L253a - Mon 1 Dec 1997 / Lun 1er Déc 1997
ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE
PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS
EDUCATION REFORM / RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION
RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION
PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM
PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS
PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS
The House met at 1330.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
EDUCATION REFORM
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): As the Mike Harris government attempts to ram Bill 160 through the Legislature this very afternoon, it's becoming more and more apparent that this gang has neither the vision nor the intention of improving education in our province. If they had, the 615 students who attend Prospect Avenue, St James and Shuniah public schools in my riding of Port Arthur would not have been met with the news last week that their schools are tentatively slated for closure at the end of this year.
This decision has been reluctantly rendered by the Lakehead Board of Education in fearful anticipation of this government's still unreleased funding formula, which will, with its inflexibility, force our trustees to view education simply as a business rather than as a system meant to bring out the best in our students. As a result, these three schools which serve as important community-building and neighbourhood-enhancing institutions in the downtown area of my riding may close, forcing parents to bus their children to crowded schools outside their neighbourhoods.
The sad thing is that this government's lack of vision for what our schools can be sets up a future that shuts out neighbourhood involvement completely. Why can't our schools have more day care centres, community police officers, health centres and social workers working together with the students in our schools on a day-to-day basis? The fact is that with some funding flexibility, they could. What a marvellous learning environment that could be.
To the parent councils of all three schools, I support you in your efforts to keep your schools open. This is truly a battle worth fighting.
TAOIST TAI CHI SOCIETY
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of this House the extraordinary work being done by the Taoist Tai Chi Society. The society's major aims are to promote the practice of Taoist Tai Chi in order to help people improve and maintain their health, to promote cultural exchange and to help others in charitable ways.
With Master Moy's leadership, members of the society recently donated $1.2 million to complete a new 72-bed health recovery centre in Orangeville, Ontario.
People with chronic illness frequently find that conventional western medicine has no cure available for their problem. People with multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, stroke and heart disease have little hope of restoring themselves to their original state of health. Taoist Tai Chi practice is an effective way for these people to access their body's inborn healing mechanism. Strength, coordination and independence return through daily practice of Taoist Tai Chi.
I want to congratulate Master Moy and the Taoist Tai Chi Society on this very exciting health recovery centre funded through fees charged to students and donations to the society. It will surely enable people to enjoy good health for many years to come.
PHYSICIANS' SERVICES
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I'm pleased to report that the doctor shortage is easing in the city of St Catharines. I recently read in the St Catharines Standard that in the last three months alone, five family physicians have opened practices in the city. That many new doctors translates into care for 10,000 patients, as each physician expects to provide care for approximately 2,000 patients.
It proves the government's approach to encourage new doctors to settle in rural, small and medium-sized urban centres is working. It is quite possibly working because those new doctors and their families realize that there are many benefits in smaller communities, such as a slower pace, friendliness and caring between neighbours, and less crime. Whatever the reasons, the new doctors are very welcome because it means the people of St Catharines, and in fact the entire Niagara region, are getting the direct patient care they need.
Three of the new physicians are Dr John Taliano, a fifth-generation health care practitioner, Dr Jane Rusnak, a recent graduate of Queen's University, and Dr Christopher Lynett, a Niagara Falls native who recently graduated from McMaster medical school. I would like to welcome the doctors to the city of St Catharines and offer encouragement to others who might be considering a change or setting up practice for the first time.
EDUCATION REFORM
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The government has used unusual, if not despicable, means to achieve its goals in educational reform. For two and a half years, Mike Harris has tried to divide and conquer the educational partners in order to achieve his own agenda.
He tried to pit parents and students against teachers in his ads. Did it work? To use Mike Harris's own words, I don't think so. He tried to pit trustees against parents. Did it work? To use his own words, I don't think so. He tried to pit trustees against teachers. Did it work? As Mike Harris said on television, I don't think so. He tried to pit trustee against trustee. Did it work? I don't think so. He tried to pit system against system. Did it work? To quote Mike's now famous words, I don't think so.
Mike Harris has tried all this to divide and conquer, but what has happened? Parents now believe more strongly in public education than they have ever done before. Students have demonstrated in many valiant ways the importance of teaching and teachers. Trustees now support what parents, teachers and students have told them: that public education is worth fighting for.
Has Mike Harris been successful?
Interjections: I don't think so.
Mr Bartolucci: You're right. I don't think so.
Will the students, parents, trustees, teachers, principals and vice-principals remember what Mike Harris tried to do to public education? To use their words, I think so.
HEART AND STROKE RESEARCH
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On Tuesday, November 25, the Heart and Stroke Foundation announced a research initiative, the researcher endowment program, which will provide funding totalling $6 million to individual researchers and institutes. This is the largest single investment in individual researchers in Ontario, accomplished through partnerships with three research institutions.
Scientist Dr Brian Rutt of London, Ontario's, John P. Robarts Research Institute is one of the first recipients of a $2-million endowed research chair. These funds will benefit both the researcher and the institute. Dr Rutt, a Canadian, is acknowledged to be one of North America's leading experts on medical imaging. With the outstanding vascular imaging facilities that have been established at Robarts and the London Health Sciences Centre over the past decade, this research chair means that London, Ontario, is now a focal point for vascular imaging research in Canada. One million dollars was committed by the foundation and matched by Robarts.
The Hospital for Sick Children and McMaster University also received endowed research chairs through the initiative.
There is a very real threat of our best researchers fleeing Ontario in search of more attractive environments. In the past 10 years, close to 13% of heart and stroke researchers have moved from the province, so this is an excellent development and one which we should all applaud and support through the Heart and Stroke Foundation.
1340
ELDRED KING
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): As the member of provincial Parliament for the riding of Durham-York, I am honoured to extend my sincere congratulations to Eldred King, who is retiring after more than 30 years of public service in the region of York.
Born on Canada Day in 1927, Eldred served on the Markham township school board from 1965 to 1968. He switched from education to municipal politics in 1969 and served as a Markham councillor until 1970. He was then elected to council in Whitchurch-Stouffville from 1978 to 1984, when he was elected York region chair, a position he has held until the present.
Eldred always preferred to shun the spotlight. He was in his element working behind the scenes unless forced by his high-profile position to step forward and take the reins.
Eldred plans to return to his first love: farming. Eldred knows that in both of his chosen careers -- cattle farming and politics -- there are several pieces of essential knowledge: knowing the difference between having something productive within your grasp as opposed to being left holding the bag, and knowing when to walk the fine line without stepping into...difficulty.
Eldred, the leadership you have demonstrated during more than 30 years of public service in York region is evident in the quality of life that all your constituents enjoy.
EDUCATION REFORM
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Bill 160 is proving to be a defining point for the Harris government's education agenda, and it is only too clear that their agenda is not related in any way to improving the quality of education.
Bill 160 is about the main agenda of the Harris government, the delivering of the tax cut, and it is about the less public part of that agenda: the need to make cuts of more than $1 billion to education in order to deliver that tax cut. The Harris government was prepared to sacrifice the wellbeing of 2.1 million students to achieve their political agenda.
Bill 160 is an outright attack on education as well as on the front-line people who deliver education to our students and it is an unprecedented power grab, but an unprecedented grab for power on the part of a government with a destructive agenda led to an unprecedented protest on the part of 126,000 teachers. That, in turn, has been supported by an equally unprecedented public opposition. That opposition will not go away. It is building and it won't go away as the government hopes, once this bill is passed.
The government tried to win this not with negotiation, not by responding to concerns, but through a public relations campaign that would camouflage their real agenda and allow them to seize the control they needed, but they lost because their agenda was exposed. A public that truly cares about education and is more aware of how it can be and is being threatened, is going to be very vigilant when this government begins to exercise its powers. More and more people are proving that they are prepared to stand up for what they believe in, and they will continue to do that.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): In anticipation of the government backbenchers caving in to what they know is a very bad bill which is coming forward in a few minutes for a vote -- we thought for a while that a few of the brave members over there might take a courageous stand but they are obviously not going to -- I want to tell people about an event that is happening tomorrow, Tuesday, December 2. It's put on by Harbord Collegiate Institute and they're calling on people to come together in an event called "Mourning the Death of Public Education." This is a funeral procession -- they say, New Orleans-style -- from Harbord Collegiate Institute to Queen's Park from 3:45 pm on, and they want people to join them at any point along the route. That would be from Harbord Collegiate to Queen's Park.
What they say is that this is the death of public education and that: "This mock funeral is a symbolic demonstration against the dismantling of Ontario's public education system. Education has evolved in the public realm for 150 years. As a grassroots coalition of concerned parents and teachers, we feel compelled to draw attention to the present government's desire to put fiscal concerns above a child's right to learn." I urge everybody to get out there tomorrow and join in this march.
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I am pleased to rise on behalf of many constituents who have expressed their support for the government's initiative recently in passing Bill 142. Many people in my constituency have approved of the initiatives that have been taken by this government to restore responsibility to the social services system in this province.
For too many years, governments have failed to meet their responsibility to the very people they intend to serve. People on social assistance deserve the support of government but it is also true that people on social assistance want to do their part to meet the needs for themselves. They want to see employment, and through Bill 142, this government is prepared and able to come to the aid of those individuals who have needs in our community, to give them the tools, the responsibility, to work for a living.
We know that over the next number of years, as the implementation of Bill 142 takes place in this province, we will continue to see less reliance on social assistance and much more self-sufficiency. The fact that almost 250,000 fewer people are on social assistance than in June 1995 shows that this government is on the right track. We will continue to do the right thing for the people of this province.
ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her office.
Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour did assent:
Bill 61, An Act to simplify government processes and to improve efficiency in the Ministry of the Attorney General / Projet de loi 61, Loi visant à simplifier les processus gouvernmentaux et à améliorer l'efficience au ministère du Procureur général.
Bill 96, An Act to Consolidate and Revise the Law with respect to Residential Tenancies / Projet de loi 96, Loi codifiant et révisant le droit de la location à usage d'habitation.
Bill 142, An Act to revise the law related to Social Assistance by enacting the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, by repealing the Family Benefits Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act and by amending several other Statutes / Projet de loi 142, Loi révisant la loi relative à l'aide sociale en édictant la Loi sur le programme Ontario au travail et la Loi sur le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées, en abrogeant la Loi sur les prestations familiales, la Loi sur les services de réadaptation professionnelle et la Loi sur l'aide sociale générale et en modifiant plusieurs autres lois.
Bill 148, An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto / Projet de loi 148, Loi traitant de questions se rapportant à la constitution de la nouvelle cité de Toronto.
The Speaker: Thank you.
A point of order, member for Welland -Thorold.
Interjection.
The Speaker: I appreciate it and I might know what your point of order is, but until you give it I can't allow the ribbon to be worn. I appreciate it.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Speaker: In recognition of AIDS awareness and in view of the underfunding by the federal government --
The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, you know what I need --
Interjection.
The Speaker: Unanimous consent to wear ribbons? Agreed.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, it seems somewhat odd that there would be a gallery half full on a day when I know there are a great many people who want to get in to observe the vote on Bill 160. I have been informed by the table that there is a reserved place for a school tour. I think it's important to make people aware that that's why the gallery seems somewhat empty at this point. I just wondered if I can inquire as to what time the school tour is scheduled to arrive in case there's any possibility of accommodating more of the public.
The Speaker: They are here now.
VISITOR
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): In the gallery I believe is the member of the 35th Parliament for Quinte, Mr Hugh O'Neil. There he is.
DEFERRED VOTES
EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION
Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of 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.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to see some clarification on --
The Speaker: Yes, I received more information with respect to that point of order from the government and the third party. I didn't really get an opportunity to read them so I won't be ruling today. That's the best I can tell you.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You will be ruling with respect to this bill?
The Speaker: It's 164 that it's affecting. It doesn't have any effect on either of the other bills.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, I know what it does. I guarantee you I understand it. It's 164.
Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1351 to 1356.
The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Arnott, Ted Baird, John R. Barrett, Toby Bassett, Isabel Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Carr, Gary Carroll, Jack Chudleigh, Ted Clement, Tony Cunningham, Dianne Danford, Harry DeFaria, Carl Doyle, Ed Ecker, Janet Elliott, Brenda Eves, Ernie L. Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Froese, Tom Galt, Doug Gilchrist, Steve Grimmett, Bill Guzzo, Garry J. |
Hardeman, Ernie Harnick, Charles Harris, Michael D. Hastings, John Hodgson, Chris Hudak, Tim Jackson, Cameron Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Johnson, Ron Jordan, W. Leo Kells, Morley Klees, Frank Leach, Al Leadston, Gary L. Marland, Margaret Martiniuk, Gerry Maves, Bart McLean, Allan K. Munro, Julia Murdoch, Bill Mushinski, Marilyn Newman, Dan O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. Palladini, Al |
Parker, John L. Pettit, Trevor Preston, Peter 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. |
The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
|
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 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 Patten, Richard Phillips, Gerry Pouliot, Gilles Pupatello, Sandra Ramsay, David Ruprecht, Tony Sergio, Mario Silipo, Tony Wildman, Bud Wood, Len |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 81; the nays are 48.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Interruption.
The Speaker: Clear this gallery, please.
The House will recess for 15 minutes.
The House recessed from 1404 to 1420.
WORLD AIDS DAY
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to request unanimous consent to make statements on World AIDS Day.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Unanimous consent for statements on World AIDS Day? Agreed.
Hon Mrs Witmer: I want to speak today on the occasion of World AIDS Day. In so doing I am pleased to reaffirm this government's commitment to the people of Ontario that fighting HIV and AIDS is a high priority. The theme this year is Children Living in a World with AIDS. It is a very appropriate theme because the threat of this disease does pose a tremendous problem for our children. Worldwide, one in eight people affected with the AIDS virus each day is a child. According to a report published by the United Nations last week, of the 2.3 million people who have died of AIDS this year, one fifth, or 460,000, were children under the age of 15, a rise of almost 25% on the previous year. It is truly a wake-up call for all those who mistakenly believe this to be a disease that strikes only the homosexual population. This is a disease that reaches across all social, economic, class and age boundaries.
In Ontario every year 16,000 people are diagnosed with HIV, the virus that can lead to AIDS. We must continue to be proactive in addressing the threat that HIV and AIDS pose to all the people of this province. From day one our government has made HIV/AIDS prevention, care, treatment and support a high priority. We do more for people living with HIV and AIDS than any other province, with $50 million committed for this year alone, which exceeds federal spending by more than $9 million, and this figure of $50 million does not include doctor billings to OHIP, hospitalization and drug therapies for HIV and AIDS patients.
We must be unrelenting in our fight to stop the disease spreading, and we must continue to encourage people to join the battle, taking responsibility not only for their own health but the health of their relatives and friends. It's up to all of us, because we can all do our part.
I would like at this point to acknowledge the work of individuals who have helped the Ministry of Health and this government keep focused on the important issues over the years. Andrew Lafontaine, who died in January this year, served as the co-chair of the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS for over a year. His work and his insight will be greatly missed. Continuing his work are the committee co-chairs, Mr David Hoe of Ottawa, a respected voice in the AIDS community, and Dr Anne Phillips of Toronto.
There are many more people supporting these individuals who work tirelessly in the community to educate, treat and support those living with HIV and AIDS. On behalf of all Ontarians, we owe them a great deal.
Finally, we are encouraged by the federal government's continuation today of their national strategy to continue to address this devastating disease. Together, along with this province's significant ongoing commitment, we can achieve a healthier future for ourselves, our children and their children.
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I rise to add to the recognition necessary on World AIDS Day. We have an emphasis this year on children and AIDS, but it only helps to remind us, all of us, how the infection of AIDS is unfair and all those infected are innocent. We have a disease that has taken some five million people. We also have many, many people living in our communities today who deserve not just our sympathy but our abiding respect for the kind of travail they have to put up with.
We understand that this disease has had a devastating impact on their lives and we recognize that the very success, to the extent we can call it success, there has been in dealing with this disease has led to new challenges for them and for our communities. We have to remember the people who are coping with AIDS; we have to recognize as well the thousands of people who are caregivers and supporters to people who are afflicted with HIV and AIDS, and the efforts that are being made to search for a real cure.
Since its recognition 16 years ago, five million people have died, and every day there are 10,000 new people affected, more than 100 of whom are children. When we look at the 20,000 cases confirmed in Canada today, we recognize the huge responsibility that everyone in this society has to bear for this new disease, a disease that, once apprehended, we all live with the responsibility of knowing we were slow to respond to. That can only act today to spur us on not to allow us to become in any way complacent in dealing with the new challenges that the treatment and the management and the push to solve this disease present to all of us.
We look at some of the challenges, for example, in terms of the infection rates for intravenous drug users and we recognize that what happened in Vancouver could happen in cities in Ontario. There is no room in the world of AIDS and HIV for complacency on the part of any of us in the elected officialdom. In terms of our moral responsibilities, we have yet to exercise them fully in this regard.
We recognize that low economic status contributes to some of the vulnerability, that poor health conditions, that high rates of transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases can create some of the trends that have developed elsewhere.
