Journal des débats 1997-nov-27 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I would like first of all to thank my colleagues the members for St Catharines and Essex South. They have done an excellent job in fighting the government on the issue of legalized gambling in Ontario.

I know we are expressing the opinion of many Ontarians concerned about a province becoming more and more dependent on gambling revenues. The bill we are debating today addresses just a small portion of a larger issue that has troubled the majority of Ontarians since the government introduced Bill 75 in June last year.

My bill, Bill 163, would ban the use of instant ticket vending machines as an outlet for the purchase of lottery tickets. The purpose of the act is essentially to eliminate part of the troubling problem of under-age gambling. It is time to consider the consequences of the use of these machines. The figures on adolescent gambling are very disturbing. By limiting their opportunities to gamble, I believe we can reverse the trend toward gambling addictions among young people.

ITVMs dispense the scratch-and-win tickets. These tickets are strongly associated with the promotion of compulsive gambling in that they provide instant gratification for players. In the hands of children they send the wrong message of easy gain for just a few bucks. Adolescents understand the rule of odds even less than adults do. They don't understand that no matter how much they win, they will always lose.

The Ontario Lottery Corp is a good corporate citizen, to be sure. We can't forget, however, that they are in the business of profit, and as such, their promotion of ITVMs represents yet another scheme to part people from their money at an unwelcome and often terrible social cost. Lottery tickets cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 18 since the passage of a bill initiated by the former Liberal member of Mississauga West, Steve Mahoney. However, anecdotal evidence exists to show that this prohibition is not working and that heavy government fines are useless because there is no meaningful enforcement.

My colleague from Essex South has evidence of a 14-year-old boy who was able to buy tickets at four establishments without being asked his age. The member for Ottawa South had his 13-year-old son asking him for money to buy a lottery ticket from an ITVM at the airport in Ottawa. Jamie casually informed his surprised dad that was not an unusual transaction among his peers.

We can debate at length the proper role of government with respect to activities associated with vice or about the moral questions raised by opening the door to the exploitation of the most vulnerable in our society. Differing opinions about government involvement in these activities expose very different philosophies where never the twain shall meet, except in this one instance.

I know that none of us want any harm done to our children. Regardless of the trouble adults can get themselves into, we all believe we have a responsibility to protect children from the dangers of unrestricted access to activities for which they are not prepared, and in that sense we share the responsibility with their parents.

I am asking you today to take that responsibility in order to do the right thing and remove ITVMs from this province. Under the OLC's instant ticket vending machine placement policy, each ITVM must be placed "where retailers and staff can see it easily at all times," presumably to make sure the machines are properly monitored.

However, the retailer reference guide for ITVM contracts states: "ITVMs can help to increase ticket sales for high-traffic retailers who simply do not have the time or resources to handle selling instant games manually. By installing an ITVM machine in a high-traffic area, in plain view of customers, retailers can be successful in selling instant lottery games with little or no staff time required." How much plainer can it possibly be that the OLC is promoting these machines precisely because they don't need to be monitored the way counter sales do?

Although Bill 75 introduced stiff penalties for retailers who sell lottery tickets to minors under 18, the enforcement of those penalties is practically non-existent. The Ontario Lottery Corp, which takes in some $700 million in revenue on $2 billion in sales, relies completely on local police to follow up on complaints while the Ontario government itself spends nothing on enforcement or investigation.

The Ontario Lottery Corp denies that under-age use of ITVMs is a significant problem. However, unless regular spot checks are conducted, a low level of reported incidents is meaningless. Our problem is not with penalties but with the lack of enforcement, and ITVMs make enforcement next to impossible. Due to this vacuum in enforcement, retailers have no meaningful incentive to prevent kids from purchasing tickets directly from them, something which happens all the time.

Studies from other jurisdictions have shown that the legal age limit for buying lottery tickets is nowhere being strictly enforced. It is therefore logical that retailers are even less compelled to monitor lottery ticket sales from automatic ticket vending machines. Existing studies that have looked at adolescent gambling point to some very disturbing trends.

A 1994 Ontario study found that 65% of Ontario adolescents had gambled in the previous 12 months. In its survey, it identified 37% of all adolescents as problem gamblers compared to 8.6% of the adult population. Gambling problems also increase as kids grow older. The percentage of kids with gambling problems rose from 27% among 12- to 14-year-olds to 35% of 15- to 17-year-olds and to 40% of 18- and 19-year-olds. These figures are both shocking and unacceptable.

1010

Adolescent gamblers use their allowances and lunch money to feed their habit. They may steal money, or borrow it and not pay it back. They are also more likely to skip school or miss work due to gambling. They lie about winning. They deceive their parents and friends. They are subject to temptations that even some adults cannot resist, and their self-esteem is damaged as a result. I find this incredibly sad. We want them to grow up strong and confident because of their positive earlier experiences, and instead, they are defeated even before they begin.

Other jurisdictions have rejected the introduction of ITVMs for the reason of their easy availability to children. It is now our turn. We have done what we could to prevent kids from having easy access to cigarettes. The previous government introduced the Tobacco Control Act in 1993 to ban the sale of cigarettes from cigarette vending machines. Let's stop sending the wrong message to kids in letting lottery tickets remain freely available to them. We have repeatedly called on the government to address this problem and they have not yet done so. It is not enough to make the right kinds of noises and then do nothing, or to hear about problems with compliance and then make half-hearted attempts to follow up.

I hope that with Bill 163 we can finally act on our opposition to the exploitation of our children for profit. Of course, this bill will not eliminate the growing problem of adolescent gambling in all its complex dimensions. However, IVTMs impact directly on kids who are vulnerable to gambling and addictions. I think we are justified in prohibiting their use as soon as it's feasible. This bill represents a small but significant step in the right direction. I hope it will receive the support of all the members here today. I look forward to your comments.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I am very pleased to rise today to have the chance to address the private member's bill that has been brought forward my good friend the member for Carleton East. I have had the privilege of serving with him in this Legislature since 1990 and I know very well of his distinguished record of public service in this House, I think dating back to 1987, if I'm correct.

I know that over the years the member for Carleton East has on quite a number of occasions demonstrated his concern for the most vulnerable in our society through private member's bills that he's brought forward. It is no surprise to me that he would bring forward legislation today that aims to protect our children, and I would commend him for that.

The member is not alone in his concerns about access to gaming by minors. As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, I am very pleased to have this chance to address some of the concerns about access to gaming by minors that the member has raised.

In my review of his bill, I am pleased to see that there are many points of mutual agreement between the government and the member for Carleton East. The government takes the matter of lottery sales to minors very seriously, so seriously that it brought in Bill 75 some time ago, the Alcohol, Gaming and Charity Funding Public Interest Act, the toughest legislation in the country, in order to prevent the selling of lottery tickets to minors.

Provincial law and the Ontario Lottery Corp corporate policy prohibit the sale of lottery tickets to minors. An individual found selling tickets to minors -- people under 18 -- can be fined up to $50,000 and corporations up to $250,000, a very heavy fine.

The Ontario Lottery Corp places vending machines in locations that are licensed or where machines are in direct supervision. It also removes lottery products from retailers who have sold lottery tickets to minors and, looking at their record, you can see that the corporation has done this at least 10 times since 1992.

In the spring of 1997, the Ontario Lottery Corp was asked to review all the locations where there is any doubt whatsoever about supervision. Instant ticket vending machines at that time were removed from the Ottawa airport and from laundromats across the province. The Ontario Lottery Corp recently made recommendations to the provincial government on its instant ticket vending machine program. The government has received these recommendations in the last two weeks and I'm sure the member will understand that the government needs a little more time to review these recommendations and to make decisions on them.

I think it is important to point out that it was the previous government, the New Democrats, that brought the instant ticket vending machines in when they were in government. No penalties were put in place at that time for selling to minors except for the removal of the vendor's licence to sell tickets. The government plans to direct up to $9 million to problem gaming research, development and delivery of assistance programs, again underlining its concern about people who have problems with gambling, who are addicted to gambling.

The Liberals earmarked no funding to problem gaming. The NDP, as I understand it, allocated only $1 million. The government will spend 60 times more on problem gaming than the Liberals in Newfoundland, 180 times more than the Liberals in New Brunswick and millions more than the Ontario Liberals did when they were in power.

Like the member for Carleton East, this government is committed to protecting our children and ensuring that minors are restricted from gaming.

It is my intention to support the member's bill in principle and I want to congratulate him again for bringing this forward today.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I am pleased today to stand and speak in favour of Bill 163, a bill that would effectively ban instant ticket vending machines, otherwise known as ITVMs.

First of all, I would like to thank my colleague Mr Morin from Carleton East for introducing this bill, as it addresses a very important issue with regard to under-age gambling in Ontario.

Quite simply, ITVMs are machines that dispense scratch-and-win tickets. On September 9, 1997, I asked the then Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism to remove ITVMs from locations across Ontario because it had been brought to my attention that under-age persons had easy access to and were purchasing scratch-and-win tickets illegally. While Minister Saunderson agreed with me that under-age gambling should be stopped, he refused my request to remove these ITVMs. Instead, he promised an investigation that's been referred to by my colleague from Wellington. Subsequently, nothing has been done to stop minors from purchasing lottery tickets like these that I have in my hand.

Fellow members, this morning we will have the chance to send a strong message that we in the Legislature, regardless of party affiliation, are against under-age gambling and are willing to take important steps to prevent it from occurring.

At present, the only requirement for retailers to have these ITVMs in their establishment is that there is a line of sight. This means that someone in the store can watch and see the machines at all times so that minors don't use them. But it begs the question, if this were the true intent, to prevent minors from buying lottery tickets, then why doesn't the retailer sell them in person? The answer I received was that ITVMs are to make the purchase of these tickets more convenient because employees were often too busy. Too busy to watch the ITVMs at all times to prevent under-age purchases? I think the answer to that question is yes.

Quite simply, the current situation is unacceptable. There is absolutely no guarantee that minors will not use these machines and, as I pointed out, I have proof of it right here, where a 14-year-old was able to buy these tickets with no questions asked. I might point out that it's not illegal for children to buy the tickets; it's illegal for them to be sold to them. While all lottery ticket sales to minors cannot be totally prevented, steps and measures can be taken, such as banning ITVMs.

These ITVMs remove the control aspect that I think is so very important. Would we sell beer from vending machines in a retail establishment, even if it were in the line of sight of an adult at all times? The answer is no, because there isn't anything preventing a 12-year-old from using the machine, and secondly, there are no controls to prevent this from happening. These are the same reasons why my colleague from Carleton alluded to the fact that cigarettes are no longer sold from vending machines in Ontario.

1020

While minimum funds are spent to prevent gambling in Ontario, removing these ITVMs will be a step in the right direction. Seven hundred instant ticket vending machines are found in laundromats, bowling alleys and donut shops, places where young people frequent and have easy access to the machines. We all share the responsibility and have both the obligation and the moral duty to remove these machines to protect our youth.

By not having an adequate control system, we are saying to minors, "No, it's wrong to buy lottery tickets and gamble, but here is an easy way to do it." It sends a mixed message and a wrong one at that. Currently none of the other lottery jurisdictions in Canada, with the exception of Loto-Québec, is using ITVMs, and for the same reason -- why Mr Morin has presented this bill this morning -- because ITVMs, instant ticket vending machines, allow easy access to minors and therefore must be stopped.

I'm sure all members will agree the sale of tickets to minors is worth the cost of inconveniencing a small percentage of people who want to buy these scratch-and-win tickets. This is an issue that is straightforward and very clear-cut. If one is truly against under-age gambling, then steps must be taken to prevent it. Today we have an excellent opportunity to do so. I hope each of the members in this Legislature will make your voice heard on this issue and vote for Bill 163.

If you're really opposed to children having access to gambling, then I think it's very simple that this bill be supported, that it be sent to committee, that it be debated. Reviewing the sales, as my colleague from Wellington has suggested, has gone on long enough. It was earlier this year that we asked the minister to do that. They merely sent a message out to the retailers to be more vigilant, and that's been proven to not be successful enough. We have to take a positive step in this direction.

We don't sell cigarettes from vending machines, as has been pointed out, because they were too accessible. Then what we see is, as my colleague from Carlton has said, that the retailer reference guide for ITVM contract sales says that it can help increase ticket sales for high traffic retailers who simply do not have the time or resources to handle selling instant games manually. That very simply points out the problem. If the retailers are too busy and don't have the resources to sell them manually, how then can they possibly have the resources to monitor the machines that are in their line of sight? The reference guide goes on to say that by installing an ITVM machine in a high traffic area, in plain view of customers, retailers can be successful in selling instant lottery games with little or no staff time required. What we are saying is that, unfortunately, they can also be successful in selling tickets to kids. I ask that all legislators this morning support this bill. Thank you.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to commend the member for Carleton East for bringing this bill forward to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets through instant ticket vending machines. The member has been consistent with respect to his approach respecting young people and the opportunities they have to avail themselves of things that perhaps they shouldn't be. I commend him for that as well.

This is one of those experiments, the introduction of instant lottery ticket vending machines. There was an opportunity to try it, see how it worked. It seemed as though it may have been a good idea at the time to try to make the sale of these tickets more convenient in areas where it was felt that the supervision of that activity was going to be enough to prevent the sales to young people. But obviously, based on the anecdotal evidence we've heard and the evidence we've heard from the member for Essex South, the supervision isn't close enough.

It's probably easy for all of us to understand that young people wouldn't have any problem buying lottery tickets. It was a Liberal member several years ago who, I recall, introduced a private member's bill to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets to minors, and that was a bill that was supported by all parties in the House at the time and has become the law in Ontario. But we know that just passing laws isn't going to be enough to affect the behaviour of persons who seek to buy lottery tickets even though they're under age.

I recall as well the debates we had within our caucus and in the Legislature with respect to the banning of the sale of cigarettes in vending machines. I know that was a controversial issue at the time. It affected the rights of property owners, the persons who owned those vending machines and the locations they were placed in. However, all of us agreed that we should try to do what we could to reduce the incidence of smoking by young people. That was one of the simple ways we were able to do that. That's something that governments, both provincially and federally, saw fit to devote resources to, to ensure that we try to reduce the incidence of young people smoking.

My wife is an environmental health inspector with the Essex-Windsor district health unit. She refers to herself on occasion as one of the tobacco cops. She's a provincial offences officer, does undercover surveillance work, monitors vending locations and store owners in areas around schools on occasion and actively is involved in the enforcement of the law that prohibits young people from purchasing tobacco products if they are minors and prohibits vendors from selling to young people who are minors. She has been very effective in that work, and they've charged numerous vendors and young people and persons who have supplied tobacco to young people as part of her efforts.

If we recognize that that's an important allocation of resources because it is in the interests of the health of our young people, I would hope it's a program that this government, as part of their downloading exercise, would ensure continues to be undertaken by local health units in our province. If that's something we recognize is important for the health of our young people, I would hope we also recognize the importance of trying to reduce the incidence of young people purchasing lottery tickets as well.

I recall as well the debate we had with respect to Bill 8, which was permitting casino gambling in Ontario. That was a bill where the age restrictions for persons to go into casinos in Ontario and gamble was the subject of some debate at the time. It was agreed then that casino gambling should be restricted to persons who are at least 19 years of age and over. I think all of us in this House agree on the importance of having a law that takes that approach.

Of course, we have a casino in the city of Windsor, and it has a very effective security and surveillance system. They really have the resources available to enforce that restriction, with respect to prohibiting young people from gambling. I haven't heard this morning of members being aware of under-age persons who have been at a casino and have been able to gamble.

1030

It's that level of security and surveillance that's necessary, obviously, to prevent young people from being able to gamble contrary to the law. It's also obvious that that's not something that is available, or it's not working if it is available, with respect to these lottery ticket machines. It's clear that this is the sort of activity that needs to take place only in a closely supervised environment. That environment doesn't seem to be present in order to prohibit young people from buying lottery tickets. I agree with and will support this initiative to try and remove instant lottery vending terminals from Ontario.

However, I want to mention the importance of having gambling opportunities in closely monitored and supervised areas like casinos. If we're going to have gambling opportunities, let's have them in casinos. Further to that, I think we should do what we can to make sure we have the availability of craps in the Windsor casino. I know that's been mentioned here on occasion, and it will be important in the Windsor area to ensure that we can compete with the three casinos that have been announced for the city of Detroit in the near future.

There was an article in the Windsor Star that said that the former minister, Bill Saunderson, had written a letter to the federal minister asking that the Criminal Code be amended to permit craps. It said that letter was written on September 11. However, an article in the Windsor Star on November 26, just yesterday, said that the new minister, Palladini, was in Windsor on Tuesday and said that he expects the letter to be sent in the next couple of days making that request. I don't know why the letter hasn't been sent requesting that craps be permitted in Canada and in the Windsor casino, but I would hope that the members present here would urge Minister Palladini to make sure the letter gets sent. The postal strike isn't an excuse. If they'd like me to deliver it myself, I'll be more than happy to do that.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I'm pleased to speak on this bill. In introducing this, I wonder if the member for Carleton East is thoroughly aware of the implications of his own party's position on gambling, however. As you're aware, Mr Speaker, our government has taken the position that we are going to ban the roving Monte Carlo casinos that blight our society, and of course our position is being opposed by the Liberal Party.

The Monte Carlo casinos are supposed to be in the interests of the charities, but the charities are telling us daily that they are not getting the proceeds that they believe they should be getting. They know the number of people who are coming to the casinos, they know how much is being gambled, they know how much they're supposed to be receiving from the operators of the Monte Carlo casinos, but they're not receiving those funds.

It reminds me a little bit of Prohibition, Mr Speaker, when there were blind pigs being operated. I know you're aware of what a blind pig is, but for the benefit of those who don't know what a blind pig is, they were these little clubs, and behind the one-way glass the operator of the club could tell whether the police were coming in. If the police came into the premises, all the booze was put away. But of course when the police weren't there, it was operating fully and the sale of booze was wide open. You couldn't control the illegal sale of booze during Prohibition, just like now you cannot control the illegal VLTs or the illegal gaming proceeds from the Monte Carlo casinos.

We want to bring in legislation to put this under control. The Liberals oppose it, and now they're introducing a bill to bring in prohibition on instant ticket vending machines -- not consistent at all. But that shouldn't surprise you, Mr Speaker, and it shouldn't surprise anybody else in this House, because that party has a history of flip-flopping. That party flip-flopped through the campaign. That party flip-flopped on a recent illegal strike by teachers. The leader of their party in 1992 --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Who was that?

Mr Wettlaufer: Who was it? I say to the member for Cochrane South, that was Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the Liberal Party. In 1992 he brought in a bill banning the right to strike for teachers after October 31. But who was out on those picket lines with the teachers, encouraging them to continue to strike? The same Dalton McGuinty, the same leader of the Liberal Party -- flip-flop again. They just carry on this way.

I want to say that I support the efforts to control illegal gambling. Our government supports them. We are planning on putting $9 million into gaming research and development of programs to control gambling addiction. I want to point out that the Liberals never earmarked any funds for that when they were in power. Another flip-flop? Yes, probably.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I think members know of my great concern about the escalation across this country and North America of gambling opportunities and that those are encouraged by governments. The most insidious and the latest, I guess you could say, although they are not as recent as many would like to think, are the video lottery terminals around the province. They are electronic machines which are what you and I might call instant automatic slot machines. The reason they are so alluring is that they are like a computer game. They appear to be modern, and there's an instant hit from video lottery terminals. I see all these gambling opportunities being expanded as presenting some genuine social problems for our society.

I know that governments all over are greedy for money and they think this is an easy of getting money. Ontario is not the only jurisdiction where this is the case. We have many jurisdictions and we have many people, from many different political parties, across the country and in the United States who are in favour of escalating gambling opportunities.

But I think we have to remember that it preys upon the most vulnerable people in our society, often the desperate people in our society, who are addicted to gambling or who believe that with the background they have -- perhaps they haven't had the same opportunity for a good education or perhaps they're not well connected within their community so they have easy access to jobs. Sometimes those people, in desperation, will turn to gambling as that opportunity to enhance themselves financially, to help themselves out financially. I am very concerned when I see any of these escalations taking place.

We have established opportunities now. We're not rolling back the clock on those. We have a casino which was established in Windsor, one in Niagara Falls and one in Rama. We have three of those in existence at the present time. I don't think this Legislature is looking at heading out to close all those down, despite some difficulties out there. My friend from Niagara Falls and I would know that almost daily now we have stories of people abandoning their children and heading into the casino. There are some problems, but we are not looking at this time at turning back the clock on those. What we're looking at is an escalation of opportunity for gambling purposes.

1040

My fear is that with the video lottery terminals or the electronic slot machines, for instance, if we follow the present course in this province -- and I am sure there are members in all parties who are concerned about this -- we will end up with them in every neighbourhood. The reason we'll end up with them in every neighbourhood is because there are bars and restaurants in many of the neighbourhoods in this province, and people will have easier access. It means many of the funds that might go to something more beneficial, to families in this province, go into these machines. There is an increasing number of people addicted to them.

What the member for Carleton East is looking at is yet another machine that would make access easier. I think his concern is again one which we would all share, and that is that under-age people might have access to these machines, machines which would dispense instant winning tickets in this particular case. It's very hard to police that. Once you have them in operation in various places, it's hard to police that.

As long as you have an individual selling, there's an individual who has liability, an individual who must exercise her or his conscience in selling a ticket to an under-age person. But the machine does not have that same conscience, so we're liable to see a proliferation.

The good thing about private members' hour is that I look at this issue as one which is, if not non-partisan, multipartisan, because I can't help but believe that there are members on all sides who have some genuine concerns when they watch governments head in the direction of more and more gambling revenues.

I remember Premier Harris, when he was leader of the third party, and Ernie Eves, who is now the Minister of Finance, both genuinely expressing concern a couple of years ago about this escalation of gambling opportunities. Our Premier said on that occasion that he didn't really want these revenues for government, that he wasn't interested in these revenues for government. I agreed with the Premier, who was leader of the Conservative Party at that time, on that particular issue. I thought there was a pretty good coalition of people in the House who had some genuine concerns.

The government of the day was embarking upon casinos. One was established in Windsor and there was one headed for Niagara Falls. But even members of the government caucus -- I think one member resigned from the Legislature or turned into an independent, largely over that issue.

I don't condemn any political party, because all parties have been part of the escalation of gambling opportunities. What I'm saying is that we as legislators, as individual and independent-minded legislators, have a chance through this avenue, through private members' hour, to give an expression of our concern about the escalation of those gambling opportunities. Yes, funds have been raised for some good causes, and yes, governments welcome revenues which can be derived in what they consider to be a painless way, but I think we pay far too great a social price for the continued escalation of gambling opportunities. That's why I'd like to see us put a halt to that escalation and evaluate where we are and, if necessary, scale back from where we are at the present time. The charity casinos that are going to be in about 44 communities in my view will simply suck every last dollar out of those communities, won't help other businesses and will channel money in a direction which isn't necessarily good for society.

