legislative Assembly. Yesterday the municipal affairs and housing ministry delivered the download numbers to the press gallery at 5 pm. Packages were delivered to the legislative mail room at 5 pm for opposition MPPs as well. The mail room, as you know, is closed at 5 pm, so it was impossible for opposition MPPs to access that information at that time. Opposition MPPs were forced to wait until this morning when the mail room reopened to see what the download numbers actually were.

But my staff has been informed that Conservative MPPs got these numbers at 9 am yesterday morning, so it's a full 24 hours between the time members of the government party and members of the opposition received the information. It seems the pecking order as far as this government is concerned is that Tory MPPs get the information first, then some municipalities, then the media, and last opposition members.

The whole process surrounding the release of these download numbers has been confused and I believe inappropriate in terms of the release of information to the members of the Legislative Assembly. If it is appropriate to provide the information to members of the governing party at 9 am on October 6, it is also appropriate to release that information to other members, to all members of the Legislative Assembly at the same time. Obviously it means that members of the governing party could have the information, analyse it and comment on it a full 24 hours before members of the opposition.

I ask, Speaker, if you would investigate this situation to determine whether or not indeed the privileges of myself and all members of the opposition have been breached by this inappropriate approach of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I wonder if there might be consent for the government House leader to respond in a few moments.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I guess there isn't unanimous consent as you're seeking. I'll reserve until a later date.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Premier and is in the form of a letter from the Kenora Board of Education's parent advisory council. It reads:

"Dear Premier Harris:

"You owe the people of Ontario an apology for the impudent remarks you made on September 30, 1997, while defending your Bill 160. To say `school boards and unions are not trusted to deliver quality education' is an insult to anyone who has ever served as a school trustee and the citizens of Ontario who elected them.

"Our school trustees, elected at the favour of the voters, have always carried out their duties conscientiously with integrity and prime concern for the educational wellbeing of the students.

"Isn't the natural corollary of your remarks that any elected official should not be trusted? Mr Harris, remember from whence you came.

"We also feel that you should solicit and accept input from Ontario's teachers on an unconditional basis. If your true aim is to better the educational system, input from the front-line troops is essential.

"As Premier of the province we except you to be gracious and humble enough to issue this apology. We await your reply."

Premier, like the parent council of Kenora, parents throughout the province are calling upon you to show leadership on this issue. They are calling upon you to stop the assault on educators and elected school board officials.

Parents in the northwest want you to know that our schools are best in the hands of our students, parents, school board officials and our communities. Decisions about our children's education should be made as close to the community and classroom as possible, not here in Toronto in your and the minister's office.

1340

WINDSOR DAYS OF ACTION

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Windsor city council has unanimously proclaimed Friday, October 17, as the day of action for those who wish to legally exercise their rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

The Windsor Days of Action committee and the Ontario Federation of Labour have been working hard to ensure the day is a success. I want to congratulate those hardworking volunteers. Forty thousand to 50,000 people are expected to be out to demonstrate against this government's cuts to health care, education, social services, the downloading of costs on to municipalities and its phoney tax cut.

I'm inviting all members of this Legislature, particularly those from Chatham-Kent, Lambton, Middlesex and Sarnia, to come to Windsor that day.

The Mike Harris government is trying to shake its reputation as a government that doesn't listen. Well, here is an opportunity to visit our community and listen to the concerns about health care. Visit Hotel Dieu and Metropolitan hospitals and see at first hand the crisis in the emergency wards and the chronic shortage of beds. Listen to the many families incurring debt and experiencing financial hardship because of the mismanagement of the family support plan. Listen to injured workers express their concern over the gutting of the workers' compensation system. Listen to auto workers, nurses, teachers, social workers and absolutely everyone else, and they will tell you how your cuts are affecting their families, their neighbours and their community.

If you don't want to hear it from me, come to Windsor on October 17 and listen to the people and the message they are trying to send to Mike Harris.

BREAST CANCER

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): This past weekend a very important event happened. More than 40,000 Canadians ran, walked or jogged to raise money for breast cancer research.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and these participants helped raise more than $3 million for this very important research. I would like to congratulate each one of them on their efforts.

Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of death among Ontario women, with those over 50 particularly at risk. Research proves that early detection among this group of women can reduce the number of breast cancer deaths by 30%. That is why the Ontario government is committed to expanding the Ontario breast screening program. This government has provided an additional $24.3 million over four years to this program. The funding, which began in 1996-97, is to expand the OBSP province-wide and increase capacity at existing sites. By the year 2000, the OBSP is aiming to screen over 325,000 Ontario women every year, increasing the number of breast screenings by 400%.

Our ministry is proud to provide support and funding for groups such as Willow, an organization that provides counselling and support to women diagnosed with breast cancer. What is unique about Willow is that breast cancer survivors provide all the counselling.

Breast cancer does not only affect women; it affects their fathers, their brothers and their sons. We all have an interest in ensuring that a cure for this disease is found quickly.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to direct my statement to the Minister of Health. May I say, it is delivered with a strong degree of frustration and anger at a minister who will not accept that his severe cutbacks and restructuring process are harming the quality of health care in my community.

Almost every day we hear the Premier and the minister tell the Legislature that health care delivery is improving in the province. The truth is that they are wrong, they know they are wrong and the people in my community are paying for their stubbornness and gross misjudgement.

Hospital cutbacks and a forced restructuring process have left us in Thunder Bay with too few acute care beds, not enough long-term beds, and lengthy waiting lists for chronic care facilities.

Just today we have learned that 40 beds will now be reopened at Hogarth Westmount to deal with this crisis. But we ask, why did it take so long to acknowledge the need? The fact is that every day I receive letters and phone calls from constituents whose family members are becoming victims of a system that cannot provide the quality of care that we all deserve and expect.

Whether it's a loss of dignity for our seniors and disabled in our long-term facilities, or the time spent in hospital hallways because no acute care beds have been available, or the fact that our doctors and nurses are simply run off their feet trying to help their patients, the situation has become intolerable.

Minister, you've got to recognize that the dictates of your restructuring commission are simply too demanding. You must acknowledge that we need more acute care beds and more long-term facilities. The fact is that you must not deal with the bottom line, but deal with compassion for those people in need: people today who are frightened and concerned that we now have a health care system that is failing us.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Since day one, the Minister of Education has said that there is a need to invent a useful crisis in our education system, and he is now getting what he has been looking for all along.

Teachers across the province have already done everything they can to change this government's mind about education changes, but the changes are so undemocratic and will damage education so badly that teachers have no alternative but to launch a province-wide walkout.

Teachers want this government to listen to what they have to say. Teachers know far better than the minister or his colleagues how much preparation time they need to provide a quality education to our children. Teachers know that people without teaching certificates may have very good skills but have not been trained to deal with a class of 40 or 50 children.

Teachers are frustrated and very disturbed by the fact that they have been denied access to the education minister's e-mail. I tried it myself. The message I got was "Access forbidden" -- very typical of this government, ramming legislation through without planning, consulting or listening.

The Minister of Education doesn't expect that there will be a teachers' strike. We know that a walkout is coming. As a parent and a grandparent, as a member of this Legislature, I fully support any action the teachers will take to get the message across to this government that we care about the education of our children right across this province.

SATELLITE SERVICES

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I recently had the great pleasure of joining in a groundbreaking ceremony in Montague township for the first of two Canadian gateway sites for advanced mobile satellite services. Canacom, in partnership with Globalstar, is investing $15 million in this site in Montague township which will link up eastern Canada with a constellation of 48 satellites and provide international mobile communication services in remote areas.

There will be only two such sites in Canada, with the other being in Calgary, Alberta. This will make Smith's Falls and area a prime location for a call centre for the banking industry. The primary market is customers who travel worldwide. The product includes an affordable array of mobile services such as call forward, call waiting, conference, message and fax transmission.

I was pleased to join the representatives of Industry Canada, the companies, the reeve and the mayor to launch the construction of a high-tech site that will give tourists, international business travellers and people in rural areas first-rate cell phone access.

Most important: It will create 35 new jobs in the riding of Lanark-Renfrew.

BRING YOUR TEACHER AN APPLE DAY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The Liberal caucus is designating this Friday, October 10, as Bring Your Teacher an Apple Day all across Ontario. We encourage all students, parents and all the partners in education to bring the teachers in their local schools an apple. This is a very real way for the partners in education to show their opposition to Bill 160 and to show that teachers are important and that education is our future and that Bill 160 erodes rather than enhances the future of education for the students we love and care for.

Bill 160 is rotten to the core, and for the healthy growth of students and the nurtured blooming and maturing of our educational system, it must be drastically altered. Our teachers deserve to have the respect and appreciation of the Mike Harris government, something sorely lacking now. As we enter the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, it affords us a perfect opportunity to count the blessings we have. The students, parents and partners in education can manifest in a very real and tangible way that teachers are special and deserve recognition.

The Liberal caucus encourages all Ontarians to take part in Bring Your Teacher an Apple Day this Friday, October 10, and is happy and proud to sponsor this event. Bring your teachers an apple.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): When I do so on Friday, I'll also bring a copy of Dalton McGuinty's private member's bill from 1992, I can assure you.

CLOSURE OF OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): We learned with shock this week that the Ombudsman's office in the city of Timmins is shutting down. For members of this assembly to know what this means, all the people of Cochrane North, all the people of Cochrane South, into Timiskaming and part of Nickel Belt, use the Ombudsman's office as their last recourse when bad decisions are made by the government, their only opportunity to have somebody independently look at what the government has done, to look at whether the process was fair and was followed properly, and if it wasn't, how you redress that.

I'm calling on this government and I'm calling on the members of this House to make sure that the Office of the Ombudsman's budget is adjusted so we can ensure that we keep that office in Timmins in place, that serves everybody from Timmins all the way up Highway 11 to the James Bay coast. If we don't have it, it means that people in Cochrane South and in Cochrane North are going to lose their ability to complain against this government. Maybe that's what the agenda of this government is.

I just want to quote from the yearly report of the Ombudsman, Ms Roberta Jamieson, who I think put it aptly when she said, "It has become a basic feature of our democracy that individuals who believe they have been treated unfairly in the provision of public services have a right of recourse to seek redress." With this decision, we will lose that right in Cochrane South and North.

1350

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRE

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Last week it was my pleasure to attend the opening of the new community care access centre in Hamilton, along with the Honourable Cam Jackson, minister responsible for seniors.

The CCAC is the new coordinating hub for home care and health placement services in our area. The centre will provide residents of Hamilton one-stop shopping for their long-term health care needs as well as acting as a central dispatch for inquiries on a wide variety of services.

The community care access centres were an initiative of this government as part of its move to focus our spending on services to people, but the implementation of the centres took more than government fiat. It took the sincere initiative of hundreds of dedicated employees across the province and a particularly outstanding team at our centre in Hamilton.

Terry Shields, chair of the volunteer board, in her address at the opening ceremony mentioned time and again the "service first" philosophy of the people at the centre. Terry's own words said it best: "These staff will be the backbone of the community care access centre. They will continue to be the lifeline to people in the community who count on them for their caring, their professionalism and their service."

It's initiatives like the CCAC that show how we can do better for people when we concentrate our resources on front-line services ahead of expanding bureaucracy. I would like to extend to the staff and volunteers my sincere best wishes.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on administration of justice and move its adoption.

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

Bill 153, An Act to provide more protection for animals by amending the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

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

Bill Pr90, An Act respecting the City of York.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr87, An Act respecting the Korean Canadian Cultural Association of Metropolitan Toronto.

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

Introduction of bills? Motions? Statements by ministries?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent from all parties to allow the Minister of Education and Training to make a statement with regard to the impending crisis of a possible walkout of all the teachers, disrupting the education of students in this province.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent for a statement by the Minister of Education? Agreed? No.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week in this House you made a commitment to release your numbers that would show the impact of your downloading on municipalities right across this province. Yesterday, what did we receive? Nothing but a worthless pile of paper that everyone is calling a farce.

Hazel McCallion, the mayor of Mississauga, said she has absolutely no confidence in your numbers. The mayor of Sudbury -- remember him? -- a former Conservative member, Jim Gordon, said he was disappointed with the numbers. Brampton Mayor Peter Robertson doesn't have any confidence in your numbers either.

Minister, how can anyone believe that your downloading will be revenue-neutral when mayor after mayor right across this province is suggesting that your numbers are nothing but bogus? How can anyone believe you?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It's very interesting. I also saw Mayor McCallion's comments. She hadn't received the numbers yet, but she was convinced that she wouldn't like them.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: I can tell the members opposite that there were 815 packages of material couriered out yesterday. Some municipalities got them yesterday and some will be receiving them today. It depends on how quickly the couriers can get them around the province.

The numbers are an expansion of the numbers that were put out on August 6. At that time we gave the upper tiers the numbers. We've now distributed the numbers as to how they can be assigned to the lower tiers. The ball is now in the municipalities' court to tell us how they want to distribute those numbers between the upper and lower tiers.

Mr Cordiano: Minister, what's really interesting is that you, along with your ministry, have no confidence in your own numbers. Why? Because you've created all kinds of loopholes to weasel your way out of making any real commitments. The fine print tells us the real story. Everything is subject to regulations that have yet to be passed and is conditional upon municipalities reaching agreement among themselves. There's nothing in this document that proves your case that this is revenue-neutral. I ask you again to live up to your commitment and release the real numbers. Can we have the real numbers today?

Hon Mr Leach: We not only provided the real numbers, all of the numbers, to the municipalities, we gave them options because there are different ways to deal with the numbers. It depends on how the upper tier wants to distribute the numbers to the lower tier. They can do it by assessment, they can do it by population, they can do it by caseload. Not only did we give them one number, we gave them the three numbers so that they can review those. We're setting up meetings with each one of the municipalities to go over the numbers line by line so they can understand how they were established. We provided the assumptions that were behind those numbers so they can comment on how the assumptions were reached to develop the numbers. All that information has gone to them. The ball is now in the courts of the municipalities to get back to us. When we get the answer back from them, we'll be able to proceed to the next step.

Mr Cordiano: It's obvious, Minister, you can't produce any real numbers because you don't have any. Your numbers are like watching an episode of The X-Files. No one can explain them and they're completely bizarre. The truth is out there. All you have to do is listen to the municipalities. Listen to the mayor of St Catharines, Al Unwin. He doesn't believe your numbers and he doesn't believe you will honour your commitment to the transitional funding you've promised.

I want to ask you, Minister, on behalf of all the municipalities out there, will you guarantee in legislation long-term transitional funding that you claim will make everything revenue-neutral? Will you guarantee that today?

Hon Mr Leach: We've advised the municipalities that the Who Does What exercise will be revenue-neutral. We've stated that a number of times. I stated it to the regional chairs and the county wardens in Sudbury last Sunday and Monday. We've set up the funds that are there to make sure it is revenue-neutral. I think all the municipalities know that when this government states it's going to do something, this government does something. We are known for keeping our promises and this is another promise that will be kept.

1400

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. You appear to be determined to take our students and our educational system into a confrontation that no one wants, that you claim you don't want, yet you have provoked this fight at every turn. You and Mike Harris say, "We'll talk to teacher representatives," and then the Premier says, "But they can't be trusted." You say, "Let's talk," and then you force through the second reading of your education bill the night before the talks are to take place. This morning, you were still laying down your bottom lines. You say you want quality education, but you said again this morning you want it at the lowest possible cost.

Minister, your determination to pay for your government's tax cut on the backs of our children is still driving your agenda. You are picking this fight with teachers so you can get the tools you need to get the money you're looking for. Our teachers deserve better than this fight and our students deserve better than the cheapest possible education. There is still a chance to prevent this confrontation. You have to back off your bottom lines. Will you back off your determination to pay for your tax cut on the backs of our teachers and our students?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Fort William for the question. We had a meeting this morning. We were able to talk, to present the challenges before our school system to have the best-quality system in Canada.

I can say this to the member for Fort William: You probably disagree with the findings of the Education Improvement Commission that said that for too long we have measured our success in our schools by virtue of how much we've spent, not the results that our schools produce. We believe the way to measure our success in education is by the performance of our students. That's the track we're on. That's why we're committed to making improvements in our school system, to making sure our students have access to the highest quality of education in Canada. That is our first and foremost commitment.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, your agenda hasn't changed. All you are prepared to talk about is how you are going to take money out of education and how you're going to do that by taking teachers out of the education system.

There was a group of secondary school principals here yesterday. One secondary school principal tried to tell you what your plan to use unqualified teachers in our classrooms would mean to her school. She said it would mean 34 fewer teachers in her school alone. She said your plan to have teachers spend more time with students would actually mean about 50 fewer teachers to work with students. Multiply those numbers for just one school by 5,000 schools and you will very quickly get the 10,000 fewer teachers you've set out to get in the first place.

In that one secondary school alone, you are also going to lose 22,618 hours of volunteer teacher time spent on everything from tutoring to working with students on the school newspaper. Cutting teachers out of the system does not give us better education. It is not better for kids. Will you back off your plan to cut costs by cutting teachers?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let's be very clear. Under the recommendations of the Education Improvement Commission or anything this government has proposed, the vast majority of people in the classrooms of the schools in Ontario will be certified teachers. They are now; they always will be. That's the backbone of our education system.

The question before us and the issue raised by the Education Improvement Commission is how to augment teachers with other experts from other fields who can help in the learning process. That's the challenge that's before us. This morning I was able to talk with the union heads and ask them for their suggestions on how we can do that, how we can meet not only the current needs of our students, but the future needs of our students, and what the protocol should be for having experts back up certified teachers.

I'm looking forward to having the teachers' unions and others provide us with proposals that will allow us to do just that: make sure our students have the best experts available to help their teachers.

Mrs McLeod: I'm holding in my hand a confidential document. It shows this minister's real agenda. It's called "Conversation with the minister." It tells us where you think education should be going, and it doesn't seem to include teachers. You think students should learn by computer. You say you'll have to figure out some role for educators in the John Snobelen classroom of tomorrow. You even want to combine the Ministry of Education with the Ministry of Economic Development. It shows what value you place on education, Minister. It is only too clear from this document that you are going to cut costs by cutting teachers out of the education system.

Your government's willingness to sacrifice public education to your tax cut is truly frightening. Your so-called vision for an education system without teachers is even more frightening. You cannot provide a quality education without qualified, committed teachers. Minister, will you back off your plan to pay for your tax cut by taking teachers out of our education system?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me be very clear to the member for Fort William. Nothing will ever replace highly qualified, well-motivated teachers in our school system as the backbone of an excellent school system. That's exactly why we are undertaking the kinds of reforms we are in education: curriculum that has exact standards year by year to help our teachers; province-wide, standard report cards so everyone can be clear about how a student is progressing; the reforms and changes that are anticipated under the bill before the House right now to make sure we have funding for all of our classrooms and for all of our teachers right across the province that meets student needs.

That's why we're changing education: to provide more backup for our teachers, because we believe that now and in the future they will be the backbone of the best education system in Canada. Let's be very clear about that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. I want to take stock as to exactly where your Minister of Education has education in this province headed. Your Bill 160 confirms that you want to replace teachers with uncertified, untrained people in the classroom. Your own government confirms that you want to eliminate at least 4,000 teaching positions. We now have a secret ministry document that reports that you want to try to replace teachers with computers. Your Minister of Education met with teacher representatives today and basically told them to go home and find ways to take money out of the system.