There are also increasing infection rates for aboriginal people. Before 1990 there were 32 persons so recognized, today there are 305. While women were only 6% of those infected with AIDS in the past, in 1990, today they are over 11%. The idea of recognizing our commonality here in Ontario with the rest of the world in coming to terms with the new challenges of this new disease: We are still not at the point where we can say we have reckoned with that, that we have dealt with what AIDS really needs to mean to us to be able to be dealt with. We have advantages here, in a civilized, modern and organized world, both medically and socially to be able to respond. Our lack of responsiveness in the past has to be our signal for what we do in the future.
We need to recognize that needle exchange programs do work and that they do prevent disease. As we look at the downloading of public health, the commitment needs to be made by each person in this House, talking in their municipalities, to make sure those kinds of programs are absolutely guaranteed to continue. We have to look at what will happen in terms of STD awareness programs, in terms of other substance abuse programs that are very much part of any strategy to respond. We have to look at keeping the rate of HIV infection where it is and reducing it with very, very proactive programs.
There are other needs that we need to recognize and, when we recognize them, immediately respond to. We've had a call in this country for testing pregnant women for HIV and AIDS, and we need to do that, starting right away. There is a need to do the small things that accommodate the loss in quality of life, but the preventive, the smart things as well. Formula should be made available to mothers who are at risk for HIV and AIDS so that they aren't in that instance breast-feeding and running the higher risk. We don't have programs that do that today.
While we know there is some advancement, some better quality of life for people infected with HIV and AIDS, we recognize that we have not turned a corner. We have not dealt with the ramifications of people living longer, of people needing more support to reintegrate into the world they thought they were leaving, given our outlook on AIDS before. We need to embrace the people living with AIDS in a way that we've been -- if not reluctant, then at least we certainly don't have the action to back up that sentiment today.
1430
We need to make sure our strategies are integrated and respond to everyone who is infected by AIDS and all those risk populations that may exist in the future. We have the Trillium drug program, which is in part a response to their needs, and for which the government that put it in place and the government that continues it need credit, but it is underutilized. We need to work harder with those populations that are affected to make sure those benefits are being fully realized. We need to stop some of the game playing that happens to people with AIDS who end up going on welfare to become eligible for programs because some of the qualifying incomes are too high.
There needs to be, in other words, a real thrust on our part, hopefully one that's non-partisan and one that allows us to really embrace AIDS for what it is, a societal responsibility, and one that will only be dealt with when everyone in this House -- because we are the representatives, we are the ones who have to come to terms with social questions like this, and we can't harbour any other outlook but that here, on World AIDS Day, we take responsibility.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I feel privileged to have an opportunity to speak today on World AIDS Day. I'd like to begin by paying tribute to the thousands of men and women across this country who live every day with the prospect of AIDS and HIV infection, to honour and salute their courage in the work they have done, and to all those who volunteer and who work with the various community agencies and hospital programs who, taking their lead from the courageous people who experience AIDS in their own life, offer the kinds of services that take into account their special needs.
We have indeed got a great deal to be proud of in terms of our response within Ontario to a situation that I think 20 years ago we would not have believed could happen. The numbers of people who are affected and potentially affected through AIDS in our own communities is only just beginning to be known to all of us, and there's hardly a family that hasn't been affected in some way by this dreaded disease. It is something that should draw us together as communities as we work to try to provide services that are adequate, services that are appropriate, services that are driven by the choices of those who require the services themselves.
This year in Vancouver there was a very lengthy and expert conference that looked at the whole issue of AIDS, its treatment and its prevention. We were able to learn a great many things about the different approaches that have been taken around the world. One of the reports out of that conference was a report called HIV Prevention Works. I think we should listen to some of the principles that report had, because it's very important, as we do our work here in the Legislature, that we understand that AIDS is an issue that is affected by virtually every form of public policy.
One of the major aspects of prevention that was brought out at the HIV Prevention Works conference was that multisectoral participation and community partnerships are necessary to reduce the spread of AIDS. Multisectoral, of course, refers to the variety of sectors such as education, health, transportation, justice, welfare and non-governmental agencies, as well as the government agencies like health, that are most involved.
It is essential we understand that this epidemic is focused disproportionately on individuals who are already marginalized in our society and are underserved by formal institutions and programs. That includes, of course, the children and women who are increasingly affected by HIV and AIDS, because many of the programs that have been set up have not been set up to deal in an age-appropriate or gender-appropriate way with the changing face of AIDS infection.
Similarly, in many of our multicultural communities and in our aboriginal communities there has not been education and information in the appropriate way for those communities to come to grips with the special needs their community members have when faced with this problem.
As a provincial government, there are many areas in which we need to be vigilant to be sure the policies of government are in fact directed at this multisectoral approach to AIDS prevention and AIDS relief. It is extremely important that we be sure our social assistance programs are adequate to deal with those who are infected. We heard, as we went around the province, about the new program, that there was concern around prejudice against those who might be affected by HIV and AIDS through shared needles because of the prohibition for the provision of services to those who have become disabled as a result of drug use. It is important we recognize that we provide encouragement and support to community agencies to broaden their services, not require them to necessarily focus just on the status quo, but to enable them to begin to deal with the new groups of those who are likely to be infected by HIV.
The HIV Prevention Works conference said that the populations hardest hit by the epidemic are already facing other health, social and economic challenges. In concrete terms, this means that HIV prevention strategies need to address poverty, work to end violence against and the exploitation of women and children, and promote the human rights of ethnic minorities refugees, immigrants, drug users, sex workers and the poor.
It is also essential that our programs treat equally, without respect to gender, to age, to sexual orientation, those who require the services our communities provide.
As we sit in the Legislature this evening, we'll be discussing Bill 152, which puts the responsibility for public health squarely in the laps of municipalities. It is extremely important that when we download those kinds of services, we be sure that the essential prevention work that has been done, the epidemiology work, the needle exchanges, the information about sexually transmitted diseases, the provision of condoms, all of those services that are now offered in some locations through public health offices, continue to be offered across the province.
There is real concern that those municipalities which may not have embraced the need for these services may not see the importance of continuing the work that has begun and has been seen to be so successful in centres like Metropolitan Toronto, particularly the city of Toronto, which has put a good deal of emphasis on this area.
As we recognize World AIDS Day, we need to recognize that there is much to be done, that we cannot rely simply on health services to do that work but that we must rely on all aspects of our society to ensure that we continue to work to prevent and to provide comfort where AIDS and HIV are an issue.
1440
ORAL QUESTIONS
EDUCATION FINANCING
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, for all intents and purposes, Bill 160 is now law. You have throughout ignored and rejected the pleas of Ontarians who have said that this is not about improving education in Ontario, it's about an effort on the part of this government to take control of education right down to the last detail in every community where education is going to be delivered and it's about this government getting that control so it can take money out of the system.
I want to give you an opportunity today to allay those fears. I want you to tell me that you're going to exercise that power to ensure that any savings you find will be reinvested in education. Can you please now stand up in this House and promise that any savings you find, any penny you find by means of savings, will be reinvested back into the classroom?
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): This government has listened to parents and people concerned about the education system. Those people have been voicing their opinions for years and years and years that great reforms, great changes need to be made in the education system. The report cards and the curriculum and the opportunity for our students to have the same time in the classroom as students in other jurisdictions have, these are the changes in the program as a whole and these are some of the changes in terms of restricting the average class size that are located in Bill 160. The government is focused on them.
In terms of the funding, this government has stated before, and I'll state again, that we will ensure that every nickel is spent, whatever that takes, to ensure a high-quality program in the education system. If at the end of the day there's a saving to the taxpayer, then so be it. That's exactly what this government is here to do: ensure financial stability as well as excellence in education.
Mr McGuinty: Let's talk a little bit about where the rubber is going to hit the road here. We now know that your ministry is saying it can get up to $449 million out of Metro's public school system. What that means, we've been told by the people at the Metro public school board, is that this is what you're putting at risk: junior kindergarten, adult education, breakfast programs, school psychologists, special education for kids with mental and physical disabilities, English as a second language, remedial reading, speech pathologists.
Understand, you're in the driver's seat. You wanted control; you've got it. I want you to exercise that control by guaranteeing that not a single one of those programs will be lost to the Metropolitan public school board because of what you're about to do through Bill 160.
Hon David Johnson: The difficulty in responding to the Leader of the Opposition is that he pulls numbers out of the area of, what was it, $449 million? Who knows where he gets these numbers?
But to respond directly, this government has indicated that there will be a fair and equitable funding formula. I think the Leader of the Opposition is well aware of this. The government has been working with all concerned, consulting, developing the fair funding formula which will be released within the next short period of time. It will ensure consideration for language content, geography, special education, learning opportunities, adult education, transportation, administration, all sorts of components contained within the special purpose grants, as well as an accommodation grant and a per pupil grant. So there will be many factors to ensure fair and equitable treatment for all boards -- large urban, small rural -- right across Ontario.
Mr McGuinty: Just to bring the minister up to date on this, his officials have told Metro education officials to expect funding cuts of between $225 million and $449 million.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Your own officials.
Mr McGuinty: Your officials told the people at the Metro public school board that's what they can expect: up to $449 million. Those aren't my numbers; those numbers come from your office.
All I want to know now is something about your values. Apparently you now understand what's at risk here. Some of those you are declaring to be non-essential, which means they are luxuries. I want to know, now that you're the guy in charge of all education, which of the following are luxuries for our children: Is it special education, is it speech pathologists, is it remedial reading, is it English as a second language or is it junior kindergarten? Those are what are at risk as a result of this kind of cut. So you tell me now which of those are non-essential.
Hon David Johnson: Again the member pulls numbers out of a hat. The funding formula is being developed. The funding formula will be fair to each and every board across Ontario. It will ensure that the boards have the proper allocation of funds, through special purpose grants, through foundation grants, through accommodation grants; not only to look after the programs for the students, the special learning programs, the special education programs, the normal curriculum programs, but also to ensure proper funding for accommodation for the schools, to ensure that they're properly maintained.
I'm not announcing in advance of the final opportunity to make sure that the funding formula is precise and fair and as accurate as possible. That will be coming out in the very near future.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for children. Minister, you would, I'm sure, have been embarrassed to read in today's paper that there are over half a million children growing up in Ontario in poverty. In fact, that number has doubled since 1989.
You understand as well what your government has done to children since you took office. You cut their welfare by 22%. You have cut funding to children's aid societies. Furthermore, you are now making cuts to junior kindergarten.
I want you to tell me, Minister, that you're proud of the fact that there are half a million children in Ontario growing up in poverty and tell me that you're so, so proud of the government's record on the children's agenda.
Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I appreciate this question from the leader of the official opposition because it is a very, very serious matter.
No, I wasn't proud to read that report this morning; I was saddened. I believe that every person in this Legislature who read that report today was saddened. How could we be otherwise?
In terms of the record of our government, I should point out -- and I do this respect to the leader of the official opposition -- that I just received the report. We tried to get a copy of the report earlier and I received it about 10 minutes ago, so I haven't been able to read it. But my understanding, from what I read in the newspaper, is that the information this report is based on is numbers and figures up to 1995.
Mr McGuinty: Just so I understand this, you're telling me that these figures stem from 1995, and in 1995 we had half a million children in Ontario who were poor. You're telling me that the fact that you've cut their welfare by 22% has somehow improved the situation and that you own no responsibility whatsoever for the state that children happen to be growing up in in Ontario. Is that what you're telling me?
Minister, I know you understand that if a child is growing up poor in our province, that means they are more likely to have poorer health, they're more likely to suffer abuse, they're more likely to have problems at school, they're more likely to drop out, they're more likely not to be able to find a job and they're more likely to have problems with the law.
It is an expensive problem, if I have to speak that language to you, not to look after our children. You know that this coming January the next instalment is due on the tax cut. I want to understand your values when it comes to Ontario's children. What do you think is more important? Shall we give that tax cut to the citizens of Ontario or are we to invest in our children when we know there are half a million growing up in poverty?
Hon Mrs Marland: I say to the leader of the official opposition that I did not say the report stemmed from numbers since 1995. What I said very clearly was that the report tells us they are dealing with figures prior to 1995 and it's very important for us to understand that.
It is also important for us to understand that in this report, which I have in front of me now, it says, "All governments, federal and provincial, must take action on child and family poverty." That is a statement by Andy Ranachan of the Child Poverty Action Group. He also says that Ontario must reclaim its historic leadership role in progressive policies and programs for children and families.
1450
Mr McGuinty: Minister, your role now, as I understand it -- you can correct me if I'm wrong -- is to represent the interests of children at the cabinet table. Just so you know where Ontarians are on this, a poll came out recently produced by Angus Reid and this is what it said: "Ninety-five per cent of people in Ontario feel that the reduction of child poverty should be a very important priority for your government. Furthermore, 72% say the Mike Harris government is not doing enough for Ontario children." That report says that it's time for government to take action.
Understand that the action you have taken to date is hurting Ontario's kids. You have cut their welfare payments by 22%. Once again, I want to know where your values are on this. What's more important to you, the tax cut that is coming in the new year, or investing in our children so they can grow up and meet with some opportunity in this, the greatest province in the most blessed country on the planet?
Hon Mrs Marland: I think, since we are citing numbers, it is important for the leader of the official opposition to cite all the numbers, and one very important number is that since 1995, from 1995 to 1997 --
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): This is Janet's note to you. What she forgot to tell you is that the children are important today.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Beaches-Woodbine, I would warn you to come to order. Minister.
Hon Mrs Marland: -- there are 103,616 fewer children dependent on social services in this province in the last two years.
It is also very important to recognize that we now feed 26,000 children in this province on breakfast programs. We also have a speech and language program that was referred to by the leader of the official opposition and we have a $20-million reinvestment in that program. We established Healthy Babies, Healthy Children, another program by our government in the last two years. We also have --
The Speaker: Thank you. New question, leader of the third party.
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. As you know, Ontario Campaign 2000 released their report on child poverty this morning and have concluded that there are more children living in poverty in Ontario now than ever before. What is most interesting is what they had to say about your government, that the change in funding for junior kindergarten, the most universally accessible early childhood program, has resulted in 23 out of 78 boards of education cancelling this high-quality program for four-year-olds.
Then they say, "The cancellation of capital funding for child care programs means that new schools will not likely be able to provide neighbourhood-based child care services that many parents want and need," and they point out that Bill 160 takes away the Minister of Education's authority to fund child care centres in schools.
Minister, you talk a good line on early childhood education. Are you prepared to reverse these changes? Are you prepared to act in favour of --
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Education.
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): What we will be prepared to do and what we are doing is to ensure that all school boards across Ontario have a fair access to funding and have fair and equitable funding for children of all ages. I have no doubt that I'll be working with the minister for children and that we will be looking at the opportunity to reinvest in early childhood education, for example.
The Premier has indicated an interest in this. Certainly I'm interested in this. That will be an opportunity where, over the next while, we'll be looking in terms of reinvestment. In the meantime, the school boards will rest assured that they will have fair funding for all of the children right across the province.
Mr Hampton: This sounds quite interesting. After the government has hacked and slashed all those things in early childhood education that are meaningful for children, they now say, "Maybe that was a bad idea."
But it doesn't end there, Minister. This is what the Canadian School Boards Association said: "Child poverty is a major education issue." Then they point out:
"Yet the Harris government, which claims to put Ontario's students at the head of the class, has forced more and more Ontario children into poverty. Since the Harris government took office the incomes of Ontario's poorest families have been cut by 22%. The minimum wage has been frozen so that working poor families lost $233 to inflation alone last year. Children now make up almost 50% of the Metro Toronto food bank users and are filling the shelters for the homeless in unprecedented numbers."
Minister, are you now prepared to admit you were wrong? Are you going to reinvest? Are you going to put this money back into early childhood education, and when are you going to do it?
Hon David Johnson: What I will admit is that since this government has taken office, the number of people on welfare, including children and adults, has gone down by some 244,000 people in Ontario, and a majority of the adults have found employment.
The member opposite indicates concern about the number of day care spaces, for example, but the Minister of Community and Social Services indicates to me that actually the number of regulated child care spaces has grown by 9,800 since this government was elected in June 1995; 160 new licensed child care programs have been created over the same period.
One child in poverty is one child too many. I know that this government is going to be looking in many ways to encourage economic growth, to encourage --
The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.
1500
Mr Hampton: This is incredible. This minister says that there are fewer children relying on social assistance. Let me tell you what has happened. You cut the social assistance; you forced them and their parents into shelters and you forced them into food banks. That's your record. That's what you've done.
The reality is this: If children can't get enough to eat, they don't have a very good chance of learning well when they go to school. If you've got six kids and parents living in a hotel room because there's no other place for them to live, it's hard to perform well at school. That's the reality.
The head of the department of human development at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education says this:
"We should be focusing our energy to as large an extent as possible on increasing our investment in early childhood education to give a maximum number of children going to school the opportunity to take advantage of what schools have to offer."
Minister, are you going to put back in place what you've destroyed? Are you going to --
The Speaker: Thank you, leader of the third party. Minister.