I commend the member for bringing forward this resolution, and I know there's a lot of support among members of the assembly for it.

M. Bisson : Premièrement, j'aimerais indiquer que moi et le restant de notre caucus NPD, on veut donner du support à ce projet de loi 163. On trouve que le projet de loi prend en bonne direction, comme la direction que nous avons prise comme gouvernement dans plusieurs situations faisant affaire avec les jeunes de notre province ayant l'habilité d'aller rechercher des billets, comme on voit, que M. Morin voudrait faire arranger.

Je vais partir un peu du thème de ce matin pour dire qu'une affaire qui me frappe comme député ici à l'Assemblée, c'est comment avec tous les gouvernements ce n'était pas mal la même affaire, le gouvernement de M. Peterson, le gouvernement de M. Rae et de même et le gouvernement de M. Harris, que des fois on est un peu trop pressés, comme législateurs, de passer des projets de loi. Quand on passe ces projets de loi, des affaires comme celles-ci arrivent. Pourquoi ? Parce qu'on n'a pas pris le temps de vraiment regarder les implications du projet de loi quand il était mis à travers la Législature.

On voit ces jours-ci à l'Assemblée des projets de loi, tels que la Loi 160 sur l'éducation de quelque 260 pages, qu'on passe avec un processus législatif d'environ deux ou trois jours, trois jours à la deuxième lecture avec une journée à la troisième lecture, et puis peut-être quatre ou cinq jours en comité. Le point que je fais c'est que, quoi qui arrive, comme législateurs, députés locaux et comme citoyens, on n'a pas dans ce processus vite l'opportunité de vraiment regarder les implications de la loi, de donner au public la chance de regarder et de digérer ce que ça veut dire, pour voir s'il y a des problèmes tels que M. Morin soulève sur les distributeurs automatiques des billets.

Quand un gouvernement a dit durant les années passées qu'on allait allouer la vente des billet dans la province, et ça date de beaucoup d'années et sous gouvernements successifs qu'on fait des changements avec des lois sur cette question -- parce que le processus est assez vite, je pense qu'on n'a jamais vraiment regardé : _Mais c'est quoi, l'implication pour les jeunes dans notre province, d'avoir l'accès à des billets à travers ces machines-là ?_ Le point que j'essaie de faire est simplement que, si on prenait notre temps ici à la Législature premièrement, quand on commence avec un projet de loi, on pourrait faire une bonne consultation publique, même avant que le projet de loi soit écrit.

Par exemple, dans la question du projet de loi 160 sur l'éducation, le gouvernement Harris aurait pu, avant même d'amener la législation directement à l'Assemblée, faire une bonne discussion publique pour que tout le monde ait la chance de parler un peu sur ce que cela veut dire, ce que le gouvernement veut, c'est quoi les thèmes généraux et comment pourrait-on être capable de faire ça pour accomplir les buts du gouvernement ; et là, quand on commence le processus législatif ici à l'Assemblée, qu'on aurait assez de temps comme députés de traiter de la question.

Le point que je fais est que, si c'était arrivé pendant les années passées quand on a commencé avec toute la question de ventes de billets en Ontario, avant de passer le premier projet de loi, si on aurait pris le temps législatif et le temps en comité pour vraiment regarder la situation, faire la consultation publique avec la population, c'est très possible que cette question-là aurait été soulevée durant le processus public et on ne serait pas ici aujourd'hui avec le projet de loi 163 pour essayer d'arranger le problème.

On a besoin en Ontario, et possiblement dans d'autres juridictions, d'être capable de trouver une manière de ralentir un peu le processus législatif pour qu'on puisse prendre le temps de bien étudier la question ici à l'Assemblée, donner au public la chance de vraiment discuter et de digérer ce que le gouvernement propose, et dernièrement, prendre assez de temps de faire ça pour que, quand on passe un projet de loi, on ait regardé tous les aspects pour s'assurer qu'on n'a pas causé des problèmes qu'on ne voulait pas.

Je pense que c'est ce qui est arrivé dans la question des distributeurs automatiques. Dans mon comté, comme dans le comté de M. Morin, il y a beaucoup de fois où les jeunes ont un couple de piastres à dépenser et ils s'en vont pour acheter un billet. C'est contre la loi à cette heure à cause d'un projet de loi que le gouvernement NPD avait passé pour qu'on ne soit pas capable de vendre les billets directement aux jeunes, mais ils prennent l'argent puis ils s'en vont à un distributeur automatique pour l'acheter. Ça, c'est un problème.

On ne veut pas que nos jeunes, premièrement avec les sous qu'ils ont, dépensent l'argent de cette manière. Il y a de meilleures manières de dépenser leur argent. Mais plus important, on ne veut pas que les jeunes commencent à prendre l'habitude de jouer des jeux de chance à un âge très jeune parce que ce n'est pas une bonne manière pour commencer une habitude. S'ils vont commencer ça très jeune, les chances, quand ils commencent à grandir et deviennent plus vieux, d'être poignées dans tous ces jeux de chance d'une manière possiblement -- ce serait très négatif.

C'est avec plaisir que moi, député de Cochrane-Sud, et le restant des députés du Nouveau Parti démocratique allons voter en faveur de ce projet de loi. On demande au gouvernement conservateur d'adopter ce projet de loi à la deuxième lecture et de donner la chance au projet de loi de passer au comité, où on pourrait regarder cette question-là et donner la chance au projet de loi de passer.

Je veux faire seulement un point en finissant. On trouve chez ce gouvernement une habitude envers les projet de loi privés des députés comme M. Morin et autres. Le gouvernement conservateur n'est pas très fort quand ça vient à adopter ces projets de loi. J'espère que le gouvernement conservateur ne continue pas cette habitude avec ce projet de loi pour dire Oui à la fin de la journée, parce que c'est un projet de loi qui aurait dû être fait il y a longtemps. Merci.

1050

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I rise to support this bill which would prohibit the sale of lottery tickets through vending machines and would prohibit owners and operators from having or keeping such machines in public places.

Many members of the House will be aware that I am not a great enthusiast of the expansion of government-sponsored gambling activities. While many people view various kinds of gambling, including playing the lottery, as a form of entertainment, the fact of the matter is that in order to generate higher profits, the industry must create more losers. Ultimately most people will lose much or all of the money they wager.

I accept the fact that a certain amount of legal gambling must be permitted in order to avoid creating revenue sources for criminal enterprises, but surely all members of the House would agree that the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that, as with tobacco and alcohol, access to gambling by minors is legally restricted. That is why I support this bill.

Gambling is not something we should encourage among our young people. Independent studies show that teenagers are two to four times more likely to develop problem and compulsive gambling habits than adults, even when access to many forms of gambling is legally restricted. Passage of this bill would be an effective step in restricting access by minors to the most widely available form of gambling, while still leaving legal vendors with adequate opportunities to sell lottery tickets to adults.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to address this bill. I commend the member for Carleton East for bringing this bill forward. I agree in principle with his intent and I will be voting in favour of this bill.

All too often government is left to deal with the symptoms, the fallout of societal issues and I think many times we are left dealing with legislation that allocates additional dollars, allocates programs to solve some problems that are symptoms of real root causes. I think we have an opportunity here in this House today to deal with a piece of legislation that goes to the root cause and to prevent some problems that could face us in years ahead.

I look forward to seeing this bill go forward and I hope that it goes to committee, that we have an opportunity to have some further discussion and perhaps some amendments to this bill which may make it practical in terms of implementation.

Certainly with regard to cigarettes, as the member points out in his letter to me, we have made illegal the sale of cigarettes to minors, and that perhaps one variation of this bill, an amendment that may be considered, is that these tickets be restricted for sale in licensed premises where under-age children do not have access. That's one possibility. I can tell you that personally I am very much in favour of doing what we can to protect the young people in our province, the most vulnerable. We, as a Legislature, I believe, have a responsibility to deal with these kinds of issues and this is our opportunity to do so.

I will be voting in favour of bill and I again commend my colleague from Carleton East for bringing it forward.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): First of all, I'd like to commend the member for Carleton East for bringing this forward. I think it's a topic that needs to be discussed and should be looked at in a very serious way.

Also the member for Essex South mentioned how we don't have machines that distribute beer. However, there are machines that distribute beer in certain locations. I have a student from my riding here this morning, Kierstyn Ellis, and I welcome her here. As Kierstyn mentioned, she's never seen one of these machines. However, I myself have seen them in certain locations that, yes, would cause me concern. I think, though, that what should be looked at is possibly having them in certain locations where individuals have to be of age, such as in legions or licensed establishments and things like that. Quite possibly those are the areas we should be looking at.

I will be supporting this motion that has been brought forward by the member for Carleton East so we can look at it further and possibly refine it through a committee process, should it reach that stage, where we can address that particular issue.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Carleton East has two minutes to respond.

Mr Morin: For my concluding remarks, I will quote Dalton Camp:

"There is anecdotal evidence of winners at VLTs, but the winners inevitably become losers. No one has yet retired on the earnings, but thousands go broke every day.

"Everyone knows small-time gambling has brought big-time profit to government, and ruin to the sad sacks who play the machines. Described as the crack cocaine of gambling, VLTs are any government's preferred method of raising revenue -- a sucker tax on gambling addiction.

"The decision to take the cash -- and duck the discredit and cynicism that come with it -- befits the libertarian spirit permeating government today. Amorality has become an instrument of policy-making.

"One must always assume, in government, that doing what is right is indistinguishable from doing what is profitable, or what is least expensive.

"This balance sheet mentality conveniently overlooks -- where it does not entirely omit -- the collateral costs of revenues, rents from the marginally poor, or addicted, or from those simply witless enough to fall prey to the son et lumière of an infernal machine designed to fleece all those who play it.

"Despite widespread opposition to VLTs, politicians hesitate to act.... Gambling has always been a racket -- a business that appeals largely to the larcenous, as a business, and to the weak and those of lesser means, as a game.

"Governments that need the proceeds from gambling to stay afloat have no more moral purchase on public opinion than addicts who blow their paycheques at a VLT.

"The profits taken from human misery and folly are not only unbecoming, they are also further evidence of a painful truth -- that governments today are determined to represent what is worst in all of us, and all for the cosmetics of the balance sheet."

Let's show the citizens of Ontario that we will have a unanimous vote on this issue, that it's for the benefit of all that it should go to the justice committee.

HOUSEHOLDER MAILINGS

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): I move that in the opinion of this House, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should request the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs to petition Canada Post Corp to treat under section 35 of the Canada Post Corporation Act members of the Legislative Assembly and municipal councillors of Ontario in the same manner as federal members of Parliament and request the Canada Post Corp exempt them from the ban of economy unaddressed ad mail and allow delivery of not more than four householder mailings per year.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mrs Elliott moves ballot item number 108. Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Elliott: It is my pleasure to move ballot item 108 this morning with respect to the inclusion of all elected officials for household mail delivery.

Several months ago, an issue was brought to my attention that I believe requires address and requires discussion in the House. Last July the Canada Post Corp established a new policy and began a program called Consumers Choice. This is a project that allows constituents the opportunity to obtain a sticker from any post office, place it on their mailbox, and in so doing signal to the mailman by way of this sticker that they do not wish to receive bulk ad mail, or what's commonly called junk mail.

It's not a new idea. In fact this has been happening in Guelph for several years. The city of Guelph, particularly through the waste management department, has offered similar stickers. It's a voluntary program and citizens are making a very clear choice when they put the sticker on their mailbox that they want less advertising in their homes. In Guelph the ad mail has been so significant that there is more than one household that actually has a blue box not far from their front door.

1100

For most of us, it was a decision based on environmental views, wanting less waste, and if we missed out on something, perhaps a great deal at the grocery store, we were willing to accept the consequences and, further to that, maybe pay a bit more for the sake of saving a few trees and creating less landfill.

What many people may not have realized is that ad mail includes unaddressed bulk mail or mail addressed to the householder, the box holder, the occupant or resident, and that they were inadvertently signalling to the mailman that mail of some import should not be delivered.

The type of mail I'm referring to today is what we here in the House would often refer to as a householder. Periodically, members of the Legislature create publications to distribute to our constituents. It might be a newsletter, it might be a flyer, it might be a booklet, it might be something for seniors, it might be a community directory. It could include updates on the latest legislation. It might include notes on upcoming legislation, perhaps invitations to meetings and community events. It might contain congratulations or all sorts of pieces of information of interest to our constituents.

These are opportunities for us to remind our constituents of where our offices are, what our hours are, that we're here to help them and offer different ways that we can help them. It's important to remember that these flyers, newsletters and so on are non-partisan and reflect the needs of the whole constituency.

Canada Post has indeed recognized that non-partisan information pieces such as I've described should be delivered to constituents. There are certain pieces of information that people need to know, so Canada Post has passed two exemptions to the Consumers Choice sticker program: The chief electoral officers of Canada and the provinces are exempted, and the members of the federal House of Commons are exempted.

I would draw your attention to the fact that while electoral officers in the provinces must be exempted, members of Canada's provincial legislatures have been overlooked and ignored. Elected members of all municipal councils have also been overlooked and ignored. I ask you this: Are we not all duly elected? Do we not all have important issues to share with constituents? And do we not also have not only the right but in fact the obligation to keep our constituents informed? I am appalled at the attitude that this exemption displays.

Several months ago I wrote to the minister responsible for Canada Post and asked why other elected officials were unfairly treated. He informed me that the reason federal members of Parliament were exempted from the ban was because of an existing clause in the Canada Post Corp Act, section 35.3, which indicates, "Subject to regulations made pursuant to section 36, in any calendar year a member of the House of Commons may transmit by post free of postage to his constituency up to four mailings of printed matter without further address other than `householder,' `box holder,' `occupant' or `resident.'" He also wrote that consequently an exemption to the program was required.

To my mind he added insult to injury -- no mention that any thought had been given to the matter or consideration for us or for those interested in what we might have to share. He says: "The importance of unaddressed reports and communications from elected officials at the provincial and municipal level is appreciated and Canada Post will always be pleased to deliver these items."

Let's get this straight. We can buy from Canada Post the service of delivery of mail to be delivered to every household in our riding, but if there is a Consumers Choice sticker on the mailbox, we have just paid for something that cannot be delivered. And if you think about it, it gets worse: Provincial taxpayers have just paid the federal government for a service that's impossible to deliver.

I draw your attention to another part of the clause that I referred to earlier, "by post free of postage to his constituency of up to four mailings." As an aside, as a woman legislator, I would note that it could say "her constituency," but anyway. Not only are federal members of Parliament exempted from the ban of unaddressed mail; Canada Post pays for the postage. This situation is unacceptable. Provincial legislators and municipal councillors have a ban imposed upon them, we must pay for mail that our federal counterparts get free, and then we pay for mail that may not at all be deliverable.

Why is it that MPs get free postage in the first place? The corporation that is responsible for the mail is a federal crown corporation that gives federal members of Parliament free service. If you follow that principle, would it not mean that here in Ontario, because Ontario Hydro is an Ontario crown corporation, Ontario MPPs should then get free electricity? Of course not.

Constituents have a right to be informed of legislation, whether it be at the federal level, the provincial level or the municipal level, and we as elected officials have a duty to inform our citizens. The level of government should be irrelevant.

I know that in each one of our ridings there will be constituents who would say that anything from a politician is automatically, by definition, junk mail. But at least they should have the opportunity to see it before they make that decision. In Canada, the opportunity to be informed and to inform must be fair.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this issue before the House today. I ask all members to write to their members of Parliament and to the federal minister responsible for the Canada Post Corp on this matter.

Today I am asking for unanimous support from the members of this House to press the Canada Post Corp to treat elected members fairly. It is only right to exempt municipal councillors and provincial legislators from this ban, and either give none of us free mailings or give all of us free mailings.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I rise in support of the honourable member's motion that we are discussing today. As a matter of fact, as we look at this I am somewhat disappointed that it does not cover official mailings or notifications coming from either the provincial government or municipal government. I am going to support this. I think this is an important issue, especially in terms of accountability of elected representatives to the taxpayers of their community, whether they be municipal, provincial or federal.

The resolution deals with, as the member mentioned, the Consumers Choice program which Canada Post has put in place in response to the concerns raised by many people in Canada. We see it whenever we go door-knocking as politicians, "No Junk Mail, Please." "Save Our Trees." Indeed, that is a very noble thing to support. The issue is, what is junk mail? This is where we have the difference of opinion with Canada Post.

It's interesting that the Canada Post program exempts not only federal members of Parliament householders -- the postmaster general hides behind a specific section of the legislation governing Canada Post -- but also community newspapers, which was apparently brought in at the insistence of members of Parliament when this regulation was going through, and also mailings coming from the chief electoral officer of Canada and the provincial chief electoral officers. That of course is a recognition that to ensure that people are fully aware of their democratic rights to participate in election, they get the appropriate information.

To my mind, it is extremely shortsighted. When I was a member of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and we became aware that the federal government had taken this initiative, I immediately brought it to our council and our council passed a motion asking Canada Post to reconsider. There are many times when a municipal government must communicate with their electorate, and of course it behoves that government to do so in the most cost-efficient, effective manner.

We can put ads in the paper and we can put ads on television and ads on radio, but that's very expensive, and in many cases you need constant repetition to make sure you get the coverage you want. There is nothing like getting direct mail from your local municipality telling you about a rezoning, telling you about changes in water quality, telling you about a public health issue.

1110

I can recall that in Ottawa-Carleton we dealt with a meningococcal disease situation where there was a requirement for public vaccination. How to get that information out? It was cost-effective to use Canada Post. You cannot call those mass mailings to deal with those issues not in the public interest, and you certainly can't call them junk mail. For example, the government of Ontario has just mailed out Ontario Speaks. We want every citizen in Ontario to have the opportunity to participate in a very important issue of the day, which is how to keep this country together when faced with the divisive forces that we find residing in the Péquiste government in Quebec.

How can we provide that opportunity? The "No Junk Mail, Please," and "Save Our Trees" stickers that we see many places are designed for those advertising inserts. That is what we're looking at: the pizza inserts, the latest ad from your shopping centre, what have you. The kinds of communications that should be going to each and every resident which come from their government agency I believe should be exempt from that kind of ban.

This motion that's being presented to us here by the member opposite simply petitions Canada Post to treat, under section 35 of the Canada Post Corporation Act, members of the Legislative Assembly and municipal councillors of Ontario in the same manner as federal members of Parliament. I support that. It's important for taxpayers to know what their government is doing, what their elected representative is doing. Certainly not every municipal councillor does that, engages in a householder. Many of us here do, because we're trying to show our taxpayers what we are doing in terms of representing their interests and how their tax dollars are being spent.

I can think of no better time to ensure that this right is there, that everyone has the ability to receive this information and therefore make judgements and participate in the discussion of the issues of the day if they get the information. They have to get the information to be able to participate and make sound judgements. When that route of providing information is deprived, we are not helping the operation of our community very well.

The exception that is being made -- and I read here the letter that came back from the Honourable Alfonso Gagliano, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services of Canada, in response to a letter our Speaker had sent -- opened the door to using community newspapers as a venue to communicate with the public. Of course we do, but community newspapers do not cover every community; we all know that. There are some parts in the province where community newspapers do not use ad mail, do not use Canada Post and cannot get out and deliver our message.

I believe all members are aware that our Speaker, on our behalf, wrote to the minister on September 30. He wrote both as Chair of the Board of Internal Economy and as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to express our concerns regarding the decision by Canada Post to include provincial member householders as ad mail, the effect being that we would be excluded for those residents who participate in Consumers Choice. Therefore, we are considered as junk mail, and those who do not wish to receive junk mail would not receive our material.

I just want to quote: "I am sure you are aware that these types of publications are important for some members to communicate with their constituents. To curtail the distribution of these mailings would be extremely unfair to these members. Allowing federal members' mailings and not mailings from other levels of government appears to me to be discriminatory. Furthermore, I fail to understand how a newsletter from any of our members can be viewed as any less important than a newsletter from a federal member. I have received many calls and letters from our members, who are hoping that the decision is reconsidered. I urge you, on behalf of the 130 members of the Legislative Assembly, to do just that."

I would ask the member opposite and my colleagues here to consider expanding the scope of the resolution to include official communications from levels of government -- municipal, provincial -- because there are matters of important public concern, and I've outlined a few, it is necessary to communicate. Yet we are all husbands of the taxpayer's dollar. We must make sure we find the most cost-effective way, and if this very efficient means of delivering information to our constituents is being removed from us, often the choice is, how do we get this information out, what is the assurance of our coverage, and can we do a good job of doing it.

I am delighted to stand and support the honourable member's motion today.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I support this resolution. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with a Tory counterpart. I welcome the opportunity to speak to it and to make note of our solidarity in this caucus with postal workers, CUPW members who have been forced into a strike situation. We want to take this opportunity to condemn even the contemplation of use of scabs to replace the work that postal workers do.

In case there are folks watching this on black and white television sets, my pocket handkerchief is green, for very obvious reasons. I am confident that, further to the matter of the solidarity with CUPW workers, folks can come out here in front of Queen's Park at 12 noon today, in just about 45 minutes, and join working people and their leaders as delegates from the Ontario Federation of Labour mass here at Queen's Park in protest of this government's attacks on democracy, in protest of this government's attacks on workers, and in protest of Bill 160: the scuttling, the evisceration of public education as it has been built in this province over so many years with the sacrifice of so many people.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I am pleased to rise to address this resolution on behalf of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. This resolution is timely. I recall when I first became aware of this change, which changes how we, as members of this Legislature, and other elected officials across the province at the municipal level are able to communicate with those who elected us. It changes that as of July 2 of this year.

I have to believe this was an oversight on the part of the federal government. I cannot for one minute believe that this was intentional: to equate correspondence, communication, from elected members of the Legislature or of municipal councils across this province with ad mail that comes out from retail chains. The member's initiative in bringing this to this House, seeking the support of this Legislature and bringing this to the attention of the federal government, as I said before, is certainly timely.

No one likes junk mail belabouring our mailboxes, but I can tell you that, particularly over the last number of weeks, given the important pieces of legislation we're dealing with in this province, the recurring theme from my constituents has been, "Help us with more information about the legislation you're bringing forward."

I think fundamental to democracy in this province, in this country, is the ability of elected officials to communicate with their constituents. I think we should all be optimistic that when our Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs formally brings this to the attention of the federal government, we will see their reconsideration and their quick action in response to the member for Guelph's resolution this morning.