Your Minister of Education has us headed towards a huge confrontation with teachers in this province, and children are going to suffer. It's time for you to show leadership. You met with labour leaders over Bill 136. Will you do the same now with teachers and head off the confrontation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'll refer it to the Minister of Education.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me be clear to the leader of the third party that we had a meeting this morning. I invited the presidents of the unions to come to a meeting this morning. They did, and we had a chance to discuss the issues before us.

I was able at the start of that meeting to go over the times we've listened to the teachers' federations and unions over the past few months. When they assured us that the right to strike would not ever jeopardize the education of a student, we listened to them. When they said that having principals be part of the bargaining unit was important because principals would be above the fray any time there was a dispute, we listened to them. When they said it was important for the Ontario Teachers' Federation to retain the statutory right to represent teachers because they are professionals and need that sort of body, we listened to them.

So we're building on that record of listening, of being open to their concerns and being able to approach the improvement of education for our students from the point of view of putting people together and listening to what they have to say.

Mr Hampton: My question was to the Premier, because we all know what this Minister of Education has accomplished. He has called students across the province mediocre. He has said they're at the end of the train, the caboose of the train. He regularly goes around the province insulting teachers, and he has marched us into this confrontation.

I asked the Premier a question because it's obvious to everyone that if your government wants to avoid a confrontation in this province, Premier, you have to step in; you have to show some leadership. Premier, will you do that? Will you sit down with the representatives of the teachers' federations and will you put an end to the kind of confrontation tactics that your Minister of Education has practised? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps I can give the leader of the third party an opportunity to correct the record, because if he examines the record he will find that we have said that student performance in Ontario is mediocre versus other provinces in Canada and other countries and that this simply is not a reflection of the abilities of our students. We think they're the best students in Canada, and their performance should be the best in Canada. We think our teachers are the best in Canada, and therefore we must give them the backup, the curriculum and the resources they need in order to make sure we have the best system in Canada.

That's what we've said. We've said that time and time again. I have stood in this House, in this chamber, and everywhere else I've been in Ontario and said that Ontario has the best-qualified teachers in Canada and we need to resource them properly so they can do the best job.

1410

Mr Hampton: Let me go back to the Premier again because this is the problem that the Premier has to deal with. The Premier has a Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier who goes to Harvard University and delivers a speech, and in this speech he says, "The greatest strength of our economy is our highly skilled and educated labour force." In other words, he says that one of the reasons we do so well in terms of our economy is because we have a well-educated, highly skilled labour force. Then we have the Minister of Education, who charges around the province and elsewhere and says the performance is mediocre, that people's achievement levels are mediocre.

That's exactly why no one has any faith in this Minister of Education. The Premier goes to Europe and tells everyone we have a good education system. The Minister of Finance goes to Harvard University and tells everyone we have an excellent education system and a well-skilled workforce. Then we've got this Minister of Education who runs it down.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: Premier, that's why you have to intervene. No one has any faith in this Minister of Education. No one believes him. No one gives him any credibility. Will you intervene to --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps I can clear this up for the leader of the third party. The strength of Ontario has always been a well-trained workforce of people who are well educated. For many years, education was valued in Ontario. However, under your government, sir, with fuzzy standards, with fuzzy outcomes, with no commitment to the performance of our young people in systems where you measured our success by how much you spent, not how well our students did, that has deteriorated.

This government has been working hard and continues to work hard to answer the challenge, to have the best education system not just for today but for the future of this province. That's why we're working so hard.

I'm glad I had a chance to clear this up for the leader of the third party.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: Let me go back to the Premier, since I think he needs to show some leadership on these issues.

Premier, I want to quote a letter. This is a letter from one of your MPPs, Mr Al McLean from Simcoe East. Mr McLean was responding to a letter from a teacher. The teacher had raised the issue with him that he was not happy with Bill 160 and that a lot of other teachers were not happy.

Mr McLean responds to the teacher this way. First of all, he says he believes that the College of Teachers may discipline any teacher for unacceptable action, and then he says to the teacher, "I'm going to send a copy of your correspondence to the Minister of Education, the College of Teachers and to the Simcoe County Board of Education," the teacher's employer. In other words, when someone tries to raise an education issue with your government, your response is to say to the teacher: "We're going to report you. We're going to bully you." Premier, is that your government's approach? Is that your approach to education issues?

Hon Mr Harris: If you'd like me to take a look at the letter, I'd be happy to. It sounds like a constituent talked to his member of Parliament, and he referred it to all the appropriate people.

Mr Hampton: Premier, I'm going to send over a copy of this letter. But this letter that went from the member for Simcoe East follows the lead of the conduct of your Minister of Education. That's why you need to show some leadership and you need to get involved in this situation. If you care about Ontario's school system, if you care about the children who are in that school system, you have to get involved to head off this kind of confrontation and intimidation.

Will you do that, Premier? Will you be the voice of reason in this and head off the confrontation that your Minister of Education has escalated everywhere in the province? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: The Minister of Education.

The Speaker: Minister

Hon Mr Snobelen: Leader of the third party, I want you to know that today when we met with the heads of the teachers' unions in what I think was a constructive session, I asked them how to help us get to our mutual goal of having the highest student performance in Canada. I told them we clearly wanted to make sure that our class sizes didn't continue to grow as they did, sir, under your government. I said that we wanted to make sure our students had more time on task, as students in other provinces do. I told them we want to have a protocol for using experts to help teachers in the classroom. I told them we wanted to make sure that our secondary school teachers met the reasonable request of spending the same amount of time in class as their colleagues in other provinces. I suggested to them that we were open to listening to their suggestions on how to make these improvements.

That's real consultation. That's a real, genuine request for input, and that's a hallmark of this government.

Mr Hampton: I'll go back to the Premier again. You should know what teachers' representatives said coming out of the meeting with your Minister of Education. The Minister of Education would give no guarantees that there would be reinvestment in the classroom. The Minister of Education would give no guarantees that the funding formula would be made public so that people concerned with education across this province would know how much money their children are going to have in the education system.

The only thing the Minister of Education would talk about is how teachers should go back to their communities and find ways to enable this government to get the money out. That's what the whole conversation was about.

Premier, will you show some leadership, leadership that the Minister of Education has failed totally to show? Will you meet with teachers' representatives and talk about the real issues in education, discuss real solutions rather than more ideology from the Minister of Education? Will you do that? Will you meet with teachers?

Hon Mr Harris: The Minister of Education.

The Speaker: Minister

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm glad I have a chance to clear this up for the leader of the third party. I very directly put to the heads of the unions the challenges that face us. We put solutions before the people of Ontario, but we're willing to listen to their solutions.

These are very real issues. The leader of the third party should know that the growth in class size that has happened over the last decade is unacceptable to students and to parents, and we are suggesting a solution to that. We are also willing to listen to the teachers' solution to it.

He should know that the time on task has been identified as something that stands in the way of our students having the best performance in Canada. We intend to address that in the legislation we have before the House. We're willing to listen to other solutions. That's the process of consultation we've invited the teachers' unions to.

I have said today, as I have said in the past, that we're willing to pursue any process they suggest that would have us arrive at a solution. We're willing to listen to theirs.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Premier. I'd like you today to stand accountable for the Harris health system you've created and to deal with some of the consequences.

There are a couple of studies that have come out, one in the recent issue of Canadian Family Physician, which show how much young doctors, the doctors we pay thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of dollars to train, think of the Harris Ontario as a place to practise, a place to care for people. In a recent survey, 48% of the residents in family medicine say they're going to practise in the United States, and that's a jump from 17% before the measures you put into place restricting this health system.

Premier, you need to stand today and tell us and the people who live in Kitchener-Waterloo, in Peterborough, in Windsor, who have to travel long distances trying to find doctors, why the only underserviced area you seem to be successful at helping is the United States. Will you tell us today?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As you know, we concluded successful negotiations with the doctors both to talk about areas of their involvement in health care decision-making and in terms of payment. I don't know if you're suggesting that we should give doctors more control or more money, but please tell us what your answer to that is.

Mr Kennedy: I appreciate it, Premier. We'll be happy to run the Ministry of Health if you want to hand it over. You seem not to have any interest yourself.

Premier, 30% of the orthopaedic surgeons who graduated recently have left. Another 23% say they're actively looking to the US.

You say you've made promises, and you have. You've made promises to communities. You said $5 million for a medical services corps, but not one contract has been signed, not one in the last six months. You talked about globally funded group practices in northern communities, and only one out of 29 communities has signed on to that because what you've come up with is so unworkable.

The Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities says it doesn't want coercive measures. What they want is a Premier and a minister and a government to look after the health system, to keep new doctors in this province and to do, not just talk about it.

Will you stand today and say you'll sit down with the interns and residents and find practical ways to keep them in this country and stop training doctors for the United States, because you won't give us a quality health care system here in Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: Of course we're always prepared to meet with all the professionals and non-professionals, those involved in all our systems, including doctors, and of course including the interns. As you know, the recent negotiations provided incentives for interns to go into underserviced areas. The information I have, and I don't have it in front of me, is that there are actually now fewer doctors leaving for the United States than there were either under your government or under the NDP.

If you think you have a better solution -- I might add, first of all, you say that we're spending too much on doctors, that we gave them too much. Now you're saying we should give them more, I guess. Here is what Darlene Barnes, CEO of Humber hospital, says about the kind of question you asked: "While there are many issues and challenges in merging organizations, consolidating service, impacts on our patients, staff and community members" --

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

Hon Mr Harris: -- "you seem more interested in generating fear within the community around the safety and quality of care provided individuals, regardless of whether or not the facts support" --

The Speaker: Thank you.

1420

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the minister responsible for municipal affairs: This is the pile of paper the Minister of Municipal Affairs sent to municipalities today, and there is nothing in it. There is no information in it about the government's so-called transition fund. There is no new information about seniors' housing or social housing and how municipalities are supposed to handle that. There is nothing in it that contradicts everyone's belief that your download is going to be in excess of $1.2 billion a year on to municipalities. There is nothing in this document for municipalities whatsoever.

Can you tell us, are you just inept? Is that why you couldn't provide them with any information? Are you just inept or are you trying to hide the information until after the municipal elections?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): We have provided the municipalities, as we said we would -- on August 6 we said we would give them the breakdown of the numbers on each program. Not only did we give them the numbers on each program, we gave them numbers on each option they would have. We gave them the numbers if they want to distribute the funds from the upper tier to the lower tier by population, if they want to distribute the numbers from upper tier to lower tier by assessment, or if they want to distribute the funds by caseload.

We wanted to make sure the municipalities had the right to select which option best suited their needs. I don't know how much more information they could get. They're probably suffering from information overload: three sets of numbers.

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

Hon Mr Leach: The options are now theirs: how they want to distribute the numbers from the upper tier to the lower tier. The ball is now in their court. When they get back to us with that information we will be able to decide --

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: You could have saved yourself a lot of time. You could have simply stood up and admitted there is no new information here. Virtually every mayor in the greater Toronto area says this amounts to nothing more than a pile of paper. For that matter, all the mayors and reeves of northern Ontario got a note saying you don't have any information for them; you won't have any information for them until later.

Minister, do you not understand what is happening here? You're downloading at least $1.2 billion in new costs on to municipalities. You are forcing municipalities to pick up the cost of ambulances, you are forcing them to pick up the cost of seniors' apartments and social housing, you are forcing them to pick up the cost of public health, you are forcing them to pick up more of the cost of child care, of social assistance.

Reeves and mayors across this province deserve some information they can use. When are you going to give them real information, disclose the real numbers? When are you going to stop trying to hide the numbers?

Hon Mr Leach: We provided the numbers the municipalities need to make the decision on how they're going to distribute the cost between the upper tier and the lower tier. Again, we provided them with more than one number. We provided them with the ability to make that decision themselves. I know the member --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: I repeat that the municipalities have been provided with the numbers they asked for. The ball is now in their court to get back to us and tell us how they want to distribute those funds between the upper tier and the lower tier. Once we know that and we know the effect on each of the lower-tier municipalities, we'll be able to distribute the community reinvestment fund so that every municipality will come out revenue-neutral. It will be revenue-neutral, as we have stated, and the numbers that have been provided are another step in the process of ensuring the municipalities that's going to happen.

I guess it's a surprise to some of the members of the opposition that we're in the process of a municipal election and it suits some local politicians not to be satisfied with anything.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I understand last week you announced your program with students involving local air monitoring. I'm wondering if you would expand on that announcement here in the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I know we'll all want to hear the answer.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know you will.

My ministry is working with schools, teachers, students and some corporate sponsors to bring an exciting new program to our high schools across Ontario called Partners in Air.

Last week I visited Hammarskjold High School in Thunder Bay and met with 30 grade 13 and grade 12 high school students. These students will be participating in experiments to measure the quality of air in their community. In addition to undertaking these measurements, they will be entering those results on a Web site and sharing those with a number of other schools across our province.

This program will engage our students in a brand-new endeavour, a brand-new area of interest in our environment; that is, the quality of our air. They're going to participate. They're going to understand how valuable this resource is and how important it is to protect it.

Mr Danford: It's great to see that government and students and corporate sponsors cooperatively can participate in a program such as Partners in Air. What I'm wondering is, what other communities and companies --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Hamilton East and Ottawa West, I want to be able to hear the question. It's difficult.

Mr Danford: The question is, I'm wondering what other communities and companies are involved in this process and how other communities could become involved in this endeavour.

Hon Mr Sterling: We presently have contacted 12 different high schools across our province. Besides Thunder Bay, high schools particularly interested in environmental studies in Sudbury, Huntsville, Ottawa, Scarborough, Etobicoke, Hamilton, Windsor, London, Cobourg, Sarnia and North Bay will all be involved. I want to tell you, the teachers and the students in these schools are very excited about this program.

In addition, the best part of this whole program is that it not only brings together my ministry with young people across this province, but it also brings together large corporations that are concerned about our air quality. They are stepping forward at a very rapid pace to become involved and sponsor these individual schools across our province. I think it's a tremendous program for our students, for our corporations and for this government.

1430

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is for the Attorney General. It deals with a young woman who was found dead in her bed in February 1993. Cara Taylor was 17 years old. She was savagely beaten, raped and murdered. She was found with duct tape over her mouth, shot in the head.

There was an arrest made very quickly thereafter and Cara's parents were informed that the crown wanted to proceed with a plea bargain of nine years, which as we know would see the accused out in as little as three years in what was a very vicious crime. The family refused; the accused went to trial. He was found guilty, but a new trial was ordered.

The family has been trying to meet with you, Minister, over the last two years because they are concerned about the potential for a new plea bargain. They are worried that their daughter's interests will not be protected and that they will not be involved in the decision-making. Will you not meet with the family? They've already suffered so much. Give them some peace of mind.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): These are obviously very important questions, and I appreciate the question from the member. I can tell you that crown counsel, in these kinds of cases, are involved at the most senior levels. They will be involved in this case, assuredly, at the most senior levels. They will no doubt be dealing directly with the family, to keep them apprised of every step that's being taken. We'll consider the wishes of the family and work with the family in terms of the prosecution.

Ms Castrilli: I agree with you that this is a very serious matter. You yourself have known about this matter for some time. I have in my possession a letter from the Premier, when he was leader of the third party, to Mr Taylor indicating that he was referring this matter to the justice committee of your party, of which you were a member. We also have a letter from the member for St Catharines, who has asked you as well to meet with the family because all other avenues appear to be exhausted.

Your record on plea bargaining is not good. We've asked you time and time again to draft some clear guidelines to ensure that families are consulted. We've seen a deplorable result in the Homolka case, in the deal with the devil which has outraged people all across the country. You have made tremendous cuts to your ministry, which allow very little time for crown attorneys to deal with these cases and prosecute them to the fullest extent.

You have an opportunity now to do the honourable thing: to meet with the family, to draft some clear guidelines and to prevent another travesty of justice. I ask you, will you not do that?

Hon Mr Harnick: As I have indicated, senior crown counsel have been meeting with the family and will continue to meet with the family. They will continue to consult with the family. That's exactly what the member has asked and that's the proper approach.

In terms of how cases are dealt with, they're dealt with by professional crown attorneys, senior crown attorneys who are very experienced in dealing with these matters and appreciate the need to deal with families of victims of crime and work with them. That's what's happening in this case, that's what the general protocol is, that's what the Victims' Bill of Rights provides, and that's exactly what's happening in this situation.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Premier, we read last week in the October 2 edition of Eye magazine, a widely distributed Toronto weekly, about your family values caucus. One of the members of that so-called family values caucus said, "We're anti-faggot." Premier, why do you tolerate and condone that language and the views it represents, and what are you going to do about it?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Of course I don't condone nor will I tolerate that language. The only place I've seen it is in some tabloid and from you today.

Mr Kormos: Premier, please, I'm not sure you understand how serious this is. Nigger, kike, faggot -- it's all the same. This is language of violence, it's language of bigotry, it's language of hatred. It's language that breeds violence, bigotry and hatred. Your family values caucus has acquired a notoriety here in Ontario. Will you please determine whether or not it indeed was one of your backbenchers who would use such language and promote such views, and take appropriate action.

Hon Mr Harris: I thought I made it very clear that I find that language offensive. It is not to be tolerated and will not be tolerated by me. Other than some allegation in a tabloid magazine, if you have anything else, other than that and the words I've heard from your lips, I've never heard of it -- and I have checked into it -- nor have any of the caucus members, to the best of my knowledge. If you have information other than some tabloid allegation, an unnamed source, please pass it on to me instead of trying to use your rhetoric to inflame the situation.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a question for the Minister of Education. I read recently with great interest a report that was commissioned by the Waterloo region and written by an assistant professor of economics at the University of Waterloo, Dr Larry Smith. The report points out that since 1990, all the new jobs in our region have gone to skilled labour. Dr Smith states that in order to prepare individuals for the skilled workforce, we need to have a much-needed sense of employers' views of what are essential skills.

In response to the report, the president of Conestoga College, John Tibbits, has stated that there is a shortage of skilled labour to the point that a number of major companies in our region question whether they can continue to expand in our area. We have a terrible shortage of tool and die workers. Our industries are having to go to England and Germany to get these highly qualified individuals.

How important do you as the Minister of Education consider the development of the higher technical trade skills training in our schools?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Kitchener for the question. I believe it's obvious that the skilled trades are very important to the future of our province and the future of your region. Therefore, attention must be focused on training and skills development in Ontario. That's why we've taken on the reform of the apprenticeship system in Ontario, an apprenticeship system that's governed by an act that's older than many of the apprentices in our system. As part of our reform of apprenticeship, we've gone out and asked industry, employers and employees for their opinion on how we can reform our system. In fact, we've surveyed many hundreds of people involved to find out what they would do to improve the system.

At the end of the day, we want to make sure our new system of apprenticeship in Ontario has a lot more input from employers and employees, because they have the information that will allow us to identify very quickly what the demands of our changing economy and our changing workplace will be and to meet those demands. So I'm pleased to inform the member for Kitchener that we're well under way with an apprenticeship review and reform in Ontario that will benefit all the people of Ontario.

Mr Wettlaufer: The Education in Waterloo Region report raises two points I think are both very important and interrelated. As well, according to the dean of technology of Seneca College, Dr Tony Tanner, 50,000 skilled workers in the Ontario auto industry are going to retire. The auto industry faces a very real possibility of a shortage of skilled labour in the near future. The report points out that high school students who don't pursue a post-secondary education are destined to be in and out of deadend jobs. At the same time, the report points out that the principal role of secondary schools is to prepare the student for post-secondary education, not to prepare the student directly for the labour force.