Hon David Johnson: As I was starting to say at the end of my response the previous time, one child in poverty is one child too many. This government needs to look at all opportunities to address any situation, as previous governments did. That's why the healthy babies program has been instituted, nutritional programs have been instituted. That's why the government has taken the initiative to promote economic growth so that, yes, the majority of the people dropping off the welfare are dropping off because --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Minister.
Hon David Johnson: This report claims that between 1989 and 1995, Liberal and NDP years, child poverty in Ontario nearly doubled. The doubling they're talking about is between 1989 and 1995.
What has this government done? Child nutrition program, 26,000 children; healthy babies program, 9,000 expectant mothers involved; Better Beginnings program reaching 5,000 high-risk families. This government is committed to ensuring that our children get off to a good start in life.
EDUCATION REFORM
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Education and Training: A government that blows up the family support plan and deprives children of cheques to buy food with, to provide heat with, for you to get up and then say this is really something.
I want to ask you about Bill 160. Yes, you've forced it through, you're going to force it into law, but the fight isn't going to end here, because parents, teachers and students across this province are signing petitions to gain a referendum on the repeal of Bill 160 like never before.
Your government says that you believe issues like this should be decided by referendum. That's your official position. Will you allow the people of Ontario to have a say? Will you allow the direct democracy that you brag about to come to pass on Bill 160? Are you going to grant the referendum on Bill 160 and respect the wishes of the people of Ontario?
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): My job is as the Minister of Education, and as the Minister of Education my job is to assess not only what people are saying today, but what people have said over the years in terms of the education system. What people have clearly said, day after day, year after year for a long time now, is that we need reform in the education system. My job is to deal with that issue, to deal with that concern.
I believe the Ministry of Education has dealt very well with that in terms of many reforms coming into the system -- strengthening the curriculum, the report card -- through Bill 160. It's time to get on with reform. If the leader of the third party is asking, are we going to stall, are we going to delay, the answer is no. We're going ahead with reform in the education system.
Mr Hampton: There is nothing here about delay. It's all about listening to the people of Ontario; it's all about listening to all those people who are clearly opposed to your agenda. Yes, people recognize a need for change in education, but they're not interested in your cuts. They're not interested in seeing 5,000 and 10,000 teachers laid off and you're calling that an improvement in education.
Last summer, this is what the now Minister of Transportation, then parliamentary secretary to the Premier, had to say: "I am proud that we in the Harris government are living up to our commitment to bring issues vital to our province to the people for their input and allowing their voices to be heard." He even said that he was preparing draft legislation on referenda. I put it to the Minister of Education: If you're so proud of your position, then let's see the draft legislation. You table the draft legislation so the people of Ontario can have their say on your Bill 160. Will you do that?
Hon David Johnson: The leader of the third party speculates on what people are not interested in. I can tell you what people and parents are not interested in. They're not interested any more in their children not faring well in the testing that takes place here in Ontario through the EQAO. They're not interested in the same kinds of results that unfortunately we have had with the EQAO testing. They expect better. They're not interested in the kinds of results we got in terms of testing across Canada, in terms of international testing. They think that with the amount of money we spend in the system, their children deserve better.
Bob Rae said: "In Canada, we spend per capita more on education than most other places in the world. I think it's a question of focus and a question of how we can get the system to do its job." That's what we're trying to do, and that's why we're going to reform the education system.
1510
Mr Hampton: The Minister of Education tries to refer to education funding in Canada. Minister, it's about education funding in Ontario, which now ranks 49th in North America as a result of your government's cuts already, with more to come.
What is it that you have about giving people a say? You're the government that says, "If 10% of people sign a petition asking for a referendum, there should be a referendum." That's your government's rhetoric. You've been telling people across this province that you believe in direct democracy, that you believe in consulting the people. Now is the time. We're gathering the signatures. Parents, teachers, students are gathering the signatures. They do not want Bill 160 shoved down their throats. They don't want more cuts to education shoved down their throats. They don't want to see the layoff of more teachers.
Minister, this is it. Are all your words about direct democracy, listening to the people, empty rhetoric or are you going to let the people have a say about education in this province? Are you going to call a referendum?
Hon David Johnson: First of all, to correct the lead-in to that question, the spending in Ontario per student is higher than any other province with the exception of Quebec, and the spending is almost the same, a little bit below Quebec.
Second, we do today, this year, 1997, spend $14.4 billion on elementary and secondary schooling. The people of Ontario know that is a great deal of money and we should be achieving better results in accordance with that investment.
The third party, when it was in government, commissioned the Sweeney report. The Sweeney report showed that some 47% --
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Let the people have their say.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre, you must come to order. Minister.
Hon David Johnson: People have had a say for years. This government has said 47% going outside of the classroom is not good enough. We need to get value. We need to have a better curriculum. That's what our reforms are all about. We're going to go ahead and do it.
EDUCATION FINANCING
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Bill 160 is now to become law. You set out to get the control you needed in order to be able to cut spending on education. You needed to get that bill now so you would be able to find the dollars you need to pay for the second instalment of the tax cut, due on January 1. You tried to deny that your agenda was about cutting costs, but your agenda was exposed, and we learned that providing education at the most effective cost to you meant cutting $667 million from education, coincidentally just the amount you need for the second instalment of the tax cut.
Minister, today you have refused to confirm or deny any of the specific areas of cuts and cost reductions that we know your officials have been talking about to public board officials and Metro board officials. Will you just tell us, now that you have control, exactly how much you are planning to cut, where will you cut it and when will we see the formula?
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The new taxation system which will be in place for the education system is one that taxpayers have been requesting for many years, in the sense that taxpayers -- whether it's the business community through "Killing the Golden Goose," for example, an article put out by the board of trade here in Metropolitan Toronto -- have said, "Please stop the escalating property taxes for education purposes," and senior citizens and residential taxpayers for years and years have been saying, "Do something about escalating property taxes."
In terms of what boards will have in the future, I can assure you that boards will have a fair and equitable amount of money, that it will serve the programs they need. Through the curriculum that's being developed in Ontario, they'll be able to deliver a high-quality program and the taxpayer will finally get a break.
Mrs McLeod: We all know about the $6 billion worth of property taxes which you now have the power to raise by regulation without even bringing a bill back to the House, but that wasn't my question. My question was about your power to cut spending on education. The public has a right to know, now that you have that power, what you intend to do with it, and you keep contradicting yourself.
The Premier said that 4% to 5% can be cut and we can do all that just by cutting waste. You say it might not be 4% to 5%, which incidentally is $600 million or $700 million, but that we can cut whatever we're cutting by cutting waste. You can cut all of the administration in Ontario entirely and still not find $700 million.
Minister, the public has a right to know, parents and children have a right to know what effect your cuts will have on their schools. One more example: They are particularly worried about whether your cuts to funding are going to mean the loss of their schools altogether. Parents in Thunder Bay, in Ottawa, in Windsor are already afraid that their local schools are going to close. Their children are going to those schools today. Will you guarantee they'll be able to go to those schools --
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister.
Hon David Johnson: The public does have a right to know, and the public certainly will know. Those numbers are being developed through a consultative process. The Ministry of Education is working on that formula. That formula, as I've indicated on many occasions in this House, will be released in the near future. It will be moneys to each and every board. Those boards will know when the numbers are released. They will be guaranteed that the amount of money will be fair to all boards across Ontario. It will permit every board to implement the high-quality education programs that are associated with the new curriculum changes we're bringing in in Ontario.
PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. In the bill that was voted on today, this government took out its anger on principals and vice-principals, because they took the responsible position of reporting when they couldn't properly supervise children during the teachers' protest. This government reneged on the commitment of the previous minister and amended Bill 160 to take principals and vice-principals out of their teachers' federations.
It says in the bill that any principal or vice-principal who wishes to retain her or his seniority and other benefits gained through membership in the federation has until April 1998, April next year, to resign and to return to teaching. Does the minister have a contingency plan for dealing with the possibility of large numbers of principals and vice-principals either returning to the teachers' ranks or taking early retirement?
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): With the passing and royal assent associated with Bill 160, I've indicated that once all this has transpired, providing it does all transpire, we would be more than anxious to be involved in a consultative process with the principals and vice-principals.
It's interesting that in the province of Quebec, principals and vice-principals have not been in the union for a long, long period of time, if they ever were in the union; I'm not sure. It seems to work in Quebec, the next-largest province to Ontario. In British Columbia, the second-largest province to Ontario, the principals and vice-principals have not been in the union for some period of time, and it works in British Columbia. Simply, there was a conflict situation: principals and vice-principals being in the union and performing management roles. That's why they're not in the union in Quebec or British Columbia. I think it will work well here. We'll be consulting with the principals and vice-principals --
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Supplementary.
1520
Mr Wildman: This government's and this minister's approach to consultation seems to be similar to that of Don Corleone, with an offer you can't refuse. You put a gun to their heads and say, "Okay, now let's consult."
The fact is that in British Columbia, when the government took principals and vice-principals out of the federations --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Stop the clock. Order.
Member for Algoma.
Mr Wildman: The fact is that when the government in British Columbia took principals and vice-principals out of the federations, the number of grievances and the divisions in schools between the administrators and the teachers went up substantially. The fact is that principals provide leadership. They are principal-teachers. In many cases they teach themselves. The minister is courting chaos starting next year with what he's done in our schools. What will the minister do? How will he deal with the potential hundreds of resignations and retirements of principals and vice-principals to ensure proper leadership in our schools after this bill comes into effect?
Hon David Johnson: Again, this has worked in Quebec, apparently for over 30 years, where the principals and vice-principals have not been in the union for over 30 years; in British Columbia for many years.
What the government is in the process of setting up is a consultation process with the principals and vice-principals. They know their employment terms and conditions are protected until September of next year. During the interim period of time the government, along with school boards and all the people involved, will be consulting and will be ensuring that the important role principals and vice-principals play in the school today is respected and that they are treated fairly and honestly in terms of their conditions of employment. Through that process, I have to be optimistic that indeed the vast majority of the principals and vice-principals will be assured that their role is protected and that they will continue to act in their capacity as principals and vice-principals.
LOAN BROKERS
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It relates to the predatory business practice, which I'm sure you're familiar with, that is becoming all too common in the loan brokerage business. It refers to the fact that many people are being exposed to a business practice where they are being asked to put up an upfront fee in exchange for funds. The fee is paid. All too often the funds don't follow. These are people who are a position where they are the least able to afford to pay a fee and not have anything in return. Can the minister tell us what his ministry is doing to protect consumers in this province against that kind of predatory practice?
Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for York-Mackenzie for the question. I know the member is very interested in this particular question.
The loan brokers are regulated under the Loan Brokers Act. It has been a source of consumer concern over a number of years and certainly has attracted a lot of media attention over those years. The Loan Brokers Act, otherwise known as the Linda Leatherdale bill -- I congratulate her for her advocacy on behalf of victims -- provides protection for consumers by prohibiting loan brokers from charging an upfront fee for services. The government will not tolerate illegal loan broker activities. Certainly we want to do things to increase the liability of loan brokers for these types of unconscionable acts. My ministry has laid a total of 621 charges under the Loan Brokers Act. On November 7, 1997, one convicted loan broker received the first-ever jail sentence under the act, and the companies were fined a total of $100,000 plus restitution.
Mr Klees: I'm glad to hear the ministry is doing something to charge these brokers. Unfortunately, we're also aware there's nothing in the act that prohibits brokers from continuing to carry on business even though they're charged. We know the reality is that's continuing. Can the minister tell us what his ministry is doing to ensure that people who are charged under the act don't continue to perpetrate this kind of business?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, the red tape bill, Bill 117, if passed by this House, will amend the Loan Brokers Act. That will also include a cease and desist provision. This will mean that once the loan brokers have been charged, they can't continue to carry on that same misconduct and continue to bilk people out there.
Secondly, very recently, in fact on November 7, I wrote to the federal justice minister, asking her to review the Criminal Code provisions and consider a way to strengthen her ability to deal with loan brokers in violation of the act. I'm looking forward to hearing back from the federal justice minister on this. I would like to encourage the members to support toughening up the provisions.
There are many other things we need to do. Other considerations we have coming up in the future would be such things as freezing bank accounts or restitution for victims. I think these are very good things to have for consumers in Ontario.
CHARTER SCHOOLS
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Education. We would like to hear your government's position on charter schools.
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): What I can say is we're going through a difficult period of time right now --
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.
Hon David Johnson: It doesn't seem to be too popular with the opposition, but I will say we're going through a difficult period of time. There's a lot of healing to do, there's a lot of work to do in terms of the education system that's before us today. My focus, my full intention at this point is to do nothing other than to make the system we have in place today work. There's the funding formula, for example, that's been a topic of previous questions that has to be dealt with, the curriculum changes to the system in place. Those are where my energies are going to be focused.
Mrs Pupatello: I asked a very specific question, I asked you what your position was on charter schools. That's not what you answered.
Mike Harris's first appointment to chair the Ontario Parent Council was Bill Robson from the Fraser Institute, a very vocal charter school supporter. Mike Harris appointed Barb Smith, another vocal charter school supporter, to the Education Quality and Accountability Office. Your MPP Jim Brown was the keynote speaker at a charter school conference organized by the Coalition for Education Reform. His message that day was, "Now is the time to move and lobby MPPs for charter schools."
The bill you just passed opens the door to charter schools, as you know, in a whole series of areas. This is a very covert operation to move our education system towards charter schools. We think you should come clean. Are you for or against charter schools in Ontario?
Hon David Johnson: I will indicate the obvious, that lobbying is something that takes place on a regular basis at Queen's Park. People lobby and speak for all sorts of issues. It's a free society. The member for Scarborough West is entitled to speak wherever he wants.
Mr Robson, not the first chair but a chair of the Ontario Parent Council, is an individual, I'm sure, with a great background and one who has his own personal opinions.
My opinion is that in the immediate future we should focus on the present system, ensuring excellence within the present system. That's exactly what I intend to do through the curriculum, through the other changes in Bill 160, and that will be the focus of my energies completely.
1530
EDUCATION REFORM / RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Last week, as part of the NDP tour on Dialogue for Change, we were in the town of Hearst. We met with parents and teachers and we met with community leaders. When we met with the parents and teachers, they presented us with petitions with over 500 signatures on them, which is more than the 10% required for a referendum across this province. The community has approximately 4,000 voters, so 500 is more than the 10% that the Tory government has been talking about, that they will hold a referendum on any major changes. The people in northern Ontario, in the town of Hearst, when we're on these tours definitely know that Bill 160 was rammed through this Legislature without proper consultation with parents, teachers and children out there.
Will you hold a referendum if we get more than 10% of the population of voters in the town of Hearst? Clearly they do not want Bill 160. They want a referendum on Bill 160.
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I would say to the people of Hearst and I would say the same thing to the people in the rest of Ontario that in our communities right across Ontario people have been involved in the issue of education over and over through a number of different reports. When your government was in power, I think there were at least a half a dozen reports -- the Sweeney report, the financial report. You got people involved in those discussions. The present government has got people involved in education issues. The Liberal government in its day had people involved in discussion after discussion, report after report, spending millions of dollars.
We have boiled all that down through input from the people of Ontario, such as the people of Hearst, into a plan of action, and that action calls on quality within our education system, it calls on accountability and it calls on efficiency. Those are the actions we're moving forward with.
M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Monsieur le Ministre, le monde de Hearst ne se sentent pas consultés ; ils ne se sentent pas impliqués par votre gouvernement quand ça vient à cette question de la Loi 160. Le monde de Hearst nous ont dit très clairement qu'ils n'aiment pas la direction que votre gouvernement prend. Ils veulent savoir qu'à la fin de la journée, ce système qu'on a aujourd'hui en Ontario, c'est un système démocratique. Ils ne se sentent pas avec vous.
On vous demande une autre fois : au-dessus de 10 % de la population de Hearst en une journée a signé la pétition. On continue l'ouvrage. Ça va être rendu à 50% à 60% d'ici les prochains mois. Monsieur le Ministre, allez-vous être capable d'avoir le référendum faisant affaire avec cette question ?
Hon David Johnson: The member opposite says what the people of Hearst would support and don't support. I would think the people of Hearst would support the curriculum changes, putting the rigour into the curriculum that we have incorporated. I would think the people of Hearst would support the standardized report card.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members for Fort York and Cochrane North. Minister.
Hon David Johnson: I would think the people of Hearst would support the new report card system, would support the fact that we've added 10 days in terms of instructional days on the calendar for secondary schools, five days extra in elementary schools, that we have put a cap on the average class size so that it can't increase in a board area beyond 25 at the elementary level and 22 at the secondary level.
I would think the people of Hearst would support that we would ask for efficiencies within the funding of the education system and that accountability would be improved because school councils will play an important role in terms of the determination of what happens in their schools. These are the things that I think the people of Hearst would say they've approved, and these are the things that people have been calling for for many years.
SMALL BUSINESS
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. From your background in small business, which of course I share with you, you realize how important small business is to job creation in our province. As a matter of fact, history will show that about 80% of the new jobs being created in our province are created by small businesses.