I commend her for bring this forward, and we look forward to the opportunity to having this right of communication restored not only to members of this Legislature but members of every official elected body in this province.

1120

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I also welcome the opportunity this morning to speak to the resolution of Mrs Elliott, the member for Guelph, and to support her in her resolution.

I would just comment initially that although it would be nice if our mailings could be treated exactly the same as those of our federal members, that being that they be delivered without cost, I don't wholeheartedly support that; in other words, if we can get our householders delivered, and the fact is that they may have to be paid out of our budget, so be it. I think the important thing is that we be treated, along with our municipal representatives, the same as those in the federal government.

I think householders can be of some value. I didn't realize before I came here that, particularly in opposition, there are limited ways in which we can communicate with our constituents. I can tell you that my householder -- I have sent one a year. I point out that part of it is a view from the opposite side, and that is to give another view of any particular piece of legislation we may choose.

I think it's good for opposition members to be able to communicate that way. At the same time my householder has contained I think good information on government legislation that informs our constituents of that legislation, how they can access the things that government can and should do for them.

I try to keep that householder kind of in two sections, where part of it may be somewhat of a partisan nature but only to give a view that may be different from that of the government so that at least our constituents can then make up their own minds. I don't think any government document or any document sent out, like a householder, from any member of the Legislature, should be of too partisan a nature. It should be as much informative as, or more informative than anything else.

Therefore, I can see no reason why we shouldn't be treated the same as our federal counterparts, and if the only result of this will be that they don't agree with this, we will have to go to the cost of addressing each piece of mail, which is possible, and go to the cost of first-class mailing, I suspect, or at least a mailing cost that will be in excess of the normal, most economical way to do it.

I certainly want to add my voice to that of the member for Guelph and add it in a way that emphasizes the fact that these mailings should be used to inform our constituents. Although some of us may not use up to four a year, certainly if we only use one, that goes a long way to having a better informed constituency. Therefore, I would certainly stand in support of this resolution, hope that it passes, and will do what I can to support the position of the member for Guelph through my own member of Parliament in any way I can.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'm going to bring a bit of a different perspective on this particular motion, and I would say at the outset that there might be a very good reason why the Tories, the federal government --

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): The Liberal government.

Mr Bisson: The Liberal government, as he says, yes, but let me start it all over here again. It ruined the delivery.

There might be a very good reason why the federal government is not allowing junk mail to be sent out on behalf of people who are members of provincial parliaments; that is, quite simply, that they're trying to protect us from the Tory propaganda. Because if it's stuff coming from the Tories it truly has to be junk mail. So maybe there's a good reason why the federal government has taken the position it has, because we certainly know the government is --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: You've got to look at all angles; that's what you've got to do.

The member brings forward a point, in all seriousness, that is a good one. There's obviously an oversight in the legislation, something we need to take a look at. I would say, given that there is a postal strike on at this particular time, in solidarity with the CUPW people I would urge that the government members do not allow junk mail to be delivered by scabs, at any particular time, because --

Mr Lessard: Or utilizing them themselves.

Mr Bisson: And utilizing them themselves. In solidarity with the CUPW people, I will keep my comments short and view this as a support to the CUPW people.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm entirely pleased to commend the member for Guelph's resolution this morning dealing with Canada Post's unilateral move to not equate provincial and municipal information, in householders or whatever type of communication you refer to it as, on the same level as material sent from federal members of Parliament. It leads me to ask the question on several grounds what is going on regarding this particular situation from Mr Gagliano, the minister responsible for Canada Post.

It seems to me that when all the premiers met in Calgary back in September and promoted the Calgary declaration about the role of Quebec in Canadian federalism, the Prime Minister of Canada, M. Chrétien, praised that particular declaration in terms of its equity of all the provinces, because that's one of the key fundamentals within the declaration.

If the federal government regards the Calgary declaration as being as favourable as he pointed it out to be and as all the premiers who participated in that situation regarded it to be, why is it then when we translate that principle into action that Canada Post, as a monopoly, is able to operate in complete disregard of that principle, particularly in respect of the minister who is responsible for Canada Post?

If provincial and municipal information, as householders or whatever phrase you want to use, is regarded as junk mail under the section Canada Post and the minister are hiding behind, then I guess one has to ask what constitutes criteria that elevate members of Parliament federally for their householders as not junk mail? What specific criteria elevate it higher?

It smacks in the worst sense of a sort of Liberal élitism regarding their views on the country. It may be a minor issue to us as politicos and how we communicate information to the public, but certainly it points it out in terms of the motivation. One has to ask why they would do this.

It has been suggested by my colleague the member for York-Mackenzie that it was probably an oversight. I'm wondering if it might be insensitivity to other levels of government. I wonder if it might be incompetence. They were so quick to get it through in the middle of the summertime, July 2, that in point of fact perhaps -- everybody wants to talk about motivation around here -- that might be some of the motivation.

Regardless of the situation, this is an intolerable and outrageous practice. If one level of government can do this, then it points to sort of an ongoing unilateral federalism: We know best. We saw it pointed out in terms of the Prime Minister's approach to youth unemployment in this country when this was brought up at the Calgary meeting of the provinces.

I would urge all members of the House to support the member for Guelph's resolution, that the resolution be taken to the federal government by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mrs Cunningham. I'd also urge that the Speaker once again join with other Speakers of provincial legislatures across Canada and ask that this particular selective monopoly be ended and that we get back to some equity in this practice: Treat all political communication on the same level, that it's all exempt from the practice of postage, or put postage costs on it, not, "You're select and then this group is the other way." Where are the criteria? We need some equity back into this.

I commend the member for Guelph for bringing this subject to the attention of the House and I hope we can get some action on it and not another letter from Mr Gagliano that says, "We appreciate your business but we may not even do it under the Consumers Choice program." It's sort of a confusing message from him. I hope we get it finished and resolved quickly.

1130

Mr Lessard: I want to express, along with my NDP caucus colleagues, our solidarity with the CUPW workers who are currently in a dispute with their employer at Canada Post and express our wishes that this dispute they have is going to be settled in the near future, so that if this resolution does pass today, CUPW workers will be able to deliver mail that's sent out by members of the provincial Legislature.

As you know, I was elected on September 4 and noticed that there was a substantial change in the ability of members to communicate through the mail with their constituents, very severe restrictions. This is a dangerous trend, in my view. Those mailing and budgetary restrictions on communicating with constituents were imposed by the Mike Harris Tory government. We see the federal Liberal government as well further trying to restrict the ability of members of provincial Parliament trying to communicate with their constituents. This is a trend that must be reversed. I want to congratulate the member for bringing this resolution forward today to try and address those restrictions on members of provincial Parliament to communicate with their constituents.

I hope this request that's in the resolution, that the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs petition Canada Post, is going to be more effective than the request that was made to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism to request the federal Liberal government to change the law with respect to craps being permitted in casinos. Let's hope that communication takes place a little bit faster.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure to rise today in support of Mrs Elliott's resolution calling upon this House to "request the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs to petition Canada Post Corp to treat under section 35 of the Canada Post Corporation Act members of the Legislative Assembly and municipal councillors of Ontario in the same manner as federal members of Parliament" with respect to householders.

I commend her for bringing this forward because, as she so rightly mentioned, we as provincial members would be paying for a service and would not be able to know if our communications with our constituents would be delivered, whereas our federal counterparts aren't paying for theirs and have the assurance that each and every one of their householders would be delivered. I do commend her for bringing this forward.

Really, what is the difference between an elected member at the federal level, at the provincial level or at the municipal level?

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): They get paid more.

Mr Newman: The Liberal members say pay. Perhaps that is, but the real issue is that every one of those elected representatives is there on behalf of the taxpayers of their area, and taxpayers deserve that right to hear from their elected members, whether they send them here to Queen's Park, to any of the provincial capitals, to Ottawa or to their local town or city hall. They deserve that right to hear from their MPPs and MPs and other elected representatives just what is happening.

I think that it probably was an oversight on the part of Canada Post and I'd like to think -- maybe I'm an optimist -- that they would reconsider. Perhaps it is as the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale said, insensitivity towards other levels of government, that only the federal government should be able to get its communications out to its constituents. I think that would want to be looked at.

I ask the Liberal members here today, you have some connections in Ottawa, your federal cousins are the government in this country. In fact one of your former members of caucus sits in the government caucus at the House of Commons, the former member for Oriole, the now federal member for Thornhill. I'd ask you to ask her to fight on behalf of all elected members in Ontario, not just at the provincial level but at the municipal level, and to see that their communications are brought forward to their constituents, that they're able to see that.

I notice with interest that the member for Windsor-Riverside talked about having a problem with the reduced budget, that we've actually reduced the budgets of members of provincial Parliament in Ontario by some 20% and, yes, there have been restrictions on the amount of communications that have gone out. But you have to ask yourself why. Why were there reductions in place on communications? Because the previous government allowed members to send out virtually an unlimited amount of mail and the actual cost of an MPP's office when all the costs were brought into place was almost $240,000, $250,000 on the part of many members who were sending out, I would think, excessive mailings. We have brought that back into line so that constituents across Ontario are able to receive communications from their elected representatives but not to the extent that they once did.

Perhaps the federal government and Canada Post, when this decision was made, decided that federal ridings and federal members would be allowed to do this because their ridings were larger. I say to you, if that was their reason in doing it in Ontario, our provincial ridings will be exactly the same size and have the same boundaries as our federal counterparts during the next election. At the start of the next election we'll have the same number of elected representatives here at Queen's Park, and that would be 103, as Ontario has at the House of Commons, which would be 103. That's a reduction of 27 elected members here in Ontario. If it is on the basis of geography and size of the riding that they're allowing federal members to continue to do this, then they ought to extend that same privilege to people who are elected to represent them at Queen's Park and at the municipal level.

Especially at times when there's a lot of restructuring going on on the part of municipalities, people want to know from their elected representatives at that level just what is happening. I know many people in Toronto are interested to see how our new city of Toronto will work and they want to hear from the 57 people who were elected on November 10 in this city and perhaps right across the province who were elected just what's happening in their communities, so I feel they should have that right as well.

Maybe Canada Post's motive in doing this is to make sure that everyone has a Web site so that is the way people are going to have to communicate with their constituents if Canada Post continues down the path that it's on right now, to not allow elected members at the municipal and provincial levels to effectively communicate with their constituents.

If Canada Post did continue down this path, many of the constituents wouldn't have the opportunity to know that this government has cut taxes 30 times since taking office, that they've had several cuts to personal provincial income tax in this province, that they've cut the employer health tax in this province with the goal of reducing it to zero for those small businesses with payrolls under $400,000 and effectively removing it from larger corporations with payrolls over $400,000 but actually exempting the first $400,000. They wouldn't know that we've reduced the deficit in this province, that we've cut red tape or that there are 250,000 more people working in this province today if Canada Post didn't allow those householders to go out and have those communications done at the economy rate from members.

Other members spoke as well about Ontario Speaks. I think it's very important that literature like that be able to be distributed to every single person in this province so that they have an opportunity to respond on the issue of national unity from this province.

As people indicated, newspapers are being asked to pick up the slack, that people would take out ads as a way of communicating with their constituents. The point was brought up that community newspapers aren't in every community and, for that matter, not everyone has a chance to leave their own home, to get out and purchase a newspaper or to pick up a free copy of a community newspaper. I think it's important that they are able to have those communications delivered right to their door.

In closing, I just want to say to the member for Guelph that I support her resolution. I think she should be commended for bringing it forward and that all members of the House should support her on behalf of the taxpayers of this province and indeed the taxpayers of Canada.

1140

Mr Miclash: I rise to as well support the member for Guelph's motion. She has certainly brought forth a matter of inequity here when we take a look at the principal component of her resolution regarding the householders going from a federal member or a provincial member.

The member for Scarborough Centre brings up an important point and it's a point that has certainly had a great influence on how we as northern members are going to be able to represent our constituents, that being the Fewer Politicians Act which enlarges a riding in the north, which is certainly going to have to have the distribution of householders and material throughout one third of the provincial land mass. We will have one out of 103 members representing one third of the provincial land mass, so of course householders and mailings at that point will become very important.

It was Mr Harris who brought forth the Fewer Politicians Act to limit the representation from northern Ontario, a very vast region of this province, by one third. We are dropping our northern representation and we are certainly going to have to have every means available to us to reach those constituents in that 337,000-square kilometre area of northern Ontario.

I applaud the member for Guelph for bringing this forth. I go back to the importance of information getting out to my constituents. As you will realize, to cover an area going from Rainy River all the way up to Fort Severn, is almost going to be impossible to service our constituents on a regular basis, as northern members do now. Knowing that riding is going to be enlarged by an enormous amount, I go back to the fact that mailings are certainly going to be very important.

I think of the number of things I do through either my householder -- as we know, the calendar is referred to as a householder as well -- and the number of important phone numbers that I get out to my constituents through this mailing. It is one I know they look forward to because there is some very valuable information contained in a good number of those mailings to let constituents know how they can get hold of provincial government agencies and, more important, how they get hold of me representing them here in the Legislature in Ontario. It is a very important aspect and a very important service to our constituents in such a large geographical area and one that we need to service those constituents.

As I have indicated, I will certainly support this resolution.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I too am pleased to support this resolution that has been brought forward by the member for Guelph. As she will know, I rose on a point of privilege in the Legislature and raised this issue with the Speaker, hoping that representation could be made from the Legislative Assembly on behalf of all members to the federal government and to Canada Post to understand the impact of this decision they had taken. I am very pleased the member has taken the initiative to bring forward this resolution and I look forward to voting in favour of it.

I think there are times when perhaps people don't understand how important the MPPs' budget is with respect to communicating with their constituents. I know we've had a bit of that debate in here and we have seen restraint across all government budgets. We've seen restraint of MPPs' budgets as well. I know, for example, in my own riding that I am not able to communicate to the same degree that I did in the past as a result of those budget cuts.

Now some might say perhaps they got too much information from me in the past, I don't know, but most of the feedback I've received from my constituents is that people appreciate being kept up to date with respect to what's going on and being kept up to date with respect to their members' opinion of that, because it is on the basis of your record, the positions you take, the information you put forward that people will judge in the future whether they continue to have political support for you. That kind of communication back and forth with constituents, where you're providing them with information and where they are responding to you and giving you feedback so that you come here to this Legislature in order to all the better represent your constituents, is a very important two-way flow of communication.

Of course, with the issue that is at hand in this resolution, we know we cannot afford to have direct-address mail to all of our constituents. It would be next to impossible for us to afford from our budgets. The most cost-effective way for us to communicate using the taxpayers' dollars is through unaddressed mail, and you've heard other members here speak about householders and the kind of distribution of that, where it goes out on a postal walk as unaddressed mail.

The problem with the Canada Post decision on this, of course, is that it discriminates against different levels of governments and politicians not just in terms of their ability to communicate but also in terms of the individual residents themselves and whether they will receive very important information from either municipal or provincial government.

By virtue of being environmentally conscious, of not wanting to support junk mail and additional wastage of paper, if you take that position, which I do personally, then I, as probably one of the people who would most want to hear from my elected representatives at all levels, would be denying myself the opportunity to get that information, so there's a bit of irony in all of this.

I think it is an issue that should be able to be resolved fairly quickly. I'm quite amazed at the insensitivity of the federal government and Canada Post in the decision that has been taken here. It seems to me that once it was drawn to their attention, it would have been fixed very quickly. I know that's not the case, because it was first drawn to my attention, actually, by a member of provincial Parliament from one of our western provinces. We know that approaches have been made, and no fix has been found at this point in time.

I think the member's resolution is both important and timely. Hopefully, with a joint expression of the members of this Legislative Assembly we will see a response to the concerns not just of provincial politicians and their ability to communicate with their constituents but certainly at the municipal level as well. I think the ability to have participatory democracy is dependent on the ability of constituents and their elected representatives to communicate with each other. In this case the decision that has been taken at the federal level is one that would hamper that.

I see there is about five minutes left on the clock, which I'd be delighted to share with my colleague. At this point in time, I'll just indicate my support for the member's resolution and thank her for bringing it forward.

1150

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to thank my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine for giving me some time to participate in this debate and indicate that I too, along with I think all of the members of the House frankly, support the resolution brought forward by the member. All of us who have concern for the environment and for conservation would understand the wishes of people to avoid cutting down more and more trees in order to produce more and more junk mail. Now we have the additional problem of junk faxes that are becoming a nuisance to people and of concern.

But having said that, it is central to our democratic political system that the elected representatives have the responsibility to inform their constituents about the issues of the day and to seek their input, so that the MPP or the municipal politician as well as the MP can be informed about what the constituents think. Without that kind of exchange of ideas and views, it is impossible for MPPs, any elected representative, to properly represent her or his constituents.

It is most unfortunate that the federal government, Canada Post, would determine that the corporation would agree not to provide junk mail to any household that wishes not to have that mail but would include MPPs and municipal newsletters while protecting MPs' newsletters. There is some discrimination here, which is not acceptable, and I'm sure that the members of Parliament in Ottawa, once they are aware of this through the passage of this resolution today, will do everything possible very quickly to rectify this obvious problem. People must be informed of what their MPs are doing in Ottawa, but they must also be informed about what their MPPs are doing at Queen's Park, just as they should be informed about what their municipal representatives are doing and what the issues are in each area.

I would guess that there are certain kinds of mailings that are done by provincial governments that could be considered indeed to be junk. For instance, the recent advertising about teachers and teachers' federations and teacher union bosses I would indeed classify as junk. If there's anything Canada Post can do about that kind of junk, I would be certainly in favour of it. I would support it all the way.

Having said that, I think it's important that we ensure that Canada Post and the members of Parliament in Ottawa are sent a message by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that we believe we have a responsibility to inform our constituents and to seek their input about issues that are important at the provincial level.

I congratulate the member for bringing this forward. I know of her interest in the environment and her concern about ensuring that we do not waste paper, and that we enable people who don't want to receive endless brochures and advertising to be able to get Canada Post to agree not to deliver it to them. But that must not include newsletters from MPPs or, for that matter, leaflets from municipal representatives who are elected and who must communicate with their constituents.

Again, I support the resolution. I congratulate the member for bringing it forward. I hope that the member will receive unanimous consent and agreement from the members of the assembly for the support of this to send a message to Ottawa.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Guelph has two minutes to wrap up.

Mrs Elliott: I'd like to first of all thank my colleagues from all the parties for their support in my resolution today. We've touched on a number of different topics and each person seemed to look at this issue from a slightly different perspective.

In a sense, what we're faced with today is an issue of an inability to communicate not only out to our members but, as the member for Algoma just mentioned, an inability to in a sense receive feedback from our constituents. It's really important that we are able to share those kinds of information so that we can provide the kind of leadership they expect us to provide, whether it's at the municipal level, at the provincial level, or indeed at the federal level.

It really doesn't matter why this happened, whether it was an oversight or whether it was deliberate. It really doesn't matter. The fact does remain that we are about to have ridings in Ontario that will be exactly the same size as our federal counterparts' ridings. We will be serving exactly the same number of constituents. Many of our issues will overlap. They will range from everything from finance to transportation to environmental issues.

My colleague from Algoma mentioned the stickers. In fact at one time when I had my environment store I used to give out these stickers. I agree with him; there are many, many people who believe that in refusing junk mail they save trees and they save landfill, and in fact they do. It's a very good thing to do from that perspective. But it's so important that our constituents are informed, that they understand what their elected representatives are doing and are about to do, and they have an opportunity to have input into those decisions. It's absolutely essential to our democratic process.

I say to all my colleagues today here in the House that I appreciate their support. Through this action we will make it very clear to the federal Parliament what we want, and I will commit to our colleagues to pass this message to other provincial legislatures across the country.

The Acting Speaker: The time for private member's business has expired.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES LOTERIES DE L'ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 107, standing in the name of Mr Morin. Mr Morin moved second reading of Bill 163. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Shall the bill be referred to committee of the whole?

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Mr Speaker, I would like the bill to be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Morin has moved that the bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice. Agreed? It is agreed.

HOUSEHOLDER MAILINGS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 108, private member's notice of motion number 83, standing in the name of Mrs Elliott. Is it the pleasure of the House that this resolution carry? It is carried.

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1158 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): One year ago tomorrow, my school bus safety bill, private member's Bill 78, received the unanimous consent of this Legislature and was referred to the standing committee on resources development.

It was a proud moment for Larry and Colleen Marcuzzi, who were sitting in the gallery that day and with whom I have worked to bring forward meaningful legislation that will protect children. My bill was dedicated to their daughter Ryan who was tragically and needlessly killed by a driver who illegally passed her school bus when its warning lights were flashing.

Parliamentary tradition and the democratic system require that my bill be brought forward to be heard in committee. The government has refused to allow that to happen.

In June of this year, my bill forced the government to introduce its own school bus legislation, which is totally useless, to protect children. It has no mechanism for conviction. Colleen Marcuzzi said, "Palladini did the political thing, not the right thing."

I urge the government to call my bill to committee so that parents, bus drivers and other experts can come forward to tell you that Bill 78 will give the law the mechanism to convict guilty drivers who endanger the lives of innocent children. Do it now to protect the children.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This Harris government's vilification of principals, of teachers, of school boards, indeed of any others -- and there are hundreds of thousands of others, millions in this province -- opposed to this government's demolition, its evisceration of publicly funded quality education exemplifies the demise of democracy here in Ontario.

The government's demonstrated lack of respect for its citizens and for their contribution to the democratic process is a dangerous warning sign. It is a warning sign that this abandonment of democratic principles, this abolition of democratic process is being witnessed not just across this province but across this country and indeed throughout North America. The eyes of North America are on this government as it dismantles publicly funded quality education here in Ontario, as it engages in the biggest power grab that any democratically elected government ever has in this province, indeed in this country, as it slams the door shut on the views and opinions of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of citizens of this province.

This government's motive is but to consolidate power in the back rooms of its corporate buddies and to engage in a money grab to the tune of, in the first year alone, over two thirds of a billion dollars to pay for its phoney tax break, the likes of which the people of Ontario want nothing to do with insofar as it is going to be funded on the backs --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

GABRIELE ERASMI

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Last Saturday I was pleased to join with the Sons of Italy, Trieste Lodge, as they honoured one of their own as Hamilton's Italian-Canadian Citizen of the Year.

Dr Gabriele Erasmi was this year's recipient and is an outstanding individual worthy of such a distinguished honour. Born in Trieste, Italy, in 1942, Dr Erasmi completed his studies at the universities of Trieste, Yale and Minnesota, where he received his PhD in 1975. Dr Erasmi has been at McMaster University since 1972, where he is currently an associate professor in the department of modern languages.