I find these findings very disturbing from the standpoint that the entire secondary educational system appears to be geared to a feeder program to the university system. Students who are not interested in following a university path may in essence be viewed as second-class students. What steps have you considered to elevate the importance of technical trades skill training in our schools in order --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Kitchener, thank you.

1440

Hon Mr Snobelen: I thank the member for Kitchener for the excellent, if somewhat long, question. The point that's raised by the member is a valid one. One of the great opportunities for secondary school reform is to address the 60% or 70% of our students who do not immediately go on to college or university but turn to the world of work or training. For those students, our system of education simply hasn't been up to the same level of standards and service that it has been for those students who go on to college and university.

The opportunity before us now in doing secondary school reform is to address that group of people to make sure their needs are met. That's been a central part of our putting together a new program of secondary school education in Ontario and again one of the great possibilities that we have as we move with people through the reforms to that high school system.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE APPEALS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The current public hearings into Bill 142 are giving people a chance to air some extremely important concerns about this legislation. Last week the committee had a chance to hear from the Ombudsman of Ontario. From the beginning, the Ombudsman's office has been the last resort for people who felt that government had done them an injustice.

Ms Jamieson's remarks supported the concerns of people who feel that the appeal mechanisms in Bill 142 are an unprecedented erosion of their rights. The closure of the Timmins Ombudsman's office today further erodes the last resort of appeal for all Ontarians. Minister, I'm sure that is not your intent. Would you please explain?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm sorry, to the honourable member, I didn't hear the last part of his question, but I will respond to what I heard at the first part of the question regarding the Ombudsman's comments.

First of all, and we have clarified it in this House before, we are not removing the right of appeal for people on welfare in the social assistance legislation. It is still there. It's a very important legal foundation, as I understand law, in this country. Secondly, what we are doing is improving the appeal process by adding a new fast-track, if you will, informal process at the beginning, because what has happened is that many individuals on welfare have found the current appeal process to take many, many months and be a very legal process that they sometimes have great difficulty dealing with.

We want to have an appeal process, but we also want to see if we can fast-track and give them some answers within days with the more informal process at the front end of that appeal process.

Mr Morin: Perhaps, Minister, you didn't understand what I was saying.

The committee did say that it was their intent; nothing is in place. You must also not forget that the Ombudsman's office is a court of last appeal, last resort. In other words, you're taking away the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. My concern: What is next to have its wings clipped, the Human Rights Commission, freedom of information, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner?

My question is this: Bill 142 passes on responsibility for administering social assistance to arm's-length municipal agencies over which the Ombudsman's office has no jurisdiction. The appeals process in Bill 142 is extremely complex and unforgiving for people who are already vulnerable. You are creating a paper chase and a blind-alley maze to rival any in government. The appeals tribunal, with limited powers, will function according to the policy directions of the party in power. Will you make the needed change to create a fair and transparent system? Will you protect the rights of people in need for an independent --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the honourable member is well aware, municipalities have been involved in the delivery and the decision-making process of welfare for many years in this province. They will continue to be involved in that. When we talk about delivery agents, that's who we are referring to, the municipalities, and that has been working extremely well. If there are any issues of concern that the Ombudsman has raised that cause legal questions about appeal rights to people who are on social assistance, I'm quite prepared to look at that.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): In the absence of the Minister of Health, I have a question for the Premier.

The towns of Valley East and Rayside-Balfour have been declared underserviced for physicians' services for a long time, but this situation became a crisis for both communities when one of the physicians died and two others departed the community. In response to the crisis, the Centre de santé communautaire de Sudbury, which is a francophone CHC, diverted some of its global budget to fund a doctor two days a week in Rayside-Balfour and another doctor 1.5 days a week in Valley East. They serve primarily a francophone senior population.

Both doctors want to work full-time in the communities under the CHC model, so the centre applied to the Ministry of Health for funding, and this was denied. At the end of October the centre will stop funding these two physicians in these two communities because the board has decided they cannot run in a deficit position.

My question to you, Premier, is, will you ensure that your Minister of Health will fund physicians in these two underserviced areas in the Sudbury region?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'd be happy to ask the minister to look into it, yes.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary; member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): My supplementary is to the Premier. What he suggests has been done; we have approached the minister, and we're getting no satisfaction whatsoever.

I want to assure the Premier that no precedent would be set if this happened, because earlier this spring in the community of Merrickville, in the Solicitor General's riding, a physician left. The mayor and the CHC, the health centre, went to see the parliamentary assistant, the member for Huron, who told them, "No, we can't increase your budget because there's a ceiling on that, a freeze on that, and we simply can't do it." Lo and behold, they went to see the Solicitor General, their MPP. He intervened on their behalf with the Minister of Health, and guess what happened? They were funded. They got enough money to fund the physician.

This matter is urgent. Will you guarantee the same deal for the people of Valley East and Rayside-Balfour that the people in Merrickville got because of the Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Harris: I indicated I would be glad to have the Minister of Health look into it, and the Solicitor General maybe will talk to him and maybe they can all work on it.

We work cooperatively here in all ways to provide services. Thank goodness, I might add, that we've massively increased health care funding so we can help out in these situations.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I understand that you've just returned from several days of meetings with the nation's social services ministers. I have no doubt that a number of very important issues were raised, but in particular, could you advise this House if you dealt with the national child benefit, and if so, could you update the House on the status of that issue?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Yes, I'm very pleased to do so. We had another excellent meeting with the national social services ministers. There has been, I would suggest, quite remarkable cooperation on this initiative between the federal government and the provinces.

As you know, earlier this year the federal government committed additional funding for a national child benefit. The provinces, including Ontario, agreed that that additional funding would be spent to help promote getting families off social assistance into the workforce, and second, to try and focus support in high-risk families.

What we did this week was to agree that another new step, the next step in implementation of this, is a new accountability framework so that the public in all our various provinces will see how this money is being spent, and the measurement for that will start April 1 next year.

Mr Shea: Minister, that was a very helpful and positive response. I'd like to go to another subject, though, on the same issue, that may flow from the minister's meetings. Can you advise the House if the topic of services for the disabled was dealt with, and if so, what was the outcome of the conversation?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): This is not a different subject, I take it; it's a supplementary. You can't go to a different subject.

1450

Mr Shea: I prefaced it that as a result of that meeting, out of that meeting as well probably flowed another issue --

The Speaker: No, you didn't preface it that way, but I will continue. Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the additional topics that was on the agenda did deal with services for the disabled. Ottawa has agreed to extend the vocational rehabilitation program which we share 50-50 to spend for services for the disabled. We approved this week the framework for negotiations so that we can continue that program. That's a very important program that funds many services for the disabled.

The other interesting thing is that because we've heard the message from people with disabilities that they want better-focused supports for employment, the name of that program, the focus of that program and the negotiations will be very much oriented towards employment and assistance to employment, because many people with disabilities can work and want to work. They need the employment supports to make sure that happens.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): In the absence of the Minister of Health, my question is to the Premier. As you know, the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended in Ottawa that two and half hospitals be closed -- the Grace, the Riverside and a large part of the Montfort -- and that some $128 million should be spent on capital renovations on the remaining hospitals. However, the district health council estimates this figure may be well underestimated by some $50 million to $80 million.

The commission has directed that for those hospitals slated for closure, admissions should halt starting in May, which is only eight months away, yet the funding formula to pay for these necessary renovations has yet to be confirmed by the Minister of Health. This is an important detail, holding up the commission's already aggressive time lines. Can the Premier confirm today that the funding formula will indeed be 70% provincial and 30% local, or 50-50 as currently rumoured?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me, since it's my first opportunity formally in the House, congratulate the member on his recent election, representing the citizens of Ottawa West.

I'd be happy to take the specifics of the question up with the Minister of Health, but I can assure you of this: The general direction of the government is that where capital restructuring costs have been agreed upon by the restructuring commission -- and clearly if there is a disagreement with the district health council, the ministry will want to work that out -- the 70% funding formula I think is the one that's been involved, if indeed the project falls under that.

I can also assure the member, since he may want to ask this, I don't know, by way of supplementary, that the inference is that decisions will have to be made on ensuring that equal or better services and facilities will be provided before any others would be phased out.

Mr Cullen: I'd like to thank the Premier for his assistance in this regard. However, it's been nine months since the restructuring commission issued its initial report, and two months from its final report, and yet we're going to see admissions being stopped at these hospitals in eight months' time.

Even at a 30% local share, based on current estimates, the local contribution to these capital costs will be somewhere in the order of $40 million to $50 million, which is beyond the capacity of the local hospital boards to fund-raise. Will the Premier make a commitment today that local property taxpayers will not be asked to fork over property tax dollars to pay for the province's restructuring costs in Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon Mr Harris: I have information that there will be an announcement on capital shortly. As you know, we have allocated $2 billion for restructuring costs. Certainly I don't think all $2 billion will go to Ottawa, but the appropriate portion will come forward to ensure that Ottawa is treated as fairly and, I might add, better than they have under any previous government.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it concerns Bill 160.

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's educational system; and

"Whereas we cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers want reinvestments in education rather than reductions in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further, be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I affix my signature to the petition.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition from Bawating Collegiate and Vocational School in Sault Ste Marie. A number of students have signed it. It says:

"Whereas the students and staff of Bawating Collegiate and Vocational School and the people of Sault Ste Marie are gravely concerned about the direction of the education policies of the government of Ontario;

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

"That Bill 160 be withdrawn immediately."

This was given to me for presentation by Sean from Bawating, and I want to thank him for all the work he's done.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 240 people.

"Whereas the courts have ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass a bill empowering municipalities to enact bylaws governing dress code and to continue to urge the government of Canada to pass legislation to reinstate such partial nudity as an offence."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Bill 160 violates the democratic values upheld in our schools and society by granting ultimate power to the Minister of Education and his or her cabinet to override any collective bargaining rights or agreements with unchallenged regulations; and

"Whereas Bill 160 grants the Minister of Education and his or her cabinet control of school boards' finances, leaving school boards in the very difficult position of trying to bargain with their employees without jurisdiction over the funds upon which many of the agreements depend; and

"Whereas Bill 160 will lead to more strikes by school board employees (under the present Bill 100, 96% of collective agreements have been settled without the need for striking; under Bill 160 settlements will be extremely difficult to reach due to government control of funds); and

"Whereas the cuts in funding expected under Bill 160 will result in fewer qualified teachers, fewer resources, unqualified teachers in the classrooms, larger classes, which will necessarily lower the present excellent quality of Ontario education; and

"Whereas Bill 160 will result in the demoralization of teachers by the swift, severe and undemocratic cancellation of their contracts and all they have fought for during the past decades to improve the profession; and

"Whereas given the above, Bill 160 will destroy the excellent quality of education that Ontario students now enjoy and benefit from;

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

"Please repeal Bill 160 entirely."

It's signed by some 150 Ontario residents, and I have affixed my signature.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by more than 100 people.

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Women have special medical needs since their bodies are not the same as men's;

"Women's College is the only hospital in Ontario with a primary mandate giving priority to teaching, research and care dedicated to women's health needs;

"The World Health Organization has named Women's College Hospital as its first collaborating centre for women's health in both North and South America;

"Without a self-governing Women's College Hospital, the women of Ontario and of the world will lose a health resource that is not duplicated elsewhere;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the comprehensive model of women's health pioneered by Women's College Hospital through ensuring self-governance of the one hospital in Ontario dedicated to women's health."

I am proud to add my signature.

ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a set of petitions brought forward by the people from Pet Valu in Port Colborne and the Cat Clinic in Niagara Falls that read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas ownership of a domestic animal or pet is a responsibility, not a right; and

"Whereas owners have a responsibility to treat their pet with care and utmost concern for their wellbeing; and

"Whereas cruelty to animals should be punished/

sanctioned with fines, penalties and/or bans on animal ownership; and

"Whereas inspectors of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act should not be obstructed from carrying out their duties to investigate abuse and neglect;

"We, the undersigned, support the amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act."

In support, I have put my signature.

1500

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by parents and teachers from all across northwestern Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers want reinvestment in education rather than reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

Speaker, if I can beg your indulgence, I want to introduce Sarah Rice-Bredin, page from Thunder Bay who will be leaving us after tomorrow, who's done a marvellous job.

I'm happy to sign my name to this petition.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition regarding the need for a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire in Hamilton.

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins, as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry on the Hamilton Plastimet fire."

I continue to support my constituents by signing this petition.

ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): A petition from all around the Niagara Peninsula, with probably about 1,000 or so signatures, that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas ownership of a domestic animal is a responsibility, not a right;

"Whereas owners have a responsibility to treat their pet with care and utmost concern for their wellbeing; and

"Whereas cruelty to animals should be punished/

sanctioned with fines, penalties and/or bans on animal ownership; and

"Whereas inspectors of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act should not be obstructed from carrying out their duties to investigate abuse or neglect;

"We, the undersigned, support the amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act."

I affix my signature in support.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 142, An Act to revise the law related to Social Assistance by enacting the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, by repealing the Family Benefits Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act and by amending several other Statutes; and

"Whereas Bill 142 and its regulations will have a direct and substantial impact on the lives of many people with disabilities and their families;

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

"To urge the government of Ontario to release the proposed regulations related to Bill 142 immediately, so that there can be meaningful public discussion of the changes that will result from this legislation; and to ensure that Bill 142 and its regulations are subject to extensive and public hearings across Ontario so that the people who are affected by this legislation and the related regulations are given adequate opportunity to be heard."

I will sign this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition here from Sean O'Brien in Sault Ste Marie, a student at Bawating Collegiate and Vocational School. He says:

"On Wednesday, September 24, 1997, many students from Bawating Collegiate and Vocational School and other secondary schools in Sault Ste Marie walked out to protest Bill 160. On the day of the walkout we managed to schedule an appointment with Tony Martin, Sault Ste Marie's MPP. He informed us of our rights of protest and we subsequently made this petition against Bill 160. We obtained approximately 140 signatures from citizens of Sault Ste Marie against this bill. We believe that Bill 160 should not be passed, and if it is, there will be more student protests and walkouts in Sault Ste Marie."

I sign my signature to this as well.

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, oppose any plans to privatize TVOntario and strongly support TVOntario's proposal to convert the agency to a not-for-profit corporation. We, the undersigned, strongly urge the government of Ontario to ensure continued access by Wahsa and Wawatay radio to TVO's distribution system. The privatization of TVOntario would jeopardize the excellent educational and information programming provided by TVOntario. The sale of TVOntario to commercial interests would also jeopardize Wawatay radio network's native language programming, and Wahsa's distance education services, because both depend on TVO's distribution system."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have another petition here from students in Sault Ste Marie concerned about Bill 160. This has come to my attention via Peter Korab, president of the student council at St Mary's College. He says the following, accompanied by at least 50 letters, some of them handwritten by students from St Mary's College. It says:

"I'm writing this letter to express my concerns over the changes your government is making to the education system in Bill 160.

"Whereas that bill and its effects could be detrimental to the quality of education in this province; and

"Whereas your goal to create a more efficient and cost-productive education system, while laudable, is in direct opposition to the findings of your government's research through the Education Improvement Commission; and

"Whereas I've never heard the exact class size you wish to create, nor has anyone else for that matter, I believe that cutting money from the education system and laying off teachers would do grievous damage to the quality of our educational program; and

"Whereas replacing teachers with uncertified experts also seems to be a questionable decision, because though those people would have the knowledge, they would not have the training to deal with the needs of students and would have difficulty expressing their knowledge to the student; and

"Whereas eliminating preparation time and professional activity days from teachers would prevent them from having an accessible method of upgrading and broadening the curriculum they teach, paying them to stay longer hours seems a dubious method of saving people money, nor does it better the education of those of us who consult with our teachers regularly on our free time; and

"Whereas no teacher of mine has ever said to me that they didn't have extra time in the day to help me or my fellow students with the problems we were having, we feel, however, that your improvements to the education system will create that problem and that every student in Ontario will lose out because of your government's decisions to put profits over personal enrichment. Please withdraw bill 160."

I attach my name to this.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a petition from the St Bernard parent advisory committee. It's addressed to the Minister of Education, Mr Snobelen.

"Dear Mr Snobelen:

"Our children are our future. We cannot allow your government to gut our education system. Education must be protected at all costs.

"Therefore we, as a parent advisory committee, would like to voice our concern with the current bills before the Legislature.

"We, the undersigned, disagree with your massive downsizing plans for the province's educational system."

It's signed by approximately 100 individuals.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers want reinvestment in education rather than reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further, be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and to be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

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

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): I'm sorry, I missed the rotation. I apologize. Further petitions? The member for Hamilton Centre.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

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

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness and injury."

On behalf of my caucus colleagues, I add my name to theirs.

1510

OPPOSITION DAY

EDUCATION FINANCING / FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I move that:

Whereas the Minister of Education and Training has said that the provincial government intends to take a further $1 billion away from the education of Ontario children; and

Whereas the Mike Harris Conservative government appears determined to provoke a work stoppage by Ontario teachers, thereby disrupting the education of Ontario students; and

Whereas Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, removes the right of school boards to raise revenue for the purpose of funding local schools and meeting local students' needs; and

Whereas the Minister of Education and Training has stated that the future role of school boards will be limited to negotiating teachers' salaries and benefits while the provincial government limits boards' funds; and

Whereas Ontario teachers should enjoy all the rights to collectively bargain terms and conditions of work that are enjoyed by other Ontario workers, including an unrestricted right to strike; and

Whereas the Mike Harris Conservative government has created uncertainty about the level of funding that will be provided to school boards for the purpose of educating Ontario children;

Therefore be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario calls on the Mike Harris Conservative government to withdraw Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act; to restore the right to local school boards and teachers' federations to negotiate local, quality learning conditions for Ontario students; and to make public the new funding formula and the exact dollar amounts to be allocated for educating students across the province.

Speaker, I will be dividing my time with my leader and the member for Sudbury East.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): I have just been informed the time is split equally among all the parties, so you can use it how you wish.

Mr Wildman: The reason that we have moved this motion today is because we face a very critical situation with regard to the education of Ontario students. I must say that, considering the importance of this motion and the serious situation we face potentially where the disruption of classes may in fact occur within a number of days in this province, I think it is most unfortunate that there is such a dearth of members on the government side. In particular, the Minister of Education and Training is not present. I know it's not in order to mention that, so I would not normally have done that, but I find it most inappropriate that the government appears to be giving short shrift to this important debate this afternoon.

Repeatedly since the minister was appointed, since the Conservative government came to power in this province, the minister and his colleagues have indicated that the government believes there is a lot of money wasted in funding education in the province; that in fact billions of dollars could be removed from education funding without affecting classroom education. Of course that shows a complete ignorance or perhaps a deliberate ignoring of the facts. We all know that approximately 70%, on average, of school boards' budgets in Ontario go towards salaries for teachers and education workers -- 70%. So when the government last year took $400 million out of education over a four-month period -- on an annualized basis close to $1 billion -- it was impossible for those savings to be achieved without adversely affecting classroom education for students in Ontario.

School boards, in response to that, did a number of things. They cut back on junior kindergarten funding. They discontinued daytime adult education programs and shifted adult education simply to continuing education. They cut back on supplies for classrooms and on special programs. Particularly at the elementary level, programs in things like music and art were hurt.