Could you tell us what steps your ministry is taking to support small business so they can continue this incredible track record they have had of job creation in the province of Ontario?
Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I would like to thank my colleague from Chatham-Kent for that question. As my colleague knows, we are helping small businesses across the province to succeed by getting the deficit under control, removing barriers to investment and cutting taxes. I could go on and on.
I would like to share with the House that I had the pleasure of being in London last week and of speaking to Her Worship Dianne Haskett and many members of London's business community to celebrate a new corporate sponsorship for the London community small business centre. Small businesses create more jobs than any other sector of our economy. Small businesses are located in every city, every town, every region of the province. They represent 98% of Ontario business and they create -- Mr Speaker is getting ready to get up.
The Speaker: That's right. Supplementary.
Mr Carroll: Minister, as you know, previous governments, those sitting opposite us today, have launched various programs over the years to assist small business and supposedly to create jobs. In many cases, those initiatives were nothing more than Band-Aids where we threw taxpayers' dollars at situations and we virtually had no results, or very poor results. In many cases, as soon as the taxpayers' dollars stopped flowing, the jobs disappeared.
Can you tell us, Minister, how this particular initiative differs from those programs offered by previous governments?
Hon Mr Palladini: The small business enterprise centre program takes the existing self-help offices a step further. The new and expanded resources at the centre will mean better service to community small business owners.
This program also takes a different approach to helping Ontario's small businesses as it builds local partnerships between the public and the private sector, which include IBM, Bell Canada, Microsoft, the Royal Bank, CIBC, Ontario municipalities, and also Industry Canada, I might add. Once the small business enterprise centres program expands beyond the first five locations, Hamilton, London, Brampton, Ottawa and Sudbury, we expect even more public and private sector organizations to join us in helping Ontario's dynamic entrepreneurial small business sector.
The centres recognize the importance of public and private sector partnerships and I encourage the members across the House to let small businesses in their community know this government is there to help them.
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): My question is for the Minister of Education. In your new law, Bill 160, section 266.2 says that the minister and his designates "are authorized to collect, directly or indirectly, personal information." The next section goes on to exempt the ministry from laws that protect citizens by letting people know when their personal information is being accessed.
My question is very simple: Now that you've passed this law, you must let the people of Ontario know what indirect collection of personal information will be, especially when you've exempted yourself from the normal standards of privacy protection. Are you going to be checking to see if there's mental illness in a family? Are you going to be checking parents' political affiliation? What about parental income?
The public is well aware of the dossier of direct-indirect information that your government collected during the Bill 104 hearings on its enemies. Is this the kind of information you're after? Come clean, Minister. Tell us what you will be collecting and what it means. The people of Ontario deserve an explanation.
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The number that's being referred to is to collect information purely within the educational system. It states that right in the bill, actually, if you read the clauses there.
I might say that it's in terms of assisting for the flow of information, to assist students when they move from institution to institution, the kind of information they get, to assist the facility when students move from one facility to another.
The exemption at the beginning is purely an exemption that's required to set up the account in the first instance. It's the person's name and simple information like that to set up the account in the first instance.
PETITIONS
EDUCATION REFORM
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly:
"Whereas we wish it to be known that we are in total disagreement with Bill 160;
"Furthermore, we believe that our government was based on a democratic system -- not a dictatorship;
"We, the undersigned, petition that a referendum be held concerning Bill 160.
"Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly instruct the Minister of Education and Training to hold a referendum concerning Bill 160."
I will affix my signature to this.
NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am not satisfied with the answer from the Minister of Education and I request a late show.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): File the appropriate papers.
1540
EDUCATION REFORM
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm getting more and more petitions, with hundreds of signatures, which read:
"Petition of constitutional grievance:
"Whereas the 36th Parliament of Ontario, elected on June 8, 1995, no longer enjoys the confidence of the people of Ontario; and
"Whereas the executive council of Ontario, under the presidency and premiership of Michael Deane Harris, appointed September 26, 1995, is systematically, knowingly and intentionally violating, repudiating and liquidating the traditional system of parliamentary democracy and responsible government to which the people of Ontario are constitutionally entitled as Canadians;
"Therefore, we petition that the Governor General of Canada direct the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario to call a general provincial election in Ontario immediately to remedy the unjust and intolerable constitutional wrongs which have been inflicted on us by renegade provincial politicians."
I gladly affix my signature to this petition.
EDUCATION REFORM
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I have a petition from concerned citizens which was handed to me in Goderich. The petition is with respect to education.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have thousands and thousands of petitions. This is from the Chief Dan George Public School parents, who are extremely concerned. It reads like this:
"We, the undersigned, are very concerned about the passing of Bill 160 in its present form. We feel that local control must be restored to local boards of education so that parents and teachers can continue to have input in the future of education. Funding must be provided to enable schools to continue to offer quality programs."
I affix my signature in full agreement.
EDUCATION FINANCING
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition here from parents of Dewson public school and it reads:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the Ontario government wants to take an additional $1 billion out of the education system this year and every year; and
"Whereas the Ontario government has decided to hire uncertified teachers in kindergarten, libraries, for guidance, physical education, the arts and technology; and
"Whereas the Ontario government wishes to remove the right to negotiate working conditions; and
"Whereas the Ontario government would remove at least 10,000 teachers from classrooms across the province; and
"Whereas the Ontario government has become the sole decision-maker on class size, preparation time and the length of the school day; and
"Whereas the Ontario government proposes to take decision-making powers out of the hands of locally elected community-minded trustees,
"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government to repeal Bill 160 and create an accessible public consultation process for students, parents, teachers and school board administrators to study alternative solutions that have universal appeal and will lead to an improved educational system."
I affix my signature to this.
COURT DECISION
Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the decision to allow women to appear topless in public is offensive and contrary to the lifestyle of the majority of Canadians; and
"Whereas children should not be exposed to public displays of nudity which contradicts values taught in the Canadian school system; and
"Whereas there are laws and regulations in Canada to protect children against nudity in the media but currently there are no laws protecting children from nudity in public places; and
"Whereas allowing women to appear topless in public encourages lewd behaviour which may lead to increased incidents of violence against women;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"To amend the indecent act and public nudity provisions of the Criminal Code to clearly state that it is an indecent act for a woman to expose her breasts in a public place, with the exception of women who are breast-feeding."
That is presented on behalf of the Honourable Bob Runciman and the over 200 people who have signed it, and I affix my signature.
EDUCATION REFORM
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a whack of petitions.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. It's the member for St Catharines's 20th anniversary in this place.
Interjections.
Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, I will milk that for the full year.
I have a large number of petitions that read as follows:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas sections of Bill 160 allow the government unprecedented centralized control over education in Ontario; and
"Whereas sections of Bill 160 remove our democratic rights as citizens to comment or respond to education reform; and
"Whereas sections of Bill 160 allow the government to make further massive cuts to education funding without public consultation or debate;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"Amend those sections of Bill 160 listed above."
I affix my signature as I am in complete agreement with this petition.
PAY EQUITY
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have about 690 to 700 petitions here on the Red Cross homemaker issue to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
"Whereas the current pay equity legislation affects Red Cross differently than any other provider of homemaker services in Ontario and makes it impossible for the Canadian Red Cross Society to compete on a level playing field; and
"Whereas without a resolution, the Canadian Red Cross Society will be forced to increase wages and benefits, already the highest in the industry, by approximately 45% January 1998. The program cannot afford this increase;
"Whereas Red Cross provides 80% of the service in rural communities, and in 29 communities Red Cross is the only service provider; and
"Whereas clients in many communities will be left to cope on their own and some 6,000 homemakers and 400 office staff, most of them women, will lose their jobs;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"We are very concerned about the Red Cross pay equity issue. We are asking the three party leaders to put people before politics and come together in a non-partisan effort to resolve the homemakers' services pay equity problem."
I have signed my signature.
EDUCATION REFORM
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition against Bill 160 signed by 40 people which I would like to file with the Clerk.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which has a number of "whereases" pointing out deficiencies in Bill 160 and concludes by saying:
"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and
"Further, be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Educaiton and Training to do his homework and be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."
I affix my signature.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition of non-confidence.
"To the province of Ontario:
"Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public with respect to Bill 160; and
"Whereas the government of Ontario has chosen to overtly deceive the people of Ontario as to the true objectives of Bill 160; and
"Whereas we, the people, believe that no government has a mandate to act in isolation of the wishes of the electorate of this province and we have lost confidence in this government,
"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the Legislature and call a general election forthwith."
ABORTION
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a petition signed by over 200 people and brought to me by William H. Bedard. It states as follows:
"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 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."
1550
RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION
M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : J'ai une pétition adressée à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :
«Attendu que nous, les signataires de cette pétition, voulons signifier au gouvernement notre opposition au projet de loi 160 ;
«Attendu que le projet de loi 160 exclut les parents et les enseignants du processus de décision dans le secteur de l'éducation en Ontario ;
«Attendu que le projet de loi 160 centralise tous les pouvoirs entre les mains du gouvernement ;
«Attendu que le projet de loi 160 accorde au gouvernement Harris le pouvoir de retrancher 660 $ millions de plus du secteur de l'éducation ;
«Nous, les soussignataires, demandons le retrait du projet de loi 160.»
J'ai appliqué ma signature.
PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition that I'm presenting on behalf of the member for Waterloo North, who is of course the Minister of Health. It reads as follows:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government has failed to address the root causes of waste, duplication and unnecessary administration in our health care system; and
"Whereas the provincial government has instead introduced Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, that makes it easier for employers to reduce the number of front-line staff and to lower their salaries and benefits, thus causing further deterioration in quality patient care; and
"Whereas Bill 136 also erodes the democratic process by tampering with collective agreements and potentially interfering with workers' choice of bargaining agents;
"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, and restructure the health care system in a safe, coordinated and rational way."
EDUCATION FINANCING
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): For my own sanity, the member for Port Arthur.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I appreciate the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the thousands who are opposing Bill 160.
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas education is our future; and
"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and
"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and
"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and
"Whereas students, parents, teachers want reinvestment in education rather than a reduction in funding; and
"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down despite the passage of the bill; and
"Whereas Ontario Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty has pledged to repeal Bill 160;
"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and
"Further, be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."
I'm very proud to sign my name to that petition.
PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition that was sent to me by the staff of Carl A. Nesbitt Public School in my riding. It reads as follows:
"Whereas Bill 160 originally maintained principals and vice-principals would remain as members of the teachers' federations; and
"Whereas the proposed amendments were introduced after the hearings had been completed; and
"Whereas the proposed amendments will seriously destabilize the education system, causing unnecessary stress on our established school teams;
"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to withdraw those sections of Bill 160 which impact the current status of principals and vice-principals as members of the teachers' federations."
This is signed by 17 staff members. I agree with the petitioners and I've affixed my signature to it.
EDUCATION REFORM
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have a petition against Bill 160 raising a number of concerns which I don't share.
EDUCATION FINANCING
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): On behalf of students and parents in the North York school board, I have a petition for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
"Whereas education is our future; and
"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and
"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and
"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and
"Whereas parents, students and, teachers want reinvestment in education rather than a reduction in funding; and
"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;
"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and
"Further, be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."
I affix my signature to this petition in support.
PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have another petition, this one sent to me by the staff at Cyril Varney Public School in my riding. It reads as follows:
"Whereas Bill 160 originally maintained principals and vice-principals would remain as members of the teachers' federations; and
"Whereas the proposed amendments were introduced after the hearings had been completed; and
"Whereas the proposed amendments will seriously destabilize the education system, causing unnecessary stress on our established school teams;
"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to withdraw those sections of Bill 160 which impact the current status of principals and vice-principals as members of the teachers' federations."
I agree with the petitioners and I've affixed my signature to it.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition signed by a number of constituents in Oxford. It relates to the section of Bill 160 that relates to taking the principals and vice-principals out of the federation. I'd like to file the petition with the Clerk.
OPPOSITION DAY
EDUCATION REFERENDUM
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Our leader is tied up in a scrum outside the House, so I will read this resolution on his behalf.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You need consent.
Mr Christopherson: I seek unanimous consent to do that.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.
Mr Christopherson: Whereas the Mike Harris Conservatives in 1995 campaigned on a promise to offer Ontarians more "direct democracy"; and
Whereas Premier Harris issued a white paper advocating citizen-initiated referenda on important issues in Ontario; and
Whereas the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, dominated by members of the Mike Harris Conservative caucus, recommended that the government be forced to conduct a binding referendum when the signatures of 10% of eligible voters are collected asking for a referendum; and
Whereas the majority report of the standing committee, including the then parliamentary assistant to the Premier, the member for Brampton South, stated: "In an initiative, it is the citizenry, not the political élite or the media, who are determining what is an appropriate issue for a referendum"; and
Whereas parent groups throughout the province, and especially in Toronto, Peel, Hamilton and Ottawa, initiated a petition campaign calling for a referendum on the government's Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997; and
Whereas the New Democratic Party caucus has responded to this citizens' initiative by carrying the referendum petition campaign to every corner of the province;
Therefore, this House agrees that the provincial government should hold a binding referendum on the withdrawal or repeal of Bill 160, whichever the case may be; and
That the office of the chief electoral officer shall conduct a binding referendum vote in accordance with the rules recommended by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.
1600
I'm pleased to begin this discussion on behalf of my caucus colleagues by saying, first and foremost, that the idea of governing by referendum is not a principle or a position that our caucus supports for one moment. That is an abdication of the parliamentary system and the responsibility that elected members have.
However, there is a recognition that on important issues -- certainly the example that comes to mind is on the national Constitution, on the Charlottetown accord -- we were as a party and as a government supportive of a national referendum, given the importance of the issue and given the level of knowledge and discussion and concern and fundamental change that the Charlottetown accord would have meant to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
In this case, we see a situation where the very government that says referendum is the way to go is refusing to listen to the people. There's no question that this is the most well known, infamous bill probably in the history of our province. More citizens have actually read Bill 160 than I think any other single piece of legislation, and we know that the vast majority of Ontarians do not support Bill 160, because contrary to what the government says, this is not about improving education, this is not about making our children head of the class the first priority, this is not about improving a system that we all know can be improved; this is about taking money out of the pockets of our children's education system to pay for your tax cut, the one that your wealthy corporate friends are going to benefit from the most.
Finally, during the course of the debate around Bill 160, the government admitted, having said all along, "No, this isn't about money, oh no, this is about education, this is about making things better for our children," having run that string out as far as they could, they finally admitted that yes, Bill 160 is about taking out of education a further $667 million, after they've already taken out the equivalent of $1 billion.
Based on your funny theory that taking more money out makes for a better education system, it shouldn't be long before we hear the Minister of Education stand up and say: "We are eliminating the budget for education. There will be no money going for it. Ergo, we will have a perfect education system." That's the level of sense that the argument the government members have been putting forward makes.
You know, we really had to wrestle with this initiative in our caucus because of our concern about the threat as we see it to the traditional fundamentals of democracy in Ontario to governing by referendum, and by agreeing to even one, we are, and we realize this, adding some credence to the point.
However, first of all, we realize that your goals around referendums are not meant to give people direct democracy; they are meant to give you the ability, with the kind of money available to you from the corporate sector, to mount the kind of public campaign that bumper-sticker slogan votes can do in terms of furthering your hard right-wing agenda. We saw it in the last election and we know that's what your belief is, in terms of what referendums are for.
We've seen what's happened in the United States where this idea has taken hold and gone crazy, and what it has done to public service and public education and policing and firefighters. They've got counties, municipal jurisdictions in the United States that have gone broke, declared bankruptcy, because somebody got a very simple referendum through about limiting taxation. It sounded good and it was great on a bumper sticker, but at the end of the day they couldn't pay the fire department to exist.
We're very fearful of that but by the same token we know that when it comes to real democracy, this is the most undemocratic government the province of Ontario has seen in its history. We know that by forcing the issue you're going to be shown for the anti-democratic bullies you really are. We know we're going to get the 700,000, the well over 1 million signatures we need. We will get that and we will hold you accountable and say: If you believe so much in referenda and if you believe that your Bill 160 has such support and if you believe that you can garner enough support out there to win on every citizen gets a vote, and not just Tory MPPs -- but you won't do it. If you do, we'll whip your you-know. We will win that vote and then you will have to repeal it.
We are on record as the NDP caucus. If we are elected the government in the next provincial election we will repeal Bill 160. I say to you: Clearly, if we do get the referendum, we'll win that vote and then you'll be forced to repeal Bill 160. But make no mistake about it: One way or another your anti-democratic bullying ways are not going to carry the day and Bill 160 will not be implemented nor take effect the way that you want it to and the way you are trying to force it down the throats of the people of Ontario. I assure you of that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate. Do you want to debate, Minister?
Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I am rising in this House today to join in the debate on the opposition day motion, just as I rose on November 7, 1996. I rose in this House in a somewhat different spot to state that the time had come to give serious consideration to the referendum alternative. In fact I've got a quotation from part of my speech from that point where I said that gone were the days when "elected members had better power, better authority, better knowledge and better expertise to make decisions on behalf of the people," and I stand by that comment.