Dr Erasmi is the author of two books and many articles and research papers on the Italian presence in Canada. His involvement with the Hamilton Opera Guild and Opera Hamilton is well known. He has a tremendous love of classical music and has organized and coordinated at least 30 concerts of Italian classical music and is now for the second time president of the Dante Alighieri Society. I am told that it is not unusual to hear Dr Erasmi burst out with song as you travel the hallways of McMaster University's modern languages department.

Dr Erasmi's family and friends were justly proud as Gabriele humbly accepted this very prestigious award. On behalf of Hamilton, congratulations to Dr Gabriele Erasmi.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): In the members' gallery today are Anna Germain and Robert Perkins, two parents of children with Down syndrome. They are members of a special education advisory congress in my riding of Downsview and elsewhere and members of various associations which advocate for children with disabilities.

They have come here today in a desperate attempt to ensure that their children and the many, many children with disabilities receive quality education. Their experience is that education under the Harris government is already suffering. Their children have little or no support in the schools. The funds to assist them are shrinking. With Bill 160, they fear that these children will be ignored, will be dumped into segregated classrooms with minimal supports and little possibility to learn and improve.

These parents are tired and frustrated. They are forced to lobby for essentials which should be a right for all children. Mike Harris is ignoring the very vulnerable group among the most vulnerable of all children. Bill 160 will make matters worse.

Parents are concerned. They are concerned enough to fight this draconian piece of legislation. They are concerned enough to come down here. They want to ask this government to consider that education is a right for all children, not just the rich and able-bodied. They want to tell you: Don't bully these kids as well. Don't make them the victims of your tax cuts. Do the right thing. Pay attention to the needs of these children with special needs and withdraw Bill 160.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Opposition to Bill 160 and this government's destructive education agenda is growing. This is happening because people know that Mike Harris plans to take another $667 million out of the education system next year. Parents, students and teachers have already seen the effects of the cuts to the classroom, with the $800 million the Conservatives have already taken out. They know the publicly funded education system itself is at risk in the face of another $667-million cut.

A parent in my riding called yesterday to ask me to ask Mike Harris how another cut to the classroom will possibly help his eight-year-old son. The son has attention deficit disorder and must take medication to control his behaviour. He has been seen by a psychiatrist and does require one-on-one supervision in the classroom, but the school board can't afford a full-time aide for the boy.

Since September 1997 he has only attended school on 16 days. There was no support for him in the classroom, so when his behaviour got out of control the school called the parents to come and take him home. As both parents work, they finally had no choice but to place him in the care of his grandmother in another community until the situation could be resolved.

Yesterday, at a school board meeting held with the parents and psychiatrists, no solution was found. The only option put forward was to possibly find some parents who would volunteer to come into the school to supervise this boy and other children who also require close attention.

My constituents' eight-year-old son remains out of school and unable to access an education he is entitled to receive in Ontario. My question to the Premier is simple: Explain to my constituents and their son how another $667-million cut will help this boy get a quality education.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I rise to demand that the board of directors and commissioners of the Toronto Transit Commission recognize the serious safety problems on Toronto's subway system.

As the trial continues in an assault that occurred at the Kennedy Road subway station where a victim had his legs broken, an 18-year-old OAC student is thankful she survived a push into the path of a subway train last Monday.

Two months ago 23-year-old Charlene Minkowski wasn't so lucky and was killed as she was pushed in front of a subway train. Fourteen-year-old Guy Ambus was mugged at the Kennedy Road subway station four weeks ago. His father, Louis Ambus, was murdered by two young offenders at his uncle's store nearly two years ago.

Tom Ambus started the Kid Brother Campaign and collected nearly one million signatures to change the Young Offenders Act. Tom was incensed at his nephew's mugging. He couldn't understand why three of the four newly installed video cameras weren't working, yet the TTC commissioned a wall mural in the Kennedy Road station to make it more attractive.

Almost two years ago 17-year-old Ishmail Spence had his throat slashed at the Kennedy Road station and died. A year and a half ago 17-year-old Michael Imam Ewaschuk was murdered at the Main Street subway station, and two years ago TTC ticket-taker Victor Trajeski was slain at the Victoria Park subway station.

Mugging, swarming and robbery are now common on public transit. Our families and kids use the subway. Mr Howard Moscoe, councillor-elect and vice-chair of the TTC, you must by now recognize the gravity of the safety problems on Metro subways. My family and my constituents do not want wall murals at the expense of safe subways.

1340

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): As Bill 160 moves closer to reality with the vote on Monday, I urge all parents, students and partners in education to make every attempt to contact their MPPs, especially their government MPPs, telling them to vote against this bill which is bad for students and bad for education. Make sure you call or visit your MPP over the next three days to take one last stand against this bill.

Centralization of the power of this magnitude reminds me of newspeak in George Orwell's world of 1984, where war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Similarities abound with the Common Sense Revolution government of Mike Harris, when in Harrisspeak of 1997, cutting is quality, less is more, hearing is not listening, representation is regulation and, saddest of all, democracy is dead.

This experiment ought to be stopped. Take another stand this weekend, teachers and parents and students. Take a stand in Sudbury and in Thunder Bay and in Windsor and Toronto and in the 905 area and say, "Enough is enough of this nonsensical revolution, of this centralization of power, of this cut to our schools on the heels of cuts to health care." Let's take back Ontario and let's take back a progressive and positive future for all the people in this province.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "We, who are called to love and respect God and our neighbours, are very concerned and unsettled with the level of rancour, anxiety, concern, sadness and anger unleashed in the people of this province as a result of Bill 160." This is part of a statement made by the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada, November 12.

"Before you vote on Bill 160 in its present form, we think you are entitled to understand the level of frustration and grief we White Pines C and VS teachers are feeling as a result of your government's intransigence in forcing Bill 160 on Ontario's public education system.

"While we are not opposed to a reasonable approach to educational reform, we are appalled by your government's attack on public education, and specifically, the dishonest badmouthing of teachers for the alleged improvement of education."

"I am a grandmother. My children were able to complete their education and find work in the careers of their choice. One is a teacher, one a nurse, one an electrician, one an executive secretary. I have grandchildren who are willing to work just as hard.... With all the downloading and restructuring," do they have a chance? This is Katherine Punch, Sault Ste Marie.

How many more people is it going to take? Some 126,000 teachers, some 1,000 more parents? Gary Connolly and his friends are still on a hunger strike at Trinity-St Paul's United Church at 427 Bloor Street West. Anybody who's concerned should join that --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member for Oshawa.

FESTIVAL OF TREES

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It's with great pleasure that I rise today regarding the Durham region Festival of Trees.

Tomorrow will begin the gala opening of the first annual Durham region Festival of Trees at the historic Parkwood Estates and Gardens. The Festival of Trees will feature beautiful, professionally decorated Christmas trees, centrepieces, wreaths and much more. The two-day community event will display and sell a variety of items which are artistically decorated for Christmas.

The proceeds from this event will be used to support the Chaplaincy Association at Oshawa General Hospital, Hospice Durham and Hearth Place, to name but a few.

This first annual Festival of Trees is made possible by a large number of dedicated volunteers contributing their time and effort to provide an event for the whole community to enjoy and benefit, and I congratulate those for their commitment.

The Festival of Trees is an event which individuals, families, local businesses and community groups can all participate in as volunteers, sponsors or simply coming out to enjoy the festival. The festival not only presents an exciting holiday event for the residents of Oshawa but also for the entire region of Durham and the province of Ontario.

This Friday, November 28, from 7:30 to 11:30 pm, the event will open with a mix and mingle, where residents can view the Christmas displays and items to be auctioned. The festival will offer choirs, auctions and raffles for the professionally decorated Christmas trees and Christmas crafts on Saturday, from 9 am to 5 pm.

I'd like to invite all members of this Legislature and citizens of Ontario to start off their holiday season by visiting Durham region's Festival of Trees.

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'll be brief, since I believe there's a great deal of debate to take place in the House today and I don't want to delay.

I do, however, want to speak on a second point of order that has relevance to the point you heard yesterday and that you gave your undertaking yesterday to report back on at the earliest possible moment. You'll recall that was the point of order that Bill 164, introduced by the Minister of Finance two days ago, served to amend Bill 149, and Bill 149 had already gone through a due amendment process.

A similar concern exists in relationship to Bill 160, which we are to debate today. Bill 160 again has gone through a due amendment process. The deadline for filing amendments to Bill 160 was November 5. The amendment process was completed.

Bill 164, which was tabled two days ago, very specifically amends Bill 160, should Bill 160 pass. It amends subsection 14(4), subsection 14(5), subsection 16(1), subsection 16(3), subsection 16(4), subsection 16(6) and subsection 16(8) of Bill 160.

I raise the same concern that was raised by my colleagues yesterday, that it is very difficult for us to proceed to debate a bill which has gone through an amendment process which, in my view, was already rather abortive but which is now already being amended by a bill which was introduced two days ago. I don't know whether those amendments are substantive or not because we simply have not had an opportunity to review them, but they clearly affect in some way the bill that we are about to debate this afternoon and that will be voted on before that next bill can be considered.

I appreciate your considering that as you consider the point of order raised yesterday.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I was listening carefully to my friend from Fort William, and I agree with her that the point she's raising is related directly to the point of order I raised regarding Bill 164 and its introduction when I rose yesterday.

We found that the government held off, to be blunt, on Bill 149's debate yesterday afternoon because of the problems raised by their introduction of Bill 164 and the fact that it amended Bill 149. The government and this House are presented with the same problem today in that Bill 164 also amends substantive parts of Bill 160, a bill which has received second reading but is still before the House for third reading, a bill that was also time allocated. The time allocation motion clearly stated that a particular date was the final date by which amendments could be put.

You will perhaps recall, Speaker, that at the time we were about to reach that date, as per the time allocation motion, we in the New Democratic Party suggested to the government that the government might be prepared to bring in a new time allocation motion extending the deadline for amendments. The government House leader at that point refused and remained adamant that the deadline, as per the time allocation motion, stood. As a result of that, ironically his own Minister of Education and Training ran into problems in that he didn't get in by the deadline all his own government amendments that he wished to introduce. We also found that he introduced the wrong draft of the amendments he did introduce.

The upshot of all of this is that if there is a deadline for amendments and the government wouldn't move that deadline as per the time allocation motion, the government can't now slip in new amendments by pretending they're introducing new legislation. They can refer Bill 160 back to committee of the whole by moving a new time allocation motion to allow for amendments to be done in the proper way.

1350

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, I will be brief. On this same point of order, my friend from Algoma has just laid out for you a bit of history with respect to the tabling of amendments to Bill 160. I would point out specifically that we believe there were five amendments in particular that the government tabled after the 5 o'clock deadline. Those amendments were returned to the government by the Clerk's office.

It is our contention that those amendments have now been embedded in the bill that is before us and is the subject of this challenge, Bill 164, and that they seek to amend bill 160, which has not been passed by this Legislature. That is directly the point that was raised yesterday by my friend from Algoma with respect to Bill 164 seeking to amend Bill 149, which has not yet received passage in this Legislature.

In discussions with the government, I believe the government has virtually conceded, with respect to Bill 149, that there are significant problems in Bill 164. This new issue is of even more importance to have a timely ruling, because the government has informed us that it is their intent to proceed with third and final reading on Bill 160 this afternoon. We think these issues must be determined. In fact, it may need to mean a delay in the proceeding with Bill 160, as it meant a delay yesterday in the proceeding with Bill 149. We would ask you to look into that immediately.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm rising on the point of order by Mrs McLeod, the member for Fort William. I'm asking you to look at this in terms of the fact that it is going to set a precedent, I believe, under the new rules of the House. We have new rules that govern this House now. Is this going to set a precedent that whenever the government is dissatisfied that it has been unable to bring forward all the amendments it wants to a bill, for any reason, it is simply going to come forward with some omnibus bill which contains amendments to several previous bills?

The problem is that the government is simply trying to avoid, in our view, going to committee of the whole, which is provided for in this House. That's what the committee of the whole is supposed to be for: to try to correct any of the mistakes that it has made in terms of submitting amendments.

I believe that if on this occasion you allow the government to bring in amendments through the backdoor, that is, by means of another bill, indeed we're going to be setting a precedent. We're going to have sloppy legislation brought forward on an ongoing basis and people are really going to be wondering what they are debating when the day is over. For instance, when we debate Bill 164, are we really debating Bill 160? It appears from the contention of Mrs McLeod, the member for Fort William, who raised this matter in the House this afternoon, that this would be exactly the case.

We hope you will see the virtue of our arguments we have put forward and rule in favour of Mrs McLeod's contention.

Mrs McLeod: Just building on the points that have been raised by my colleague further to my point of order, there was a further amendment that was to have been presented on Bill 160. It was an amendment relating to a concern of the Urban Development Institute, and indeed of concern to the government. They had inadvertently submitted only one page of a two-page amendment affecting educational development charges in the bill.

There was an agreement on the part of both opposition parties that we would entertain a friendly amendment to allow both pages of the amendment to proceed, since we were in fact, believe it or not, in support of that amendment. Unfortunately, the government found that procedurally, according to its own time allocation motion, it could not entertain even a friendly amendment that would allow both pages of the amendment on educational development charges to proceed. As a result, they had to withdraw the first page because it was irrelevant without the second page.

Given the confusion -- and we have a letter from the Urban Development Institute expressing its great concern with the confusion that's been created and the lack of consultation and the hasty proceeding with this bill -- I'm wondering, Mr Speaker, if it is in order for us to agree through unanimous consent to allow the government additional time to revisit and amend its time allocation motion and go back to complete its own amendments properly. Is that in order, unanimous consent to allow the government to amend the time allocation motion so that it can complete its amendment process?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I believe that a valid concern over the orders of our House has been raised. I am prepared and will make the arguments necessary to show that Bill 164 is in order in its present form when the time comes for that to be done.

I think it's clear from the precedents which I have read and your ruling yesterday that this issue becomes important when in fact either 149 has been passed or 160 has been passed, and received royal assent; I think that is necessary as well. I will make a proper presentation as to whether or not 164 is or is not in order. It's my firm belief that it is in order, but I am interested in making those submissions at the proper time.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you to the members. Let me just be clear about the timeliness of this and the orderliness of what it is we're seeking, to find out what is in order and what isn't in order.

First, I will take that into consideration as well with the submissions yesterday. But really what we're talking about is the orderliness of Bill 164. It's not 149 or 160; it's the orderliness of Bill 164. I don't have anything to rule on until either 149 or 160 passes third reading. Royal assent, I don't know; I haven't examined that yet. But right now it seems to me it's third reading. It seems to me I may take the same arguments you put out today and seize them and study them carefully, but again, the government House leader does have a point: He is allowed to make the submissions when it is in fact before the House. Until 149 or 160 is passed, really 164 is not out of order. But I certainly hear what you say and when I do review it I will take these notes with me as well, upon reviewing that comment.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, my further point of order related to the fact that there was clearly an error made by the government in relationship to the educational development charges in the bill. I fully expect the government has to bring in further legislation in order to amend Bill 160, which we've not yet passed, in order to correct the error it made in the education development charges.

My concern is, are we going to go into an extensive process of amending a bill we haven't yet passed? It's with that in mind that I suggested that we would, by unanimous consent, agree to allow the government the time now to complete a full amendment process -- bringing its own amendments forward, having them considered and voted on and being part of their original Bill 160 -- rather than having to continually amend it with new pieces of legislation which will delay the proceedings of this House even further in the future.

The Speaker: If I have it straight, what you're asking unanimous consent for is to allow the government to bring that amendment forward to amend the bill by unanimous consent of the House.

Mrs McLeod: Because that happens to be one of the most glaring errors and omissions on the part of the government, to have presented only one page of a two-page amendment and then have essentially guaranteed the Urban Development Institute that it would be able in the clause-by-clause process to correct the error, and in fact couldn't.

There were some four or five amendments which the government inadvertently missed the deadline for and I suspect --

The Speaker: Just those four or five amendments, then?

Mrs McLeod: To amend the time allocation motion to extend the deadline for amendments. That's why the government got into trouble when it couldn't correct the one-page amendment.

The Speaker: Reopening the --

Mrs McLeod: To reopen the time allocation motion, Mr Speaker, so that the amendments can be reconsidered.

The Speaker: Let me be clear. The member for Fort William is seeking unanimous consent to change the time allocation motion so the government may reopen the bill and submit any further amendments they wish. Agreed? I heard a no.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This morning the Ministry of Environment did a technical briefing on the white paper on environmental deregulation. I don't see a statement down by the minister; I'm sure it's a mistake. I'd like to ask for unanimous consent for the Minister of Environment to make a statement regarding the white paper that was released this morning on environmental deregulation in Ontario.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent for the Minister of Environment to make a statement on the white paper that was released this morning. Agreed? I heard a no.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE BON SAMARITAIN

Mr Gilchrist moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 166, An Act to protect Persons from Liability in respect of Voluntary Emergency Medical or First Aid Services / Projet de loi 166, Loi visant à exonérer les personnes de la responsabilité concernant des services médicaux ou des premiers soins fournis bénévolement en cas d'urgence.

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

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Very briefly, this bill, the short title of which is the Good Samaritan Act, 1997, will provide protection for any doctor or any private citizen who delivers first aid or other assistance in the case of an emergency for which there is no expectation of remuneration.

We believe this will go a long way to ensuring protection for volunteers who conduct themselves with good intentions, and it allows the province of Ontario to catch up to the other jurisdictions in Canada and most American states in affording this protection to volunteers in our society.

GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF CREIGHTON-DAVIES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CANTON GÉOGRAPHIQUE DE CREIGHTON-DAVIES

Mr Laughren moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 167, An Act to Change the name of the geographic township of Creighton in the Territorial District of Sudbury to Creighton-Davies / Projet de loi 167, Loi visant à remplacer le nom du canton géographique de Creighton dans le district territorial de Sudbury par celui de Creighton-Davies.

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

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): This is to change the name of Creighton township to Creighton-Davies. As some members might know, Tom Davies, the retiring chairman of the regional municipality of Sudbury, comes from Creighton township and has contributed a great deal to life in the Sudbury community. This is to honour him.

I'd like to express my appreciation to the member for Sudbury East and the member for Sudbury for their cooperation in this regard.

BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160

Mr Hampton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 168, An Act to Protect our Children's Education and Defend Local Democracy / Projet de loi 168, Loi visant à protéger l'éducation de nos enfants et à défendre la démocratie locale.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To explain very briefly, this is a bill to repeal the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997. In other words, this is a bill to repeal an act which is otherwise known popularly as Bill 160.

BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160

Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:

An Act to Protect our Children's Education and Defend Local Democracy / Loi visant à protéger l'éducation de nos enfants et à défendre la démocratie locale.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1407 to 1412.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

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.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Beaches-Woodbine, come to order.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 68.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160 / BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997

M. Bisson propose l'adoption du projet de loi suivant :

Loi visant à protéger l'éducation de nos enfants et à défendre la démocratie locale / An Act to Protect our Children's Education and Defend Local Democracy.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1418 to 1423.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

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.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Harnick, Charles

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order, please. Member for Cochrane North, come to order.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): The jackboots just keep clicking down the hall.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, you must withdraw that comment.

Mr Christopherson: I withdraw it.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 67.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

1430

BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160

Ms Lankin moved first reading of the following bill:

An Act to Protect our Children's Education and Defend Local Democracy / Loi visant à protéger l'éducation de nos enfants et à défendre la démocratie locale.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1428 to 1433.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

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.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 46; the nays are 69.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Interjections.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Bob, do you decide when I lose my rights as an MPP?

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order.

LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160 / BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997

M. Pouliot propose l'adoption du projet de loi suivant :

Loi visant à protéger l'éducation de nos enfants et à défendre la démocratie locale / An Act to Protect our Children's Education and Defend Local Democracy.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

The division bells rang from 1438 to 1443.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 45; the nays are 68.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): In the spirit of Christmas, I put forward the following motion:

That, notwithstanding order 96(d), Mr Wettlaufer, Mrs Fisher and Mr Gilchrist exchange places in order of precedence for private members' public business such that Mr Wettlaufer assumes ballot item 5, Mrs Fisher assumes ballot item 95 and Mr Gilchrist assumes ballot item 2; and

That Mr Newman, Mr Hampton and Ms Churley exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business such that Mr Newman assumes ballot item 15, Mr Hampton assumes ballot item 4 and Ms Churley assumes ballot item 88, and

That, notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

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

OPPOSITION DAY MOTION

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Let me just take this opportunity to do a couple of housekeeping issues. Members will be aware that there appears in today's orders and notices paper notice of an opposition day standing in the name of Mr Hampton. Since the date specified for consideration of the motion falls within the last eight sessional days set out in standing order 6(a)(2), the notice is therefore out of order, pursuant to standing order 42(l)(ii), and shall be removed from the orders and notices paper.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Notwithstanding the standing orders and your rule to move this out of order, I would ask for unanimous consent to allow the order to stand and that the opposition debate takes place on Monday next.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery the portfolio committee on private members' proposals and petitions from the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. Welcome.

1450

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. Perhaps the House leader could tell me whether he will be back.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): He is not here. He is not returning.

Can you restart the clock, please.

Mr McGuinty: We'll go to the Minister of Education then, Speaker.

Earlier today, Minister, you will know that I acted to delay passage of Bill 160 until Monday, the week coming. I have done that because the only conclusion I can draw from the fact that you want to proceed with this bill and that your caucus members want to proceed with this bill is that they have not heard what is going on outside of this place when it comes to that bill. I can only conclude that people in your caucus have not attended protests, have not attended rallies, have not listened to the mail they have been receiving, have not been reading their faxes.

What I have done is I have created the opportunity for you to listen to the people and I want to ask you very directly, Minister, will you take the time over the next three days to listen to the people of the province who are, by an overwhelming majority, saying they want nothing to do with Bill 160 and they want you to vote against it?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm not terribly surprised that the Liberal Party would wish delay. That is a general approach of Liberal policy: having a difficult time making decisions, the tough decisions we have to make.

The reality is that this bill has received careful consideration over a long period of time, dating back to last year: For example, the Sweeney report, a former Liberal cabinet minister asked to look into various education issues by the previous government, said "Get on with action"; the report around Bill 100; the consultations with the teachers' unions; the public consultations that have taken place across the province where far in excess of 200 people made presentations; letters that have come in.

This caucus has listened; this government has listened. It's time to get on with improving the education system in Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I'm not only going to give you the opportunity now for the next three days to listen to people outside of this Legislature; I'm going to give you the opportunity to listen to some of the things that have been said by members of your own caucus.