Of particular concern to me, as a parent and someone who is interested in education, is the fact that special education programs were cut. We all know that the law in this province requires school boards to provide special education to students with special needs in Ontario, yet boards found themselves in a situation where they had to cut back. Some boards did not do that. Some boards, instead of cutting, increased taxes to make up for the drop in grants that they receive from the provincial government. This government reacted very angrily to that. It said: "No, that's not what we want. We don't want school boards to increase taxes." As a result, the minister then levelled his guns at the boards and said, "We're going to take the power of boards to raise taxes away from them so that this won't happen again."

The minister has indicated repeatedly that he intends to take another $1 billion out of education. If, on top of the cuts that have already occurred, the minister intends to take another $1 billion out of education, that means he must cut teachers. There is no other way to do it. The minister himself has admitted that he intends to cut by a little more than 4,000 the number of teaching positions in Ontario. The minister repeatedly says that he is interested in the quality of education for students. He has yet to explain how, by cutting the number of teachers who teach our students, we are going to increase the quality of education.

He has also said, initially at least, that he would replace a number of those teachers who are out of work as a result of his moves with people whom he calls "experts." These are people who could perhaps teach, or have some expertise in music and art, physical education, computers, those kinds of things. He would put those people in the classroom, even though they aren't certified to teach and they've had no pedagogical training, to replace teachers. It is beyond me how this is going to improve the quality of education for students in the province.

He has made it very, very clear that he believes that early childhood educators with diplomas from community colleges should be able to replace junior kindergarten and kindergarten teachers, despite all the studies that indicate the importance of good pedagogy at that level for the success of students throughout not just their educational careers, but through their whole lives. Of course, when the teachers then raised objections to these kinds of plans, the minister also levelled his guns at them, and that's why we face the possible confrontation in this province today.

The fact that we had Bill 160 before the House and then the government introduced a time allocation motion cutting off debate on Bill 160 at second reading indicates to me that in fact the government intends to provoke a confrontation. It appears to me that the only group that wants to have a strike by teachers in Ontario disrupting the education of students is the Tory caucus in this place. The introduction of that time allocation motion was a provocation. It was intended to further demoralize the teachers, make them angry enough that they might take precipitous action.

The minister has said that it's not right to use students as pawns in a political dispute. In fact, he is doing exactly that. He is trying to turn the public against the teachers by saying that if the teachers take action it will hurt the students, ignoring the fact that the teachers intend to do everything they can to protect the students against the actions of this government, against the desire of this government to take $1 billion out of the system to fund a tax cut which will benefit 10% of the population who don't need it.

1520

Bill 160, as a result, constricts the scope of collective bargaining, takes away the rights of teachers to bargain their conditions of work and the learning conditions of their students and takes all power away from local boards to negotiate these matters. It gets rid of local accountability and local governance and control over education. It gives less input to parents and ratepayers about the education in their communities and centralizes all control over education in the Ministry of Education here at Queen's Park. This, from a government that claims to be interested in local autonomy and getting government close to people.

How is it that any ratepayer is going to have any influence over a government where all the decisions about education funding, curriculum, the organization of the schools are made by faceless bureaucrats in this Queen's Park complex? Nobody elects those bureaucrats. They can't be held accountable by local ratepayers. They can't be defeated at the next election if the ratepayers disagree with what they did. It's a complete denial of what this government says it really stands for, that is, local control over government services.

School boards and teachers will only be able to negotiate salaries and benefits. They won't be able to negotiate issues related to quality of education, they won't be able to negotiate issues related to the organization of schools, the size of classes, the number of students per teacher, the number of hours teachers spend in the classroom, the number of hours teachers have for preparation. All these matters will be decided by regulation under Bill 160, decided behind closed doors by the Minister of Education and then rubber-stamped by the cabinet behind closed doors. There will be no input, teachers will not have a say, trustees will not have a say, and there will be no local control.

Of course, the teachers are particularly upset about the fact that this government threatened to take away their right to strike, their right to withdraw their services in a dispute with their employer. The minister has said: "I don't know why the teachers are upset any more. We said we might take away the right to strike," as well as removing principals and vice-principals from the bargaining units and perhaps the requirement that teachers be members of federations in order to teach in the province. "We threatened to do those things, but then we said, `No, no, we wouldn't do that,' and we didn't do it in Bill 160. So why are the teachers mad?"

As I said last night, it's a bit like someone coming along and threatening to bomb your house and then subsequently saying: "No, I won't bomb your house. I'm just going to throw a rock through your front window. I'll just break your front window, so you shouldn't be unhappy any more. I didn't bomb your house, I didn't destroy your home, I just broke your front window."

Teachers believe and we believe as a party that all workers in a democratic society have the right to remove their labour in a dispute with their employer. We believe that all workers in a democratic society have the right to strike to try to win in a contract dispute. We don't advocate strikes, we don't advocate lockouts, but we believe that workers should have the unrestricted right to remove their labour in a dispute. Of course, they have the responsibility then to take the consequences when they do that: the loss of pay, the loss of benefits and so on.

We think the government must state clearly that it believes teachers should enjoy the right to bargain collectively all the terms and conditions of work enjoyed by other Ontario workers, including the unrestricted right to strike, and we call on all members of this assembly to vote in favour of this motion to show that they support the democratic right of all workers in collective bargaining.

Overall, though, we are particularly concerned about the fact that this government has created so much uncertainty about the level of funding. We have before the House Bill 160, which makes enormous changes in the education system, but the central question is not answered in that bill, and that is, how much money is there going to be for the education of students in Ontario? The government has intentionally not told the school boards, the teachers, the parents, the students and the ratepayers how much money there's going to be in education.

We've repeatedly in this House given the minister and the Premier the opportunity to make it clear that this government will not take any more money out of education, not one more cent; that they will reinvest any moneys they save because of school board restructuring back into education in the classroom for students. Repeatedly, the minister and the Premier have refused to make that commitment. They just completely reject that. They just over and over say, "We will spend what's necessary," which basically means, "We will take money out of the system and we will decide what is necessary," and that will be less than there is now.

Kids' education in Ontario has been hurt by the cuts of this government already. Further cuts in education in the realm of $1 billion will hurt education in the classroom. It will be disastrous for the future of our kids in Ontario. It will mean the end of junior kindergarten, the end of many programs that parents and students want and need to gain the skills they'll require to achieve well going into the 21st century. Teachers know that. That's why teachers are so angry and concerned. That's why teachers are prepared, if necessary, to disrupt the education in the short term for their students to protect the long-term future for their students. Teachers care about students, they care about learning, they care about learning conditions, and they're prepared to take action if necessary.

It's up to the government now to make the moves, to try to cool the situation, to pull back, to make a commitment that there won't be more money taken out of education, to talk to the teachers and to work out changes that will be beneficial to the students, that will protect the rights of teachers so we can get on with improving the quality of education for all the students in Ontario.

I call on the members of the assembly to support our resolution and to give a message to the Minister of Education and Training and to the government that it's time to work with teachers, with trustees, with parents and all interested in quality education, particularly with students, to improve the quality of education.

The government must withdraw Bill 160, must restore the rights of local boards and teachers to negotiate learning conditions for Ontario students, and above all, the government must make the funding formula public so that we all know exactly how much money this government is prepared to spend on the education of our students in Ontario. I call on all members to support this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): It's my pleasure on behalf of the constituents of Brampton South to join the debate this afternoon on what indeed is a very important issue.

I think it comes as no surprise to any members of this House who are in contact with their constituencies that this is an issue that has been the subject of numerous telephone calls, communications via fax and e-mail and face-to-face conversations. Any of us who have had any connection with our constituencies at all would know that this issue definitely is on the radar screen with our constituents.

What I find interesting, actually, is that this is nothing new. For the past two and a half years since I've been elected, this issue has been I would say at the forefront of the minds of many of my constituents, and I'm sure I'm not speaking alone on this. Making sure that health care is available to all in their time of need and ensuring that our streets and our homes remain safe I think are priority issues for Ontarians. Those are the ones that they tell us time and time again they want to see the government see as priority issues.

1530

That's the mandate this government received. People understood that government was not working for them, that government was trying to be all things to all people. They wanted government to make some real changes in how it did things, but they said the priorities have to be better delivery of health care services, of education for our kids and the way our justice system works to make sure that our streets and homes are safe. So those have to the priorities of any government that is worth its salt, and certainly that is the mandate of this government.

But at the same time, parents in particular have been asking me and my colleagues a number of questions: Why is our student performance not better? It's not the worst in the world by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not the best in the world. It's not even in the top three by any of the indices that are used and generally acceptable in the pedagogical community.

Why are our costs higher than those in other provinces? This goes back to the point that this isn't necessarily about costs per se. I think we all know that parents and taxpayers are willing to pay for a quality education. What they object to is paying near the top of the OECD average, when it comes to per capita spending on education, yet the results are not the worst, but they are middling; they are mediocre. They are not the best for our students when they have to compete around the world for jobs and opportunity.

Why do our students spend less time in terms of educational instruction than high school students elsewhere in Canada? Our proposal on this I think is a fairly reasonable one. Add half an hour a day of instruction time --

Interjection: Eight minutes a period.

Mr Clement: Eight minutes a period, a colleague reminds me, perhaps stretch out the day or the length of time of an average school day, eliminate some professional development days and ensure that as per the Education Improvement Commission report our children spend as much time as is possible in the classroom receiving instruction, having that interaction with the teachers. I think that's a fair question.

All of these questions have come up, at least in my experience, over the last two and a half years. People are not saying that someone is to blame, that the teacher is to blame or the student is to blame or the parent is to blame. Nor are we saying that, and let me repeat this point: I don't think any of us on this side of the aisle are saying that the public enemy number one is teachers. That is not what we're saying at all. In fact, teachers are the victims of this system just as much as students are the victims and parents are the victims.

We've got a system that isn't working as well as it should, given the amount of money we are spending on the system. We've got to change that. I'm not saying it's a dollars-and-cents thing. It is a quality-of-education question. I have talked to a number of teachers. I've visited a number of schools in my riding, not only at school council nights, not only on special nights like that but also in classrooms in the high schools, in the elementary schools, in the middle schools in my riding. I know the frustrations that teachers are experiencing day in, day out in their professional lives.

This didn't start on September 22 with the introduction of Bill 160. This was here. This was building up year after year and indeed over a period of perhaps a decade or a decade and a half, I dare say. As a result of those frustrations, I think teachers are the first to say that we've got to do a better job of qualitatively making sure that our children receive the best-quality instruction imaginable in our system.

By virtue of their profession, certainly, they are not the cause of this problem. They're not. The parents, many of them double-income families, not by choice but because that is what that family has to do to survive, are doing what they can. The students, by and large, want to learn. There are always exceptions, but I think we can safely say that in Ontario the students want to learn.

That begs the question: If all those essential aspects to the education system want it to succeed, the problem is the system itself, the system that has evolved over a period of time, a system that has a lot of resources. Fourteen billion dollars a year is not somehow a low number. That is a very large amount of money on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario.

The questions are, how is that $14 billion spent? How do we construct a system that allows for more instructional time, allows for our children to get the quality and the benefit of teacher instruction which should be second to none? How do we ensure that testing and curriculum are such that our students are given benchmarks and are given goals and encouraged to meet those goals?

That is what we want for our children and that is the system that parents are demanding, not me as a politician standing here in a place in this chamber, but it's what the parents are demanding. It's what the students are demanding. They know when the system is shortchanging them through lack of proper instructional time, through lack of a proper curriculum. They know that and they are willing to work within a system that will allow them to have that curriculum, have that instructional time.

Some of the members opposite say, "Why are you rushing?" Studies and commissions galore have been done. In my lifetime alone -- I've done a little bit of research on this -- there have been 24 separate reviews, 10 commissions and committees, two fact-finding reports, two panels and innumerable meetings to discuss education reform.

As I've said, this has been on the agenda of the public for a good number of years, I would say over the last 10 to 15 years, and now is the opportunity for the government to respond to those demands from parents and students and to act not on behalf of the political class, not on behalf of one particular segment of our society. If I can believe the rhetoric, that is what everybody wants, what the opposition wants, what the teachers want, what the parents want and certainly what the students want, which is better quality education. Our plan was drawn up with that in mind. Studies are not any substitute for action. We need a new, revitalized curriculum with rigorous year-by-year standards, not fuzzy goals that may or may not be met.

I've read through in its entirety the curriculum proposed by Minister Snobelen on grades K to 8 and I can tell you that in each and every year of that curriculum there is a plan of action for each and every student to obtain the goals that parents would like to have set in the system. We need province-wide testing and we need standardized report cards that will let parents and the students themselves see clearly whether their children are meeting the standards we have set through the curriculum.

All of that is necessary, and we need the Education Quality Improvement Act. That is the next step and is part and parcel of the comprehensive plan to put quality and achievement back in our educational system. How does it do that? If this bill is passed by this Legislature, it will do it by improving the governance of our schools.

An honourable member opposite said that we wanted everything to be decided by this governmental level, by the province of Ontario level. Nothing could be farther from the truth and I want to set the record straight right now. We want schools to have more say in terms of the application of the curriculum; we want schools to have more say in terms of ensuring that the school is a safe place for our children and for our teachers; we want schools to have more say in the direction of education in that individual school; we have to increase the involvement of the parents, not because we want to give them more things to do but because parents are demanding more of a say in their children's education; and we've got to simplify the financing of our education system.

1540

I need not remind the members opposite -- they were struggling with this when they were in government -- that the funding formula this province imposes upon our education partners has no rhyme or reason. It has been encrusted like barnacles to a ship -- 40 years of decisions, individual decisions perhaps based on individual circumstances. Now the result is that we in Ontario cannot guarantee an equal access to a quality of education for every single student in the system.

I think that is a moral abomination. If we cannot stand up in this House and say that at least we have formulated a system that strives to that goal, an equal access to a quality education, I think we are remiss as members of this chamber. That is why the financing reform has to occur, coupled with, member for Algoma, a funding formula that makes sense. He put it well. That has to be part of the package as well and I join him in anticipating that funding formula as soon as is practicable.

Sometimes we are criticized, Madam Speaker -- I know this will come as a surprise to you -- in this House for acting too quickly; now we are criticized for acting too slowly, because we want to get the funding formula to be a correct funding formula, a funding formula that makes sense for every single student who is currently in the system and will be in the system in the future. I want to make sure, as my colleagues do, that funding formula is the right funding formula, a funding formula we can be proud of. So we anticipate it in the weeks ahead.

This bill will allow the government to set standards for quality -- what a concept: standards for quality -- as demanded by the parents and the students in the system. This includes the amount of instructional time our children receive.

I was talking to a constituent this morning. This is an individual case, I know, and it certainly is not indicative of every teacher in the system, but she said that her child -- she admitted the child was not a very outgoing person, didn't like to speak a lot -- had got through an entire grade, grade 8, and the teacher had not spoken to this child once. My constituent was in tears. She was in tears because the system hadn't worked for her. This is not an indictment on teachers at all; this is an indictment on a system that has not worked for a parent, and when it hasn't worked for the parent, it hasn't worked for the child as well. I think we can do better than that. I think we must do better than that for that individual case.

We want to have a bill that will promote improved student access to professionals with special expertise, not to replace the teachers, as the rhetoric has it, but to supplement and add to what teachers do so very well in the classroom. In fact, they do it so well we want them to spend more time in the classroom doing what they do well. We want to have specialists in computer technology, the arts and career guidance who will enrich our children's education and broaden their horizons.

My colleague the member for Brampton North, Mr Spina, had a career as a businessperson, but he was also an instructor in the community college system. He also helped our community college students in their goals of understanding not only the academic rigours, but also the rigours of real-life experience. Gee, wouldn't it be nice, not necessarily in an instructional environment, to have the advantage of some of those experiences in the classroom prior to community college or university? I think so.

I think we've got to create a system, and this bill does this, to make sure the system is more accountable to parents by making it mandatory to establish advisory councils in every school. We're not saying every parent has to be involved in the minutiae of every single decision in the school, but wouldn't it be nice to allow parents the opportunity to participate in the school's governance? The principal is there as the manager; we know that. She has the advantage of vice-principals and the staff and department heads. But wouldn't it be nice to ensure that our students and parents have that opportunity as well to be part and parcel of the school environment?

The bill would give the province, not the school boards but the province, the responsibility for setting all educational property taxes via the mill rate or via taking half of it off and putting it on income tax and sales tax revenue generation.

Time and time again we've had a situation, in all our ridings, where funding decisions are bifurcated; that is to say, they are split between the school boards and their budgetary process and the province. Perhaps we're all guilty of this; maybe I can stand at the front of the line.

The fact of the matter is politicians of all stripes have engaged in this process, where a constituent phones up and says, "I'm not happy with some of the choices that have been made at my school in terms of what is funded and what isn't funded." We say: "Oh, well, gee, we don't really make those choices at Queen's Park. We write the cheque, but the choice is made by your school board." Then the hapless voter goes to the school board trustee and says, "I don't like some of the decisions that were made in terms of the funding in the school." They say: "I don't know why you're talking to us. It's the province that writes the cheque." You've got politicians buck-passing.

A system cannot work unless a politician is accountable. The buck has to stop somewhere. Let us declare for all who are watching that under this bill, should it pass, the buck will stop in this chamber, in this Legislature, with the government of the day.

That's a lot of responsibility, I acknowledge that, but in order to work the system has to be accountable. Someone has to respond and answer to the parent and to the student to ensure the system works. This bill would ensure that. It's an awesome responsibility, one which I dare say will take a lot of time and energy to implement well. But it is a system that has to happen because every time a politician buck-passes, that's an additional opportunity for a tax hike to occur without the quality in there, for a service to be cut, for young teachers to be fired rather than the fountains being shut off at the expensive educational office. Those decisions can be made when there's no accountability. We've got to ensure the accountability is there for our parents and our students.

I think these changes are good for Ontario. We want to get a little bit of input, I think quite a good deal of input, in the eight days of discussions and dialogue we will have when Bill 160 goes out to public hearings. It will be an opportunity, I hope, to hear from a myriad of sources: parents; teachers, if I had to predict, will be represented at those hearings; and students themselves have to be there as well.

I welcome, and I know my government welcomes, that input, that dialogue. That dialogue has to continue. This is not just about one simple case of Bill 160 and the world will be better. Let's not overpromise in this chamber. But Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, is another step, along with the report card being standardized, along with some standardized testing and accountability, along with a funding formula that makes sense.

All of those are building blocks to an education system that is accountable and responsive to the student's requirement to have a quality education so that she or he has an equal opportunity to succeed in this province, so they don't have to compete by leaving. That is what the legacy has been in Ontario over the past 15 years: If you had any sort of smarts, you went to Milan or Shanghai or Boston to find a job. We've got to create the jobs here in Ontario. That means we've got to ensure our students have the skills to succeed and compete well in this province, not only for themselves but for their children as well.

That is what this bill is all about. It is a bill about education quality, it is a bill about more instruction time for our students and it is a bill, I believe, that will get us on the road -- not all the way but on the road -- to the education system that parents and students and everyone in Ontario who calls himself or herself a citizen of this province, in the fullest sense of the word, demands for our education system. I am proud to support it.

1550

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I will speak briefly to this resolution, although I consider it to be an important one and I'm speaking in full support of the resolution. I'm going to speak briefly because there are a number of my colleagues who want an opportunity at this very critical time in the history of education in Ontario to express some of their concerns about this government's agenda for education. They would have welcomed an opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill 160, the bill which is forcing our teachers to the precipice and bringing our students to the verge of facing a strike situation in which all of our schools are closed.