I stand here today as someone who believes in the use of referendums as a tool, not by the governing class per se, necessarily, but by the people in order to ensure that direct democracy is woven into our system. I believe I said at the time that democracy is like a flowing river which need not follow the same banks every year. I believe that as well.
I think it's important to note that Ontario is one of two provinces, the other being Nova Scotia, which do not have comprehensive umbrella referendum legislation. During the 1995 election our party did indeed commit to the people of the province that we would create a government that was accountable to the people, and that would be a case where there would be an opportunity for more direct democracy.
Let me quote from the Premier. He said as early as August 13, 1990, with respect to constitutional reform: "No constitutional reform should be imposed on the people of Ontario unless they have first had an opportunity to pass judgement on it through a binding, province-wide referendum. Only if approved by such a referendum should any amendment resolution be presented to the Legislature." That was a statement of August 13, 1990.
On February 4, 1995, the Premier went on to say: "We're looking at the possibility of government-initiated, opposition-initiated and citizens-initiated referendums. We also feel, unlike other politicians, that referendums are a good idea and do not limit the ability to manage the government. We don't think it's unreasonable for people to have those alternatives." On May 30, 1995, Mike Harris pledged to support taxpayer protection legislation that will "make any increase in existing tax rates or any new taxes, subject to approval by the voters of Ontario in a binding referendum."
I think the position of our Premier and our government is quite clear on this. I'll get to tax referendums in a minute because it is quite interesting how what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander when the NDP, the third party, takes specific clauses of the final report of the standing committee but does not seem to approve of all of them.
1610
I would like to remind the House that we have taken many steps to fulfil those campaign promises. In August 1997 the Premier issued a white paper and it is called Your Ontario, Your Choice. I believe the leader of the third party made reference to that white paper on occasion. That paper, I think a most far-reaching document, published by the Premier's office, explored steps that could improve accountability and better public participation in the decision-making process. It explored recall. It explored government-initiated referendums. It explored mandatory referendums -- that is to say, no government action without the prior approval of the people -- and it explored citizens-initiated referenda.
Numerous referendum options were considered and the readers, the public were invited to comment on a variety of issues, and they did. They did via letter. They did via e-mail. They did via extensive consultation process. That white paper, Your Ontario, Your Choice, was followed by hearings in the fall of 1996 by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, which I had the honour and privilege of attending as the lead government member on that committee for this particular topic.
The committee heard from a wide variety of witnesses ranging from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association through to the Ontario Taxpayers Federation. We heard from the chief election officer, Warren Bailie. We heard from the Brampton Taxpayers Coalition, Mr Ernie McDonald from my riding. We heard from the Taxpayers Coalition Burlington. We heard from the Ontarians for Responsible Government --
Mr Christopherson: My, my. You did?
The Acting Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, you had your turn.
Hon Mr Clement: -- the Direct Democracy Group; the Tax Equity Alliance; the Taxpayers Coalition of Caledon; the Ontario Catholic English Teachers' Association; the Freedom Party of Ontario; Democracy Watch, Duff Conacher -- a very interesting presentation from him -- Uxbridge Ratepayers Association; John Deverell; Power Workers' Union, Mr Murphy; Mr Borovoy from the CCLA, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, as well as from the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association; all of them appeared before the committee to make, in good faith, representations on whether referendums should be part, in a more formalized capacity, of the fabric of this province.
It should be made clear that this is not necessarily a radical position to take, either by the third party or by the government. We've had three nationwide referendums in Canada, two of which were initiated by the federal Liberal government at the time, I would make clear to the member for St Catharines.
One was on September 29, 1898, on prohibition. In case you're following at home, 53% voted in favour of prohibition. One was on April 27, 1942, on conscription, with 64.1% in favour. Of course, most recently, October 26, 1992, on the Charlottetown accord, where 54.4% overall voted against. That's just on the national scale. As I mentioned earlier, other provinces have varying degrees of referendum legislation and of course our province has had at the local level a rich history of plebiscites and referendums.
The response of those witnesses on the whole was very positive and very supportive of referendums in the right context, done the right way. Many thoughtful suggestions were made. The standing committee learned that there were some pitfalls to be avoided, and witnesses offered us the benefit of the history of referendums, not only in Ontario but throughout the country.
The standing committee deliberated over a long period of time, thanks to the Liberals, and we were able to carefully consider the input of the hearings. On July 3 of this year the standing committee report was tabled in the Legislative Assembly and that report made 31 separate recommendations.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, you had your turn.
Hon Mr Clement: The report recommended that a referendum framework be adopted by the government. At the same time, the report raised a number of concerns that relate directly to the points that have been raised by the leader of the third party and by the third part. I'd like to quote a particular section, recommendation 17 of that report, which specifically deals with how referendum questions should be dealt with to ensure that they are fair and neutral questions.
Recommendation 17 indicates that final approval over the nature of the question can only be given by an independent third party; that is to say, not by the government; not by the official opposition; not, certainly, by the third party. The final approval by the referendum commission could only be given if the question is expressed neutrally in clear and concise language and it must require a yes or no response.
It seems like the leader of the third party wants to administer the referendum himself, which clearly was not what the people who came before the committee wanted and certainly not what the committee of this House recommended. The standing committee, after very careful consideration, came to the conclusion that an independent commission was necessary to ensure that there was fair discussion of all the issues and that the question was a fair and neutral question.
Mr Christopherson: That is when we set you right.
Hon Mr Clement: It did not recommend that the leader of the third party got to decide what the question was. It did not recommend that the third party --
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Read the bottom line. Read the resolution, Tony. Do you agree or not?
The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury East, the member for Hamilton Centre, I don't need to repeat it again. I'll have to apply the procedures if you don't stop heckling.
Hon Mr Clement: It did not recommend that the third party or its agents be in control of the process. It was quite clear from the deputations before that committee that the public wanted a clear, concise question, a fair and neutral process that was not in the hands of the politicians on either side of this House.
We are very carefully considering the recommendations of the standing committee. The standing committee report suggests ways of changing the situation that we now find ourselves in and I recommend to the leader of the third party to carefully study every single recommendation of the standing committee report and he will see that while the principles are straightforward and we agree with those principles, the subject itself is highly complex.
Unlike the leader of the third party, I don't think we want to rush into a referendum process that in turn takes away credibility from the process. I recall, and I don't want to put the leader of the third party on the spot, that at a news conference on March 4, 1997, the leader of the third party said, "In general, from general philosophical principles, I don't think referenda are always the best way to deal with these issues."
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): That's right. I'm honest.
The Acting Speaker: The leader of the third party, please.
Hon Mr Clement: Obviously what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. I would encourage the leader of the third party to be consistent in his views on this issue.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: The leader of the third party, please.
Hon Mr Clement: Referendums have a long and rich tradition in this province and in this country. But it is clear from the deputations that were before the standing committee that the public wants a process that is outside of interference by politicians in this House, either by the government or by the opposition or by the third party. They want a process that leads to a fair result. That is when we as politicians should be bound by those results, when there is a neutral process that ensures that the process is fair. I would encourage the leader of the third party consequently to participate with us in creating a process that we can all be proud of.
I note that the leader of the third party hasn't talked very much about another recommendation of that standing committee report, namely that no tax increases or new taxes should occur in this province without the prior constraint of a referendum vote in favour of such tax increase. So I'm just wondering how the leader of the third party squares his new-found support on the road to Damascus on referendums and yet seems to oppose a key element of the standing committee report. I would encourage the honourable members opposite to be consistent and to work with us to create a progressive piece of legislation that we can all be proud of.
1620
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Today is a very sad day for the province of Ontario and for the education system in Ontario because it is the culmination of an attack by this government, and particularly by the whiz kids, by the unelected political advisers to the Premier, on a publicly funded education system which has served us well for many years, which is always trying to change, which is always trying to become better, which is always striving for more quality. The government has launched this attack on the education system and today, with its overwhelming majority in the House, it was able to pass Bill 160.
There was never any doubt that this government would have that opportunity. You know, when you're exercising power it's extremely important to exercise that power carefully when you have the majority. It is easy when you have a minority, because you must take into account the views of others, but when you have majority power, particularly overwhelming majority power, it is important to take into consideration the views of everyone in the province.
What has happened is that the whiz kids within the government have recommended, when the government's in trouble, to find a scapegoat, to find a group of citizens they could paint as being in a privileged position or some who may have some who resent them within the province. The government set out to attack the teachers of this province, the people who deliver education on the front line to the students, whether they're adults or young people at the very youngest level, such as junior kindergarten.
What the government forgot, what the whiz kids, to be fair, forgot, was that these people are the sons and daughters of people, they're the mothers and fathers, they're aunts and uncles, they're nieces and nephews, they're next door neighbours, they're best friends. They are people, in other words, who permeate our society, who are able to get their message out. So the government found that even strong Conservative supporters, supporters of the Progressive Conservative Party, were repulsed by this attack on the teachers.
I thought the government reached an all-time low when, using the funds of everyone in the province, all taxpayers in the province, it launched a series not of propaganda ads, which are bad enough and I've been critical of those over the years, but attack ads on the teachers trying to paint them in the worst possible light. What you find out is, yes, it will consolidate the support of some who hold that view. But it turned a lot of people off because it wasn't necessary to do it. The whiz kids said it was. You see, they're not elected. They don't talk to people out there. They're not people who have to live with what happens after Bill 160 in terms of the electoral realities of the province, and so they told the government to move forward.
What you had out there in teachers was not a radical group. I know these people well. They're not radical, they're not militant, they're by and large very moderate people, very cautious people, very small-c conservative people by and large in our province. What you did was you made militants out of them. What you did was you made them into radical people taking radical action.
I can't think of anyone, I can't think of any teacher in this province who wanted to be out on a picket line, who wanted to withdraw services to protest the bill. All of them to a person wanted to be in the classrooms. You know, if you had an accomplishment, I suppose a perverse accomplishment, it was the ability to mobilize and radicalize and make militant a group of very cautious, small-c conservative people who wanted to be with their students, and that's what you succeeded in doing.
What you found out and what people should know in this province is that this is not a fight between the teachers of Ontario and the government of Ontario. It is a fight between those who believe in a strong, vibrant, high-quality, publicly funded education system and those who do not. For the moment, those who do not have the upper hand.
The government started out saying this had nothing to do with money. If they had been honest and up front, people would have at least appreciated that honesty. But they started out saying that it had nothing to do with money. They told their individual members, "When you go to the public meetings, tell them it has nothing to do with education cuts," because the government had already cut over half a billion dollars from the education budget. Despite your ridicule and opposition to the social contract of the previous government where you criticized them for it, you then cemented the cuts that came from the social contract. You are certainly not being up front, to say the least, in that regard.
What you have done is you have a system now which is going to have at least 7,500 fewer teachers in it, a concentration of power here in Toronto and a concentration of power further in the hands of a few cabinet ministers who will rule by regulation. You will have the closing of schools across this province and you will be facing now a highly demoralized workforce in terms of the teachers.
As I conclude, I ask you, you have won the vote in the House today but what price have you paid and what price, more important, have we in Ontario and our society paid in demoralizing and attacking and shoving to the background those who are dedicated to the delivery of education services in this province? That's a question all of us will have to answer.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate, the leader of the third party.
Mr Hampton: I am pleased to be able to speak on this opposition day and on the matter which stands in my name. Let me be clear about what we are doing. I am going to quote from the Conservative government's own committee report. This is the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly's final report on referenda. This is the Conservative government speaking. This is the Conservative majority on that committee speaking.
They say, with respect to citizens' initiatives:
"Citizens' initiatives are a form of referendum. Our earlier analysis of the concept of referenda extends to initiatives. Some of that analysis is briefly repeated here for the purposes of emphasis. Most of the proponents of referenda before the committee favour the option of citizen initiation. Most members of the committee as well believe this option can serve as a particularly effective means of empowering individuals and groups within the political process.
"Amongst other things, initiatives can serve as a vehicle by which the public can put forward reforms and raise issues which might otherwise not be addressed by elected officials. In an initiative, it is the citizenry, not the political élite or the media, who are determining what is an appropriate issue for a referendum."
It is very clear, I believe, that the individual citizens, the people of Ontario, have found an issue about which they have fundamental questions. It is this government's agenda with respect to education, as expressed in Bill 160. What we have going on out there in Ontario right now is that a number of parent groups are taking petitions forms and they are going out and they are getting signatures.
This is not something driven by me or members of the New Democratic Party caucus. We are pleased to help. We are pleased to bring those petitions here so that public opposition to Bill 160, public opposition to this Conservative government's cuts to education can be shown, can be demonstrated. This is an idea that grew out of the East End Parents' Association in Toronto and it is an idea that is now starting to take off with parents' associations across this province.
Is the government saying that parents don't matter? Is the government trying to say that the views of parents on their children's education is not relevant? If that's the government's position, and it seems as if it was expressed by the Minister of Transportation for this government, that that seems to be their position, then the government will have to take responsibility for that.
I believe that we will have no difficulty getting at least 700,000 signatures from eligible voters in this province. In fact, I believe we will get easily over a million signatures from eligible voters in this province, because people now understand what this government's agenda is all about. People understand that this government has taken $800 million from our children's education already. They've taken $800 million from our children's education because they have an enduring problem. They have to find revenue to finance their tax gift to their wealthy friends.
1630
This is a government that is going to take at least another $700 million from our children's education in the next year because they need that revenue to finance their tax gift for their wealthy friends. People can add. People understand that your tax gift to the wealthiest people in this province will cost $5 billion a year on an ongoing basis. People understand that the only way, the only place you can find that $5 billion a year on a continuing basis is to take some from health care, some from education and some from their communities.
People are already seeing the health care cuts. They're about to see the downloading on municipalities and they are in the midst of experiencing your cuts to education. People can add, people can see what you're trying to pull off. They have expressed their intention to fight you every step of the way when it comes to education.
I would say to people across this province, to parents, to teachers, to students across this province, you will see over the next five months repeatedly the implementation of this government's cuts to education. In the next few weeks the government will bring forward their funding formula for the so-called leftover part of the year, the stub year from January to June 1998.
We already know, because we've talked with educational finance people from different boards of education across the province, that the funding formula for the stub year will include a cut of at least $220 million, about an 11% cut for most boards, given what's left over in the year. That will force boards of education to cut programs during the mid-year or three quarters of the way through the year. It will force them to start laying off some teachers three quarters of the way through the year.
The next manifestation of this government's cuts will come when the so-called mega-boards are due to be up and running on January 1. We know they're not going to be up and running. They don't even know for sure what their budgets are. They know it's going to be a cut, but the government hasn't had the decency to give them the numbers so they can start working through.
When the mega-boards supposedly come to light in January we will see another disaster on the education front. Then in March -- and I want to be very clear with parents and very clear with teachers and students -- we will see that the new boards will have to start giving preliminary notice of the layoff of teachers. They will have to start giving that notice in March of this year.
In the next four months, towards the end of December, in early January and certainly by the end of March, parents, teachers, students and concerned citizens of this province will see over and over again how these cuts are going to be implemented in local communities, in local schools and in the classroom. Parents, teachers, students, grandparents and citizens of the province will have their opportunity to voice their opposition to this government's vicious cuts to education by means of signing those petitions and allowing us to bring them here to present them in this arena of public debate.
The government can try to ignore New Democrats, they can try to ignore the opposition of teachers, but they will not be able to ignore the signatures of hundreds of thousands, I say over a million, citizens of this province who are going to clearly express their opposition to this government's destructive attack upon our children's education.
I would say again to all those citizens of the province, as this unfolds, as you can see on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, on a monthly basis how this government is attacking education in your community, how they're attacking education in your child's classroom, there will be an opportunity to voice your opposition, there will be an opportunity to put this government on the spot.
Ultimately, this government will be forced to either grant the referendum on the repeal of Bill 160 or they will have to come clean with the public of Ontario and admit that all their words about direct democracy, all their words about letting the public have a say, all their words about referenda are nothing but a lot of self-serving hogwash and rhetoric by this government. Ultimately, this government will be put on the spot. They will either have to grant the referendum on the repeal of Bill 160 or admit that everything they've said about direct democracy, everything they've said about listening to people is nonsense.
I welcome the people of Ontario, the parents, the East End Parents' Association and parents in other communities taking to the streets and exercising democracy and holding this government to task. We'll do everything we can as New Democrats to help those parents do just that.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'll just put a few comments on the record, because I know a good number of my colleagues want to speak. I, like the vast majority of my colleagues on this side of the House, signed during the election campaign the taxpayers' protection pledge, a project of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. This pledge committed me as a member of provincial Parliament to require a referendum to be held in the event of any tax increase. Can you just imagine had there been referendums over the last 10 years every time the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party wanted to raise taxes? We would have had 65 referendums over the last 10 years, but we didn't have those referendums. It would have been interesting to have a referendum on the social contract in 1993, but unfortunately there was no referendum on the social contract.