In fact, you yourself said you are not in favour of taxation by way of regulation. This is unprecedented. We have the minister responsible for a bill -- you've got carriage of this bill and you were openly criticizing it. Furthermore, members of your own caucus have been telling us that they are very uncomfortable with the punitive action you've taken towards our principals and vice-principals. Furthermore, the Premier himself said several years back that he shuddered to think of what would happen if the provincial government ever took control of education in Ontario. You've got the opportunity now not only to listen to people outside but to listen to people inside your own caucus.

Once again, will you take advantage of these three days and do just that: listen to people on the outside and people inside your own caucus?

Hon David Johnson: This government and this caucus will be supporting Bill 160 because we support improvement in the education system, we support greater accountability within the education system and we support that there should be a tax freeze on the taxes going to the education system.

We do listen. I listened to a parent from Toronto who says, "This parent supports Bill 160 and the education changes." I listened to another parent from Ottawa who says, "I support the government's efforts to make changes in the education system." Another one from Napanee: "Please hold the course on Bill 160. You're doing a good job."

Parent after parent, year after year, has been telling this government and previous governments, "Improve the system, get on with the changes, ensure efficiency, ensure value in the education system," and that's exactly what we're going to do.

Mr McGuinty: You will know that since becoming leader of my party, I have made great efforts to put children on to the political agenda. The watchword when it comes to Ontario's children is, "Take care," but you are rushing this.

There are only three days of debate. You're not listening to what your own caucus members are saying. You're not listening to the groundswell of opposition that has arisen in this province.

What I'm asking you to do once again is to take advantage of the opportunity. I challenge you, Minister, and I challenge all the members in your caucus: This weekend, go into your community centres, go into the doughnut shops, go into the shopping centres and ask people whether they feel we can honestly improve education in Ontario by taking another $700 million out of the system and laying off thousands of teachers.

If you ask those questions, you know what the answer is going to be. People are going to tell you to come back to this Legislature on Monday and vote against Bill 160. Will you do that? Will you go out and listen to people?

Hon David Johnson: The people of Ontario have spoken through the years about education, about their desire to see a better curriculum, standardized testing, a standard report card, about ensuring that their children have the same opportunities in our education system as children do in other provinces, the same amount of class time, a limit on class sizes, which is what Bill 160 does. It puts a limit on the average class size in each board. That's exactly what it does.

The Education Improvement Commission has had a process, a consultative process, through the previous government, the Royal Commission on Learning, the Fair Tax Commission; report after report and millions upon millions of dollars spent on consulting over the years, some 24 reports over the last several years on education and improving the education system. It's time to get on and do the job, improve the system and give greater value to the taxpayer.

The Speaker: New question; leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: My question is to the Premier. You will know that your government has been criticized on a number of fronts, but none more frequently than for the fact that you are going too far and you are going too fast. The same can be said of your Bill 160.

Here's another reason you should be slowing down, taking the time to get it right: Your bill, as you know, is going to be the subject of at least three constitutional challenges. I'm going to ask you, Premier, if you will commit now that rather than proceed with Bill 160 on Monday or any day thereafter, you will first make a reference to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Judge MacPherson himself, the judge who sat on the issue of the injunction that you sought and failed to obtain here in Ontario, said that at the very least, when it came to the constitutionality of Bill 160, Bill 160 was suspect. I am asking you if you will not now, in order to avoid delay down the road, make a reference of Bill 160 to the Ontario Court of Appeal so we can determine whether it is in fact lawful.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The lawyers we consulted certainly believe the bill is entirely constitutional. More important, the people we are talking to believe the reforms in education that we are implementing are essential, and perhaps just as significant, Bill 160, which protects the classroom, is even more essential. So no, we do not plan to refer our own legislation for a court ruling. We are quite satisfied that it is constitutional.

1500

Mr McGuinty: I am delighted to hear that the Premier has obtained some legal opinions on this. I will ask him to, as soon as possible but certainly by the end of the day, table those opinions so we can see them.

A number of legal challenges are going to be started as soon as this Bill 160 becomes law in Ontario. We know that the Ontario Catholic teachers are going to challenge Bill 160 on the basis that it attacks their right to govern their own system. We know that the OSSTF is going to attack it on the basis that it constitutes taxation without debate, taxation by means of regulation. We know that the public school boards and parents have already said that you should be referring this to court in order to determine whether it really is lawful. Principals and vice-principals, we know, right now are considering whether they ought to attack it on the basis that it interferes with their right to associate.

Once again, Premier, even from a taxpayer's perspective, does it not make sense now, rather than to fight off all kinds of constitutional challenges at tremendous cost to taxpayers down the road, to make a reference to the Ontario Court of Appeal just to ensure that this bill is in fact lawful?

Hon Mr Harris: I would like to agree with the leader of the Liberal Party. It makes absolutely no sense to be spending all this money in court that those who appear to want to do. There are some people who will do everything to hang on to the status quo: an $11-billion deficit, test results that are mediocre or worse. There are even leaders who will go on a picket line and encourage an illegal strike. There are leaders, even when teachers want to go back into the classroom, who will stand up and say, "Stay out on this illegal strike longer, to hang on to that $11-billion deficit, that status quo of an inferior education system for our children."

While there are some wanting to hang on to that status quo that led to double-digit unemployment, that status quo that led to the highest number of people per capita dependent upon welfare, neither I nor our minister nor our cabinet nor our caucus nor our party are part of that group that want to hang on to the disgraceful status quo that we inherited in June 1995.

Mr McGuinty: Believe me, we all know what you want to do when it comes to education. You want to take another $700 million out of the system at the expense of our children and you want to lay off thousands of teachers so there are fewer left to teach our children. That's exactly what you want to do when it comes to Bill 160.

Perhaps the most offensive aspect of Bill 160 is those 13 areas where either the minister or the Education Improvement Commission will have unlimited, unchecked power. The last time I checked in Ontario this was a democracy, and it's a system that works well because it's based on checks and balances. But this power that you're giving to the minister and to the Education Improvement Commission is going to go unchecked. Surely, Premier, you are not comfortable knowing that the next Minister of Education in the next government is going to have these powers. Surely you're not comfortable with that notion.

Once again, in the interests of our children, understanding that the overwhelming majority of Ontarians are against your bill, will you not refer 160 to the courts to make sure it's lawful before it becomes the subject of a challenge?

Hon Mr Harris: Given that the rhetoric in the preamble you presented to me is entirely untrue, no.

The Speaker: Premier, you must withdraw that. You can't accuse the member of --

Hon Mr Harris: I withdraw.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. About a week ago you were quoted as saying, "Some of our people who are studying at universities are studying programs that have very little hope of contributing to society in any meaningful way." That's a quote of yours. You referred to geography majors, that anybody studying geography should probably get out of it, that they won't be able to make a contribution.

Your Ministry of Education during the recent teachers' protest circulated some lessons on the Internet for parents. One of the interesting ones -- this is a reading lesson -- tells the story of a student who travels from Toronto to Winnipeg. It says he's travelling along the north side of Lake Superior travelling west, and he eventually gets to Sault Ste Marie. This is a map of Lake Superior. You can't get to Sault Ste Marie going north of Lake Superior.

Do you still think that the study of geography is irrelevant in Ontario's schools?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No.

Mr Hampton: I draw your attention to that example because the reality is that there are a whole bunch of things happening in your Ministry of Education that, just like that example, don't make any sense.

Your Ministry of Education has been talking about educational testing and recently you released the results for schools. We looked at those results and were astounded to find that where a student wasn't at school that day they were given a zero in the test, or where it was a special circumstance and the student was exempted from the test they were given a zero in the test. But what really is galling is that your government then added in those zeroes to the class average. In other words, you could have a class of students who got 95s, but because eight students were away that day the class average was lowered by all those zeroes. Premier, do you think this is a fair and accurate way to represent these results to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: The Education Quality and Accountability Office, which was recommended by the royal commission and supported by your party, is at arm's length from the government and is set up for those purposes. If you have evidence and do not trust, even as the teachers' unions have said they do, the arm's length, the quality, the ability of this organization, then we'd be delighted to receive any evidence you have to improve it. I know, at least I felt, given the royal commission and your party's support for testing, for making sure that we are testing results, that you would be supportive of that. But if you want to point out examples that clearly show there's a need for improvement in the education system, we agree.

Mr Hampton: Premier, I believe testing is a part of the school system. I also believe, Premier, that accurate representation of the results are part of honest government. For your government to go out there and to malign the students of Ontario without telling people that you took students who were away from school that day and gave them a zero, and students who were exempted from the test for whatever reason, you gave them a zero; then you added that into the class average to artificially lower the students' results; then to go around Ontario and say that Ontario students are mediocre is a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

I ask you, Premier, in the future is your government going to fairly represent the results of our students? When the tests are given next year, are the results going to fairly and accurately represent the results of the students and you're not going to give students who are away that day a zero and add that into the class average?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Hold on. Leader of the third party, you must withdraw the comment about gross misrepresentation of the truth. You must withdraw it.

Mr Hampton: I withdraw that particular comment.

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: We don't report the results. Those are reported by the independent organization. We receive them from them, as you do, as the public do. We were disappointed in the results but we're certainly not disappointed in our students. Never have you ever heard anybody on this side of the House malign students, teachers, those involved in the classroom. I have to say that --

Interjections.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): You see how they slither.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Fort York, I don't particularly find that language terribly parliamentary. I ask you refrain from using it. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: We have consistently, and I have consistently, said that we have students who are quite exceptional and we have teachers who are quite exceptional. That's why it's so disappointing, when we spend as much or more money than any other jurisdiction, that we don't have results. The results are not acceptable. We have a system that is blocking dollars and money from getting into the classroom, from improving quality of education. For you to stand in your place because the leader of the Liberal Party outpicketed you in the recent demonstration is an absolute disgrace.

1510

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Premier again, the only disgrace around here is a government that would knowingly distort the results and then misrepresent those results to the people of Ontario and mostly to the children of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You cannot accuse the government of distorting results and then misrepresenting them. Leader of the third party, you must withdraw those comments. You can't do it.

Mr Hampton: I withdraw that comment, Speaker.

My second question for the Premier is this: Your government is creating a stub year. In your changes to education you're going to create a stub funding year from January 1998 until September 1998. Your ministers have said that you're guaranteeing funding for the stub year. We received a report from 11 educational finance officials who have done a survey of all the boards, and their survey indicates that in fact your government is not giving them stable funding; in fact you're cutting funding in the stub year by $220 million, or 11%, for each board.

Premier, are you aware that your government is now doing this, despite your promise to provide stable funding?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister --

The Speaker: Minister of Education.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): We have in fact guaranteed stable funding to the school boards from January 1 through to September 1. The letter from the school representatives has been taken into account.

The Ministry of Education went through a long process of talking with business officials, and other consultations, through the summer and through the fall. The stub year funding hasn't been fully resolved or announced yet. The comments of those individuals are being taken into account.

The previous minister has guaranteed, and I have guaranteed, stable funding involving the grants, and the taxation that they have received in 1997 will carry forward into 1998.

Mr Hampton: These are 11 education finance officials who work for, among other things, the West Parry Sound board -- I wonder who the MPP is for West Parry Sound; an educational finance official for North York; for Ottawa; for Simcoe; for Windsor. They're a broad cross-section. They've looked at the numbers and they have concluded that you're cutting. You're cutting in that stub year $220 million from school boards, which is an 11% cut.

Even worse, boards that saw this coming and budgeted some of their reserves to take the place of what they thought you might cut are going to be cut as well. So not only are you going to cut across the board, but you're going to go after those boards which saw it coming and which have tried to use their reserves. What that means is you're going to force them to actually go into the classroom over the next seven months and take out money.

Minister, how can you be doing this when you've told people there's going to be stable funding? None of these people believes a word you've said, because they've gone out there and they've done the survey.

Hon David Johnson: This is all conjecture, as usual, on behalf of the leader of the third party. The school boards have not received their final numbers for the stub year. They will be receiving those numbers in the near future. The minister has advised that for the 1997-98 school year, the year ending August 1998, the government will continue to provide in grants and taxes the level of funding the system was receiving in 1997. That's being worked out at this precise instant. Anything else is complete conjecture.

Anybody can imagine what they may or may not be about to receive and complain on the basis of something they may or may not think they're going to get in the future, but I can tell you that they have been guaranteed in grants and taxes the same moneys in 1998 as they received in 1997. Those numbers will be released in the very near future.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Here's the bottom line from the ad hoc committee on stub year funding:

"The ministry model will not generate stable funding for the stub year. Any shortfall will result in deficits, which in turn will further decrease the funding available for the 1998-99 fiscal year."

That's a quote from the ad hoc committee of these education finance officials.

The committee is asking for two things. They're recommending the ministry make a funding commitment based on the estimated costs for the first eight months of next year, allowing for existing programs and services to continue unimpeded without cuts. Second, they recommend the ministry establish a working group of senior finance officials from boards to help develop the funding model that will ensure stable funding as promised by the government.

Will the minister honour the commitment of his party not to cut classroom funding -- at least now, after he's made the cuts before -- and accept these recommendations and act on them immediately?

Hon David Johnson: Once again, the ministry officials are working with various officials, various school boards across the province of Ontario. They've gone through a lengthy consultation period. They met very extensively, particularly in the summer but the consultations have carried through into the fall, with these very same and more officials of school boards right across Ontario. These matters are being worked out as we speak. The exact numbers are being created. The school boards can be guaranteed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The school boards are guaranteed to have the same amount in grants and taxes as they had in 1997 right through into 1998. They will have those numbers in the very near future and they will see that we have lived up to the promise to give them that stable funding right through to September of next year.

CLASS SIZE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. I hope you and the members of your caucus will take time over the next three days to truly hear the concerns that people have been raising about Bill 160.

I trust that before the day is out we will see the legal opinions that the Premier has been quoting from that attest to the supposed constitutionality of this bill, because I fear that you are on the verge of passing a bill that will give you total control of education. You will have control over all educational funding; you will control everything from the educational leadership of our schools to how boards are run to whether students can stay in their community schools. You are going to control by law and through your funding the size of classes that our students are in.

Minister, you have tried to claim that you need to control the class size because class sizes have been increasing as a result of teacher negotiations. You have spun that idea, even though it is not backed up by fact, because you want people to believe that when you take control, class sizes are going to go down.

Minister, can you guarantee that when you take control, our students will no longer be in classes of 35 or 38 or 40?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The government, through the bill, has guaranteed a maximum average class size in the elementary system and the secondary system -- read the bill; that's exactly what it says -- for every board across the province. Over the past seven years, for example, the average elementary class size has been increasing year by year, each and every year since 1991. Each and every year the elementary class size has increased in the province of Ontario. That has to stop.

The unfortunate part is that yes, there have been some negotiations with the unions which have resulted in increased class size. The member from the Liberal Party may think that's acceptable, may wish not to recognize that fact, but it has happened. It's unacceptable, and Bill 160 puts a stop to it.

1520

Mrs McLeod: I don't think that what's happening in terms of the sizes of our classes today is acceptable, and this minister knows that Bill 160 does not lower the class size from what it is today. Your Premier likes to condemn the status quo; your Bill 160 freezes in law the status quo, with your average class size. That means there will still be classes of 38 and 40, and it means that in some cases class sizes are going to go up, not down, and that is fact in your bill.

You also know, Minister, that we are going to see 25,000 more students come into the system next year and every year after that, and you know your ministry has said there will be no new funding for those 25,000 students. You're taking money out of education; you're not putting money into it; and you know that your bill guarantees there will be fewer teachers.

Minister, you cannot lower class sizes when you are freezing the status quo, when you are bringing 25,000 more students a year into the system, when you are taking money out and when you are having fewer teachers. Tell me again: Can you guarantee there will be no students in classes of 38 or 40 when you're in total control?

Hon David Johnson: There are any number of myths that the opposition would care to spin. The bill guarantees that the average class size will not exceed 25 in the elementary, 22 in the secondary. It's the first time in the history of the province that a government has had the nerve to step in and say, "We cannot tolerate increasing class sizes." I would say that the people of Ontario would say it's long overdue.

They would also say that it's long overdue that we step in and make some sense of the financial situation of education in the province. There's a myth being perpetuated by the Liberal Party --

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

Hon David Johnson: -- that this bill will jack up property taxes. In fact, this bill will ensure that property taxes and the taxation into the system is --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question, third party.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, you would know that local boards spent close to $2.1 billion of their own money raised through their local tax base to pay for local base programs that are important to local communities. As everyone knows, your government is going to assume complete control of education in the upcoming year.

I'm asking you this question directly: Are you going to give local boards back the $2.1 billion of unrecognized expenditure or are you going to take it away from them to pay for your silly tax break?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Every dollar collected locally will stay at the local level. Every dollar collected within every board across Ontario at the local level will stay right in that system. Through the funding formula, there will also be funds coming from the provincial government, funds which establish a fair and equitable approach right across the province to ensure that every child in every system has a fair amount of money and that their education is of the same high quality as every child right across Ontario.

Mr Bisson: That's a separate issue. You don't seem to understand. Boards of education across this province raise dollars through their own tax base to pay for programs. For example, in the city of Timmins adult education is paid through the local levy, not by the province. Junior kindergarten is paid by the local tax levy, not by the province, because you've taken the funding away.

Once you remove that unrecognized expenditure by taking the money back from the municipality on to the province, what's going to happen to those programs? That's the question. Will the people in the city of Timmins and across this province keep on getting those programs that their boards put in place that are important to them such as adult education and junior kindergarten that are paid through the local tax levy? Would you answer the question, please.

Hon David Johnson: Every nickel collected in Timmins will stay in Timmins. Every nickel collected in Sault Ste Marie will stay in Sault Ste Marie. Every nickel collected in Metropolitan Toronto will stay in Metropolitan Toronto. At the same time, the funding formula will ensure that there is a provincial contribution to the education system that will guarantee that every child in the province has fair funding, the same funding as all other children get across Ontario to have the excellent, quality programs that each and every child deserves.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is for the minister responsible for seniors and long-term care. Minister, you attended the opening of the Ottawa-Carleton Community Care Access Centre some two weeks ago and there you heard a request from the CCAC for more funding, one my colleague and I received by news release some two days earlier. On Tuesday of this week the Ottawa Citizen said, "People in Ottawa-Carleton will have confidence in the restructuring of the region's hospitals only if there is a strong safety net of community health services." Given the deep concern of Ottawa residents, can you assure the House that the home care funding in Ottawa-Carleton will continue to meet the growing demand?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I did go to Ottawa a week ago to sit down with community leaders and service providers to talk about the situation in Ottawa. As you know, this government inherited a patchwork of service delivery, of overserviced and underserviced areas. In fact, some parts of this province were receiving four times as much servicing for community-based supports as other parts.

When I was in Ottawa, I reviewed the statistical base on which the previous government in its dying days red-circled or determined that Ottawa was an overserviced area. I spent a considerable amount of time examining service delivery systems in the Ottawa area. I want to remind members that we are spending a considerable amount of money in the Ottawa area and we're encouraged by the strength of the commitment that we've made: $13 million in community support services; $62 million in nursing home and municipal homes for the aged and another $66 million in community care access. That's $140 that is being spent in services in the Ottawa area right now.

Mr Guzzo: Minister, the new community care access centre in Ottawa-Carleton is the largest in the province. It's located just a seven-iron shot away from the home of our illustrious Prime Minister and it's just down the road, a three-iron shot, from the office of the federal Minister of Health. Members of the third party should take notice of this because these two gentlemen have been directly responsible for cutting $2 billion from health care transfers to the province of Ontario. These two gentlemen move through the Ottawa area paying lip-service to home care. They're suggesting more money should be provided to study the problem while we spend $2.2 million a day providing the service.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): If we just let him finish, we may hear it.

Mr Guzzo: Minister, would you just care to bring the House up to date in the province as to how the behaviour of those two gentlemen will affect the operation of the care centre in Ottawa-Carleton.

Hon Mr Jackson: First of all, I think the member in his question has given a lot of the information about the $2 billion in cuts from the federal government and their impact on the frail elderly and the disabled in this province in terms of receiving adequate health care services.

But I remind members that the home care program in this province was not adequately managed to the extent that budgets were being spent a year before they were ever even approved by the previous government. This government has moved decisively to put an accountable framework of community-based support services known as community care access centres.

I believe we have a very strong, competent public board in the Ottawa area with a deep sense of commitment to their community and their ability to manage case management and review files that haven't been examined in six, eight months and a year. We will be able to assure that all the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton who need services will receive services, but they won't receive them any longer than they need them. On that basis, it's clear that this government is better managing the health dollars that we have in spite of the cuts from the federal government.

1530

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Education. In an earlier answer to our critic, you indicated that class sizes have grown over the course of the last seven years. In reality, using your statistics, we find out that class sizes have skyrocketed over the course of the last two years. The reason is simple: You've cut operating funding to boards, the student population has increased, and therefore classrooms have had to be cut, which means that there are going to be larger class sizes.

In response to our critic, you said that with Bill 160 class size will continue to grow, that in effect there will be classes of 34, 35, 36, with your cap of 25 in the elementary section and 22 in the secondary section. Am I to understand that that in fact is so, that class size will grow because of Bill 160?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, let me say that there's never been more money going into the elementary and secondary school system as there has been this year, 1997: $14.4 billion from all sources -- provincial, municipal, other revenues; never more money than in 1997.

Second, I think the member opposite is pretty clear what we've done in the bill. We've said we can no longer tolerate increasing average class sizes across the province. They've been going up in the elementary system year by year for the last seven years. That has to stop. We have put right into the bill, right into the legislation, a maximum of 25 in the elementary system and a maximum of 22 in the secondary system. Any board that has an average above that amount must bring it down to at least that average; no higher.

Mr Bartolucci: I take it from your answer that classroom sizes are going to grow. That's bad, but it's even worse in the face of the opportunity you had. You had an opportunity to cap and protect class sizes in a meaningful way with my bill, Bill 110. My numbers were based on seven years of provincial averages, seven studies, and countless focus groups involving all partners of education.

You chose not to call my bill before committee. You failed to provide a cost estimate of my bill in response to an order paper question. In reality, you chose to ignore my bill. In short, my bill guaranteed class sizes would be protected and limited in each classroom of Ontario. Can you give the people of Ontario that assurance with Bill 160?