Our members would have liked an opportunity to speak to the changes proposed in that bill, but since the debate was cut off, because the government closed off the debate and forced Bill 160 through this Legislature last night, our members will welcome an opportunity to at least express a few of their concerns as they speak to this resolution.

I've had my opportunity to speak to Bill 160, as well as frequent opportunities to address other legislative initiatives of this government. I suspect I will have more in the future, although when I look at Bill 160 I realize that my opportunity to participate in any public debate on education in the province of Ontario is going to be extremely limited, because what Bill 160 does is take all control into the hands of cabinet. There will not be need for future legislative initiatives from this government once it gets Bill 160 passed, because anything it wants to do it can do by regulation. They won't need to come back to the Legislature. There's no need for messy, time-consuming debate. They can just make the decisions in cabinet. The Premier himself, all alone, the Minister of Education, with a nod from the Premier, can make these decisions and there will be no public consultation, no public debate and no vote in this place. So we should welcome every opportunity we have to have some discussion of the future of our most precious value, which is education.

I think that's what, for me, is so frightening about this government and its agenda, that it is step by step taking all control of education, eliminating effective voices of opposition, whether it is in this House or whether it's at the local level, whether it is by neutralizing the voice of trustees by creating these mega-boards with no power locally, no local accountability, or whether it is by doing everything they can to discredit and demean teachers so that teachers' opposition to an agenda that threatens the destruction of public education as we know it will be seen instead as a defence of the status quo by the people with a vested interest. In fact, the concerns expressed by teachers are the deeply felt concerns of people on the front lines who deliver education and who are committed to the future of publicly funded education.

I have to acknowledge that the government recently has been aided in its efforts to demean and demoralize teachers by the statements of the former NDP Minister of Education David Cooke, now co-opted by the government in its Education Improvement Commission, who has most recently said that teachers should get real.

I am concerned that last week, as we faced truly a crisis in education, instead of truly being conciliatory, the Premier of the province said, "We can't trust teachers and trustees because they've negotiated class sizes up in return for salary increases." That is not a justifiable charge. It is not based on fact. The government knows that and it has deliberately refused to present the realities of what is happening to class sizes right across this province as a direct result of cuts: that we have large class sizes now because we are trying to keep junior kindergarten, that we have had the loss of special education even where class sizes have gone up and that we've had the loss of teacher-librarians, a direct effect of the cuts to date.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marion Boyd): Member for Fort William. Order. There are too many conversations that are interrupting the speaker. She was respectful of the other speakers and I would like everyone to respect her right to speak in this place.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I heard yesterday from an elementary school principal from Scarborough who said that the smallest class size in a senior elementary school in Scarborough was 31, and that was a special education class.

Mr Wildman: Special ed?

Mrs McLeod: A special ed class. This is in Metro Toronto, where the government's direct funding cuts haven't hit yet. I believe this government's attempt to equalize funding without new dollars, without replacing the $533 million already taken out of education, will be disastrous to Toronto and Ottawa. This is not a question of rich Toronto and rich Ottawa versus the rest of the province. This is about meeting students' needs. Those needs are not being fully met now, not in these large classes, not in classes where there are not enough textbooks for the students, not when $533 million has been taken out and another $425 million in cuts from the social contract were confirmed by this government. Those cuts have been devastating to education outside Toronto and Ottawa. When this government brings in its funding formula without putting new dollars in, those cuts will be devastating to Metropolitan Toronto and to Ottawa as well.

Let there be no doubt that this government's agenda is not the improvement of education. This government's agenda is to take another $1 billion out of education.

This morning the Minister of Education came out of his talks with teachers and said, "Our agenda still is to deliver education at the lowest possible cost." I believe the students in Ontario deserve something better than the cheapest possible education. I believe that when this government wants to make it a question of trust, it's not a matter of being able to trust trustees and teachers, the people who have fought for public education on the front lines throughout Ontario history, it is a matter of not being able to trust this government with the complete control of education, because we have seen what they've done and we have seen what they want to do.

I shake my head in disbelief when I hear the Minister of Education talk about wanting a quality of education, when his cost-cutting proposals are all focused on cutting teachers out of the educational system. We know they were looking for 10,000 fewer teachers as a way of cutting dollars. We know that the proposals in Bill 160 are designed to give the Minister of Education and Michael Harris the tools to find the dollars they're looking for to make the cuts they're looking for to pay for their tax cut by cutting teachers and by taking teachers out of our classroom. You cannot deliver a quality of education to students without having qualified and committed teachers in our classrooms providing service to students inside and outside our classrooms.

Because I want my colleagues to have a chance to speak, I'm not going to go into all the details of what we're seeing with the impact of the cuts. I'm not going to go into the details of how many teachers will be lost if we replace teachers with unqualified teachers, how many volunteer hours of teacher time will be lost under this so-called heading of having teachers spend more time with students, when in fact they're talking about having thousands of fewer teachers in our classrooms working with students. That is not going to improve education. It certainly isn't going to improve education when this government moves to try and replace teachers with computers and have students with self-guided learning.

I want to just very quickly agree with one part of this resolution in which the proposal is, "Whereas Ontario teachers should enjoy all the rights to collectively bargain" at the local level. That is something which I have supported in the face of threats to that by this government and indeed threats to that by the previous government through the social contract. I still believe that the best solutions to our problems can be found at the local level, where people understand the local needs, the needs of their students, where they can respond with some flexibility to the needs of local students.

I know what will happen when this government mandates maximum class size without providing the resources to provide the teachers for those classes. Yes, we'll have a maximum class size all right, but we'll have that maximum class size in grades 1 and 2. We'll lose junior kindergarten because we won't be able to run junior kindergarten classes with few enough students to deliver a good program. We'll lose our special education classes because they have to run at much too small a teacher-pupil ratio to survive with the minister's financial resources, given to support a maximum class size.

It is all a matter of money, it is all a matter of priorities, and clearly this government's priority is not education and it is not the needs of our students.

Those are just some of the concerns that I have, that parents have, that teachers have. Those are just a few of the concerns that those of us who really care about public education have about the Harris-Snobelen agenda for education, and those are just a few of the reasons why we believe that public education is at risk and why we will join with all of those who are ready to fight for it.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): It's a pleasure for me to participate in this debate today because it's a very important debate. As we look at where we are now poised in the province of Ontario, which I believe is on the brink of a province-wide teachers' strike, it seems to me that this government has got to get its head around where it's going with respect to education and just how damaging the government's agenda with respect to the system has been so far and how much more damaging that agenda will be if Bill 160 is passed in its present form.

Given where we are right now, which is on the verge of a major confrontation with teachers across this province, it is about time the Minister of Education understood that he can't continue to operate in the way that he has, that this will not benefit students, it will not benefit parents, it will not benefit teachers. It's about time he sat down to bargain fairly, squarely, in a reasonable way with the people who provide important services to our children day in and day out in this province.

1600

It's about time the Premier of this province also took some responsibility and showed some leadership and admitted that his Minister of Education is not capable and not responsible enough to deal with this in an appropriate way. He himself should make a commitment, here and now, to sit down with the heads of the teachers' federations to negotiate with them directly, to talk about their concerns and to work towards building a system that will continue to respond to the needs of students in this province. He needs to show some leadership today.

We have put our resolution forward and I want to speak to some of the points in it in the brief time I have to comment.

First of all, we know that this provincial government intends to take yet another $1 billion out of the education system in this province.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Wrong.

The Acting Speaker: Come to order, member for Brampton North.

Ms Martel: When Bill 104 was concluded, it was reported extensively in the newspapers that ministry bureaucrats had made it clear that the tools were now almost in place to take another $1 billion out of the system. We know that during the negotiations that have been going on between teachers' federations and ministry staff, those teachers' federation representatives have been clearly told by Ministry of Education staff that another $1 billion is coming out of this system. The only people who haven't heard that message appear to be the Conservative backbench. Everyone else has got that message loud and clear.

We are very concerned about that, because we have seen already the effects of the $800 million annualized funding which this government has taken out of education. This government said in the Common Sense Revolution that there would be no cuts to classroom funding, and the next thing this government did was to withdraw $800 million on an annualized basis from the education system.

The effects of that have been tremendous. This government has cut its funding to adult education. This government has cut funding for junior kindergarten. This government has cut funding to boards so that they in turn have had to make difficult decisions about then cutting special education, then cutting library services, then cutting art and music and a whole host of other services that used to be delivered in our classrooms across the province.

Mr Spina: Wrong. School boards did that.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Brampton North, come to order, please.

Ms Martel: That is what the effect of the $800-million cuts has been to date. Can you imagine, then, what the impact of a further $1-billion cut by this Conservative government will be to classrooms right across this province? We will wipe out junior kindergarten, we will wipe out adult education, we will wipe out special-ed.

Mr Spina: Wrong.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Brampton North, please come to order. I'm warning you for the last time.

Ms Martel: We will have children in classrooms with pupil-teacher ratios that will be impossible for any teacher, no matter how dedicated and qualified, to work with and deliver quality education in those classrooms. Those teachers will have no choice but to every day, day in and day out, teach to the middle and not be able to deal with children who have special needs from all other parts of the spectrum.

We are very concerned that where this government is heading is to take $1 billion more, because we are very concerned about the impact in classrooms across this province.

Our second point is that we firmly believe that the reason this government is headed down the road to a confrontation, towards a work stoppage, is because it wants to have some way to hide the $1 billion that it wants to take out of the system. It wants to have a fight with teachers, a confrontation with teachers. It wants to try and turn the public against the teachers. So under the quiet of night, under the cover of darkness, under the cover of a teachers' dispute and under the cover of parents' concerns with the dispute, this government will then take $1 billion more out of the system through the funding formula that we have yet to see because the government refuses to publish it.

That is why we are heading down this road, because the government wants a smokescreen. The government wants to be able to hide what it's going to do with respect to the cuts, and the government is desperately hoping that if it can pick a fight with teachers across the province, parents' attention, students' attention, teachers' attention and the broader public's attention will be diverted from the issue of the cuts to the strike, that people's concerns will be with the strike.

I say to this government, do not be fooled. Parents, teachers, students are united in this fight. Everyone is concerned about another $1-billion cut to education. You won't get away with it under the cover of night or under cover of a teachers' strike. So why don't you stop your efforts for a confrontation and why don't you start to negotiate now so that we can put a better system in place that responds to the needs of students across the province?

Point 3 has to do with the removal by this government of the right of school boards to raise revenues locally. We were in this chamber last night dealing with second and third reading of Bill 158, which was a bill to restore the right of cottage owners in this province to vote for trustees in the next election. We had to restore that right because this government, in their haste to ram through Bill 104 to try to get some savings through that bill, took away the right of property owners to vote in the next election. This government removed a fundamental, basic, democratic right of thousands and thousands of cottage owners in this province, people who have had that right for years and years, because you were so sloppy and hasty and in such a big hurry that you cut that out through Bill 104. We stood in this House and through second and third reading moved Bill 158, an act which restores the right of those people to now vote.

But, you know, it is a false hope we are holding out to them and to other residential property taxpayers, because the fact is that those cottage owners and local ratepayers at the end of the day will not really be voting for trustees who will be in a position to make decisions about education at a local level.

The reason is that through the government's Bill 160, this government will take to itself all the power and all the decision-making with respect to curriculum development, with respect to the length of the school day, with respect to the length of the school year, with respect to the preparation time for teachers and, by the way, through that mechanism how many teachers will be in the system. All these important decisions, many of which have been made locally, that trustees have had some role in and that parents, through their voting rights, have exercised some role in, will be taken away and will be centralized here at Queen's Park and done in the back room by regulation.

That's what's happening. Power to make decisions affecting all our local schools will not be made by local trustees, will not be made by local taxpayers who vote for those trustees, but will be centralized in the office of the Treasurer, who by regulation will set the mill rate, and by extension will also be done by the Minister of Education, who will set and make those decisions by regulation for all those important issues that used to be dealt with locally.

While we spent time last night trying to restore votes to cottage owners because this government took that vote away, in essence all our votes are now going to be affected, because so many of the important decisions that should be made locally to respond to local education needs will now be taken from the hands of trustees, be taken from the hand of parents in a community and will be centralized here at Queen's Park, to be run by the bureaucracy and the Treasurer and the Minister of Education and Training. Someone needs to tell me how that is going to improve the quality of education in our communities across the province when local trustees and local communities can't even make essential decisions about how to deliver education locally.

We are also very concerned about the rights of teachers in this province to collectively bargain. In fact, I want to read to you the very specific point we make in the resolution. We say, "Whereas Ontario teachers should enjoy all the rights to collectively bargain terms and conditions of work that are enjoyed by other Ontario workers, including an unrestricted right to strike."

My colleagues in the New Democratic Party believe this is a fundamental right for teachers. It is a right that should be enjoyed by all workers in this province. At the end of the day, when parties are involved in collective bargaining and difficulties and impasses arise, then workers should have the right to withdraw their labour to try to get a deal. Workers should have that right.

1610

I tell you, workers do not take that decision lightly. Workers in this province know that when they make that crucial decision to go on strike, they have no idea how long they will be out. They have no idea that at the end of the day they might get a better deal. They take that chance because they know they have reached an impasse with their employer and they have no other way to try and get a deal, to try and get their concerns dealt with, than to withdraw their labour and hope there will be a change in the employer's position.

We believe that Ontario teachers should have and should continue to have that fundamental right. It should not be tampered with. We feel so strongly about it that we have put it into the resolution, because we want to force members of this assembly to make a choice today: Do you believe the same thing? Are you in favour of teachers' unrestricted right to strike or are you not? We will be very interested to see how people vote today, particularly people in the Liberal caucus.

I was encouraged to hear that the Liberal critic, the member for Fort William, agreed with this particular point in the resolution, and she made that clear, but I wonder what the response of the leader of her party is with respect to the unrestricted right of teachers to strike. In 1992, on May 7, to be exact, the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Ottawa South, put a private member's bill into this Legislature, and on that day this assembly spoke to that private member's bill. I want to take a few minutes to tell you what it says because I think it's so important in the context of where teachers are presently poised in this province: on the edge of a confrontation, and I believe on the edge of a strike.

The explanatory notes read as follows:

"1. The bill requires the report of a fact-finder to be submitted to the teachers whose collective agreement is being negotiated for a vote by secret ballot. If at least two fifths of them" -- 40% -- "vote in support of the terms of settlement recommended in the fact-finder's report, the report becomes binding on the teachers for the purposes of making or renewing a collective agreement.

"2. The bill requires the report of a fact-finder to be submitted to the board for a vote at a public meeting of the board. If at least two fifths of the trustees composing the board vote in support of the terms of settlement recommended in the fact-finder's report, the report becomes binding on the board for the purposes of making or renewing a collective agreement.

"3. The existing terms of the collective agreement between a board and a branch affiliate are revised to provide for a term of operation of not less than two years. At present, collective agreements have a minimum term of one year.

"4. The bill prohibits a strike from commencing after the 31st day of October in the year in which a collective agreement expires.

"5. The bill prohibits a strike or lockout from lasting more than 20 school days, and deems the board and the branch affiliate to have agreed to refer any matters remaining in a dispute between them at the end of 20 school days to a selector for determination as set out in the act."

Let me quote directly from Mr McGuinty, because this is a very important point. As I said, we have put it in the resolution because we want to see how members in this House feel about teachers' unrestricted right to strike. The current leader, the member for Ottawa South, said the following:

"My bill does not extend the school year; it merely places limits on the number of days our students can be, as I say, evicted from the classroom, and I say they cannot be held out of school for longer than 20 school days. That's about the equivalent of a calendar month.

"It also goes on to say that it places restrictions on what part of the school year we can hold them outside the class. My bill says that no strike or lockout can begin after October 31, again reflecting the fact that students are more sensitive to lost class time in the latter part of a year.

"I also make the process governing the negotiations at the present time more settlement-directed, and I require that the fact-finder's recommendation, an impartial third party's recommendation, be voted upon by the union members -- there's now no obligation that they do so -- and I impose the same obligation on trustees: There's now no obligation on them to vote on this, so I require them to vote.

"To reflect the importance that society gives to educating our students, I say you only have to pass it by 40%. If 40% adopt the recommendation, then that will be deemed to be the party's position. I didn't come up with that number out of thin air. I got it from Ohio" -- progressive -- "and I understand that is a provision in other American states."

This is Ontario. This is not another American state. In Ontario, teachers should have an unrestricted right to strike. What the leader of the Liberal Party proposes in this private member's bill is essentially to allow a board to say: "We are going to hold out on teachers for 20 days, because we know that if we don't negotiate for 20 days, if we don't talk to them, if we don't come to a settlement, teachers are going to have to go back into the classroom and continue to teach and someone else will be left to make a decision about those contract details."

The leader of the Liberal Party also put forward in this bill, put forward in this Legislature -- and thank God it was defeated -- a proposal that teachers cannot strike after October 31 in any school year.

I say to you, what motivation is there for a school board to negotiate in good faith when that school board knows full well that after October 31 a teacher cannot exercise a right to strike? This is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with fair labour practices or with collective agreement or with bargaining rights. It takes away teachers' bargaining rights, because it sets restrictions on when they can actually strike and for how long.

The third point I want to make has to do with the fact-finder's recommendation. Where in a democracy did 40% become 50% plus one as a vote of the majority? It is unfair that we would revert to a 40% figure, either for the teachers who are out or for the boards, which are the employers and trying to put forward their position. It is unfair that only 40% should make a decision on behalf of the majority, the other 60%. In any democratic process and any democratic system, a majority is 50% plus one. It is incumbent upon everyone to recognize that. The only person it appears not to be incumbent upon is the leader of the Liberal Party, who would have 40% of either the teachers or of the boards to rule for the rest, the 60%.

It seems to me that what we have is not support, reflected in this bill of the leader of the Liberal Party, for teachers' unrestricted right to strike. In fact, we have a number of conditions he places which very much bar or impede or stop or halt or limit that right to strike.

No one could say it better in terms of his concerns about this bill than a colleague of the leader of the Liberal Party. Mr Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, said it best when he responded to this particular bill. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt said the following:

"My problem with the bill is really that I don't think it will be effective in resolving the conflict between boards and their teachers, for a couple of reasons. First, my problem is that once you set a deadline on how long a strike can run, one side or the other, I'm afraid, determines it may be in its best interests to let the time run out and then the strike is over. Similarly, my concern with a date at which time the contract must be resolved, that is, October 31: The challenge there is that one side or the other determines it's in its best interests to let the clock run out until that date arrives and then the dispute is over."

To his credit, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt voted against the private member's bill put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

We are here today and we have put this specifically in our resolution because we want to see where the leader of the Liberal Party stands. Does he stand for teachers and their unrestricted right to strike or does he stand for his Bill 14, which restricts the right of teachers in this province to strike? Where does the leader of the Liberal Party stand?

We are very concerned about the funding formula which this government refuses to make public, because we know there will be another $1 billion taken out of education. We are very concerned that this minister, day in and day out, refuses to commit to reinvesting any of the savings that come from education back into the system. He refused that again today.

We call on this government to withdraw Bill 160, to allow boards and teachers to negotiate local issues and to put forward to the public the funding formula so that we can see exactly how much money this minister wants to put into the important education system in our province.

1620

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure to have the opportunity to add a few comments to the motion presented by my colleague from Algoma this afternoon. It has been interesting to listen to the comments from the member for Sudbury East, her observations and experiences with respect to the difference in policy position between her own party and the Liberal Party in this province.