When the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly dealt with this issue and recommended support for referendums in Ontario, and I certainly concur with that recommendation very strongly, what we saw from the official opposition, the Liberal Party, was a six-month filibuster, doing everything they could to stop even a vote being allowed to take place on the issue of referendums. We heard the leader of the official opposition speak out very strongly against referendums. It will be interesting to see what our colleagues in the official opposition do on this issue. The new-found interest of our colleagues in the opposition parties in referendums is very interesting indeed. I wish we had seen that kind of support when we were drafting the recommendations in the committee.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm pleased to rise and offer a few insights into this motion. This is all about Bill 160, let's be clear about this, all about the damage Bill 160 is going to do, both in the present and in the future. There's absolutely no question in my mind or in the mind of anybody in Ontario that this referendum is never going to take place. That's not a surprise to the third party, that's not a surprise to the official opposition, that's not a surprise to anybody who is going to sign to have the referendum. You see, this is the key: to ensure that the public is always reminded about what this government has done to public education. I'm sure they're going to get the 700,000 signatures. I'm sure they're going to get well in excess of a million signatures, because I know the very first day we came back here to debate Bill 160 we put over 150,000 signatures to the Speaker's table.
The people of Ontario know the seriousness with which you've tampered with education. You as a government have in effect, with the passage of Bill 160, destroyed public education. The public shall not, will not, cannot forget that. They're going to have to be reminded. They're going to have to be reminded many different ways, and this is one of the ways that is going to keep 160 in front of the public. The public must constantly remember what 160 really is all about.
Bill 160 has nothing to do with curriculum, standardized report cards or testing, absolutely nothing to do with that. In fact, if 160 had anything to do with standardized report cards, they would have heard from teachers that the new report card is cumbersome, that obviously it was drafted without any kind of mechanics for time management involved in the process, that parents are not going to find this new, standardized report card of value and it's not going to be user-friendly to them as well. Teachers will be telling you that, principals will be telling you that, trustees will be telling you that. But will you listen? I don't think so.
1640
Bill 160 allows the government to cut the cost of education by cutting teachers. It's that simple. There is absolutely no question in the minds of the people of Ontario. Bill 160 will cause several thousand teachers to lose their jobs. It guarantees that there will be fewer secondary school teachers teaching more classes to more students. This means there will be less time for individual students. It guarantees that. We've told you over and over and over again that that's wrong. It also means that small secondary schools will be unable to offer a full range of programs because of the reductions of staff and that schools will close. Come to the region of Sudbury and you'll see that that's exactly what's happening. It's happening to small secondary schools, and it's wrong.
Bill 160 does not mean smaller class sizes. The bill enshrines the status quo for the average we now have; it does not mean smaller class sizes. Let me tell you, with the reduction in funding that's going to take place -- because the Premier admitted that there's going to be several hundred million dollars withdrawn because of Bill 160. He hasn't even tabled the new funding formula, and we know that will mean more cuts to education.
That could only mean one thing: Class sizes are going to grow or we're going to have a reduction in programs. There's going to be a reduction in special education programs, there's going to be a reduction in adult education programs, there's going to be a reduction in a variety of programs. That has to happen if you continue to draw more money out of the system, and this government is bent on doing that. They've said it. The Premier has admitted to it. The Minister of Education has said: "Yes, more money is going to come out. Yes, money is going to come out when the new funding formula takes effect." They haven't denied it.
Bill 160 takes principals and vice-principals off the team. Education is a team approach. Teachers are team members. Up until today, Bill 160's passage, principals and vice-principals were part of the team. Not any more.
I summarize with what Marshall Jarvis said today in his news release: "It is a very sad day for Ontario. Our students' education system faces hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts, unchallengeable centralized control by cabinet, the loss of thousands of teachers, enforced mediocrity and uniformity in the classrooms."
Yes, the public must be kept aware of that. Bill 160 is bad for kids. Bill 160 is bad for students. Bill 160 is bad for parents, trustees, teachers, principals, vice-principals. Indeed, Bill 160 is bad. We must keep the public aware.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Earlier I was listening to the member for Brampton South, who is now the Minister of Transportation. I heard him try to weasel out, squirm out from under statements he made on behalf of the committee that was studying referendum. I quote again that he said he was "proud that we in the Harris government are living up to our commitment to bring issues vital to our province to the people for their input," and allowing their voices to be heard. I was stunned today at how fast it happened when he became a minister, trying to wiggle out from under those fine words of his.
I expressed at the time some reservations, as did others, about referendum, and I was happy to see that our caucus rep, the member for Dovercourt, got involved in making sure there were clauses in the recommendations which came forward which protected minority rights. I think that's a very important aspect. I was shocked to hear him say today that there are all kinds of reasons why this shouldn't go forward as a referendum, that it should be important things like taxation and things like that.
Interjection: The Constitution.
Ms Churley: And the Constitution. He can't wiggle out of this so easily. Education has an impact on every facet of our society. Practically every single person in the province cares about what happens right now in the present and down the road in the future. It has an effect on all of us.
As my leader said today, this is being parent-led. The government tends to say, "This is just the opposition, the NDP, doing this, and the union bosses." Let me say to the government again that they'd better start listening, because this is led -- in fact, it started in the east end, in Beaches-Woodbine. My colleague from there and parents in her riding and in my riding worked to come up with this idea. This Saturday in the riding of Riverdale, and part of East York as well, parents are gathering from 11 o'clock to 3 in the afternoon. They're going to be meeting to gather petitions, go out and knock on doors. They've been approaching me. I haven't been calling them, begging to organize this for them; they're organizing it, they're calling me, saying: "Can you help us coordinate this? Can we use your office? Can you help us with this?" They're doing it. They want to get out there and knock on doors because they know practically every door they knock on, people will want to sign this petition.
The member for Nepean stood up and self-righteously told us they were changing the rules so private members had more of a say in the House. Then, when this caucus tried to stand up the other day and introduce private members' bill -- just introduce them, not even vote on them or discuss them -- they voted us down one after the other. Now the parents, the people of this province, are asking for a referendum. They have an excuse now to do that.
The Premier insinuated he was going to let his caucus members have a free vote on education. What happened today? Every last one was here standing in their place, whipped in here today. Some looked pretty shamefaced, I have to tell you, but they stood up and voted along with Bill 160. So that's three areas.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, at least on this referendum? It's the parents and students of this province who are calling on you to listen to them. You put forward the idea of a referendum; you say you believe in it. For once, listen to the people of this province.
I invite all those who are interested in getting involved in my riding of Riverdale to come out to my constituency office to meet with other parents at 11 o'clock. We're going to go out there and knock on doors and we're going to contribute to those signatures.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I'm pleased to rise and speak to the opposition motion by the leader of the third party with respect to the binding referendum and the withdrawal or repeal of Bill 160.
We've consulted for more than a year on this legislation. In September 1996, we launched extensive consultation with the public, teachers, school boards and others as part of the review of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. We reviewed and considered recommendations made in reports submitted in 1996 by the Sweeney task force and the Working Group on Education Finance Reform. We've continued to have meetings and information sessions with representatives of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, their affiliates, school boards, special education advisory committees, the Ontario Parent Council and the business and financial communities throughout 1997.
In the months leading up to the introduction of this bill, we again held talks with teachers' unions and school boards to finalize this legislation. Earlier this fall as well, the standing committee on administration of justice held public consultation in five cities across Ontario and heard 217 presentations, which led to over 100 amendments to the legislation. Throughout this process, we've listened and we've learned, and more important, we've acted.
The government cares about education. That is why we're determined to improve quality, efficiency --
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): You were listening at the club.
Ms Churley: You don't really believe that.
The Acting Speaker: Members for Lake Nipigon and Riverdale.
Mr Froese: -- and accountability of Ontario's education system. I'm sure we can all agree that it has been long overdue in Ontario with a goal to improve the quality, efficiency and accountability of education. We can all agree with that goal.
1650
It's time to act now, to ensure that taxpayers receive full value for their investment in education. With the introduction of the Education Quality and Improvement Act, 1997, this fall, Ontario is acting on behalf of parents, students and taxpayers.
I wish to deal directly with some of the concerns that have been expressed. The minister has already mentioned that it's his responsibility to set the record straight, but it's also mine as parliamentary assistant to the minister, although my responsibility is colleges and universities. It's a responsibility of all of us in this House to set the record straight.
There's been talk about eliminating the teachers' right to strike. The bill will not limit teachers' right to strike. It will not cut education funding and it will not place new restrictions on someone's right to challenge government actions through the courts. I don't know how many times I met with the constituents' primary teachers. The misinformation that has been out there -- time and time again they would refer to something in the act that had nothing to do with their real concern. They'd take sections out of the act and refer to it piecemeal.
Those are three areas, anyway: We're not eliminating the right to strike for teachers; the bill does not cut education funding; and it does not place new restrictions on someone's right to challenge the government's actions through the courts.
What this bill will do is allow the government to set provincial standards to promote quality. It would 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. I think that probably one of the most important things to parents that I talk to is setting that maximum class size so that their children will have that contact with the teacher one on one and in a smaller class.
The average class size for elementary classes will not exceed 25 and the average class size for secondary school classes will not exceed 22. Contrary to what some of the teachers have said to me, that this will be forever, it's not forever. These provisions will be reviewed every three years and our goal is to bring those down even further.
It would give teachers more time to do what they do best, and what is that? It's to teach. I know some members across the way have come from the teaching profession and they totally agree with that, because I've talked to them privately and personally and they said that's absolutely right. The teachers need more time to do what they do best and that's to teach. High school teachers will now spend about the same amount of teaching time as their colleagues do on average across Canada. This is something that the elementary teachers in Ontario already do so there won't be any changes there.
It would increase the number of classroom instructional days in the school year to give more of our children more time to learn. That was another very important issue with parents. They wanted more time for their children to be taught. High school students would benefit by about 10 additional days in the classroom; elementary students would benefit by about five additional days of instruction.
The bill will allow students greater access to specialists with professional expertise. This was a contentious item with the teachers but it certainly wasn't with the parents. They understood the need to have professionals with professional expertise and specialists to come in to assist their students. It's not replacing the teachers; they'll be working with the teachers.
The government, with the support of the Ontario College of Teachers, has amended the bill to ensure that professionals and paraprofessionals would complement -- I said that already, I guess, but it was worth repeating -- they won't replace the classroom teachers in the schools.
Support from specialists in computer technology, the arts and career guidance, to name a few, could be used to complement the instruction provided by the teachers. Their contribution would enrich our children's learning and broaden their horizons.
These are the steps that will help us create an education system in which every child in Ontario has the opportunity to succeed in the classroom and in the future.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to join the debate on the NDP's motion. Like my colleagues, I too will vote in favour of it, though I recognize that it is a limited attempt to give expression to the anger that's out's there in the province with respect to the education reforms that have been brought forward by the government.
I would concur with some of the government members in saying that you cannot look at 160 in and of itself. You have to look at it in the broader context of funding cuts. You have to look at it in the broader context of drift, in the sense that there is no education policy. There's a budget policy that demands an additional $667 million in cuts to our education system, a cut in the number of teachers and, yes, there's some game-playing around averages, average student sizes at both the secondary and the elementary levels.
The member opposite who spoke said that these things aren't cast in stone forever. Let me tell you, he's right, he's absolutely right. He said there will be a review in three years. There will be a review in a year and a half and that review will first be conducted by the people of this province, and then, when there's a new government installed, as there will be, there will be a requirement to bring forward a meaningful education policy.
I would suggest to the government --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Duncan: Let's talk about that for a minute. Instead of cutting 10,000 teachers out of the system like you've done, why don't you commit to making our students at the top of the test results? You haven't done that. You've cut teachers.
Mr Baird: Let's see your education policy.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean.
Mr Duncan: Why don't we have more local control? I think the government's gone in the wrong direction in centralizing power. Yes, school boards should have the authority, and I'll make a prediction today that if this policy's allowed to stay, if this legislative framework stays, you're going to see a big bureaucracy that no government can control, because your officials in Toronto, far removed from the different parts of this province, won't be able to respond in a timely fashion. You will have a government that has to manage individual school decisions, board decisions, because of the way you've centralized power.
What about class size? Good point. Your class sizes that you've proposed are no different than what's there now. You've played some games to cover up your desire to cut money out of the system. You're not about education reform, you're about budget reform. I think in terms of a policy, yes, we should spend more money on education.
A document I saw today said that on a per student basis we're 48th out of 56 jurisdictions. I think that's shameful, and yes, I would spend more money on education, without question. What I wouldn't do is cut taxes by 30% before I had a balanced budget, before I had a fiscal dividend to deal with. "No, no, we have to do that first to make sure that our supporters are paid off, while we close hospitals, while we make it more difficult to educate our children and while we play games around statistics," statistics that the government has become very clever at exploiting and using to its political advantage.
1700
Instead of cutting $667 million from classes, instead of letting -- and I'll take the benefit of the doubt -- somewhere between 4,000 and 10,000 teachers go, instead of playing games around class averages, instead of looking at things in that manner, I say let's look at things in this manner: Let's take the results from the education quality commission and let's commit that we'll have our students at the top end in every category and in every age. Let's commit to spending the resources in the classroom so that Ontario's no longer a lag jurisdiction, it's a lead jurisdiction. Let's commit that, before we cut one more dollar of taxes, we cut 10,000 or 15,000 portable classrooms.
You want an education policy? That's how I'd base it. That's what I'd be talking about. I certainly wouldn't be cutting another $667 million. I certainly wouldn't be trying to play games around class sizes. What we should be doing is we ought to be looking at our schools and our hospitals and making them the first priority, not a tax cut.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Would you spend more money?
Mr Duncan: Yes, I say to the member, I would spend more money on education. I'd spend it on the kids. I'd give those kids a chance to compete. This government wants to take it away. This government would rather give a tax cut to its wealthy friends. I say let's give our kids a chance in school and let's invest. Let's spend money on our kids, not on tax cuts that are needless and premature. Let's focus on those priorities: health care and education. You can do that and balance your budget. You can ensure that the province does not have to be fiscally irresponsible.
I suggest to the government it's irresponsible to cut the kind of money out of classrooms that you're cutting out. I think the government has no vision of education. Bill 160 is only indicative of that. I say to the members opposite, there will be a review of this bill. It won't be in three years; it will be a year and a half from now, and the people of this province will set education back on the right course once and for all.
The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I am so proud to be able to participate in the debate on this motion today.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I'm glad that you're proud.
Ms Lankin: I'm glad that you are glad that I'm proud, and I appreciate your intervention. It's so helpful and so witty.
The bottom line is, it was parents who live in the riding of Beaches-Woodbine who came forward with this idea, who believed the government when they said the government supported referendum and citizen-initiated referendum, who said that they wanted an opportunity to prove to the government that there was considerable concern in the province on this issue and that irrespective of what side you are on, in support of or in opposition to Bill 160, there was enough concern to warrant the holding of citizen-initiated referendum. They decided they wanted to initiate this process. They asked me for my help, and I am delighted, along with the colleagues in my caucus, to be assisting them in this process.
I have to say that I found it interesting listening to the speakers thus far from the government, by and large from the government with the exception of Mr Clement, and certainly from all of the official opposition members, how none of them seemed to want to talk about the issue of a referendum and letting people have a say. I understand why from the Liberal Party, because they're split down the middle. They don't actually support our call for a referendum, and I think that is a shame, because it is the people who are calling for a referendum. It is the parents who are organizing this, the parents who have developed this approach to trying to get this government to listen.
I guess I understand why the government members don't want to talk about it. They don't want to talk about it because the parents are actually saying to them: "These are your ideas, and we are the ones who are saying to you that we're ready to live up to the conditions you have set with respect to a citizen-initiated referendum. Will you, government, live up to your commitment in the Common Sense Revolution that citizens will have the right to initiate referendums on what they consider to be important questions?"
We know Mr Clement has a particularly important history with respect to this issue. He is someone who has pushed in his own political party for the issue to be included in the Common Sense Revolution. He had carriage and governorship of the development of the issue through the white paper and through the committee, representing the government caucus in its majority on that committee in the development of the final report. I am shocked to hear how he today began to squirm and try and wiggle out of the government's commitment, to squirm and wiggle away from what they said was a clear indication of their support for the democratic right of the public to demand citizen-initiated referendum on questions of important public policy.
He said, first of all, "In our report we said there had to be final approval for the question by a third party or commission." Well, if you passed the law that you said you were going to pass, that commission would be there. What are people to do in the absence of a commission? How are they to develop a question? Well, they did it themselves. The parents did it themselves.
He said, "The question has to be clear and concise." I think it's pretty clear. It says, "We're calling on the government to hold a referendum either on the withdrawal of Bill 160 or, upon its passage, on the repeal of that act." Pretty clear, pretty straightforward. It gives people an opportunity to say yes or no signing that petition, "I want a referendum on that question."
He says that it shouldn't be done by a third party or its political agents. Here is where I really want to take exception. I want to underline for everybody in this Legislative Assembly and in the province: I am proud that I and my colleagues are working along with parents to promote this referendum campaign, but I'll tell you, it was not concocted by any political agent. It is a group of parents who are non-partisan, who are not political, who have never been political.
Interjections.