Hon David Johnson: I only wish that the Liberal government between 1985 and 1990 had the same enthusiasm for reform as the member opposite. I hope, because of the enthusiasm of the member opposite, that he's prepared to support Bill 160, which indeed does put a cap on the average class size, which indeed does ensure that our students have the same number --

Interjections.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I apologize for rising on a point of order, but the member for Kitchener continually and constantly refers to me as the member from OECTA. Might I inform him, Speaker, that I am the member for Sudbury but I am proud to be a member of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I will say to the member for Sudbury, I did not hear him say that. If he did say it, it is out of order and he can always have the opportunity to withdraw.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have never used those words with him, here or anywhere else.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is constant. We could have so many witnesses that say he has on repeated occasions. I don't want to get into it, Speaker, but I am the member --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I guess it shows that sometimes there is selective hearing in this House. I will say that I'm very happy that the member for Sudbury is very excited about education reform. I invite him to join us in support of Bill 160, which gives our students more instructional days: 10 more instructional days at the secondary level, five more instructional days at the elementary level; which allows qualified individuals to come into the class to complement our teachers, for example.

This bill is about quality, it's about accountability and it's about efficiency. I think the member for --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question. Leader of the third party.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question for the Minister of Education. Over the last few weeks I visited a number of communities across northern Ontario to talk to people about health care, about education, about downloading. The issue that everyone comes back to is education. For example, last week I was in Sioux Lookout and I was in Kenora. People have done their own surveys in their own communities. They know how many places have been lost in junior kindergarten, they know that the cuts have happened in adult education, they know about what has happened in special education. They also know from their own educational finance officials what has happened in terms of their funding.

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

Mr Hampton: What they want to know is this: Will you suspend Bill 160? Will you go back and do an honest consultation with --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): We're very delighted to have the media reports of the meeting in Sioux Lookout, where apparently -- the headline says, "Hampton Sioux Hiatus Barely Draws Flies." "Hampton also alerted the crowd of 10 to the negative effect property assessment will have on property taxes."

Notwithstanding that this may have been a little bit overbuilt by the leader of the third party, I would say there are people right across Ontario, in Sioux Lookout, in communities all across Ontario, who are concerned about the education system. Obviously, yes, some people are concerned about Bill 160. There's no question about that. But I think it shows that no matter where you live in Ontario you feel strongly and sincerely about our education system. It is the future of the province of Ontario.

It is my belief that people want to get on with reform, that people have been speaking for the kind of things we are including in our general reform and specifically in Bill 160. The government does intend to move forward with that.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The people of Ontario want education reform, they want quality education for their students, but they do not want cuts, and Bill 160 is about cuts to the classroom. It's about stripping teachers of preparation time. It's about taking principals and vice-principals out of the teachers' federation. It's about cutting special education and other programs. That's what your Bill 160 will do. That's why you want to centralize.

Our party has joined with parents across Ontario to campaign for a referendum on Bill 160. We're following the Conservative rules that if 10% of the electorate sign petitions requesting a referendum, then there should be a referendum on Bill 160; you should call one.

Will the government make a commitment now? Will the minister come clean and say that the government will hold a referendum on Bill 160 if 10% of the electorate petition for such a referendum? Will you have a referendum on Bill 160?

Hon David Johnson: The greatest referendum of them all is the election. We had the general election in 1995. Education --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon David Johnson: A parent from North York says: "This government was democratically elected, and part of its mandate was to reform the education system. To date, this government has exceeded my expectations." On and on: a parent from Toronto saying, "I urge you to stand by your convictions"; a parent from Kitchener who says, "Please do not waver in support of this bill."

The people of Ontario have been consulted year after year about the education system. They want reform. They want our students to have the same opportunity as students in other provinces and they want to see reform of the finances of the education system. We intend to proceed.

TVONTARIO

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): My question is for the Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for privatization. My question is about the review of TVOntario by the Office of Privatization. When you announced the review of TVOntario last June, you said a business review would be conducted and public input would be considered. I know your office has received public input on TVOntario, as I have shared the views of my constituents with you. That being said, I was pleased to hear that you have appointed a panel to conduct public meetings on a review of TVOntario, as this provides an additional opportunity for the public to provide their feedback.

I understand that the well-attended meeting in Toronto involved constructive discussion, but there have been questions regarding the format of the meetings. Would the minister please describe the format and the purpose of these meetings?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): When we set up the privatization review process, we agreed that Ontarians should have a role to play as we review the assets and the businesses that governments are involved in to try to get an understanding of whether there's a different way in which we can deliver those services.

As part of the review process and as part of the attempt to get some input from Ontarians, we appointed a panel to hold meetings across Ontario. Meetings have been publicized. The panel is looking for answers to questions such as: How do Ontarians use TVOntario? What do they value about TVOntario currently? What is the government's role in developing and delivering education programming in this province? These are very valid questions that haven't been asked by any of the previous governments as it relates to this asset since the business of TVOntario was created.

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

Hon Mr Sampson: The panel put together asked these questions. You're right, a lot of people have come forward to give their suggestions to us so that when we come forward with our recommendations --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Ford: On that note, let me inquire further: Could the minister please describe what other opportunities there are for the public to provide input if they're unable to attend the community panel meetings? Would the minister also describe the next steps in the process and inform me when the community forum panel will be submitting its report.

Hon Mr Sampson: As I said in my first answer, the community forum process is just one mechanism that we are asking Ontarians to use to provide us with their opinions. We're getting letters, we're getting phone calls and phone messages through a toll-free number process. They are sending in letters to my office, to the privatization secretariat's office. We have extensive consultations with the community representatives of TVO. These are people who represent the communities across Ontario that TVO delivers a signal to and in fact report through to the board. We are listening to the board and we are seriously considering their own privatization recommendation that was delivered to us about four months ago.

I say to the member, we are interested in hearing the views and input of Ontarians. That's why we designed a process that gave Ontarians a role to play, so we can have their input when we make the decisions.

1540

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): My question is to the Minister of Education. Earlier today we heard the minister talk about stable funding as a result of the transition with Bill 160. Today the people of Ottawa-Carleton woke up to the news that because of this government's new funding formula contained in Bill 160, up to 15 Ottawa schools could be closed. In addition, transportation could be cut to almost nothing, junior kindergarten probably eliminated, building and renovation projects will be put on hold and teachers and staff likely will lose their jobs. Minister, how can you defend these actions?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I guess if there were any truth or fact involved, then I might feel in a position to defend it. But what we have guaranteed to the Ottawa board and to all other boards is that there will be fair and equitable funding which will focus on the classroom.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Remove them from the gallery, please. Stop the clock.

Minister.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, my understanding is that there may have been a misinterpretation by the Ottawa board and that the staff of the Ministry of Education are discussing this matter with the Ottawa board.

The Ottawa board, as all other boards, will be guaranteed fair funding through the formula. It will focus in the class. It's the kind of funding that John Sweeney, a former minister in the Liberal ranks, is recommending whereby through his report he indicated that almost 50% of the funds for education were not being directed into the classroom. That's the kind of thing we're going to tackle and make sure the Ottawa board has the proper money to direct right to the students.

Mr Cullen: I listened to this announcement. I take it that it has to be an announcement by the minister that with the new funding formula under Bill 160, the Ottawa board will actually receive grants from this government. The difficulty we have with the new funding formula is that they're short $27 million because they're losing part of their property tax and they have not been receiving grants.

This is what leads the board, the director of education and the chair of the board to say today that 15 schools will close, that jobs will be lost and programs drastically cut. According to the Ottawa Board of Education chair, Ted Best, you will see cuts that will put this school board back into the stone age. He predicts there will be a blood-letting.

Minister, come clean with parents and teachers and students in Ottawa. How many schools do you plan to close in Ottawa?

Hon David Johnson: I think the member opposite knows that this government will not be closing any schools in Ottawa or anywhere else in the province.

What this ministry will be doing is ensuring that Ottawa, Metropolitan Toronto, Sudbury, St Catharines, all boards get a fair funding to establish the kinds of programs they need to establish. This funding formula is being worked on at this point in time. The moneys will focus into the classroom. The funding will recognize the accommodation needs, the student needs and the operational needs of all the boards right across Ontario.

1550

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minster of Education and Training. Yesterday and today we raised the question of the $2 billion that are spent by local boards on programs that are not recognized by the province. What this means is that you, as a province, have no obligation to those programs -- none. They include junior kindergarten programs, after-four programs, the paraprofessionals, continuing education programs, school community advisers in the Toronto Board of Education that facilitate direct parental and community involvement, psychologists and social workers who work with students who are in trouble. All these programs and all these people are there to help students and they're not recognized by you. You have no obligation to them.

My question to you is -- and it appeared from your answer earlier that the focus is the classroom. I'm worried about your definition of what that means. All these boards run programs that are designed to help students and teachers. Are you taking $2 billion away or are you putting those $2 billion back into the classroom? What are you doing with that money?

Hon David Johnson: I indicated to the member for Fort York yesterday, I believe, and perhaps to his colleague today that this government is not taking any $2 billion away from anybody. This government is ensuring through the funding formula that the curriculum needs in the classroom are going to be met. That's where the money should be focused: right into the classroom.

In terms of the curriculum, the mathematics and languages part of the curriculum has been developed at the elementary level. Over the next year, the rest of the curriculum for the elementary level and the secondary level will be rolled out. It will be a more rigorous curriculum, and I can tell the member for Fort York in terms of his particular board, every nickel that's collected in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, which is the area he represents, will stay right here in Metropolitan Toronto.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'd like to indicate the business statement for next week, pursuant to standing order 55.

With regard to Monday, this afternoon we will be deferring the vote on Bill 160, The Education Quality Improvement Act, so that the vote will be Monday at noon.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Monday at 1:30.

Hon Mr Sterling: When the House meets, when deferred votes are taken.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's the House business for next week. Are you done?

Hon Mr Sterling: I'm not done. I've just started. I was distracted because of the crossfire.

This afternoon we are going to be calling Bill 160, The Education Quality Improvement Act, and that vote will be deferred until the deferred votes are heard on Monday afternoon, December 1.

On Monday afternoon we'll be dealing with the NDP opposition day motion. In the evening we'll be considering Bill 152, The Services Improvement Act, for third reading. We expect to defer that vote as well to the next Tuesday, when the deferred votes are taken in the afternoon of Tuesday, December 2.

In the afternoon of Tuesday we expect to deal with Bill 161, The Fairness for Parents and Employees Act. In the evening we expect to deal with Bill 149, The Fair Municipal Finance Act, (No. 2), on third reading, and we expect to defer that vote until Wednesday, when the deferred votes take place at approximately 10 to 2 in the afternoon.

On Wednesday afternoon, we expect to deal with Bill 161, the Fairness for Parents and Employees Act, as well. In the evening, we will be dealing with a House calendar motion. If that finishes, which I fully expect it will with the cooperation of the other parties, Bill 108, the provincial offences act, will be called in committee of the whole House.

On Thursday, December 4, we have of course private members' public business, ballot items 1 and 2. In the afternoon, we will be dealing with Bill 164, the Tax Credits to Create Jobs Act, for second reading. In the evening, although that is far out, we will be calling Bill 139, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, if the rest of the week is as successful as we hope it will be.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have here thousands of petitions signed by residents in Ottawa-Carleton, in Gloucester-Nepean and Ottawa with respect to Bill 160.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to take an additional billion dollars out of the education system this year and every year; and

"Whereas the Ontario government will remove up to 10,000 teachers from the classrooms across the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government will have unbridled regulatory powers over public education; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wishes to remove the right to negotiate student learning conditions; and

"Whereas the Ontario government proposes to undermine shared decision-making among parents, students, educators, trustees and taxpayers;

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160."

I affix my signature to it.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition that I believe is very timely. It's signed by several people from the city of Windsor. It says:

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

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

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

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

ABORTION

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I have with me today a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my name.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask the indulgence of the House to have unanimous consent to split the time among the three parties.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Unanimous consent to split the time with all three parties. Agreed? No.

EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION

Mr David Johnson moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 160, An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à réformer le système scolaire, à protéger le financement des classes, à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte et à apporter d'autres améliorations compatibles avec la politique du gouvernement en matière de qualité de l'éducation, y compris l'amélioration du rendement des élèves et la réglementation de l'effectif des classes.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Mr Speaker, if this is the appropriate time, I want to indicate that the government intends to split its time between four members.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I need the four members.

Hon David Johnson: The Premier will be going first, I'll be going second, followed by the member for Peterborough and the member for Durham East.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I am pleased to rise today on what I believe will be an historic occasion for the future of this province, if members of the Legislature pass the reforms that are before us.

Interruption.

The Speaker: Can you clear the galleries, please. That gallery and that one too, please. Both galleries. Clear this gallery here, please.

The House recessed from 1604 to 1621.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I am rising today on what I believe will be an historic occasion for the future of this province, if members of this Legislature pass the education reforms before us.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Algoma on a point of order.

Mr Wildman: With respect, I understand that Mr Speaker has vacated the chair and you have taken over, Acting Speaker, but I really do need some clarification with regard to the comments made previously by the Speaker re demonstrations in the gallery. Could you indicate whether the galleries have simply been cleared or whether they have in fact been cleared and barred until the passage and/or the vote on Bill 160?

The Acting Speaker: The galleries have been closed for the day.

Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, I believe it will be an historic occasion if members of the Legislature will pass the education reforms that are before us.

When this legislation is passed, I believe we will look back on that day, whenever that day is, as the day we turned the corner, the day when we began to turn around a decade-long decline in our education system.

Starting with the passage of this legislation will be a new beginning for our children to get the quality education they deserve. Starting then, the status quo of barely average results will be unacceptable for Ontario students. Starting then, we will move towards a system of education with the highest standards, clearly defined, clearly explained and clearly understood, a system with one solid goal: to promote the kind of excellence that makes our students' performance the very best in Canada. Starting then, we will end a system where students have been lagging behind their peers in other provinces. We will help parents understand what their children are expected to learn and when they are expected to learn it.

We will end the system where the union bosses have the power to use class size as a bargaining chip in their contract negotiations. It is a system that needs to be changed. Even though our education spending is among the highest of the provinces, our students' national and international test scores are barely average.

We know that Ontario has some of the best teachers in North America, but even the best teachers can't make a bad system work. A bad system is one that has prevented or provided a barrier to or a block to an ever-increasing volume of tax dollars from finding their way into the classroom. A bad system is one that takes those dollars and wastes them before they ever get to our good teachers, before they ever get to our children.

Our children deserve much better. The passage of Bill 160 will be an important step in our plan to give our children the future they deserve.

We're asking our teachers to spend as much time in the classroom as their colleagues do in other provinces. We would like to give our students more time in the classroom with a longer school year, more time to get a stronger basis in the skills they're going to need to succeed.

We will introduce fair funding that guarantees accountability, affordability and excellence while spending less money on bureaucracy, the bureaucracy that encourages waste and diverts that needed money from our classrooms.

To complement Bill 160, which protects classroom funding, we have brought in a demanding core curriculum that clearly states what every student should know and when they should know it. We will ensure that parents receive a standardized report card that clearly demonstrates how their child is progressing. We will promote regular testing to monitor progress and make adjustments where needed.

We are encouraging protection of the highest possible standards for educators with a new College of Teachers. We have made investments in modern facilities and the latest technology. We will ensure increased community involvement in our schools with school councils, which will provide an important role for parents and for community leaders in our children's learning.

These are the cornerstones of our education reform plan, a plan that will give students and teachers alike the tools they need to thrive with the challenges of the 21st century. These are the cornerstones that will give us the finest, most demanding, most accountable system of education in this country, a system that prepares our children for the rapidly changing challenges of the new workforce; that listens to the concerns of parents, of students, of teachers and of employers; that guarantees an equal chance at a prosperous future to every student in every classroom on every concession on every line in every village, town and city in this province; that will continue the momentum of growth and prosperity that Ontario is seeing at last, momentum that has us leading the nation in job creation.

That's why we're changing the system: We're saying to our children, "You deserve to be number one." Our children deserve to be number one. We will give them the tools they must have to meet the needs of the future with confidence and with skill.

Starting with the passage of this legislation, those tools will be in the hands of students, of teachers and of parents right across this province. For the first time in many, many years our students can look forward to a future that is full of hope and of opportunity and of good new jobs for everyone who wants one right here in the province of Ontario. To me, that is the kind of history this Legislature should be proud of. It's the kind of legislation that we should be proud to make. I want to tell you that I am proud to be a part of that history right here in the Legislative Assembly today.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the minister from Don Mills.

Hon David Johnson: The Minister of Education and Training actually, Mr Speaker, but proud to be from Don Mills.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 160 and to indicate that this legislation is the result of over a year of consultation. In September of last year we launched extensive consultations with the public, with teachers, with school boards and others as part of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

We have reviewed and considered recommendations made in reports submitted last year by, for example, the Sweeney task force and the Working Group on Education Finance Reform. We continued to have meetings and information sessions with representatives of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, their affiliates, school boards, special education advisory council, the Ontario Parent Council, business and financial communities throughout this year. In the months leading up to the introduction of the bill, we again held talks with teachers' unions and school boards, to finalize the legislation.

1630

Earlier this year, the standing committee on administration of justice held public consultations in five cities across Ontario, heard over 200 submissions in person, many others in writing. Throughout that process we've listened, we've learned and, more important, we have acted.

This government cares about education. It is the passport to opportunity for our children, who must compete with the best in the world. It will provide them with skills, experience and expertise they will need to succeed in the global economy and to live successful and fulfilling lives in a rapidly changing world. That is why we're determined to improve the quality, the efficiency and the accountability in Ontario's education system. I'm sure that is a goal we can all agree with, and it is one that has been long overdue in the province of Ontario.

Time and again, parents and students have told this government and its predecessors that they had long-standing concerns about the quality of education and training and how their tax dollars were being spent. These are questions of accountability. In education, an important measure of accountability is student performance. Until now, we haven't done a very good job of measuring this. Our system of education must provide quality of education and it must be accountable to the people who support it: the parents, the students, the teachers and the taxpayers.

One of our first moves as a government was to create the Education Quality and Accountability Office. This is an external agency and it released its first provincial report on achievement just last month. The report, which analysed student performance on grade 3 and grade 6 tests conducted last spring, will for the first time in Ontario set a benchmark from which we can measure, year over year, improvements in student achievement. Because of that, parents will now see clearly how their children are progressing. Surely we all know in this House that is something parents have been begging for year after year after year.

We also acknowledged the fact that the key component in the educational system is teachers. To recognize and strengthen the professional nature of teaching, we set up the Ontario College of Teachers. It will be responsible for teacher certification, improving professional development, and establishing and monitoring professional codes of conduct.

In addition, as Minister of Education and Training, it's my job to look hard and long at the education system to ensure it is effective and efficient and serves the real needs of our children. Previous governments dealt with these issues by setting up study after study, commission after commission. In fact, we have seen some 24 separate reviews, 10 commissions and committees, two fact-finding reports, two panels, innumerable meetings and discussions on reform, and millions and millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars gone into that process.

These issues have been studied to death. It is clearly time for action. It's time to act to ensure parents once again can be full partners in their children's education. It's time to act to ensure that every child in Ontario has fair and equitable opportunity to high-quality education. It's time to act to ensure that taxpayers receive full value for their investment in education. With the introduction of the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, this fall, Ontario is acting on behalf of the parents, the students and the taxpayers.

I wish to deal directly with some concerns which have been expressed. As minister, I believe it is my responsibility to set the record straight for the people of Ontario.

This bill will not give the government any new powers to replace school board trustees or dismiss school board staff. It will not eliminate the teachers' right to strike. It will not give the government unilateral power to close schools. It will not cut education funding. It will not place new restrictions on someone's right to challenge government action through the courts. It will not prohibit principals and vice-principals from teaching. Indeed, we have great respect for the expertise of principals and vice-principals. Their employment rights will be fully protected during the transition period, and we propose establishing a group involving them and other stakeholders to resolve issues arising from this change. And this bill will not increase class sizes in the province of Ontario.

What this bill will do is allow the government to set provincial standards to promote quality in our education system. It will set maximum average class sizes for all school boards in Ontario to address parents' concerns that large class sizes affect their children's ability to learn. The average size of elementary school classes would not exceed 25 and the average size of secondary school classes would not exceed 22. These provisions would be reviewed every three years. It would give teachers more time to do what they do best, and that is to teach.

High school teachers would now spend about the same amount of time teaching as their colleagues do on average across Canada. That is something that elementary teachers already do in Ontario. It would increase the number of classroom instructional days in the school year to give our children more time to learn, the same opportunity as children have in the other provinces of Canada. High school students would benefit by about 10 additional days in the classroom. Elementary students would benefit by five additional days of instruction.

The bill would allow students greater access to specialists with professional expertise. The government, with the support of the Ontario College of Teachers, has amended the bill to ensure that professionals and paraprofessionals would complement, not replace, classroom teachers in schools. Support from specialists in computer technology, arts and career guidance, to name some, could be used to complement the instruction provided by teachers. Their contribution would enrich our children's learning and broaden their horizons.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Better put this speech on the fiction shelf

The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines, come to order.

Hon David Johnson: These steps will help us create an education system in which every child in Ontario has an opportunity to succeed, in the classroom and in the future.

The Education Quality Improvement Act is a tool to help us improve the quality, the accountability and the efficiency of Ontario's education system. We are committed to providing the highest-quality education possible in the most cost-effective manner. To make it work for our students will require everyone -- the students themselves, their parents, the principals, the teachers, the school boards and the government -- to work together, and we will work together through the transition to a new, better, fairer and more accountable education system for our children. Together I believe we have the courage, the strength and the collective wisdom to make a better place for our children. They deserve no less from us.

1640

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I'm pleased to rise and speak on the amended Bill 160, an act to reform education, protect classroom funding, protect classroom size and enhance accountability. I emphasize the word "amended," as the act as it now exists responds to the consultations and recommendations coming out of the hearings that were held across this province. The bill responds to the concerns of the taxpayer. The public wanted change, the public wanted their voice to be heard, and we, the government, reacted.

Bill 160 is part of the education puzzle, a puzzle that has many pieces. It must be put together carefully and professionally if we want to have a complete picture. As each piece is connected and put into place, education will be enhanced. Whether it is a new, revised report card, a new curriculum, Bill 104, the College of Teachers, the Education Quality and Accountability Office or our new funding model that emphasizes equity for all of Ontario's students, each piece represents the larger picture.

It represents an improved education system that will not mortgage our students' future, a future that has to be representative of our ability to pay. No longer can boards and trustees sit back and just raise taxes to solve their inefficiencies when sound administration would produce the necessary accountability to put the needed funds into the classroom.

I have a vision of education that stretches into the new millennium. It has two components: First, my vision is having the highest quality education possible; and second, my vision relates to education at the best possible value. Does anybody in this House disagree with my vision? I don't think so.

If we are to achieve my vision of education in the future, we must be prepared to change our way of thinking and improve education in general. In my vision, the highest quality of education relates to the student who must be prepared to compete in the global marketplace; prepared and informed to be considered ahead of the other students from other provinces and other countries who at the moment appear to be leading the way.