I have to say at the outset that clearly the Minister of Education and Training has said we want to bring the highest-quality education system to this province, the best possible. The whole issue is not about money but about reinvesting in students and classrooms and teachers to ensure they have the adequate resources they need to deliver quality education --

Mr Spina: Put the money where it belongs.

Mr Smith: -- and as my colleague adjacent to me has said, to put the money exactly where it belongs, and that is in the classroom.

From the outset it should be realized that the government has committed some $650 million in terms of capital construction improvements. To put that into a localized context, that equates to about 30,000 pupil places in this province. That's a fairly significant commitment in terms of ensuring that our students are moved from portables and substandard classrooms to classrooms that are conducive to positive learning environments.

We've provided $250 million through the spring budget with respect to early retirement incentives and to offer a rejuvenation program with respect to young teachers in this province. We've added an additional $100 million to OSAP. We've added $150 million with respect to the Ontario student opportunity trust fund. There has been a great deal of work taking place with respect to education reform across both the elementary-secondary and post-secondary panels.

This, as the resolution speaks to, is not about provoking work stoppage; it's about bringing a new system of education to this province. The Minister of Education has repeated on a number of occasions that his door is open. We're willing to discuss issues with the teachers of this province. Clearly, that policy has been articulated again by the minister and is one he continues to maintain.

That invitation remains today; it will remain in the future in terms of soliciting input from teaching professionals across this province, the very people who know the best way to deliver education, an opportunity for them to provide continued input in terms of the directions of education reform. I want to make it very clear that today that opportunity was realized, and we continue to solicit their input and welcome it into the future.

I know my colleagues from Durham-York and Quinte want to provide some comments as well with respect to this important motion we have before us. The motion itself speaks to a number of key themes, which are all very important. I recognize that the respected member for Algoma has placed questions that deservedly require some response, some of which, as I've alluded to, have been initiated.

The whole issue of funding in this province is one that needs to be addressed. All members of the House recognize that changes have to be made to the system we have. We have been seeking input from expert panels across the province since about May of this year on what their best advice would be for a new funding formula for education in this province. That consultation process expired in August of this year, and we are in the process of analysing the data and input we have received from experts in terms of where we want to go with education finance.

We're looking at how to accommodate pupils in our system, how to address special needs, how to address adult education in this province, all very important issues with respect to what people are experiencing currently in the system and what they want to experience and have provided for them in the future. Those are very important questions, and I know the issue of uncertainty is there.

In the interim we, the government of Ontario, have recognized that there will be some challenges presented to school boards in the transition period. That's why this year we will be funding up to $14 billion in education expenditures. That has been provided for the purpose of recognizing those transition challenges to carry us into the future.

Bill 160 does provide the Minister of Finance with the regulatory power to set the mill rate on education. We fully recognize that and feel it's an important part, a position we've clearly articulated from the outset about the government's intention to take control of education finance by establishing an education mill rate.

We have also said that once that mill rate is established, we are prepared to freeze it for approximately three years to provide for transition challenges that may occur in the interim. So we are recognizing that there's a need to be flexible. We are recognizing that there's a need to respond and listen to teachers. We heard their concerns with respect to secondary school reform initiatives. We responded by addressing and responding to their advice by backing that process up.

We've heard from teachers in this province that they need not have their right to strike removed in terms of their contribution to a quality education agenda in this province. We agreed with that.

We've heard from vice-principals and principals in this province that they are leaders in the school setting, that they need not be removed from the federation of their choice to deliver on the quality agenda of education in this province. We recognized that and have agreed with them.

We also heard from teachers that we need not eliminate their right to affiliation with their union of choice. Again, that's an issue we heard from them and responded to and said, "Yes, we agree with you."

The focus of Bill 160, the focus of education reform in this province, is about bringing quality to the classroom. Certainly, we feel that the input we've received from teachers to date and that we expect to receive in the future will continue to provide us with the valuable information we need to realize the expectations that parents and students have about their education in this province.

Just to put it into context, there's a lot of concern. In my own office I know I receive numerous calls from teachers with respect to their current seniority rights and collective bargaining privileges. I would encourage them, because there is a great deal of confusion out there, to secure a copy of Bill 160 -- I believe it's page 185-186 -- to look at the transitional measures that address collective bargaining privileges, salary and benefits of teachers in this province. I would encourage them to take that upon themselves as we move to the public debate on this bill. As we move to that public debate, we will be advancing to a larger extent a better awareness of what's in fact in the bill so those areas of concern and confusion can be set aside. I encourage them to take it upon themselves to look to that. Do not solely rely on the information you're receiving. Certainly there's been opportunity to clarify a lot of information and misinformation that's out there.

As we move into public debate, some eight days of public hearings, I'd encourage all people to take full advantage of the opportunity to provide the government, the committee, the minister's office on an ongoing basis with their views and opinions with respect to Bill 160 and education reform in this province. It's a period of consultation that the government respects, and we'll continue to solicit input from people across this province.

To conclude my remarks -- as I said, I have other colleagues who wish to provide some input on the resolution -- I want to revisit some of the initiatives the Minister of Education and Training has been involved in since July 1997. Too often we get consumed in the debate of the day and forget about the many positive things that have been introduced with respect to education in this province.

We've seen the introduction of the College of Teachers. We've seen province-wide testing introduced. We've seen technology investments, up to $60 million. We've seen the introduction of a province-wide curriculum, and I think by and large most educators have responded very positively in terms of their viewpoints and acceptance of the new curriculum for math and language in the elementary panel. We've seen a very clear and consistent position about advocating a stronger role for school councils, a position that's articulated again in Bill 160. We've seen the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education establish a research and development challenge fund, some $3 billion over a 10-year period. We've seen the ongoing efforts in terms of secondary school reform and the challenges of bringing a new curriculum to secondary school in this province. We've seen Ontario's summer jobs program, some $42 million of investment, to support some 40,000 young people during the summer of 1997. We have seen the introduction of a standardized report card.

1630

We have seen the effort and the process we are in now to introduce a new education finance system, one my colleague from Brampton South mentioned in his speech in terms of the reviews we have seen consistently since 1950, where we need to go with respect to education finance.

We have seen the introduction of a cooperative tax credit to give a tax credit which would provide incentives to corporations to donate funds to post-secondary institutions. We have seen the introduction of the Ontario student opportunity trust fund. Last spring, contributions by universities and colleges were approximately $300 million. The provincial portion in terms of matching that contribution will reach $600 million. In my own riding, the University of Western Ontario has contributed $17.2 million to this fund, for a total of $35 million. That's good news for the students of the University of Western Ontario.

We have introduced the general education development, GED, for adult learners. We are looking, as the minister said today in reference to a question posed by a colleague of mine from Waterloo, in terms of apprenticeship reform. We recognize the need for technology investment and the need to modernize our apprenticeship system, which is some 30 years old. Again, we have addressed the issue of student assistance, and the whole issue of capital spending, which I alluded to earlier.

Those are but some of the many positive initiatives the Minister of Education and Training in this province has undertaken since June 1995. Those many positive initiatives serve very well as we move into a very difficult period, a very important period, in terms of reforming the education system for this province for the future.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): It has been said repeatedly, and it is clear, that what the government is doing is simply taking control of education to fund their 30% tax cut. They are trying to find savings in education at the expense of our young people and our own future. To improve public education requires more resources, not less. Cuts are being made to special education and junior kindergarten. People who want to make a better life for themselves have lost adult education classes to fund a tax cut. I can tell you, at that price I don't want it.

Of course changes are required, and some of the ideas put forward have merit. It's the atmosphere of blaming the teachers and the agenda of cost-cutting that is poisoning the process of change, so we're facing the possibility of a strike no one wants and no one will gain from.

Bill 160 has been fast-tracked so the government can fulfil its agenda as quickly as possible. This government does not tolerate opposition. It is hoping teachers will lie down and play dead, or in the words of Minister Snobelen, act like reasonable adults, but they cannot go obediently down your road, Minister, if they don't believe in where you are going.

This government has declared war on all fronts, from health care to municipal governance, and now education. I am convinced this government will eventually pay the price, but in the process we will all suffer. Let me assure you, no war is ever fought without casualties, without creating new problems, without destroying values that took years to build. People are trying to tell you that and you are not paying attention. The resulting frustration is understandable.

I have a problem with the government trying to imply that teachers are self-serving in their protest against Bill 160. Teachers are defending the integrity of their profession and the interests of their students. They understand better than most the implications of what the government is proposing.

For instance, the issue of prep time: Few of us appreciate the demands teachers have placed on them. Teachers have tried to explain that a good portion of the work they do for students falls under the prep time category -- class preparation, marking tests, research into new approaches to subject matter, the coordination of resources, counselling of troubled students, colleague support.

A good school is a living thing, a haven for developing minds and young lives in transition. How many of us remember teachers who affected our lives because of their special care and attention when we needed them most?

In taking control of the education system, the government will be poised to destroy a culture. The minister's round table on technology and learning a few months ago suggested that after the basics were learned, students would rely on computers and the Internet to continue their education. But learning is not a mechanical process. Do we imagine we can plant an instructor in front of a group of students, flip a switch and transfer of knowledge takes place? Of course not.

So much of our learning experience depends on the rich and supportive environment that only creative, dynamic and inspired teachers can provide. Those teachers need flexibility to meet the needs of their students with sensitivity. Central control of their schedules and their use of time is counterproductive, yet the government feels it can control quality in this way.

We can make the system better, but only if we approach these discussions with goodwill towards all participants and a clear agenda. The minister's aggressive and confrontational style has now pushed teachers to the wall and we face the very real possibility of a strike. I cannot stress strongly enough that a strike would be a terrible thing for our children. They must not be used as pawns by either teachers or the government, who because of their majority hold all the cards in this debate.

Please, for the sake of the children, I ask the government to engage in this debate in good faith. Reach a compromise with teachers that will answer some of their concerns. We can reach a satisfactory conclusion to this very real crisis through flexibility and an openness to compromise. This is what I call good government, when you can come to a compromise and settle an issue without taking away the rights of our children to be at school and to be educated.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It gives me great honour to stand up today and speak on opposing the motion made by the man from Algoma. In case he wasn't sure what I was going to support, I want to make sure I don't lead him astray.

From the first time we started campaigning previous to the last election, there was concern in the province of Ontario that some things were wrong with the system. The education part of it was one of them. Many, many of our taxpayers have complained bitterly over a long period of time that they didn't feel it was fair that they were paying taxes with no children in the school system, and that was the part of the tax bill that seemed to be already out of control. There was no control on it, it was escalating at a rapid rate and there seemed to be no ability to put the brakes on.

There was a large concern from those people, particularly the middle-aged and the older people who didn't have children in the system. Yes, they don't mind spending good money as long as those children get top-quality education, but I think over the long haul we have seen a lot of companies and we have had a lot of experiences of our own, not just mine or yours but of other people, that said the students weren't achieving the high quality of education.

Going back in my system, in the part of education I was lucky enough to have, and I feel very honoured with what I had, my mother, who only went to high school for one year was able to help me with most of my homework all the way through high school, because she received that kind of an education in that time.

Today, we have backed up on the education system. The system hasn't been able to produce the quality of education and the quality of learning that many of our students need when they work out in the world, particularly in the world of commerce and away from here.

1640

They keep stating on the other side, and some of the teachers, their concerns about unqualified teachers. I don't think too many of us can remember back and listen a little bit about some of the qualified instructors we had. We didn't understand them as teachers. They weren't known as teachers in the days when I went to school. Some of those people who looked after the bands, looked after motor mechanics, looked after some of the arts classes were not qualified teachers. Were they good teachers and instructors? You bet they were. They were of the very best.

No way should we be able to take away the ability when a board needs somebody to come in, when a school needs somebody to come in and put that expertise in there, whether it be in the arts or whether it be in teaching about the new computer age. Those people are great instructors. Yes, they're not qualified teachers. Does the student benefit? Absolutely. As long as we can leave that door open so that those people can come into those things, I think it's very important.

I think the amalgamation of the boards -- I know a lot of people say those dollars were being wasted when you stop and think that in a goodly number of boards 40% of those dollars do not reach the classroom. There's only 60%, in some boards, that is spent in the classroom. That is not high enough. We need a higher quality. We want to make sure the standards that we have there are good enough that those students can come out with the high quality of education they need.

Our Education Improvement Commission, as other speakers have said before me, has studied it and studied it and studied it. It's not that the teachers are wrong; it's the system that's out of gear. We have an awful lot of good teachers in the system, piles of them, and they are to be commended for the amount of work and the hours they put in.

We have students coming into the class today who are a lot different from when you and I went to school, because the students come from homes that are of a lot of different backgrounds than what the standard home was in our time. I'm saying that those teachers need all the support in that class that they can have. Maybe we need to have smaller classes. We want to make sure that the teachers and the unions are not able to bargain away the number of teachers in their class. Those things have to have a cap put on to make sure they stay.

We hear from the opposition continually that $1 billion is being removed from the system. In my time in this House, the only person I continually hear talk about a further $1-billion reduction from education is the member from Thunder Bay. Pretty near every day she talks about the $1 billion that's being taken out of the education system. The minister doesn't say it, nobody else says it, but that's the rhetoric we hear. It's not a fair thing to let the teachers know and let the people here in the province know that they are going to take another $1 billion out of the education system, when in fact it's only a hearsay number and it's not been said by either our minister or our Premier.

The College of Teachers is something that we as a government felt very strongly about. We thought that the College of Teachers should be put in place so that it can govern and listen to and judge their own people and to listen to see that those people meet the standards that they themselves would set and be part of. They were very reluctant to do that. I think the unions wanted the teachers not to allow that. I don't think it was as much the teachers' position that didn't want the College of Teachers as it was the union position. They felt the union could do that with its own agenda.

The thing about prep time: I delved into a little bit of the secondary school system. We have five classes in a day, of which one is made up of lunch. You have four classes left, of which one is a prep class. So we're teaching basically in the high schools three classes a day of about 73 or 75 minutes. If we add another 30 minutes to that school time per day, it doesn't seem like a lot of time, which is another 10 minutes on three different classes. That doesn't seem to be a lot of time for most people, when you say, "Have you got a couple of minutes to do something?" I don't think 10 minutes is a very long time to ask people to be there.

Are we short-changing our students when we take away from them and ask them to go to school only 185 days a year when they've got to compete with other students around the world who have in excess of 200 days? I think it's only fair that we can ask the teachers to bring up the standard, to move closer to the 200-day year. When you take 20 days a year out of a student's life, from the time they start until the time they finish, that's some 12 years that they go to school, it adds more than one full year of class. I don't think it's fair that a student is asked to compete in the world market today, out on the street, if they have been short-changed of having an instructor in front of them by at least a year.

Student achievement is extremely high and I think we have some excellent people, we have some very bright students, right at the very top of the whole list around the world. Those students are the ones who will make it on their own. They're the people who can make it, but it's the middle-of-the-road people we've got to be able to look after and manage. The vast majority of us fit into the middle of the road -- not at the top, not at the bottom, but in the middle. Those people are being squeezed out and we've got to make sure those people receive that extra few hours of instruction per day, per year and all along the board.

I had the pleasure of doing a television show and met a person by the name of Bob Bonisteel. He's a teacher who has been very involved in Teachers for Excellence. It's something that was started in British Columbia by a lady who was a teacher. She felt that the teaching system had got out of gear and there wasn't enough excellence towards teaching to be put in together. He has become the representative of that group in Ontario. He started out a couple of years ago. There was only him to start with. He's now in a group of over 400. He agrees mostly with the things that this bill is trying to do because he realizes the thing that is most important at the end of the day is that the student, the end product of our education system, receives the best possible education in the system.

One of the other things we've had a lot of problems with is that we've got a system where it's not very even. We've got assessments in eastern Ontario -- particularly in my riding -- that are extremely low. We don't spend the dollars per student they do in some other areas. We're down around $5,400 a year per student and that is at the low end. Can our students in my riding of Quinte expect to have the same education as a riding that is spending somewhere over $7,000? I don't think they can. We need to have the balancing of that field. I think that by taking the tax base the way we have, bringing it back down so we can put it a little bit more evenly across the province, we can establish a system where we can guarantee that the students in my riding or in any other small riding in Ontario will at least have an equal opportunity.

What we've got to be able to do is to make sure the people in the Ontario and that student in Ontario, regardless of whether they're paying a fair share of tax, receive a fair share of education. We've got to have a qualified teacher, we've got to have a qualified system and we've got to produce a qualified product.

I know our students don't need to be short-changed and it irritates me to no end to think that they say all the teachers are that way. I can tell you that in my office the phone calls are coming in at about 10 to 1 in support of what we're trying to do, teachers who phone me and say: "I'm embarrassed to picket your office, I'm embarrassed to be there, but don't hold it against me. I have to be there because the union wants me to."

Laughter.

Mr Rollins: If you don't want to hear it, I'll give you a tape of it. You can sit there and laugh about it but that's the truth. That's exactly what happens. Those are the kind of things that the people are afraid of. I think that's the kind of system --

Mr Wildman: I noticed that in Maple Leaf Gardens there were an awful lot of embarrassed people there. At last 20,000 were embarrassed.

Mr Rollins: The thing of it is, it's the same as the big crowd that was down there the other night. I'm sure that all 24,000 of them were teachers. I'm sure there wasn't.

Interjection.

Mr Rollins: Most of them.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): We didn't see you there.

Mr Rollins: I missed you too.

Mr Pouliot: We were there.

Mr Rollins: They were there. I think these are the kind of things that we hear back in the ridings and these are the kinds of things that as members of Parliament, in trying to make a better system -- is it the worst system in the world? No, it is not. Is it a fair system? Yes, but with a lot of broken parts in it and we want to make it better. With the things this bill will do, will it guarantee my grandchildren and the future grandchildren in this province the quality of education they are being charged for and being paid for and deserve to have.

1650

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I'm pleased to join in this debate with respect to the opposition day motion that's being presented by the third party with respect to Bill 160. I stand here as a former trustee and as a parent who is active in his community and in his school, who ended up chairing his school advisory committee, who ended up going to school board meetings, thinking I could do better than those turkeys and becoming one of the turkeys, and so I was elected in 1982 to the Ottawa Board of Education and served until 1988.

That has been, I must say, one of the best experiences in my own political life. I've served on city council, I've served on regional council, I've only been in this chamber for less than a month or for about a month, but I can tell you that my time on the school board was one of my best times, the reason being that those people who work in the education system work to provide a level of service work for the public good.

Everyone agrees that education is a good thing, and we all may disagree on the techniques, on the approaches, on the priorities. I discovered in my time as a trustee that everybody is an expert on education, but very few people actually go into the classroom.

My experience back then was a very positive experience, because I believe I was working for the good of the community, for the welfare of our children.

This bill, Bill 160, An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size, is utterly repugnant to me.

If we were only talking about class size -- but there's no mention of what class size is going to be -- if we were only going to talk about the length of the school year -- but we've seen the minister flip-flop on school year -- then perhaps we might have a decent discussion, different points of view about what is best for our community.

What this bill does is take away the ability of the local community to work with their own resources and to meet local needs, to work with the teachers, the parents, the educators and come up with something that meets their children's needs. That is being taken away from all, throughout all of Ontario, and it's being vested in the hands of a body, of a minister, who is going to go via fiat, make these pronouncements and affect the working conditions, and when we say working conditions of teachers, we're obviously talking about the learning conditions of children. We're going to affect the learning conditions of children, affect their ability to provide service and take away a parent's ability to control that.