Ms Lankin: You scoff. I'd like you to meet the people in my riding who came up with this idea. I had never met them before you promoted their political activity. I thank you for that, because I think in the next election they might be partisan, and it's going to be in opposition to your government. Those parents and thousands like them across this province are driving this petition campaign. That's where the energy and commitment come from. That's where the energy and commitment will carry on throughout your term of office to the next election, and then, if you haven't given them a referendum, there will be a final referendum and they will finally have their say.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I appreciate the opportunity today to make a few comments on this opposition day motion. Back in June 1995 in Ontario, there was a referendum. I want to read from the Common Sense Revolution what our position was on education:
"Classroom funding for education will be guaranteed.
"That does not mean that savings cannot be found elsewhere in the education system. Too much money is now being spent on consultants, bureaucracy and administration. Not enough is being invested in students directly.... Education reform is essential if Ontario's next generation is to find high-paying, productive jobs."
We had a referendum back in June 1995, and the result of that referendum was that the Conservative government came into power. Bill 160 delivers precisely on the commitment we made during that referendum. It caps average class size, it requires secondary school teachers to spend more time in the classroom, it provides the opportunity for other professionals to come into the classroom and complement the teacher, it provides for a fair and non-discriminatory funding system for the first time in the province, it provides for more parental involvement through mandatory school councils, and it provides for more instruction time for the classroom.
The NDP position on issues is always clear, and I must compliment them because it's always consistent. You can sum it up maybe in the statement that they think trade unions should be running the province. I don't have any problem with that being their position. I disagree with it, but that's their position and I admire them for being consistent in that. But we had five years of their ideas, and in those five years we tripled the debt, we had unprecedented levels of deficit and we ended up with one in eight people trapped on welfare. That's what their system provided, and their ideas haven't changed. They still have exactly the same ideas. They didn't work then; they will not work now. While I disagree totally with their ideas, I give them full marks for being consistent in their ideas.
1710
A previous member of theirs, Dave Cooke, whom they sometimes don't like to take ownership of now although he still proclaims to be an NDP, said: "The teachers' unions in the last number of years have been more the advocates of the status quo. They used to be advocates of change for kids.... I think they ought to get real." Obviously Mr Cooke understands the need for reform in the system.
As consistent as the third party's policies have been on everything, it is really interesting to look at the official opposition's position. What exactly are the Liberal policies? Let's take a look.
Mr McGuinty, the Leader of the Opposition, has said on several occasions -- it's interesting that we don't have that many of them in the House tonight -- most notably to Robert Fisher on Global TV, "We have no specific policies on education." However, he has said, "The one thing we will do is we will repeal Bill 160." I guess if Mr McGuinty means that, that then by association establishes a policy for him on education. That policy would be that he favours increased class sizes, that he wants to allow teachers to have less time in the classroom, that he wants to refuse to allow other professionals to come into the classroom and help the teachers, that he wants to return to the out-of-control spending mechanism we've had in this province for so long that saw property taxes go up by 120%, that he wants to eliminate parental involvement in the education of our children by abolishing parent councils, and that he wants to reduce student instruction time. Obviously, if he's going to repeal Bill 160, that becomes his education policy.
But as unfair as that is, can we really be sure that that's his policy? Let's look at his position on the right to strike. Back in 1992, Mr McGuinty, in opposition, put forward a private member's bill to limit the teachers' right to strike, and he spoke of some things like the rights of students to attend class, that some students simply don't return to school after a strike, and that these are no longer acceptable losses. Interestingly enough, in 1992 he advocated the elimination or a limit to legal strikes. In 1997 Mr McGuinty supports illegal strikes.
We put forward an amendment to Bill 160 in clause-by-clause that basically was Mr McGuinty's private member's bill on the right to strike for teachers and there wasn't a single Liberal present to support that amendment to Bill 160.
I want to read a letter that I received during the heated debate on Bill 160, dated November 22.
"Yesterday I received your name and fax number from Mr Dalton McGuinty. He would like me to tell you what I think of Bill 160. I will do that.
"Two years ago the Ontario people voted in the Conservative Party on the promise of cutbacks in government spending and education reform. The government is delivering on those promises. I did not vote in a Liberal government, and I don't remember seeing a box on the ballot that said "teachers' unions."
And now we find out that most of Bill 160 is already in the Education Act.
"Mr McGuinty and the teachers' unions say that they are for quality education in Ontario. I wonder what difference it makes to a six-year-old grade 1 student whether or not her or his principal belongs in the teachers' union.
I thought the topic of conversation here was education."
Signed by Pat Maloney, a very concerned parent from Ottawa.
I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about the member for Essex-Kent. On November 17 he delivered a package in the House: a package for the Minister of Education, a package for the Premier and a package for me. He said they represented a copy of each and every one of his taxpayers communications. I'd like to talk about that particular package. It wasn't enough that he sent it three times in the House -- once to the Premier, once to me and once to the minister -- he sent three packages to my office; the same material, obviously printed on fax machines, paid for by the taxpayers. What a terrible waste of taxpayers' money.
In that package there were 222 items and 134 of them had to deal with Bill 136, sent to us by teachers about Bill 136. I have no idea where the member for Essex-Kent was coming from.
We had a public meeting at Chatham Collegiate and at that public meeting the member for Essex-Kent accused me of misleading the people by telling them that in Bill 160 there were a couple of issues: one to deal with honoraria for trustees and the other one to deal with student representation. He told those people that wasn't even in the bill. I'd like to remind the member that on page 85, subsection 191(2) sets the maximum trustee honorarium at $5,000, and on page 39, subsection 55(1) allows for student representation on school boards. It would appear as though the member for Essex-Kent hadn't read the bill. I believe it's incumbent upon all of us on both sides of this House, if we're going to argue about a bill and support it or reject it, that we should at least know what it says.
I'd like to finish by saying one thing. I have a vision of education: higher-quality education at the best value to the taxpayers. I believe teachers in my county of Kent support that vision.
In the war of words that has preceded the passage of this bill, there have been a lot of things said that were offensive. I want to go on record today as saying that if I have said anything that has offended anybody in my riding, I apologize for that. I think it's time we worked together with Mike Chater, Ginn Rawlinson, Ruth Behnke, Barb Gundy, Janet Cadotte, Danielle Francis and all the teachers in Kent county to improve the quality of education.
A lot of the teachers have said they're going to campaign against us in the next election. If their unions' perception of Bill 160 is correct, then I would welcome them to campaign against us and I believe they should. However, if their unions are wrong about Bill 160 and we are right that Bill 160 will improve the quality of education at better value for the taxpayers of this province, I fully expect every teacher in this province to support the Conservative government in the next election.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, come to order.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Our caucus is completely opposed to Bill 160. I think that's very clear. Dalton McGuinty led on this issue from the very outset. We appreciate that the NDP opposition, the third party, is trying to stop the government's implementation of Bill 160 and we applaud them for their efforts. Anything they're going to try to do to stop the implementation of Bill 160 is laudable. Certainly. I may not agree with what they're trying to advance to stop it, because frankly it won't stop this gang. We don't want to get into a discussion about referenda because this is the last government that's going to want to come forward now with legislation after their abysmal track record with referenda.
We need go no further than the megacity debate, where 85% of the people wanted not to have a megacity, and even after a referendum, you completely ignored them.
Mr Hastings: You are opposed to referenda; always have been.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, take your seat for a minute.
Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, please come to order. I would ask both sides of the House to come to order.
Mrs Pupatello: The truth is that in Bill 160, as we all know, you have buried information that will not become available to the public except through regulation. This government continues to bury information that should be available to the public. Everything in Bill 160 is about regulation. We know what that's about. We just came from a committee room where this government is trying to bury the Liberal report, a committee report on the impact of this government's cuts to children and the disabled. They are using every twist imaginable so that gets tossed out, because if it's not done by December, unfortunately we're going to lose the opportunity for the report.
Time and time again this government tried to turn over every opportunity available to opposition parties to get the truth out. You find it hard to believe that Her Majesty's loyal opposition has a dual role to play in this place. But we will not give up. Our party is on record as opposing Bill 160. We appreciate the fact that this party, the third party, is trying any way to stop Bill 160. We have to support them on that because we've led the charge against Bill 160. We know what's important to children and their parents.
We look at the detail of Bill 160 and the very latest amendment made by this government to pull the word "advisory" out of "parent council," and the very fact that you choose to remove principals and VPs from the bargaining units, pulling at the educational leadership within the schools. That is wrong -- very wrong.
1720
We asked a question of the minister today in the House. I asked Dave Johnson, "Do you believe in charter schools?" and he would not answer the question. That tells us where this government is headed. Charter schools are the worst thing that can happen to the majority of children in this province, and this minister didn't have the nerve to stand up and even give his opinion or give the government position, because you don't want people to know what your real agenda is where education is concerned. You don't really want people to understand that it's going to be a system where if you have the money for an education, your kids will be just fine, and if you don't have the money for an education, your kids do not have the opportunities available to the rest.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, come to order.
Mrs Pupatello: We know that's the way it used to be like in many jurisdictions in North America. We don't expect that here in Ontario. We think every child should have every opportunity for an education and a quality education.
While these ministers may tell me to sit down, because you don't want to hear the truth, I would ask these ministers in this House to ask your Minister of Education, "Why would you not answer the question about what your position is on charter schools?"
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Member for Scarborough East, come to order.
Mrs Pupatello: You had every opportunity today to say, "No, we oppose," but you did not answer the question because you do have an alternative agenda where education is concerned and it is not in the best interests of children in Ontario.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I come at this particular motion today with more than just some passing interest, both because it actually ties into subject matters that I have a great deal of personal interest in, and obviously our caucus has a lot of interest in, and that is the question of referenda and the substantial question of education and what this government is doing.
It really is wonderful to see what we've done and what we've managed to do with this notion of a referendum on Bill 160, because the government members are having to squirm all over the place as they try to explain now why on the one hand they approve of the idea of referenda, but not in this case -- not in this case because here we've had discussion and here we don't need to have the people decide. I want to say to the government members, as one who supported and who supports the notion of referenda having a place within the confines and the structures of a parliamentary system which, I continue to believe and we all I think continue to believe on this side, needs to continue to be the basis of our system of government. As I indicated through my participation on the committee that dealt with this framework, I am very comfortable with the notion of referenda being used on issues that are very difficult.
Interjection.
Mr Silipo: It's not a flip-flop, I say to the former Minister of Citizenship. Read the report. Read my position in that report. Read the Hansard of the committee report. You'll see that it's actually quite consistent, and if the Minister of Transportation were here, he'd be the first to witness that what I am saying and what our caucus is saying has been 100% consistent with the position we have taken.
We are now saying to this government, "Yes, there is a place for referenda on some important issues of public questions when the government, particularly as in this case, won't listen to the thousands of people who out there are saying: `What you are doing is wrong. Gutting the education system in this province is wrong.'" Then the only thing that's left is for us to resort to that other avenue which they would like.
Interjections.
Mr Silipo: It sounds like they're not so thrilled about the idea of referenda any more; I thought they were in favour of it. If they're in favour it, then what are they afraid of? Why are they afraid of putting an important issue like Bill 160 and everything it represents out to the people for a referendum? Because we know and people across this province know that what Bill 160 represents is the gutting of our public education system.
We believe that no such action should be taken, even by a majority government that obviously in law has the right to pass whatever legislation it wishes, that no government should continue to ignore the express will of thousands and thousands of Ontarians in this province who are saying to you: "No. What you are doing is wrong. What you are doing is fundamentally against the grain of the society that we have developed her in Ontario."
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): That's not what Dave Cooke says.
Mr Silipo: Again, the former Minister of Citizenship: "That's not what Dave Cooke says." Let us be really clear. Dave Cooke is now a civil servant. Dave Cooke may speak for himself. Dave Cooke does not speak for the New Democratic Party. Let's be very clear on that issue. So you can quote Dave Cooke all you want.
I want to say in fairness to Mr Dave Cooke that there are a number of issues in terms of the reform of this education system that we might be prepared to support and would be prepared to support, but we know that Bill 160 is not about reforming the system of education. Bill 160 is about gutting the system of education. Bill 160 is allowing a legislative framework that puts into the hands of the Minister of Education powers unheard of before in this province to allow the minister and the cabinet, in the secret meetings that go on, to be able to make decisions around the funding formula which we know will cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the system of education.
I want to say to the members opposite I recall second reading debate on Bill 160 when we made the point repeatedly that what this government was going to do through this legislative bill was to give the minister the right to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the system. They said, "Where do you get that idea that they're going to cut this kind of money?" Then, lo and behold, the deputy minister's contract is revealed by our leader, and what happens? The premier has to admit that, yes, they are in fact going to be looking at cutting that kind of money.
So what happens? Obviously the government has got its act together in terms of reining in those few people in the government caucus who have dared to speak out in favour of their constituents, but what we are saying here today is, democracy will not be put aside and the democratic will of Ontarians across this province cannot be set aside. This motion calls on this government to live by its words, to put this issue to referenda because it's a fundamental one as far as the education system of this province is concerned and as far, quite frankly, as the democratic principles of this province are concerned.
If you will not do it, you will continue to pay the price that you are paying now and that you will pay come the next election.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): On November 27, Bill 160 was introduced for third and final reading and an assortment of Ontario's union leadership shouted about the loss of democracy in this House. This bill is in fact an exercise in democracy and will take back our classrooms for students, teachers, parents and taxpayers.
When big unions negotiated terms and conditions with 129 small boards across Ontario, the result was a skyrocketing price of education and a system which began to fail. We saw and heard about this failure through larger and larger classroom sizes. Big unions negotiated agreements with small boards guaranteeing less instructional time. We saw the result in our children and grandchildren who couldn't add or multiply without a calculator and were falling behind in reading and writing. Big unions made agreements with small boards resulting in fewer school days per year and more and more professional development days. Most disturbing, we saw the effect at community colleges where remedial classes in English are offered, and in one case, as high as 40% of their applicants, to ensure entrance into first-year post-secondary programs, had to take remedial English. These classes were not even offered 10 years ago.
Yes, we have a good system in Ontario today but it's not good enough. If we are willing to accept the status quo, then we are willing to accept producing below-average students. As a parent and as a grandparent, I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that we do better than that.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Eye contact with the camera, Ted.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, come to order. You're not even in your seat.
Mr Chudleigh: Frankly, I would not support the bill if I believed it would adversely impact on our children's future. We are short-changing ourselves and our children to believe that we cannot be better than we are today. The decline has gone on for long enough and it's time to improve education in our schools.
This bill will do what all Ontarians have asked for some time now: improve the overall quality of educating our children.
1730
Mr Chudleigh: After dozens of reports, royal commissions and a countless number of studies and reports, the time to do something is now. But like in all areas of significance in our lives, change is never easy. Information has been twisted and turned to suit the purposes of those who believe that this bill is about power. They and their supporters have tried to fool the public into believing that Bill 160 isn't about students at all by using infantile tactics and arguments such as saying that the word "student" doesn't even appear in the bill. Well, there's proof.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): What are we talking about here, Ted?
The Deputy Speaker: Order, member for Fort York.
Mr Chudleigh: The people of Ontario are smarter than this and remember their primary English lessons regarding synonyms and will recognize that the word "pupil," which coincidentally does appear in the bill and appears over 200 times, can be used as a synonym for the word "student" and in this case is the legal reference used in place of the word "student." Some members of the opposition missed this lesson and I'd recommend a refresher course in remedial English, as prescribed by many of our community colleges, and Bill 160, complete with smaller class sizes and more pupil-teacher interaction.
Some groups have used their power to convince parents and children and teachers alike that Bill 160 will tear the heart out of public education. These people are wrong. Our teachers are the heart of our public and separate educational system.
As a government, we recognize at these times that our teachers, no matter where they live in Ontario, are social engineers for any range of issues and problems, from dealings with scrapes in the school yard to problems at home, teen angst as well as physical and emotional development. Teachers interact with our children in a significant part of their early development and complement, not replace, a parent's role of directing them towards adulthood. The most important part of the teacher's role in our system is to pass on the skills and knowledge necessary for pupils to learn. That means that we need teachers to do what they do best, and that's teach.
Bill 160 deals with this issue and quite clearly lists requirements for class size, teaching time and the length of the school year, all measures which will impact a pupil's learning by increasing the length and time in educational instruction.
With the pressures of the global economy, receiving a relevant, quality education makes it necessary for more in-class contact between teachers and students. Bill 160 achieves this.
This bill has a tremendous impact on the expansion of democracy and encourages participation and choice for parents and stakeholders in education. One of the myths perpetuated about Bill 160 is that the government wants to remove power from locally elected school boards. The government is removing the ability of the local school board to impose educational property taxes, period. The powers of school boards and trustees would still be to ensure local representation, accountability and policy implementation in accordance with the act and its regulations. So here we have elected officials saying that the impact, while change, is a positive one and does not suspend local democracy but enhances it.
Further, this government is stepping up to the challenge where property taxes and education are concerned. Ontarians will not have to suffer the game of, "Who is to blame for the cost of education?" The public also will not have to suffer through a whopping 120% increase in property taxes, as they did from 1985 to 1995, without recourse. In the future, their fingers will be firmly pointing towards the provincial government. Making democracy more accessible and less confusing for Ontarians means better, more responsive government.