Having education at the best possible value addresses the concerns of taxpayers and the parents who are not receiving the results they expect from our system. More importantly, education at the best possible value emphasizes the importance of accountability, efficiency and the cost for the taxpayers of the future. We cannot graduate students who, at the very moment they enter the workforce, have a mortgage attached around their neck due to rising debt. This is not acceptable. Having a strong education system is the key to having a competitive Ontario.

Our education system is an albatross that is desperately in need of change. Bill 160 and other supporting legislation addresses that change. I believe that we can, and must, improve the efficiency of our system, as well as its effectiveness. It is totally wrong to believe that the government intends to reduce the cost of education without regard for its consequences. This government has taken the initiative to standardize curriculum, testing and reporting cards, as well as ensuring that each and every student in Ontario will receive equitable and adequate funding.

Our direction and priority is geared to the student and to the classroom, funding that includes a fair and equitable foundation grant; a special assistance grant that identifies additional funding for language, geographic areas, special education, learning opportunities and adult education; and finally, a capital grant that specifies additional funds for maintenance, construction and renovations. This is a great starting point on our road to excellence.

Any government can take money out of the education system, as other governments have done, including the two opposition parties that now are crying wolf. This is done by merely reducing the grants to school boards. Our government is committed to fix the system and make it the best in the world.

I find it very disturbing that when our government talks of excellence in education, when we want discussion and an honest exchange of ideas to improve the system, and when we want cooperation between all players at the table, we are criticized. Everyone is this province should be supportive of our initiative. Am I to understand that you do not want to improve education, or the best possible education?

Recently, I attended two high schools in which my attention was drawn to books that were short of pages, computers that were outdated and supplies that were short or non-existent and being purchased by teachers. Does this not say that the system is in need of repair and must be fixed?

Throwing more money at a problem will never fix the problem. Let's continue to identify what needs to be done and then react. The puzzle I talked about will come together.

Much has been said about the undemocratic nature of Bill 160. Certainly, prior to the bill being amended, one or two sections could have been interpreted that way. Those sections which allowed regulation to supersede legislation have been removed. We listened to the people and we reacted.

Some educators argue that sections that include wording such as "Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the minister may make regulations," some people interpret this type of language as giving the government the power it needs to make further cuts, fire trustees and fire teachers. This is nothing but rhetoric aimed at frightening the citizens of this province. This type of wording is similar to what exists in the present Education Act, 1990. Bill 160 cannot be read separately; it must be read in conjunction with that act. Bill 160 is merely a modification of the Education Act and clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the partners in the system.

Many of the comments and disagreement with Bill 160 are exaggerations aimed at creating turmoil in our education system: reference to student vouchers, charter schools; no challenge of the EIC; trustees' duties that have been drastically reduced; the right to strike gone; a principal defined not as a teacher. This is entirely fiction and not factual, aimed at discrediting the direction to improve education.

Before I close, let me make a short comment on the Education Improvement Commission. With the amalgamation of the three boards that are associated with my riding, the local EIC committee, made up of the Peterborough public board and the Northumberland-Clarington public board, has designed a policy and a plan that will be envied throughout Ontario. They accepted their role and addressed the task of amalgamation, designed the plan, worked cooperatively with management and staff, and then arrived at an amicable and positive solution. They even saved $400,000 into the bargain. This exercise was all about cooperation, efficiencies and making change work. They are indeed to be congratulated. If in the future disputes arise that cannot be worked out, then the provincial EIC is there to make the final decisions.

If we are to bring out-of-control spending in education under some semblance of control, legislation must be enacted. Bill 160 is part of that necessary legislation. We need change, we need less emotion, we need reform and we need a constructive exchange of ideas. All of us know the system has problems. Possibly, working together, we can find the solutions; otherwise we risk our children's and grandchildren's future.

1650

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Respectfully, I'm very proud and pleased to be permitted or allowed or encouraged to speak to this very important bill. Following our Premier and our Minister of Education, and indeed the member for Peterborough, it is indeed a humbling privilege to be able to participate so clearly in this important debate.

I want all people to understand first and foremost the importance of education to me and my family, as a parent of five children. My wife Peggy is a teacher. My sister and niece and nephew are all teachers. They all want the same thing I want: an improved educational system.

As a former Catholic school trustee, I am encouraged by the new vision for our future in education. Putting students first in the classroom is a paramount theme throughout all of our amendments and changes to education -- a system that includes parents. I believe every Ontarian wants higher quality standards, a more accountable system and assurance every student has access to the best public education system in the world.

As our Minister of Education, the Honourable David Johnson, has just said, it is time to get on with these important reforms to our educational system. After some 24 studies and two royal commissions and many additional studies over the past decade, it's clear that change is required. It's time to turn it around. It's time to make the tough decisions. It's time to take action. I'm encouraged by our Premier and the leadership of this government to take those decisive steps once and for all. Study does not solve the problem; action is what is required. I encourage every student, parent, teacher, administrator, indeed every taxpayer and elected official to start now to work together to improve the system for our students.

Our reforms to education are not confined simply to Bill 160. That might be a preferred myopic view by some opposition members. Rather, our reforms are broad and inclusive. They're all about improving quality, improving accountability and improving efficiency.

Think not in the mere terms of Bill 161. Think in terms of Bill 30, the Education Quality and Accountability Office; Bill 31, the College of Teachers, to ensure that the profession of teaching is indeed brought forward into the future of a new, changing world of information. Think of the important changes that have been widely embraced in a standard curriculum, standard report cards and standard testing. Any system must check itself. We've set in place a framework of accountability.

The Royal Commission on Learning and the document, For the Love of Learning, clearly called on many important improvements, and I can assure everyone that this is an important background document for everyone working to improve quality of education. For instance, the province should fund education. I might add that the Fair Tax Commission some years ago also recommended this very same starting point for making sure the system was equitable and accountable for all Ontario students.

Once again, we are doing it and that's what has set us apart from the other parties of the last decade. We're doing it. We're putting students first.

Mr McGuinty said today in the House, and I read in the press, that he was going to approach the members of the PC caucus to attempt to persuade them to rethink their vote. I ask you, Mr Speaker, what is our Liberal leader's plan? Simply put, the Liberals have no plan. In fact, he stated that very clearly and openly on Focus Ontario just a couple of weeks ago.

Clearly, we have a plan this caucus is involved in and that this caucus has input in and I can assure you that our minister and our Premier listen. I encourage the Liberal leader to call me. Perhaps I can convince him to listen to the non-teaching, hardworking taxpayers and small businesses of this great province. Mr McGuinty, listen to all the people, not just the people who are holding your signs.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker, I listen to all of my constituents. I have many letters here that I have time to share from my constituents. I'm just going to read some small excerpts because I don't have a great deal of time. These aren't selected letters. I've examined all of the letters and all of the phone calls and clearly there's a common message to all the communication, including teachers. They all want reforms; you yourselves have admitted it, David Cooke has admitted it. What you fail to recognize is that you've never taken any action and that's what goes along with listening: following up.

For instance, I was speaking to a constituent and she took the time to write a letter to me. For the sake of her information, I won't give her name, but I'd be pleased to acknowledge this on the air:

"Education costs and `that our_students are less and less well prepared for university." This is a quote she's taken from an article in the Toronto Star, October 30, 1996, that was signed by many university professors.

"One way of improving our educational system," she suggests, "is to increase the number of" teaching hours and the teaching time spent between teachers and students.

We're doing it.

She says that all three political parties have agreed from time to time to act on major change that is needed to take place in the educational system. Your government is the only one prepared to take any moves forward.

Another letter is from a special education parent:

"Dear John,

"We have four children. One child has Down syndrome and therefore has `special needs.' We do feel he has not received all he is supposed to receive"; ie, speech therapy and extra programs are unavailable due to no money, and that's today. "Naturally we do not want any" more "money taken out_. However, our so-called `normal' kids haven't received the education they should either. Our oldest, in her fourth year at Queen's U., said she would never send her kids to public school, as it is so mediocre. Good teachers are appreciated, but the system" -- as the Premier said earlier -- "is failing" them.

Just recently, in fact this week, I read an editorial featured in one of the local community newspapers that I read. I read seven local papers every week to try and stay in touch with the broader views of my constituents. This editorial is an extremely balanced article. It puts forward the strength of the bill and the bill that we must all be vigilant on to make sure that funding and the funding model come forward to ensure a high-quality, accountable system for every student in Ontario. The editorial is from the Clarington This Week, dated Tuesday, November 25, entitled "The Truth About Bill 160."

"As the time for third reading of Bill 160 nears, honest consideration of the bill and its implications is essential" for every citizen of Ontario. It goes on to examine much of the rhetoric that's been out there with respect to the imbalanced or inconclusive arguments being put forward by those with a special agenda.

I've looked widely across the province and have listened widely to many constituents and many newspaper editorials, and I would refer people to the article by Randall Denley from the November Ottawa Citizen, which says: "_the Education Act, most of which has been in place since 1980?" Much of the Education Act in place today is indeed being amended by this act.

Again many calls just this morning, and they are running about 60% in support of change to the education system. I'm reading the local newspaper from Uxbridge. Julia Munro is the member from that area. I read that paper as well. Just this past week there were two articles, and I could quote because these are public articles. This is from a Heather Hodgson from Uxbridge. She says:

"_what will happen in 20 years when it is estimated that there will be three people working for every one retired person?" as opposed to six today. The future demands that we have a high educational system to take care of our elderly. We must have a perfect system.

"Certain groups must stop demanding services, claiming that these services are `rights. The only `rights' one can truly expect are freedom of speech and freedom of religion because these are in fact free." She goes on to support the government's position to make the important and needed changes.

1700

Another letter in the local newspaper I'm reading, and it's just from this week, is from Wendell Mazelow from Uxbridge:

"Other people take risks and do it all the time." It's part of the job today. "I have never met a teacher who worked harder_" or less hard than an person in business today. We must all work together.

While I do not stand in face of the strike, "_the mind-wrenching, cult-like behaviour" of the teachers in this past strike has been downright disheartening and a bad impression for our students.

"It was pathetic to see the students outside with their mentors, toe to toe with the people above the law, carrying their placards," who the next day would be their models and teachers.

What a contradiction. I think that's what has happened. There's been such a completely mindless attempt to make the point for the union's position. I would encourage people also to read widely in the press. I think the best articles were by Christina Blizzard, and I have to refer every person in Ontario to read the articles. At least she brings some truth to the argument. The articles are entitled "Myths and Legends of Bill 160," and "The Truth About Education Reform," "Politics 202" and "Politics 101." She goes on to explain that much of the rhetoric about language in Bill 160 is indeed the language that's consistent in the Education Act today.

I have attended many public meetings, and in those public meetings it's been clear -- when I was meeting with the Northumberland and Clarington board, there were questions asked of the director of education. They just settled a contract. One parent stood up -- the director, Mr Dick Malowney -- and said it was one of his supervisory officers -- "In your last contract did you increase class size?" With all the words being shuffled around, at the end of the discussion just this past week he conceded that they had to increase class sizes to somehow precipitate a grid change or increase.

Furthermore, there have been many comprehensive submissions to my office. I mention the one by Mr Jack Foote, who brings out a pretty thorough analysis with respect to where education spending has gone in the last four or five years. The period he covers is from 1989 to 1992. Clearly he shows that operational spending was 77% on wages and benefits in 1989. In 1990 it rose to 85% of operational costs; in 1991-92, 113% of operational costs was on wages and benefits. There was nothing being spent on the other resources for the classroom.

I can assure you, Bill 160 has not passed, but I have been in classrooms, and what I see is students with no textbooks and schools that are in bad need of attention. I think it's despicable that we could walk away and leave our children in portables while we have Taj Mahals being built around the province, with leather chairs to house the administration staff. That's shameful, absolutely unacceptable, and Bill 104 deals with much of that duplication and waste.

If you were to read the John Sweeney report, you would recognize that he clearly identified the need to reduce the waste and duplication in administration; 167 school boards with superintendents making -- when I think of one superintendent making $150,000, that represents three or four classroom teachers. Those are the facts. The teachers need to realize that we're on their side too.

I'm confident about the future in education. The classroom, as we committed in our Common Sense document, was clearly the focus. We committed to no cuts to the classroom, but everything else should be examined and we should use hardworking taxpayers' money wisely and frugally.

If anyone questions the major themes within our education reform, starting with Bill 30, Bill 31, Bill 160, Bill 152 and including all the other Who Does What, we're trying to put education first. Altogether it's a quality system focusing on the school, focusing on the classroom. We committed in this document clearly to examine the educational system, the governance system in education and to put the student first.

I can assure you that I've been listening to my constituents. I think most important, to of sum up -- I've got a few minutes left -- I would encourage each one of us to listen and remain vigilant. These are, with the Premier in attendance today, very important times for all the stakeholders. We should put down the signs and placards and work for the improvement of education for our students.

I think of my own five children. I can say to you that the system serves them well, but of course with my wife being a teacher and very supportive in that role. There have to be more resources put into their time.

I used to get calls when I was a trustee. Many parents would call. The first thing I'd ask them was, "Name the director of education." In most cases, to students and parents and teachers, the school is the most important thing. That's what we have to make sure is sustained into the future to ensure the delivery of education.

When I look at the new curriculum, many teachers are very supportive of that new, focused, more disciplined curriculum. They're more conscious that there are changes that they embrace, probably the majority of them. Their uncertainty today I believe has been caused by the misinformation that has been represented about Bill 160, but I'm confident -- I can repeat it, I'm confident -- that our Premier and Minister of Education have the student first, and I know this caucus has the student first.

Just because many parents and students and taxpayers over the past few weeks have had different views than union leaders, somehow they're considered to be wrong and unimportant. I can tell you the vast majority is quietly calling.

I'll give you an example. I'm looking at a small poll that was done just last evening. I called a couple of constituents as to what they're hearing. In an oldtimers' hockey dressing room last night in Bowmanville, in the Garnet Rickard complex, they did a poll of the four teams that were there and only four people did not support Bill 160. The rest were clearly on side. They said, "Hold the line. We've got to go forward. It's time for change," just as our Minister of Education said this morning.

I've also had a call from a small business person who told me informally they do not bother their customers by doing any kind of poll, but it's a very busy time of the year for them and it is a subject of great importance. Any person who on their own has made a statement for or against, they recorded those comments. Clearly what he told me this morning was that of 150 customers yesterday who commented, 142 of them were in support of Bill 160. I can tell you, we had a poll just this past week by small business in Durham. That poll was very clearly -- I don't know, I'm intending to circulate it. I want to thank Don Conaby from the economic development area in the region of Durham. There are about nine or 10 questions here. I'm just going to give you a couple. Generally I'll try to read as many as I can for the members and for those listening today. This is the most significant response they've had to a poll in the lifetime of the chamber.

The first question was, "Do you agree or not?" This is the poll. "Too much money is being spent on administration in Ontario schools"; 93% agree that too much money is being spent on administration.

The second question was, "More resources should be focused on the classroom"; 96% agreed.

"Local school boards have done a good job negotiating collective agreements with teacher unions"; 83% disagreed. They're the taxpayers and the seniors in my riding who see their taxes going up year after year. They want it to stop. This government clearly has taken that action.

The fifth question: "Ontario students do not perform as well as they should on international tests"; 85% agree. I can tell you when Mr Silipo was the Minister of Education in 1992 -- I quoted this many times in my public meetings -- he said exactly the same things we're saying: "Our students are not performing well on international tests. The system must be changed." David Cooke had the courage to take on the position of co-chair of the EIC for the same reason. I support Mr Cooke. I think he's the person with the commitment to deliver on the vision, and we're the government to make that commitment. Of course the opposition today are backing away and yet they haven't brought forward any clear policy or any clear plan except the status quo. That's not good enough for my children and it's not good enough for your children. Stand up for the children. Stand up to make the changes that are needed.

1710

Another question: "The quality of the school system can only be improved by spending more money." Clearly, 80% disagree with that.

"Non-certified specialists should be permitted to teach or assist in such subject areas as physical education, computer programming, art, music and guidance"; 76% agree. These are the small business people, the taxpaying people of Ontario. They want change. We've made it clear in the legislation that those non-certified teachers will be working in a supportive role. That's an important change. Mr Cooke and the EIC, they've seen it. Are you blind? Listen to all the people of Ontario and you'll find out that these changes will indeed improve the education system for our students.

The last question I felt was a very important thing for the teachers who were drawn into this illegal strike. They really didn't have a vote and yet they wanted to support their professional peers. The question is, "Teachers are justified in striking"; 83% in Durham disagree. If you were to ask the question, "Do people support their teacher?" I believe they do, and they expect a lot of our teachers. I think they agree with that. I expect a lot of the teachers, but I don't expect them to be leading political protests and the like in the classroom. Can you imagine sending home political rhetoric with a kindergarten student? That's totally unacceptable. We've got to make education in our schools priority number one.

It's been a real pleasure to be a part of and to comment on this important piece of legislation. Indeed, as I said at the beginning, when I was a trustee, elected first in 1982, I made a commitment to education and education quality in this province. It's a privilege in light of that commitment over time that I am finally here, recognizing that funding, the most important element, and the access and accountability are the very elements of Bill 160.

In fact, each one of us in this Legislature should stand up and vote on Monday for Bill 160. I appeal to Mr McGuinty to listen to all the people. He should be phoning not only members from the PC caucus -- we've been involved; we know how important it is -- but members of his own caucus and ask them to vote with a free vote themselves. I challenge him to ask some of the people on the other side to look freely at this as an opportunity to really stand up for quality education and for the students and taxpayers in your riding. I can tell you it's high time that we had educational changes that are clearly consistent in Bill 160.

I'm going to conclude by stating that it's been a privilege to be able to speak, and it's a humbling experience, I might add, as well. I have received thousands of letters, and in the time that I have left here, I'd like to say that I've written a letter quite comprehensively explaining the struggle for me and my staff in the constituency office, struggling with the calls trying to get people to see both sides of the discussion. Over that time, we've analyzed both the Education Act and Bill 160 to ensure that we understood their question and tried to get back to them the explanation as we understood it by reading both sides of the argument.

So I've explained to my constituents of Durham East that after much consideration and much deliberation, most importantly focusing on the student in the classroom, I support Bill 160. I am completely confident that this government and you will see an improved education system for each and every child, whether they live in Timmins or Toronto or in Durham East. We want no less. Mr Speaker, my time is coming to an end and I thank you very much for this opportunity, for allowing me to participate in the debate on Bill 160.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Speaker, for the opportunity to respond. What the people of Ontario should know is, first of all, that the Conservative Party has taken the lion's share of the time this afternoon and left the opposition with very little time on third reading to deal with Bill 160. What the government has done with this bill has poisoned the atmosphere in the field of education for many years to come. You had an opportunity to work together as a government with everyone interested in education --

Mr Wildman: We are not going to get enough time. You ruled 25 minutes per --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Algoma.

Mr Bradley: -- be they the teachers, be they the trustees, be they parents or students. Instead, the government decided that it would attack one segment of society; that is, those who have been involved in education as teachers and trustees over the years. The government, on the advice of the wise guys, the backroom whiz kids who advise this government, decided that it would be smart, very politically clever, to pick on the teachers of this province and the trustees of this province, hoping they could engender ill will against these individuals who work so hard in such a dedicated fashion with young people and not-so-young people in our society.

The government had a chance to work with these people. They came to the government in the midst of the discussions and made several significant concessions on this bill. What happened was, the government was exposed because the government really wanted to remove another two-thirds of a billion dollars from the education system and pretend that would not have any effect on it. Already, the government has removed over half a billion dollars. The government has confirmed and entrenched that money which was taken out of the system under the social contract.

That's what it was all about. If the government were at least honest and upfront and said it's all about taking money out of the education system, at least some people would have admired them, but all they've done is attack people and poison the atmosphere in education for many years to come.

Mr Wildman: I fear for the future of public education in Ontario. The reason I fear for that is because of the bunker mentality that has been demonstrated by this government with regard to Bill 160. The fact is the government for the last two years has done everything possible to demoralize the very people who are responsible for delivering quality education to students in this province.

And yet the government continues to bulldoze through and ignore the fact that very serious concerns have been raised about Bill 160. Many of the people across the way haven't read the bill. They know what they've been told by the senior bureaucrats and by the members of the cabinet, but they haven't read the bill. Many of the people out in the public who are complaining and raising concerns have read the bill. That's the difference between the bunker mentality of this government and the concerns of the public about Bill l60.

This government does not want to hear dissenting opinion, again another example of a bunker mentality. I have done some research and had some research done for me with the Clerk's table today to determine how many times in the history of this assembly has a private member's bill been voted down on first reading. It had happened twice, twice in the whole time. The first time was in 1981 when the Conservative Party voted down an NDP bill. The second time was in 1995 when this government voted down an NDP bill.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): You voted down Jim Brown.

Mr Wildman: That was on second reading, not first reading.

Hon Mrs Marland: It was first reading.

Mr Wildman: No, it wasn't.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Second reading.

Hon Mrs Marland: No, I'm sorry.

Mr Wildman: For that reason, this government doesn't want to hear and this government isn't giving this party any time to debate this bill under the time allocation motion.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. The member for Huron.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I just wanted to comment on a couple of things the member opposite was talking about. I'd like to remind people who are watching the debate today that the first time that a private member's bill with that title was raised, the government accepted that private member's bill. The second time, the third time, the fourth time and, I believe, the fifth time, it was rejected. I think it's important to recognize that once again we were having ploys in the Legislature, as opposed to moving towards working to improve the quality of education.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Have you read the bills? How do you know it's the same?

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands.

1720

Mrs Johns: Bill 160, as we have talked about over the course of the last number of months, and the quality of education as we have talked about it as a government since we were elected, I want to remind people why I believe this bill is so important to the community.

In my community of Huron county, the number of dollars that are spent on education is substantially different from the number of dollars spent in other parts of Ontario. It's time that we have an equitable and a fair system that allows every child to have the same dollars spent on their education.

Mrs Boyd: The lowest common denominator.

Mrs Johns: There cannot be a two-tiered education system within the community. I believe that if we go forward today and we work towards what we believe we're doing, improving the quality of education, that people --

Mrs Boyd: Why is everybody else down?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for London Centre.

Mrs Johns: -- will believe that we are moving in that direction. I intend to work carefully and closely with the teachers in my riding, many of them friends of mine, to help improve the quality of education.

My children are in the system. They are in grade 1 and grade 3. They are going to be educated for a long time in the province of Ontario. We're going to do our best on this side, and I believe on that side too, to make sure that the quality of education improves and that our children are able to compete in the global marketplace.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): It is unbelievable that the members of this government can continue to say that Bill 160 is about improving education in sheer defiance of the beliefs of 126,000 front-line teachers who know the reality of what's happening in our classrooms and what this bill will do to public education, and in defiance of the concerns of hundreds of thousands of parents and of students.