People speak on the other side that parents will have an ability to manage what is left in terms of the classroom. Well, good luck. What this does is it removes the professionalism in the classroom by permitting -- I have to say Egerton Ryerson would today roll over in his grave to see a government such as this take away professional qualifications for people who will then be standing in front of a classroom dealing with our young. This is totally, totally wrong. We want to have the best kind of people there.

I don't have enough time to talk about all the issues that find me in absolute opposition to this bill, this power grab that's solely designed to take money out of the classroom, but I have here yesterday's editorial from the Ottawa Citizen, "How to Avert a Teacher's Strike," and it's in two parts. One speaks to the Ontario teachers' unions, "Levelling with the Public," and it takes a strip off the teachers' hide. The other is a memo to the Premier, and it says here, "Fire Mr Snobelen."

I have to tell you that I agree with Conrad Black's paper here, the Ottawa Citizen, the major paper in my community. They are completely right. This absolute power grab, this absolute trying to set, from Toronto, a one size fits all policy -- do you know that the provincial average for spending on education per pupil is around $6,000? I think you know that.

What is it in Ottawa-Carleton? It's around $8,000. What's going to happen when you take that money down? What's going to happen to the kids with learning disability? It ain't all administrative costs, let me tell you. That's less than $800 out of the $8,000. So kids with learning disability, our vocational schools, our art schools, our ability to provide specialized programming, all go out the window to meet this provincial average.

This is money that taxpayers in Ottawa-Carleton were willing to pay, using the democratic process, to set those standards because we haven't received any public funding for more than four years. It's all come from the local property tax base, all democratically elected. You're taking that ability away from them and it's wrong.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): It's certainly my pleasure to rise today and speak to this motion. I think education is one of those issues all of us have a particular concern about, whether we are here as a parent, whether we're here as a former teacher, whether we're here as a concerned citizen. But I think that there are a number of extremely important issues that this motion raises for us.

Very clearly, the government has made its commitment to quality classroom education. When you look at the experience we have had in this province over the past few years, it becomes very clear that quality classroom education is the critical piece in providing a successful experience for our children.

There are a number of issues and I have time to hit on a couple of those. One of them has to do with the issue of cost. According to the Sweeney report and regardless of how the Sweeney report considered what was inside the classroom, it became clear there was a tremendous discrepancy in the amount of money that was spent in the classroom.

Sweeney identified 10 boards with the lowest percentage of classroom spending, at around 54%. That suggests to us then that just over half the dollar went to the classroom. The 10 boards with the highest per cent of spending were at 67%. So not only are we seeing the fact that there is an enormous discrepancy in the amount of money that goes to the classroom, this clearly suggests a tremendous inequity.

One of the previous speakers identified the amount that is spent on a per student basis, but in our allocation model it becomes very clear that money is directed. It goes to the classroom. The foundation grant that becomes the base for the allocation model means that all of those major issues that are found in the classroom, whether it's the teacher, the teaching assistant, preparation time, textbooks and supplies, classroom computers and other resources, including librarians and guidance counsellors and the school-based administration, the become part of that foundation grant.

There are other special grants, and many speakers today have tried to suggest the spectre of decreased funding for special education and the kinds of cuts that have been imposed on boards or on classrooms across the province. This speaks directly to the need for this kind of special purpose funding that would allow and ensure that every child across the province has access to those same dollars.

I think that the issue then of classroom spending is a critical part of this whole legislative initiative.

One of the other areas we hear a great deal about is the question of limiting class size. It has become clear that the way in which the funding has been done traditionally has allowed boards to determine class size regardless of the kinds of merit to smaller classes, regardless of making sure those dollars flow to those classes.

There's also been a history of a great deal of confusion regarding what is the pupil-teacher ratio in this province, a number that might suggest, say, 17 students per teacher, but in fact you can't find a classroom that has those numbers. We have to look at what is a much more accountable system, where we're looking at average class size as opposed to a pupil-teacher ratio number that is totally misleading.

1700

One of the other areas that has been given a great deal of attention is the question of focusing on teachers' expertise in the classroom. The Education Improvement Commission provided us with information regarding the number of hours spent in the classroom in comparison to other jurisdictions. I think something that is overlooked in all of this discussion is the fact that teachers began teaching because they wanted to teach, not because they wanted a great host of other responsibilities. If we look at the non-teaching burden that has been placed on teachers by their own administration, by boards, it has increased tremendously. I think the EIC recommendation of increasing the amount of time spent in the classroom allows us, to look at some of those increased non-teaching responsibilities.

One of the other areas that I think of as part of this is the fact that teachers wear many hats today. Society has come to see the classroom teacher as someone who can deliver a great many of society's responsibilities, whether they are quasi-parents, whether they're taking on the role of a psychologist, whether they are doing many more functions than what we regard as strictly classroom responsibility. I think it's in recognition of those kinds of things that we need to look at the opportunity and in fact the need to provide other people in the school setting.

We have a long tradition of teaching assistants and parent volunteers, certainly in various specialty areas. I know in my own experience that the art teachers would have potters and people like that come in and provide opportunities for students that they wouldn't otherwise have. We've also seen opportunities for sexual assault counselling and, again, very specialized areas that certainly go to aid the student and speak directly to the need for that kind of access to specialists that students today require. Some of those issues speak directly to a very long history of the kinds of problems we have in our system today.

A number of speakers have raised issues about the possibility of any impact in terms of the numbers of teachers. I think it would be interesting to have a look at the most recent edition produced by the Ontario College of Teachers. In their September issue, one of their lead articles says, "Teachers' career prospects are much brighter as the new century dawns." In this, they provide a number of examples of the pessimism that surrounds the profession today and what are in fact the increasing numbers of retirements, the natural attrition and the opportunities for our young people in this profession. They make a couple of statements that I think are worthy of our attention. One of them is that "It's time for the word on the street to catch up with this swing in demand for new teachers." So there are certainly some opportunities, as they proceed to identify for us.

One of the areas I would like to close on here is to come back to what is essentially driving this, and that is simply the need to provide quality classroom education for our children and grandchildren. The minister and the Premier have made it very clear that the allocation model is designed to make sure the money that is necessary will be there.

We recognize that there are many adjustments that have to be made to be able to come up with a fairer funding system. There are adjustments to be made that will make sure that our teachers do have opportunity within their classrooms, which is, as I mentioned, where they have looked at the fact that they have had this ongoing and tremendous burden of responsibility well beyond the classroom.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that we are looking at many of the issues that have been raised by this resolution and remain committed to the classroom of the future.

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

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to join this debate. I will be voting in favour of the resolution.

The resolution states quite clearly that the government ought to withdraw Bill 160, and we on this side of the House certainly can't differ with that sentiment. There is no question in my mind that the government's intention has nothing to do with improving educational quality. It has everything to do with finding $1 billion in order to fund the tax cut that they've promised and committed to all of their friends.

The idea of restoring the right to local school boards and teachers' federations to negotiate local quality learning conditions, how can you disagree with that? I believe that the government, in its attempts to find efficiencies, will in fact create inefficiencies in attempting to centralize the governance of education.

I did a quick check with our city clerk today and found that in many wards in our city no candidates have filed to run for school board. The government's creating a large, centralized bureaucracy. Whether you live in Windsor or Thunder Bay or Napanee, you're going to have to deal directly with Toronto instead of your local officials, and your local officials won't be able to respond to the needs of your community without first getting permission from Big Brother in Toronto. The chances of that Big Brother governing education in this province well and efficiently are slim to none, and certainly in my view they will not be able to ensure a quality education that's driven by local needs and concerns.

The request to make public the new funding formula and the exact dollar amounts only makes sense, and we can only assume that the government has refused to make those figures public because it doesn't want people to know in their own communities how much is being cut out of their schools, what's being taken away. Is it going to be teachers? The minister says 4,400 at least. The teachers' federations say 10,000. Whom do we believe? I'd take the teachers' federations over the government any day on those numbers.

This was the government that wasn't going to close hospitals. This was the government that wasn't going to take money away from local policing. This was the government that wasn't going to affect classroom education in a dollar-and-cents manner. So I'd believe their numbers certainly before I'd believe the government's numbers.

We ought to focus on issues of education quality and education improvement, and we ought to involve teachers, we ought to involve parents and we ought to involve students. It only makes good sense. Instead, once again we have a government that's intent on creating confrontation, on drawing a line in the sand and saying, "It's us versus them." We think it should be all of us working together to improve classroom education for our students today and into the future.

I can understand the government's consternation for this resolution, understanding full well that Dave Cooke is the author of much of what this government's doing in the field of education. Mr Cooke has been consistent from his days in government. He's been consistent about school boards. He had no use for them, wanted to reduce school boards. I remember that very clearly. I remember he appointed Tom Wells in Essex county to study the Essex county board's reconfiguration. Mr Wells came out with an opinion that didn't agree with Mr Cooke's and he went ballistic. He didn't accept Mr Wells's conclusions because he felt, as the NDP government did, that there ought to be fewer school boards, there ought to be more central control.

1710

We can certainly understand the NDP's desire to return to a system of free collective bargaining, a system that was taken away under the social contract. I remember full well the impassioned pleas of the member for Welland-Thorold when that government introduced the social contract, the labour government that stripped collective agreements, the government of working people that took it upon itself to undermine the very tenets of free collective bargaining. I remember those days very well.

I remember just weeks ago Mr Cooke saying that teachers ought to get real. My goodness, he was just sitting over there not long ago. We've seen it, haven't we, a complete chameleon. They're wearing a different skin now. Gone is the party that stripped contracts. Gone is the Minister of Education who argued passionately for reduced school boards. Gone is the Minister of Education who wanted to reform classroom education. Where has that NDP minister gone? He's gone to help the current government.

Understandably, the government doesn't quite know what to do about this resolution. They were colleagues until a mere several months ago. The member for Windsor-Riverside had Mr Cooke's picture on his Web page, saying what a great job he had done, what a great job he did in closing down school boards and stripping collective agreements.

We will vote for this resolution, but we can understand the government's consternation at the party of chameleons, as the former NDP Minister of Education gives the government advice and guidance on how to deal with educational questions in this province. We can certainly understand your confusion, but we have to vote for the resolution none the less.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm very pleased to join the opposition day debate today calling on the Harris government "to withdraw Bill 160...to restore the right to local school boards and teachers' federations to negotiate local, quality learning conditions for Ontario students." I look forward to supporting this resolution later this afternoon.

Much has been said inside this Legislature and outside, at the many rallies that have been held over the past week or so, about the quality of our education system and the extraordinarily important role teachers play in the lives of the children of this province.

Despite Minister Snobelen's insulting attitude towards our teachers, I believe the people of this province have the highest regard for those who take up this challenging, onerous, yet remarkably satisfying profession.

For my part, and I'm sure this is true for all members of the Legislature, my life was very positively affected by the people who taught me. They inspired me, they encouraged me, they sometimes criticized me, but I think they saw something in me, for which I will be forever grateful. I want to use my remarks today, if I may, as a tribute to teachers and as a positive reflection of the influence they have and how we need to treat them with great respect.

One doesn't get a chance very often in life to thank those people, but today I want to acknowledge some of them, some of them living, some of them deceased, but all of them passionately devoted to the art of teaching. When I think back on my school years and how they developed my life, I think of Sister Aloysius in grade 1, the first and last person to give me a strapping, and I think I learned a lesson from that. I think of Miss Stewart in grade 2, a tough disciplinarian but a wonderful model for me; Miss Kruzel, who taught me the love of music -- she's now Mrs Seerik -- in grades 3 and 4; Miss Halford, now a good friend of mine; June Baker in Thunder Bay, and teaching English as a second language in Japan, my grade 5 teacher. I think of Mr Joe Baratta in grade 7, who taught me how to throw a football -- a tremendous man. The influence of these people in my life was extraordinary.

I think of my high school teachers: Mr Stinson, who taught me a true love of literature; Ms Campbell, again music; Mr Merritt in science; and Harry Smith, a legend of history classes at Port Arthur Collegiate Institute.

These people devoted their lives to helping me and so many others grow up believing in ourselves, and I think that's so important. I don't believe any of those people are still teaching today, but there are so many others who are hurt and outraged by this government's attack on the teaching profession, and those are people I know very well, people like my sister, Susan Houghton, presently a guidance counsellor at R.L. Graham Public School in Keswick.

I spoke to my sister today and I asked her how she felt about this horrible situation, and I asked her what I could say on her behalf and on behalf of so many of the other fine people who work in our education system. My sister, Susan Houghton, born Susan Gravelle in Thunder Bay -- she taught in Thunder Bay, North Bay and, for the past 10 years, in York region -- asked me to quote her directly. Speaker, with your indulgence, that's exactly what I will do. This is what my sister said:

"I'm passionately committed to my profession. It would be easy to be overwhelmed by the constant negative barrage of derogatory comments by the education minister, the feeling of being bullied and harassed, all of which we, my peers, try to redirect our students from on a daily basis.

"In our school, we value open and positive communication, mutual respect and learning.

"Why am I qualified to do this work, Mr Snobelen?"

"Well, the fact is my education, my life experiences and my willingness and desire to continually upgrade my professional skills allow me to be a qualified guidance counsellor today.

"I teach, I counsel children and families. I support my peers. I search for community partnerships that will nurture students, partnerships like a breakfast program" -- every day she is there by 7 am -- "a school and school council partnership, early intervention service workshops, the Blue Hills child and family services program, and parenting courses."

My sister Susan goes on:

"I am but one voice and my commitment to the children is matched and surpassed by many teachers across the province. And yes, Mr Snobelen, since I'm going to be 50 years old this coming October 13, I guess that in your eyes I am now defined as elderly. But does that in fact mean that I should be viewed as no longer useful and therefore worthless as a teacher? Because, Minister, that's the message you send every day."

Obviously I know and love my sister, and let me tell you, her energy and enthusiasm are remarkable, so on behalf of Susan Houghton, her colleagues in York region and all the teachers, students and parents that I so proudly represent in my home town of Thunder Bay, I call upon this government to withdraw Bill 160 and give teachers the respect they deserve.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?

Mr Spina: In the one minute that we have left for our portion of this debate, I am pleased to offer a comment, and I am pleased that your previous substitute saw fit not to remove me from the Legislature.

I was looking at the motion from the party leader and I really had a problem with the first part. It said that the provincial government intends to take a further $1 billion away from the education of the children. That's not true. The reason it isn't true is that they claim the first $1 billion was already removed from the system. Not so. The first $400 million or $500 million was removed in 1995. Any further reductions were deferred, were scrapped entirely because it was felt that restructuring the system was a greater priority. That was the objective and that still is the objective of this government: to help the system restructure and become a more effective system, because the teachers have not failed the system, the system has failed the teachers.

1720

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I don't know if it is pleasurable to speak on this, but I wanted to grab this opportunity to support this opposition day motion that is before us. I think it's well-timed and deserving of all the support of members. Now is the time that the opposition, the government people and the back bench are able to express themselves openly and vote for this motion.

We know what this bill is all about, the concern of this government. It's about $1 billion taken out of the education system. Now they're cornered. The bottom line is they need the $1 billion because they want to balance the budget, as they would put it, or to give this money to their rich little friends outside there. It has nothing to do with education. As a matter of fact, the only part about education is to destroy education in its form just because of the blindsided way they look at things.

We know that this is all about power, too. Their legislation on education is about power, to control everything. It started, as you remember, with Bill 26. This bill, Bill 160, as we know it, is the son of Bill 26, the big bully bill. This is the schoolyard bully bill now, that decided to gut education.

A couple of days ago I was down at Maple Leaf Gardens. Those who missed the 24,000 people, who were not a part of that -- I didn't see one Tory member there. It's unfortunate they did not represent any of their teachers within their constituencies, who came to give a very clear message to the government: first, that they don't like to strike. They don't like illegal strikes. What they want is a good education for their students, and they will fight for that. I commend them for doing that. But not one Conservative member was there. I had hoped that I would see one or two of them who would have the moral guts to say, "I would not like our education system to be gutted by that $1-billion power grab," that their government is about. You could say that in a gentle way. They did not say that.

I want to say I do support this motion. I welcome this motion. It's a good opportunity in which to do so. Many opportunities were given to this government. Today teachers met with the minister. We thought that somehow he would have seen the light and then sat down with these teachers, but before he got there his boss, the big bully, Mike Harris, told him that he will not negotiate with teachers because they don't set any policies. He knows what is right. It's unfortunate we don't live in a democratic society where we can all participate, where we can see laws that reflect us. Teachers and students would be able to say, "That law reflects us," especially in education.

My constituency is one of the most culturally diverse communities, I would say, in this country. Today I went to the opening of a school, the breaking of ground. There were 200 students there from junior kindergarten to grade 7. I saw almost 50 different nationalities there. What this government is doing is they would like, they say, to get rid of all the teachers, slide them out of the system so we can get younger teachers in, with less experience. We need more experience with this diversity. But this government, which is blind about what they want to do -- all they want to do is grab $1 billion out of the system, the grab of power to show who has the strength. I would say to you that we will come to a point in time when people will replace you all.

I'm in strong support of this resolution today. I hope that many of those backbenchers will get an opportunity to do so too.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I too would like to join in support of the resolution and just say to the public that what we are witnessing in Ontario in the education system has the potential to do irreparable damage to our quality of life in Ontario.

I used to be chairman of the Scarborough school board; I was chairman of the Metro school board for four years. I can guarantee you that one of the reasons Metropolitan Toronto has worked so well -- and it is, by all accounts, a model of urban living certainly in North America, if not the world -- is because of the quality of education. You can live in any neighbourhood in Metropolitan Toronto and be assured that your local school offers quality education.

I've been with a Conservative member, Mr Gilchrist, who says we're spending far too much money on the schools in Metro Toronto, the city of Toronto is out of control, we have to get control of this. We have never seen a government that is grabbing control like Mike Harris's. He now has complete control of the education system. I will say to the people of Ontario and the area that I happen to represent in Metropolitan Toronto that this government is going to do serious damage to our neighbourhoods across Ontario and the neighbourhoods I know well, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto.

People say, "Well, how do you know he wants to grab $1 billion?" He spelled it out. Mike Harris spelled it out in the Common Sense Revolution. They're planning to cut -- this is the revolution -- $1.5 billion from education: $500 million from post-secondary and $1 billion from elementary and secondary schools.

I hope the public understands the fight we're in here. It is a fight around the quality of education, and the government is provoking a fight with our teachers; I think an unnecessary fight. What the fight is all about is that Mike Harris wants to get his hands on substantial cuts in expenditures for education that have nothing to do with the quality of education in our schools. Why it's so serious, and I say this again, is that I can guarantee you that one of the plans is to gut the quality of education in Metropolitan Toronto and to gut the support. Many of our schools in Metropolitan Toronto require special assistance. They have unique needs in their communities -- needs around many new Canadians, needs around inner-city schools. We have been fortunate in Metropolitan Toronto that we have been able to provide the resources in those schools. Mike Harris is all about taking those resources away.

I'm with the teachers on this. I know their backs are to the wall. The last thing they want is a strike, for a whole variety of reasons. They understand the inconvenience to the public. They understand that students are put in a difficult spot here. But what are they to do? The government will not listen. The government will not listen to reason. The government is imposing changes, changes they never said before the election they would impose.