That's why I take great pleasure, last Thursday and again today, in supporting Bill 160 and why I will not be supporting the opposition day motion on the bill this afternoon.
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I will certainly support the motion of the NDP. I think it attempts to deal with the reality of Bill 160, where the bill has been passed. It attempts to give an opportunity to people who want to continue to oppose Bill 160 to participate and be heard. I think that's a very legitimate exercise and should be encouraged, and hopefully it will be successful.
In terms of this bill and the discussion and heated debate we have had here, I just want to relay what I think this is about for me and my constituents. On Friday, I was at a graduation ceremony at Vaughan Road Collegiate Institute. Vaughan Road is an inner-city school. It is in a very challenging situation with new immigrants coming in, so the teachers there have had to work extra hard to prepare their students for university and college and the working world.
I've been going to graduations with my own four children over I guess the last 25 years. I have taught myself. I have gone to many graduations. I don't think I was ever as impressed with a graduation as I was on Friday night.
Typical of what happened at Vaughan Road that night at the graduation and why I was so impressed was a young woman by the name of Elizabeth Foo. Elizabeth Foo was an immigrant from Malaysia along with her family. Her parents own a small bakery and they make a decent living. But Elizabeth, who came to Canada unable to speak English at all, graduated from OAC at Vaughan Road with an average of 95%. This young woman was tops in her class in six subject areas, from mathematics to biology to English. She volunteered at the school to help newcomers who came into the school. She participated in athletics in the school, in badminton. She was a model student who, with the help of her teachers, was able to accomplish this 95%. Subsequently, she got a $4,000-a-year scholarship to the University of Toronto because of her average. She competed with another 1,500 kids and became one of the chosen to receive that scholarship.
Here's a young lady who went to a school that, as I said, is filled with children from 55 different countries, speaking different languages. Elizabeth is typical of a lot of students who graduated that night who have gone on in music, who have gone on in physics, to universities in Canada and in the United States from Vaughan Road Collegiate. She did it because her parents and her teachers supported Elizabeth. She couldn't have done it without that kind of support. She is a success story, and I think she is more typical than the exception.
Our school system isn't perfect and we know it has a lot of imperfections. Our public school system is far from perfect, but the successes are never talked about by this government. This government's attitude from day one in education has been to malign teachers, malign the system, malign public education on a daily basis. What was most offensive during this orchestrated attack on public education and the students and teachers of public education was the attack ads paid for by this government and the Premier. Day after day this government, with taxpayers' dollars, continued to malign the system, the children in it, the teachers especially, with personal attack ads on teachers and students.
This is what this government does to respond to the challenge our education system faces. It doesn't try to build, it doesn't try to help; it tries to get its own way, no matter what, by destroying, by attacking, maligning, denigrating hardworking parents, hardworking students like Elizabeth Foo, and their teachers who, despite challenges, have had more successes than failures. But if you listened to this government and its spokespersons, you would think we had the worst education system in Canada or North America.
They never talk about the achievements despite the challenges; they never talk about the good students and the dedicated teachers who are in every school, who are in every part of this province. This government chose instead to get its agenda across, to malign and attack and denigrate, so they could extract money out of classrooms. Where it is proven that the government's primary objective is to malign and denigrate, to take money out of a system that was already underfunded, is in that letter, the contract with the deputy minister, Veronica Lacey. There was proof positive this government's Bill 160 is all about taking more money out of the system, a system that is in need of more investment in young people so they can achieve what their potential is.
1740
That's what Bill 160 is about: money and power. It's about centralizing power. Here's a government that supposedly talks about small government. It has created one of the largest, now centralized power structures in Canada. This new department of education will have total, complete control of every student in this province, every teacher, every school. They will be controlled out of some back room by a bunch of bureaucrats and whiz kids who report to only one person: Mike Harris. That is what has happened to our education system, and it's a tragedy because there are so many good students and teachers who over the years have benefited by an open public education system which, sure, has had its trials and tribulations, but the successes are what we should be building on, not attacking and destroying.
On the government side there are too many Monday morning quarterbacks. All they do is criticize, second-guess, attack schools, principals, vice-principals; that's all they have done, negative attack after negative attack against teachers in our schools, and that hasn't helped anything. Again, to add more fuel to the fire, they even have the nerve to spend taxpayers' dollars attacking our schools and students and teachers in paid government ads on television on a daily basis. Even their own members have complained about these negative attack ads.
They have not achieved anything that helps education or the students. All they have done is tried to, as the previous minister said, create a crisis, attack the children and their parents and teachers, who have helped make this system workable and successful. We should not be buying this line that this government is about accountability. The only accountability for Bill 160 will not be with the members; as I said, it will be with a little junta in some back room, faceless whiz kids who are answerable to no one. The parents will be shut out, the students will be shut out. With less money and less resources, this government is gambling with our children. They are risking the future of our children in a reckless attack. That is what they should never be forgiven for.
I hope people do not forget Bill 160 but remember it and continue to oppose it, whether it be through this referendum or through other organized attacks to remind this government and the backroom whiz kids that the province belongs to the children, it doesn't belong to you. You didn't buy the province when you won the election; it still belongs to the people and the children of this province. It's not yours. It's not for sale.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 160. Listening --
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is barracking away over there as usual with his inspired interjections; he just makes noise.
I want to say that this bill, without question, and the public I think now appreciate it, is perhaps one of the more fundamental attacks on the democratic running of our school system. The bill puts total power for education in the hands of the minister. That is exactly what the bill does and, for me, that's not right. I've talked often with the Conservative backbenchers, and I often thought that was exactly the opposite of why they thought they got elected. I think most of them believe in local input, most of them believe that Queen's Park, particularly the bureaucrats at Queen's Park, do not know what's best for their community, they do not know what's best for Flesherton or Arthur or Windsor; that people in those communities have a right to have an input into education.
Any objective analysis will show that now the Minister of Education and her bureaucrats have complete, total control over education. There is not a school board in the province that will not be given its exact budget and be told exactly how much they can spend. All of those decisions will be made not even here in the Legislature; they'll be made by the minister, the Premier and the bureaucrats. That's not right. That is not how we want our schools run. We don't want them in the hands of the minister.
I would just say the test of this is that there has been an NDP government. Mike Harris would have been apoplectic, his face would have been so red, he would have been so angry he would never have let this bill pass. Why? Because it takes out of the hands of any elected person any ability to have input into our education system. Any objective analysis says this is the most undemocratic bill I've seen.
The second thing I want to communicate is that we now give Mike Harris the unilateral, single power to set $6 billion worth of property taxes without any question of a doubt.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Show me where Mike Harris --
Mr Phillips: The member for Scarborough East, Mr Gilchrist, is barracking again, but he is going to vote for that bill. He will give Mike Harris the power to set $6 billion worth of taxes with the stroke of a pen. I want to say to the business community in Scarborough that this is what Steve Gilchrist is doing.
I'll tell you what's going to happen in 1998. You are going to get your property tax bill in July --
Mr Gilchrist: That is what you did: raise the taxes every year.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Scarborough East, come to order.
Mr Phillips: I know Mr Gilchrist hates to listen. He loves to talk. But your time for talking is over, Mr Gilchrist. Maybe you could learn something. Just listen for once.
I'm going to tell the business community in Scarborough that Mike Harris and Steve Gilchrist refuse to allow them to appeal their 1998 property taxes until after -- they'll get their tax bill in July; the date for appealing is June 29. They can't even appeal their taxes, because the date for appeal is gone before they get their tax bill. Mike Harris's $6-billion property tax bill will hit our businesses in July. That's when people will find out what Mike Harris has done to them on the property tax. Let me tell you when the last date for appeal is: June 29. But nobody will get their property tax bill until July. We said, "Surely they should be allowed to appeal their tax bill after they get this bill." No. Mike Harris says you can't appeal it.
I will just give you fair warning, Mr Gilchrist. I'm going to be telling the business people in Scarborough when they get their tax bill that it was Steve Gilchrist and Mike Harris who denied them the right to appeal their taxes after they got their taxes.
Mr Gilchrist: No problem, Gerry.
Mr Phillips: He says, "No problem," and that's what I'm looking forward to.
I would also say that I went many days here listening to Mike Harris say, "We have no intention of cutting education spending." He sort of said: "You in the opposition, Mr McGuinty and Mr Hampton, you are imagining things. You're imagining things. This is all in your mind. We have no intention of cutting money out of education." Then, lo and behold, Mike Harris was caught because there was a contract between the government and the Deputy Minister of Education, that Mike Harris was a party to, saying they were going cut $667 million.
Mike Harris was forced to admit: "Well, maybe you've caught me. We can find this money. You've caught me. I now acknowledge that that was my plan, to cut money out." For days he said it wasn't, and so I say to the people who are watching this, you wonder why we have difficulty in believing the Premier. For days he said, "No, we have no intention," until the evidence was presented, and then he said: "Whoops."
Mr Duncan: Caught red-handed.
Mr Phillips: Caught red-handed, as my colleague said.
I want to also say a few words just quickly about Metro. I've actually heard Mr Gilchrist -- I don't think he'll deny this -- saying: "There's too much money being spent on education in Metro. We've got to cut the money out of education in Metro." He said that at public meetings.
Mr Duncan: Dave Cooke said that.
Mr Phillips: Well, he said that's right, and I'm glad you confirmed that. One of the reasons why Metro, this metropolitan urban area, has been designated as the finest urban environment in North America, if not the world, is our education system. Regardless of where you live in Metropolitan Toronto, you can be assured that you can send your students, your children, to the local --
Mr Gilchrist: Because of two members in Scarborough.
Mr Phillips: Mr Gilchrist -- I hope the public can hear him -- as usual is barracking. He hates to listen. He loves to talk. You're going to have to wait for a while, Mr Gilchrist, because you are going to have to listen to this.
You are planning to gut education in Metropolitan Toronto. Mike Harris was over in Europe bragging about the quality of life in Metro Toronto, "Nothing like it." I'll tell you why it's that quality of life. It's because we have an education system here where we're investing in it and where regardless of where you live in Metro Toronto, you can be assured there is a quality school in your neighbourhood.
But no, that's too much for Mike Harris to believe. He's going to gut that. I will just say to him, he's playing with fire. The reason for the success in Metropolitan Toronto is the quality of our education and the quality of our schools, and this is what this bill is all about: gutting it. I will tell you, I am extremely worried about the future of our schools here in Metropolitan Toronto, because I know what Mike Harris is all about. He's going to pull that money out.
Finally, the public understand that the bill passed earlier despite the best efforts of many of us, but you will find in the months ahead the real impact, and that is on the students, the parents and the quality of life in the province of Ontario, and it's going to be very, very bad.
1750
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I am pleased to wind up the debate on behalf of our caucus on this motion put forward by my leader calling for a referendum on Bill 160, the education bill that passed third reading earlier today in the Legislature. Some might wonder why we are bringing this matter forward at this time. I would just like to make clear that throughout this debate around the quality of education in Ontario, throughout the debate about Bill 160, it has been clear that there is a wider issue even than the future of the education of students in this province, and that is the commitment to democracy on the part of the members of the government, on the part of the members of the Assembly. That's why we have brought this matter before the House.
I don't think I need to remind the members of the House that it was the Premier, Mike Harris himself, who brought forward the idea in the 1995 election campaign and said that Ontarians wanted more direct democracy. The Premier subsequently initiated a white paper calling upon the Legislature to consider citizen-initiated petitions for referenda on important issues in the Legislature in the province.
Subsequently, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly studied that white paper. My friend from Dovercourt and myself served on that committee along with the member for Brampton South, who is now the Minister of Transportation and at that time was the parliamentary assistant for the Premier, and other members. We considered the whole question of referenda and how it might serve the interests of the people of Ontario and serve the interests of democracy.
That committee decided that a government could be forced to conduct a binding referendum when signatures of 10% of the eligible voters are collected asking for a referendum in Ontario. I would quote the member for Brampton South where he said, "In an initiative, it is the citizenry, not the political élite or the media, who are determining what is an appropriate issue for a referendum."
This is the case. In this particular case, parents in east Toronto initially, and in other communities -- Hamilton, Ottawa, Peel, other communities across the province -- said they wanted to have a referendum about Bill 160 because they are concerned about the concentration of power that the bill would give the cabinet over education of their kids. They were concerned about democracy and they said they wanted to have a direct say. They wanted to be able to say whether they supported this kind of change in the educational governance of Ontario and the way that the students of Ontario are educated.
We are calling today for the government to live up to its stated principles that the government is in favour of direct democracy. I look at the report of the standing committee that studied the white paper from the Premier. That committee recommended, "Statutory authority should be provided for the holding of citizen-initiated referenda whereby citizens by petition may require that a referendum be conducted on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Legislature." Then, "An initiative petition must be signed by at least 10% of the eligible voters in the province in order for the initiative to be put on a referendum ballot." This of course --
Interjection.
Mr Wildman: No, we supported this in the committee. The two of us were members of the committee, and we voted for the recommendation. The committee supported the recommendation in the majority. This is based on the philosophy which is described on page 2 of the committee report. It says:
"We see referenda as helping to increase the accountability of government and the Legislature to the citizens of Ontario. The referendum tool serves as a means of improving public participation in the decision-making process and enhancing the legitimacy of that process. It can accordingly strengthen confidence in difficult public policy decisions and in our institutions of government. Referenda then can help to counter cynicism about politics. A further benefit of referenda is derived from the campaigns themselves, which can serve to educate the public about policy issues."
I agree completely with that, and so does our caucus. The fact is that we hope that, through this referendum campaign that we have initiated along with the parents in this province, we can educate the public to the point where they will understand the serious ramifications that Bill 160 will have for the quality of education in this province, the serious implications it will have for less accountability at the local level, less control over education at the local level, less control over educational taxation and funding at the local level.
But more than that, I'm calling on the members of the government party to consider very seriously this statement: "Referenda then can help to counter cynicism about politics." I really call on the members opposite to think about this. Here we have a government that is led by a Premier who has advocated referenda on important matters being initiated by the citizens of the province. There is no issue more important than the education of our children, than the education of the future citizens of this province. There's no more important issue.
So think carefully about this: Do you think that voting against a referendum on Bill 160 will result in more or less cynicism on the part of the public? Surely it can only be counterproductive for this government, which has advocated referenda, to vote against the possibility of holding a referendum on such an important issue, particularly since this is following the rules set out by the Premier himself in his white paper: that there be 10% of the electorate, that those signatures must be collected within six months. I don't think it's going to take nearly six months to get 700,000 or so signatures on this matter because so many people are upset and angry at this government for ramming Bill 160 through over the objections of the majority of the people of this province.
In the megacity issue the government members argued that wasn't a fair referendum because the government hadn't set the question, the government hadn't administered it and it was set by the local municipality. We're not suggesting that in this case. We're suggesting that the provincial government follow through its own guidelines, the guidelines set out by the Premier in his white paper, to follow those guidelines and to have a true direct democracy decision about the future of quality education in this province, a true, direct decision by the citizens of this province on whether Bill 160 should proceed or whether we should have a true consultation about the future of quality education in Ontario.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Christopherson has moved opposition day number 4. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
All those opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Call in the members; there will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1800 to 1805.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Bartolucci, Rick Bisson, Gilles Boyd, Marion Bradley, James J. Caplan, David Christopherson, David Churley, Marilyn Colle, Mike Conway, Sean G. Cordiano, Joseph Crozier, Bruce |
Curling, Alvin Duncan, Dwight Grandmaître, Bernard Gravelle, Michael Hampton, Howard Kennedy, Gerard Kormos, Peter Kwinter, Monte Lankin, Frances Laughren, Floyd Marchese, Rosario |
Martel, Shelley Martin, Tony Miclash, Frank Patten, Richard Phillips, Gerry Pouliot, Gilles Ramsay, David 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 Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Carr, Gary Carroll, Jack Chudleigh, Ted Clement, Tony Cunningham, Dianne Danford, Harry DeFaria, Carl Doyle, Ed Ecker, Janet Elliott, Brenda Eves, Ernie L. Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Froese, Tom Galt, Doug |
Gilchrist, Steve Grimmett, Bill Guzzo, Garry J. Hardeman, Ernie Harnick, Charles Harris, Michael D. Hastings, John Hodgson, Chris Hudak, Tim Jackson, Cameron Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Klees, Frank Leach, Al Leadston, Gary L. Marland, Margaret Martiniuk, Gerry Munro, Julia Mushinski, Marilyn O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. |
Parker, John L. Pettit, Trevor Preston, Peter Rollins, E.J. Douglas Runciman, Robert W. Sampson, Rob Shea, Derwyn Sheehan, Frank Skarica, Toni Smith, Bruce Snobelen, John Spina, Joseph Sterling, Norman W. Stewart, R. Gary 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 33; the nays are 69.
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost. It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned till 6:30 of the clock this evening.
The House adjourned at 1808.
Evening sitting reported in volume B.