It is unbelievable that this government continues to talk about curriculum improvements and testing improvements and reporting improvements when they know full well this has nothing to do with Bill 160. It is unbelievable that the Minister of Education continues to say that Bill 160 limits class size when he knows full well that Bill 160 enshrines in law the status quo in average class sizes, and that means our students will still be in classes, in many cases, with 38 and 40 students in a class.

It is unbelievable that the Minister of Education continues to say that Bill 160 limits class size when he knows full well that Bill 160 enshrines in law the status quo in average class sizes, and that means our students will still be in classes, in many cases, with 38 and 40 students in a class.

It is unbelievable that the Premier of this province continues to say that the system is bad, as he did today. To do so is to completely deny the achievements of our students, of our teachers and the goals of the public education system itself. But that has never been the goal of the government of Ontario under Mike Harris: to recognize the strengths and the achievements of publicly funded education.

Their goal, quite purely and simply, is to get control of education so they can find the dollars they need for a tax cut. They're more than willing to sacrifice the interests of 2.1 million students to achieving their goal of getting the money they need for their tax cut. Their ultimate goal, I am more and more convinced, is to see the ultimate dismantling of public education in Ontario. The bottom line: You cannot improve education without teachers and you cannot bring in positive change when you make enemies of teachers in this province.

The Acting Speaker: Minister, you have two minutes.

Hon David Johnson: I'm delighted to wrap up our part of this debate and to thank the Premier and the members for Peterborough and Durham East for their excellent contributions to the debate. I'd like to thank the member for St Catharines, who has indicated, through his two-minute response, his concern with regard to the teachers and the fact that we should be dealing closely with teachers. I share his views in that regard.

The member for Algoma, as usual, has spoken eloquently. He indicated, though, that the party has been denied their rights to speak on this issue. Of course, one of the problems, as the member for Huron indicated, was that a good deal of time was taken up earlier today introducing for first reading a number of bills by the third party. The only purpose of all the bills was simply to eliminate Bill 160. All they had to do, rather than introduce all these bills, is simply to vote against Bill 160. The government allowed the first one to be put forward, and it has had first reading, but obviously we were simply wasting time today in dealing with one after another.

The member for Huron has indicated that she will be working closely with teachers, and I compliment her in that regard. I encourage every member of this House to do that. That's certainly what I intend to do. I had a meeting with the president of the OTF this afternoon. I hope very much that I'll be able to have meetings with all the members of the provincial affiliates, with various teachers, with principals, school boards, everybody involved in the system, because, let me make it clear again, we all need to work together, the students, the parents, the principals, the board members, the government. That's what I intend to do. I know the member for Fort William, with her history, would encourage us to do that as well, as we instil quality into our education system.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I'm of course going to take this opportunity to comment on Bill 160 generally. It's really unfortunate that at this point in time, although I have made every effort now to give the government members an opportunity to reconsider, it would appear that the government members are none the less going to vote in favour of Bill 160.

I'm hoping that at least those present will take the opportunity now to carefully consider what I'm about to say and, in addition, to carefully consider the views they have undoubtedly been receiving at their constituency offices, the letters, the faxes, the protests, and to carefully consider as well the fact that 126,000 law-abiding teachers, who have every genuine intent to care for their students, left their schools and marched outside in the cold without pay.

I know the government members would have us believe that each of these persons is entirely self-interested and has no genuine interest in their students. But I think anybody who took the time to speak with these teachers during the course of this protest, to talk to them and to listen to them, would quickly conclude that they were very much torn by all of this. They understood that their place, quite properly, is inside the classroom. But they also understood that there's something much bigger at stake here, and that's the future of public education in Ontario.

In some ways, perhaps the most tragic aspect of all of this is the fact that what we have here is a squandered opportunity. Teachers, parents, students and trustees are all ready to embrace change. They understand only too well the need for improvement, and I can tell you that as a parent I want improvement. I want nothing less than the very best for my children. I think every parent in the province has the same expectation of their public system of education, and who could deny that to them?

Before I proceed a little bit further, I want the people who are watching this at home to hear something I've said before. This debate may be very confusing for some because the government tells us one thing and others will tell us other things and I'll be saying something else as well. I'll tell people who are watching this the same thing I've been telling throughout, to trust their instincts. Don't hesitate to go visit the local school. Find out what this government has already done to education, done to students in Ontario. Talk to their teachers. Think about the teachers they've had in the past themselves. Were they all evil incarnate or did they from time to time help us along the way? How many of us would be here today, how many of us would enjoy the quality of life we enjoy today if it wasn't for our public system of education?

This government started out by creating a crisis. They were very deliberate in their intent. That was put on the record at some point when that was leaked from the previous Minister of Education who said that in order to bring about substantive change, it was important to concoct, to construct, to create, to orchestrate a crisis. That's exactly what they did, and they got a crisis.

For two weeks in this province we had something here that's never been seen in North America. We had 126,000 teachers leave their classrooms, we had 2.1 million students not able to attend school and we had a government that to all intents and purposes did nothing at the time in order to arrest that and bring it to an end. In fact, what we had was the Premier who throughout was in hiding. The only means by which he spoke to the public was through paid television advertising; in fact, advertising the taxpayers themselves had paid for.

It would seem to me that in the midst of that crisis created by this government very deliberately, the obligation of the Premier in the greatest province in the most blessed country on the planet would be to step into it and say, "I want to help and I'm going to start by not insulting and not demoralizing our teachers."

At some point, you're going to have to understand, members of the government, that one of the most important assets we have in public education is the goodwill of our teachers. If we lose that, we are in serious trouble because you can't deliver quality education from a building in downtown Toronto everywhere across the province. It's got to be by means of a partnership, and who's involved in that partnership? I think that's pretty clear, pretty self-evident. It involves parents, it involves the students themselves, it involves their trustees and, perhaps most important, it involves their teachers.

If I just for a moment speak in my capacity as a parent of four children who are enrolled in our public schools, I do not understand how by removing a further $700 million from the system and by letting go thousands of teachers so that there will be at the end of the day fewer teachers teaching an increasing number of students, how fewer teachers and less money is going to make for better education for my children. I think that's the exact same kind of question that's being asked by parents throughout the province.

There's something else the minister made reference to that I don't understand just as a parent. His guarantee of an average class size, a guarantee in fact of the status quo, how is that going to result in smaller classes? My two oldest are in classes which are no less than 34 students. I've been told by our local board and local teachers that their class sizes will not be reduced as a result of Bill 160 because their average is perfectly in keeping with what the minister is telling us is going to be the guaranteed average from here on in. That's not going to help our students.

Let me speak for a moment in my capacity as a taxpayer; I've spoken as a parent, but just for a moment, as a taxpayer. As a taxpayer, I expect our schools to be efficiently run, that we will eliminate as much as possible the waste, but I also understand that education is more than an expense, that it's an investment and that whether or not I have children in the system, it's in my own self-interest that our children of today grow up to find opportunity here in this province and to find that opportunity because they received the best-quality education. So as a taxpayer, I understand that it's bad economics, it doesn't make economic sense to remove $700 million from the system. It's not in my self-interest that that be done and I know it's not in the interests of our students.

1730

Coincidentally, it happens to be that there's another instalment due on the tax cut in January of this year coming and that instalment is about $700 million. We have discovered by means of a leaked document that this government intends to take out about $700 million more from our system of education.

If people are considering the credibility of the government members on this issue, I ask them to reflect on what the government has done to date when it comes to education. They have removed $533 million so far. In fact, when we add on the social contract cut, we have taken $1 billion out of education so far.

What has that meant? It means we're losing junior kindergarten at a time when everybody knows that we cannot afford to do without junior kindergarten. It is no longer an option in a knowledge-based global economy. We need it and we absolutely must have it. So far 24 boards, perhaps it's 25 now, have eliminated junior kindergarten in Ontario.

We also know that this government's cuts have resulted and are continuing to result in a loss of special education programs. I've said it before that, for me, special education programs being cut in Ontario is more than an economic or financial issue; it's a moral issue. Do we not have an obligation as a society -- just think of this for a moment now -- to make sure that we're providing the kinds of programs that are necessary to help our kids who have learning problems at school? That's what this government has done to date.

In addition, their cuts have resulted in cuts by school boards to adult education programs. This government is outstanding when it comes to placing responsibility on people out there and saying, "You've got to get up out of your chair, get out and get a job." Well, if you think it's tough to get a job after you've got a college diploma or a university degree, you should see what it's like to get a job if all you've got is your grade 10 and you're 27 years of age. You've got an obligation, I would state once again, we all have an obligation to make sure that we're helping those people to help themselves, and when you cut adult education programs, of course you're doing just the opposite.

When people want to consider the credibility of the government on educational matters, I ask them to look at the record, because I think the record speaks for itself very, very clearly.

I want to say something about our teachers. The government thinks it's high fashion to gang up on our teachers, to criticize them, to insult them, to demoralize them. I happen to be married to a teacher and I can tell you that I have some inkling of the kind of effort she puts into her classroom. I understand how much time she puts into it, how much emotional capital she sinks into it. In fact, I also understand how much money she's been putting into it in order to ensure that every student in her class has the necessary books and pencils.

I can also tell you, on the basis of having talked to thousands of teachers throughout the province, spoken to them at rallies and on the picket lines, that they are ready to embrace change. They are not defenders of the status quo. They understand that there is always room for improvement. But like any other group in this province that is prepared to embrace change, they want to help lend shape to it. They don't want to be cast aside. They don't want to be told that they are obstacles to be overcome. They want us to understand, they want the government to understand that really they are the best resources we have and they're waiting to be tapped.

We need their goodwill to bring about change -- positive, lasting, substantive change -- and this government has lost that. If this government now thinks they can proceed willy-nilly with Bill 160 and that all is going to be roses from here on in, they are sadly mistaken. If they don't immediately set out to try to build bridges with our teachers -- and I'm not talking about those who might find themselves on the extreme in any way. I'm talking about teachers who get up in the morning and go to work and pay their taxes and devote all of their energy and attention to their students, and those who got into the system because they wanted more than anything else to teach, who are inspired by a powerful sense of idealism and who understand that if in the work they do, they succeed, then we all succeed; if they fail, then we all fail.

That's what this government has been playing with here when they play with the goodwill of our teachers. When they set out deliberately to undermine their credibility and to attack them day in and day out, what they really are doing -- and I don't think they understand this -- is playing with our future: nothing more and nothing less.

I want to make it clear again to those who are watching that my vision of education in Ontario is completely different from that of this government. It's a vision that will be inspired by a sense that if we're going to get it right, we have to understand that it's got to be delivered by means of a partnership. It's got to be a partnership between government and teachers and trustees and parents and students. So I'm speaking to all of those groups outside today, all of those groups who are feeling a tremendous loss, who are feeling disappointment at the fact that it appears we've got a government that's bent on proceeding with this bill. I want them to know that the fight now has to move on to a different ground, a different playing field. Now the fight has to move towards defeating Mike Harris, because when it comes to education, he just doesn't get it.

Notwithstanding the fact that some of his caucus members happened to speak out, it would appear that at the end of the day they are not going to be with their constituents; they are not going to do what they were sent to do. They're not going to honour the wishes of the majority. They are going to vote in favour of Bill 160, and this at a time when we now know, when the pollsters tell us -- we don't need the pollsters to tell us this either. Just sit down at your constituency office and take the calls and read the mail. Listen to what people are telling us. They're telling us they don't want Bill 160. They're telling us 160 will not be helpful to public education. They're telling us, in fact, that it will be harmful to public education.

1740

There are not many things left that provincial governments do that everybody agrees upon as being absolutely essential, but surely one of those very few items that everybody would agree to in terms of being a fundamental and essential role of our provincial government in 1997, and a continuing essential role as we move into the 21st century, has to be the delivery of quality education. Nobody is prepared to accept that government is going to relinquish that.

On the other hand, nobody is prepared to accept that government should assume all control for it, but that's exactly what this government is doing. They're going to centralize control over education so that somehow bureaucrats in downtown Toronto are going to be able to deliver education right down to the last minute detail in Kenora, Cornwall, Kincardine, Ottawa, London, Sarnia, Windsor and everywhere else in this province. It's all going to be decided now from downtown Toronto. That's not on. It's never been on. Nobody's ever sought that.

I want to remind our listeners once again, and those who are viewing this now, that Mike Harris made a specific promise that he would never make any cuts of the kind that would affect what goes on inside our classrooms. He has already broken that promise. We are losing junior kindergarten, special education programs and adult education programs. We are playing with our future. We are putting that at risk. And now, through Bill 160, what this government intends to do is more of the same.

They intend to take $700 million more out of the system. They intend to lay off thousands of teachers. Once again I, like everybody else outside of this place, am asking myself, how can we improve education by taking hundreds of millions more dollars out of the system? How can we ensure that our students have more attention when we're going to ensure that there are fewer teachers, when this government is going to ensure that there are fewer teachers available to teach them? I have yet to encounter a single parent in Ontario who has complained to me that their child's teacher is spending too much time with them. In fact, it's the opposite.

Teachers right now are up against it not only inside the classroom, but they're up against it when it comes to this government. They've got a government that shows no respect for them; they've got a government that doesn't understand the challenges they have to contend with inside their classroom. Teachers need the support of their government. They need the support of their community. They don't need a government that attacks them day in and day out and, to make matters worse, attacks them with their own money, taxpayer money.

I want to come back to something I said at the outset. If people are confused about these issues, I can understand that, but I ask them to trust their instincts. I ask them to examine the record. I ask them to think of the importance of education not only to their own children, but to our collective future. I ask them to understand what's inside Bill 160 and I ask them to ask themselves, do they honestly believe we can improve education in Ontario by taking $700 million more out of the system after we've already removed $1 billion, and do they honestly believe we can improve education by laying off thousands of teachers so that there are fewer teachers left to devote needed attention to our students?

The Acting Speaker: It is now 5:45. Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 6, I'm now required to put the question.

Mr Johnson has moved third reading of Bill 160. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

There will be a five-minute bell.

I've just been handed a letter from the whip of the official opposition:

"Pursuant to standing order 28(h), I request that the vote on Bill 160 be deferred until Monday, December 1, 1997."

It being close to 6 o'clock --

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Oh, no. We can speak for 15 minutes.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Orders of the day.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I call order number 9.

Mrs McLeod: Just for clarification, Speaker, you will be aware that we had additional time on the clock to address Bill 160. We were informed that the debate had to be cut off at 5:45. If it's your ruling that we can continue with orders of the day, does that mean that the debate on Bill 160 can resume?

The Acting Speaker: No. The bill has been voted on. This is why I said it was close to six of the clock. I wanted to adjourn the House until Monday, but you preferred to have orders of the day. So be it.

Mrs McLeod: I would move adjournment of the House, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: It's already done now. We've called orders of the day already.

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LES REDEVANCES D'AMÉNAGEMENT

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 98, An Act to promote job creation and increased municipal accountability while providing for the recovery of development costs related to new growth / Projet de loi 98, Loi visant à promouvoir la création d'emplois et à accroître la responsabilité des municipalités tout en prévoyant le recouvrement des coûts d'aménagement liés à la croissance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Marchese had the floor when we last debated this issue. Is there any further debate?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it's fair to say that no one expected that we would be going into any additional debate today. I would ask that at least Mr Marchese's time or spot be held over for him to be able to come back to this when we come back to a debate.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe a Liberal member wanted another order called. Unfortunately, a New Democratic Party member was --

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): We were not consulted.

Hon Mr Sterling: I'm sorry, that's what happened here. Mr Marchese, who was speaking on this bill, is not present. I am willing to recognize the clock at 6 o'clock and have the debate remain in Mr Marchese's hands if that is the unanimous consent of the House.

The Acting Speaker: I will recognize a member of the third party.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand what the House leader is saying, but could you please clarify for us who the last speaker on Bill 98 was?

Interjection: Mr Marchese.

Mr Wildman: No, that's not right.

Mrs Boyd: Mr Bradley.

Mr Wildman: Mr Bradley was the last speaker. Is that correct?

The Acting Speaker: Mr Bradley was the last one. I will now recognize a member from the third party. Further debate?

Mr Silipo: I move adjournment of the House.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Silipo has moved adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? No. Therefore, I will recognize whoever will speak on behalf of the third party. The motion was lost, and I'm calling for a member from the third party to debate. Mr Silipo, you have the floor?

I recognize the member for Scarborough East.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I am pleased to continue the debate on Bill 98 and indeed to recognize, in the few minutes we have left to us here this afternoon --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, just for one minute.

Here is another little problem we will fix. You have spoken already on that bill.

1750

Hon Mr Sterling: If there are no further speakers, call the question.

The Acting Speaker: I understand that the member for Durham East wants to speak on the issue.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I would defer to Mr Sterling. Bill 98 obviously --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. There's some confusion here. I hope we can solve it. Who is it? The member for Durham East or the --

Hon Mr Sterling: He's going to go ahead.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Durham East, you now have the floor.

Mr O'Toole: Bill 98, as we all know, deals with the Development Charges Act, which is a very important piece of long-overdue legislation, an act to create jobs and increase municipal accountability. In fact, the Development Charges Act has been in debate since it was brought in, I believe, by the Liberal government, a very unfair formula where new home buyers were required to absorb an increased cost when purchasing their home. In fact, it really kind of goes on their mortgage. To me, that was unacceptable. But we've developed a new quantum, a new formula, which excludes and prohibits certain charges from being passed on that weren't part of the cost of growth.

Clearly, there are probably others who wish to comment on this important piece of legislation and the definitions in there. The background on this bill goes back a long way. I think during the public hearings we all heard that it was a very reasonable solution, with long-overdue amendments to a piece of legislation --

1750

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'm seeking clarification on my earlier motion to adjourn the House. I'm looking at the standing orders and I would appreciate your adding to what is not here in the standing orders.

My understanding, just from what I'm reading in standing order 45(a) on page 38, is that "Motions to adjourn the House or the debate may not be moved until after oral question period except upon unanimous consent of the House." Clearly it was after oral question period and, as I read this, it would not have required unanimous consent of the House to move a motion for adjournment. I'm wondering why my motion did not stand and could not be voted on.

The Acting Speaker: The difficulty was, member for Fort William, that when you stood up to adjourn the House, it was on a point of order. You didn't have the floor properly.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: We did. We asked the question and that was it.

We will now continue the debate by the member for Durham East.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, if I may, on the point of order --

The Acting Speaker: On the same issue? No, I've decided that the issue is over. We've decided it. The member for Durham East now has the floor.

Mr O'Toole: I hate to be interrupted because I have spent some time preparing for this very important debate. As members would know, this bill was introduced back in November 1996. It's time to get on with change. I know the opposition find it extremely difficult to get on with making the important changes to bring the economy of this province back on its feet once and for all.

Before I was interrupted, Mr Speaker, you would know that I was talking about the exemption of certain inclusions in the development charges formula. I know members here who have served municipally understand that the formula was very problematic. What they call the quantum for developing the Development Charges Act of the day was very encompassing. In fact, you could be building park gazebos and charging them to those first-time home buyers. Think of how unfair that was really. I think back to my own experience on Durham regional council. The most common complaint I heard was, "There is only one taxpayer."

The issue of the day is clearly that the inclusion of the exemptions that were not specific to growth was long overdue. I know even in the public hearings we heard from first-time home buyers, we heard from the home builders themselves who clearly said to us: "It's your choice. Are you going to increase the price of homes or are you going to allow first-time home buyers?" The big problem when you put this on to their mortgage is that they're going to be paying, over 25 years, up to $20,000 on the mortgage as a result of the development charge: the local development charge, the regional development charge and in some instances the education development charge. It's long overdue.

I was most interested in reading some of the definition clauses here with respect to the role of the Ontario Municipal Board. They will be holding hearings to deal with any notice of appeal relating to the conflict forwarded to them by the clerk of the municipality, and the parties to the appeal are to appeal before the municipality first. The whole issue of appeals and resolution of appeals was a further streamlining in improving the hearings process itself.

The background studies are very, very clear and the whole discussion on the way up to developing this important Bill 98, the consultation with the home buyer, the home builder, the development industry, the municipalities. All were on record as saying that the Development Charges Act was clearly in need of change.

I'm going into the earlier definitions of the act. I believe the limitations of service is probably the most important controversial item of the bill. Limitations on the services and the costs for which development charges can be imposed is central to the whole issue. An exemption is made for small industrial expansions. Think of the job creation factor. When you start to think that every time they went for a building permit, we have exempted the addition of floor space for small commercial-industrial, and I believe every member of this House realizes the importance of the small commercial outlet. Exempting them from a development charge was long overdue.

Charges cannot be imposed for the part of that increase that can by met within the municipality's existing capacity. In fact, any growth clearly should pay for itself. Growth should pay for growth. That has always been the argument with development charges. There's a lot of upfront costing, where the municipality goes through it and says: "We have a plan of subdivision. It's going to add 500 homes, and that means added capacity in pipes and wires and other infrastructure." Clearly those are the costs that should be borne by those 500 additional homes on that site plan development application.

When that has happened, when you look at community arenas and libraries and other areas that are shared by all residents across a municipal area where the development charge is developed, clearly it's fair that that should be shared on the broader tax base.

A number of aspects of this bill, I think part IV of the act, deal with the transitional issues, because we know that when you make any change in legislation you are caught in a transition from those who paid the scale or the quantum under the old bylaw and those who will pay for the new quantum or the new formula for funding under the new bylaw.

I put to you that it's the only piece of our comprehensive tax legislation which initiates a designation to stimulate investment in jobs, investment in our communities. In fact, that's what our whole government agenda is all about: creating jobs and hope or opportunity.

Updating the rent control by the Tenant Protection Act is another example of a piece of legislation we just passed. In front of us next week, I believe, in the next few days, the House leader has mentioned the actual value assessment, a long-discussed, long-overdue piece of legislation that this government is going to be bringing forward to get on with the job, to make the decisions that are necessary to make this the greatest province in Canada.

When I look across the floor, there is a whole series of red tape bills that are being opposed by the opposition, and really they're eliminating barriers to growth. Individually, the red tape bills -- I might add that there are about 15 of them at the moment that Mr Frank Sheehan has worked with each ministry to bring forward --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member just made a totally erroneous statement when he said that the opposition has voted against the red tape bills when in fact we --

The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of order.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Speaker, there are some interruptions, but I believe all members want to participate in this because of the importance of not only the development charges bill that we're talking about but of the small taxpayer.

The Acting Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.

27 novembre 1997