This is the next step in this revolution, this so-called Common Sense Revolution. I think the people of Ontario are now seeing the cold, hard face of the revolution, whether it be in our health care system, where now people are finding the emergency wards simply can't handle them, or whether it be in dumping social costs on to property tax, which nobody thinks makes sense. Dave Crombie, whom Mike Harris handpicked to study this, said, "Don't dump social housing," but Mike Harris decided to do that. Why? Because he wants to pick a fight in the educational system and this allows him to get complete control of education.

I will say to the people of Ontario that for the whole history of Ontario we have selected local people to ensure that we have a local sensitivity in our schools. What's happening is that Mike Harris now has complete control over our schools. He controls the budget, he controls the working conditions for our teachers -- and by the way, that has always been bargained. Now Mike Harris wants to, with the stroke of a pen, say, "No longer, teachers, will you be allowed to have a say in working conditions." I know from experience that many times the teachers have given up salary increases for smaller class sizes, but that will not be an option. Mike Harris now has his hands completely on our education system. That's a bad mistake.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I appreciate this opportunity to speak in opposition to Bill 160.

When Minister Snobelen introduced the bill, on September 22, he issued a direct challenge to the Ontario teachers. He proposed to reduce education funding, teachers' preparation time and professional development days, while also increasing class sizes and the number of non-qualified instructors, in exchange for increased government control over the public education system.

In response to this challenge, parents and teachers from across Ontario have made phone calls, faxed our offices, written letters and petitions, and met with members of the Legislature in an attempt to try to get the government to slow down and listen to the residents of Ontario.

In the greater Cornwall area, residents have expressed anger and frustration over this piece of legislation a number of times. A note from Mrs Betty Eadie, president of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Women Teachers' Association, states: "A great deal of money has already been taken from the education system. To cut an additional billion dollars will hurt the classroom and it will affect the quality of publicly funded education in Ontario." Mrs Eadie continues: "We are deeply concerned about class sizes increasing, the use of unqualified people as teachers in the classroom, and the lack of resources available to schools. Cheaper will not be better."

A local teacher, Ms Francis Webb, writes, "The proposed changes will not only undermine the quality of education in this province, but will also cause long-term effects impossible to measure" at this time.

In addition to telephone calls and letters of concern, Cornwall area residents have expressed their opposition to Bill 160 through many rallies and protests as we saw here on September 25 at 12 pm.

Minister, teachers in my area, as well as the rest of Ontario, now feel that there is no option but to strike in reaction to this offensive legislation. Mrs Ariane Carriere, president of the SD&G Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association states, "If teachers go on strike, it will be to protect a system of education that we care about deeply. If teachers go on strike, it will be as a last resort."

Residents of the greater Cornwall area demand that you withdraw this legislation. The quality of Ontario's public education system must not be sacrificed in order to meet your fiscal goals.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have only a few minutes, but I want to oppose Bill 160 for a number of reasons.

I can tell you that I was disappointed today when the minister was asked to report to this House what had happened this morning between the teachers -- the syndicate -- and the ministry. The minister didn't want to oblige, didn't want to tell us how close they were to preventing this strike, a strike that nobody wants.

As you know, teachers have been blamed for a number of things in this province for maybe too long and now the government is determined to go ahead. Now that they've closed hospitals and they're going ahead with closing schools and amalgamating municipalities, they're doing this with one thing in mind, and that's to balance their budget. As you know, they have to pick up the money somewhere to satisfy their $5-billion-a-year tax cut that is given to the rich people, and that's one way of doing it.

I think it's impossible, by cutting back the Ministry of Education -- they've already cut back $533 million and they intend to cut an additional $1 billion. How can this minister, how can this government improve the quality of education in Ontario by cutting back 5,000 or 10,000 teachers and limiting the number of students per classroom? It's impossible to do.

As I said only last week, this government is supposed to create 12 additional French-language school boards and I'm just wondering where they're going to get the money to do this. Now that they want to control the taxation part of education at the municipal level, it will be practically impossible. What they are doing is impoverishing not only the public school system, but they're impoverishing the separate school system.

This government started out by creating a crisis in education. Now they're provoking the teachers in the province and they're not doing anything to prevent a strike. Naturally it's easy to blame the teachers. Mr Harris and the minister are saying: "They're overpaid. They can't be trusted with the agenda of education." How can we resolve the possibility of a strike when teachers are being provoked not only by the minister, but also by the Premier of this province? I think it's unfair.

I think there is room for negotiation. Right now the government wants to cut back preparation time by 50%, and it can be negotiated.

I just want to say that what we are about to vote on is very important, and I am totally against Bill 160.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): It's ironic that yesterday marked World Teachers' Day. That very same day this government celebrated by shafting education to a terrific extent. They rammed through Bill 160 despite growing opposition.

We know that teachers have rallied all over the province, some 90,000 strong. Parents have demonstrated. Students have been frustrated and have engaged in a number of demonstrations. In Toronto alone we've had 25,000 teachers, an unprecedented number, fill Maple Leaf Gardens to the rafters to protest the activities of this government.

Parents, I think, have been the angriest. I was quite struck this morning by an article in the Toronto Star about Annie Kidder, who is one of the founders of Parents for Education, a group, by the way, that was formed because this government would not listen to parents. She talks about the 20 pages of notes she made about this piece of legislation. Imagine a parent taking the time to write 20 pages of notes and finding this piece of legislation wanting, undemocratic and contrary to the interests of children.

Students have taken to the streets again. Articles have abounded of school after school that has had children, here and elsewhere, walk out to protest the kind of activities this government has foisted on them. They are worried that education is not the issue at all.

I'd like to read to you a letter, or parts of it, from the secondary students' association. They are very forceful in stating:

"Students are particularly opposed to the reduction of teacher preparation time which will result in teachers having less time to prepare for classes, participate in extracurricular activities or provide extra help for students.

"We are also concerned with the speed with which the bill is being passed through the Legislature. We feel that more time should be allotted for consultation with all concerned parties, including students."

That's a refrain we've heard over and over again: You're going too far, you're going too fast, you're not listening to anybody and you make mistakes, and trust me, this is a big one you've made here.

Why? Time is very short. One could go on at great length with respect to this, but the main reason is that Bill 160 is an authoritarian piece of legislation. It would take away from communities the right to determine the kind of education their children need and vest all the powers in the cabinet, in the Minister of Education, in the Premier to do all manner of things by regulation; determining class sizes, determining who could teach, determining what kind of special education there would be. It is an unprecedented grab of power, once again, for this government.

The worry is that this has nothing to do with education, but in the guise of reform, what the government is really trying to do is take $1 billion out of education, away from our children, and give it to the wealthiest people in this province. You're becoming inured to this. You say, "Oh yes, we've heard this before." But isn't it the truth? How long does it take for us to repeat the message? How many times do we have to do it until you finally get it through your heads that what you're doing is damaging, what you're doing is pandering to your own and what you're doing is causing children in this province to suffer? What's more, you're playing with our future, because it is in education where lies a promise of progress for Ontario and for Canada. Quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I only want to say one more thing, and I will give the last word again to the students. The Ontario secondary school students' federation reminds us, "The needs of the students must not be compromised and our education must not suffer." Pay attention to that message. It will come back to haunt you if you don't.

1740

Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Tout d'abord je veux dire que c'est impossible pour moi d'appuyer ce genre de projet de loi. Si on regarde ce qui c'est déjà passé avec d'autres projets de loi, le gouvernement a certainement quelque chose de caché dans ce projet de loi. Regardons ce que vont devenir les petites écoles en Ontario.

Nous savons qu'avec ce projet de loi, le gouvernement aura le pouvoir, le ministre aura le pouvoir de fermer de petites écoles secondaires. Quand je dis _fermer de petites écoles_, c'est que nous regardons ce qui est arrivé avec de petites municipalités. Nous avons procédé à l'amalgamation des municipalités et aujourd'hui on a dit que c'était pour réduire les coûts d'administration. Vous verrez dans trois, quatre ans.

Maintenant nous allons amalgamer les petites écoles secondaires de langue française surtout dans le secteur rural. Qu'adviendra-t-il aux écoles d'Embrun et de Rockland ? Est-ce que nous allons avoir une fusion avec les écoles de Plantagenet et de Casselman ? Personne ne le sait, mais tout cela voudra dire un transport additionnel pour les étudiants. De plus en plus, nous entendons dire que le gouvernement voudrait donner la responsabilité du transport scolaire aux municipalités. C'est à venir.

Chers amis, lorsqu'on regarde dans le domaine des cours spécialisés dans nos écoles, est-ce que nous allons avoir les moyens nécessaires pour avoir en place le personnel pour donner ces cours ? Nous savons que dans le secteur rural, nous avons toujours un grand besoin de ce service. Aucune vision pédagogique chez ce gouvernement.

Donc, dans ce cas-ci je crois que nous devons tous être contre ce projet de loi. Je regarde et je vois que le gouvernement est définitivement en train de réduire par 1 $ milliard la contribution dans le secteur scolaire. Encore une fois, c'est quelque chose qu'il faut regarder.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I appreciate the opportunity to wind up debate on our opposition motion today, an opposition motion on education. For those people who may be wondering why an opposition motion on education, it's very clear that we are headed for a confrontation in this province. We are very likely headed to a situation where teachers across this province will be forced out on strike, and I want to underline why that is happening. I want to underline this government's course of action with respect to education over the last two years.

The first thing the Minister of Education did, just weeks after being sworn in, was to tell Ministry of Education officials that they had to find a way to create a crisis in education, that he could not justify tearing the education system down unless he could find a way of creating a crisis. Some agenda.

Then the Minister of Education launched a persistent and a consistent campaign to create that crisis by badmouthing teachers across the province, by badmouthing our schools, by calling our students mediocre. In the process, he lost the trust of parents, students, teachers, support staff and anyone else who cares about the quality of education. But that doesn't bother him. He has clearly had his eye on the ball throughout this in terms of the media, in terms of repeating a message over and over every day. He has consistently and persistently for two years repeated that message: "There is a crisis in education. The system is broken. We are the caboose of the train. Ontario students are mediocre." The message has been repeated by this Minister of Education in dozens of ways.

He wasn't happy, though, with that. He wasn't happy belittling an educational system that, as even the Premier says, as even the Minister of Finance said at a speech at Harvard University, has resulted in Ontario having one of the best-educated and most skilled workforces in the world. That's what they've had to say when they go abroad, when they go to the United States or they go to Europe.

He wasn't happy with belittling the system and belittling the efforts of people who have worked in this system. No. He goes out and he rigs up a statistically flawed study that claims that Ontario teachers' salaries and Ontario student-teacher ratios have led to vastly higher costs for education here than in other jurisdictions. That was the study he released. Anybody who knows anything about educational finance, anybody who has looked at educational finance and looked at this study, laughed at it because it was so completely absurd. But it was part of the Minister of Education's strategy to promote the crisis, or at least promote the image of a crisis.

He wasn't done there. He hired his own personal lawyer, a lawyer who one day before he was appointed was looking after some of the minister's private property -- he appointed his own personal lawyer to go out and do a study of teachers' collective bargaining and to run around the province and rattle the sabre about removing the right to strike from teachers.

Then it goes on from there. In an effort to highlight his own financial focus on education, he then started putting out the trial balloon of taking close to $1 billion out of the teachers' pension fund and finding a way through that to reduce the number of teachers in the system.

Then he accused teachers of refusing to participate in training sessions on his so-called new curriculum. When people in the media investigated the situation, they found there wasn't enough room in the sessions for all the teachers to attend. No matter, though, because this minister really doesn't care about a new curriculum. Anybody who cared about a new curriculum would not only announce the curriculum but would announce the financing and the materials to implement it. We don't have the financing; we don't have the materials. It's all part of this continuing spin.

But it doesn't end there. He then sent ministry officials to talks with teacher federation representatives with a non-negotiable bottom line. He said, "This is the government's agenda." They want the best system they can get for the least money. That's the government's agenda, that's the government's real agenda -- the least money, set that framework, but then, given the least money, what's the best you can do with the least money?

That's where we've gotten to today. This is a government that has taken over $1 billion, if you annualize it, out of the system already and virtually no part of the educational system has been able to avoid those cuts. Junior kindergarten, senior kindergarten, early childhood education in general, education for adults who are returning, special education across the province have been harmed. Classrooms have grown and you can find it in virtually any community. I've been in a couple of classrooms myself where you have in excess of 35 grade 1 students in a classroom. Classroom size is growing -- 29, 31, 33, 35. Just this last year the Minister of Education said there would be no further cuts to education. What he didn't mention was that with the growth in population, with some of the other factors that are in the system, merely by freezing the budgets he's forcing boards to cut $350 million.

1750

Over $1 billion has been taken from the system already. This is the Minister of Education who a year ago, September 17, at the Conservative caucus's retreat at Vineland came out and announced to the media he intended to take a further $1 billion out of the system. That's where we are today. At the meeting that was held earlier today, the Minister of Education met with teachers' reps and basically said to them: "You want to talk about something? Let's talk about how you go home and find a way to extract a further $1 billion."

I have no doubt whatsoever the government's going to retread the line about, "Can we get $600 million out of the teachers' pension fund, and can we make some cuts over here?" I have no doubt that over the next week or so they'll continue to throw up trial balloons about how the $1 billion is going to come out. But the fact of the matter is it will still be $1 billion out of our educational system. It will result in fewer teachers; it will result in fewer resources; it will result in more and more children falling through the cracks. You simply cannot have a first-rate educational system, as we enter the 21st century, if you're not willing to invest the money. This is a government that isn't willing to invest the money, pure and simple.

The fact of the matter is this is a government that is more interested in finding the $5 billion a year -- that's what it is -- that it takes to fuel their income tax cut. This is a government that is completely focused on finding that $5 billion a year, most of which is going to go to people who are already the wealthiest in this province. They're prepared to take $800 million out of the hospital budgets; they're prepared to take close to $2 billion out of education budgets; they're prepared to download in excess of $1.4 billion on to municipalities, to find that $5 billion to finance their tax giveaway to their wealthy friends. That is the start of their agenda, that is the end of the agenda, that's all there is to their agenda, and that's all there is to their educational agenda: Take money out to fund their tax scheme.

We are headed for this confrontation. Let me say, it was perfectly obvious today that this government wants that confrontation. In all the questions I addressed to the Premier -- I gave him six opportunities to stand up and say he would do something to head off a confrontation -- the Premier was very clear that everything the Minister of Education and Training has done to promote a confrontation with teachers, the Premier is perfectly okay with it, he's perfectly happy with it.

I want to just spend a minute on why this government wants the confrontation. First of all, they want the confrontation because they do not want the public to focus on the $1 billion coming out. No, they want the battle, they want the confrontation with teachers to use that as a smokescreen. They want the parents to be focused on the confrontation. They want the parents to be focused on the job action. It will then make it easier for this government to withdraw the $1 billion.

All the while, after they withdraw the $1 billion, they will continue to point the finger at teachers: "Teachers are responsible. Teachers don't care about kids." I can hear the propaganda campaign already. This is a propaganda campaign that this government has established after spending literally millions on focus group testing and on public opinion research over the last two years, trying to determine how they will position teachers to attack them.

I can hear the government's propaganda campaign now. It will go like this: The government will say that teachers are greedy. The government will say that teachers are self-interested, that teachers are selfish. The government will say that teachers don't care about the kids. I'm willing to bet that propaganda campaign is sitting in the can right now, already prepared, all ready to go, all ready to be put into action by this government.

This government wants a confrontation with teachers. They want to force teachers out on strike. They want to have a battle with teachers so that will be their smokescreen while they take the $1 billion out.

Teachers don't want to strike. I am a former teacher. I know how dedicated the vast majority of teachers in this province are to the children and to the classroom. Teachers do not want to strike, but this is a government that will give them no other option. This is a government, when they met with the Minister of Education today, where the only message from the Minister of Education was, "Go home and figure out how to get the $1 billion out of the system."

Teachers are going to be forced into this fight. This will not be good for Ontario's educational system, it will not be good for teachers and it won't be good for students. And I'll make a prediction here: It won't be good for your government. You think you can win this. You think you can try your jackboot tactics and walk all over the teachers. Let me tell you, people across this province are on to you. People have seen these tactics before and people know what you're up to and you will not have public support as you go down the road on this one, my friends.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): Tell us about bringing in the social contract.

Mr Hampton: Just for a few minutes I want to talk about what I believe should be the real educational agenda. One member wants to talk about the social contract. Let me tell you what the social contract did. The social contract enabled us to continue to fund education. It enabled us to continue to fund health care. It enabled us to continue to fund communities. It enabled us to continue to provide for those jobs. The health care services you're shutting down, the hospitals you're closing, for all of those things, the social contract enabled us to continue those kinds of services.

You take 10,000 teachers out of the system and you're going to find how much you've hurt the education system. By maintaining those jobs, by maintaining those services we continue to provide the framework to have a productive Ontario. What you're doing by attacking health care, by attacking education, by attacking our communities is you're going to cut and slash the economic and social foundations of this province. That's what you're doing.

I want to talk just for a minute about the real agenda that I believe the government ought to be following in terms of education. There is no doubt there is a real problem out there in terms of early childhood education. It has been confirmed by studies in North America, in Europe and elsewhere that if you want to use funding efficiently in the education system, invest in early childhood education.

Study after study has confirmed that every dollar that is spent on early childhood education, on children who are three and a half or four to six years old, saves $7 later on in the system. It saves $7 in special education costs, it saves $7 in terms of children dropping out of school, it saves $7 in terms of unemployment, it saves $7 in terms of young people being involved in the justice system -- all of those things.

But is this government prepared to invest in early childhood education? Nowhere in the agenda. Junior kindergarten is an option. Child care spaces are disappearing. Child care workers who are trained and dedicated are being told, "Take less for a salary." We see no positive agenda on the part of this government for early childhood education.

That is where a real difference can be made in terms of the future of our educational system, in terms of the future success of children in that system and in terms of building a better foundation for the kind of society we need, heading into the 21st century, but this government has nothing to say about that other than, "Cut, cut and cut some more."

The second place where there is a crying need to do something positive is to raise the level of achievement of young people who graduate from high school but do not go on to college or university. We absolutely need a good apprenticeship program. We absolutely need a transition that will help those young people get into practical job training and get a job. What has this government done? It's basically annihilated the apprenticeship system. It has cut all kinds of money from community colleges. As I said, it has cut money from adult education. Anything that has to with better equipping people who've graduated from high school to take a productive part in the economy, this government has cut as well. This government has simply cut that in addition to the cuts they have made at the front end.

That is why we brought this resolution today. In our view, there needed to be a sharp debate about what is happening here. This government wants to force teachers on strike. They want to force teachers on strike to provide a smokescreen while they take out the billion dollars. This government has done everything to provoke that confrontation, everything they can to provoke that strike. The Premier is unwilling to involve himself in any way to try to find a solution -- no willingness to find that at all.

Again, what is the government's true agenda? The government's true agenda is to find money for their tax scheme, to find a further billion dollars that they can give to their wealthy friends, only this time they're going to take it out of the pockets of little children. They're going to sacrifice the future of children in order to allow their wealthy friends to feed at the trough.

We are opposed and we know the people of Ontario are opposed --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Wildman has moved opposition day number 2. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1801 to 1807.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Wildman has moved NDP motion number 2.

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

Ayes

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ramsay, David

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Martiniuk, Gerry

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34; the nays are 61.

The Speaker: I declare the motion not carried.

It now being after 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30.

The House adjourned at 1811.

Evening sitting reported in volume B.

8 octobre 1997