Journal des débats 1998-juin-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent of the House for permission to wear the purple ribbon today in commemoration of the second anniversary of the death of Theresa Vince.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Mrs McLeod: On a further point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm also wondering if I could have unanimous consent of the House for all three parties to make statements in commemoration of the second anniversary of the death of Theresa Vince.

The Speaker: Agreed? No.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise today on the first day of Seniors' Month in Ontario to raise an issue of importance to all members of this Legislature. Elder abuse is on the rise in Ontario. According to a study recently released by the Toronto family service association, our seniors are increasingly subjected to abuse by their family, friends and caregivers in the form of physical and psychological abuse, as well as financial abuse, sexual abuse and neglect.

We Liberals have long been saying that the consequence of hospital cutbacks, lack of nursing home beds and shortage of community-based supports is an increased burden being placed on the average family. When seniors are discharged from hospital quicker and sicker with no long-term-care beds available to them and limited home care services, families, many of whom are already struggling to cope, have no choice but to take them in.

If this option is not available, senior couples are often left to fend for themselves with minimal supports. It has been found that abuse by a partner is also becoming more prevalent among senior couples, and that older women are more frequently the victims.

The other unfortunate reality in today's Ontario is that the abused women's support services that had been established across the province have been threatened by government cutbacks to shelter and support services.

I call on this government to recognize how its policies are exacerbating, not easing, the pressures faced by the families and caregivers. Hospital cuts, bed shortages, nurse layoffs and insufficient funds for home care are not the answer. Improved health services and adequate funding for community-based supports are.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): We're all familiar with the Kidney Foundation of Canada and we respect the hard work they do, the advocacy they perform and the assistance they provide to sufferers of kidney disease and public education.

The Niagara district chapter has not inappropriately pointed out the looming crisis over Niagara region when it comes to dialysis services. We know that Hotel Dieu Hospital is scheduled for possible shutdown by this government - I know what it talks about; it talks about the merger of St Catharines General and Hotel Dieu, but what that means at the end of the day is that one or the other is going to be gone.

Hotel Dieu is at capacity when it comes to dialysis treatment. I've been through their unit several times. It's outstanding work and a whole lot of commitment by a whole lot of qualified, trained, competent staff. Unfortunately, because it's at capacity, Niagara residents have had to travel out of the region to Stoney Creek and beyond to receive dialysis services at, among other places, private operators' private clinics. The problem is that those are at capacity now as well.

There's nobody left to pick up the excess demand that's being generated in Niagara region. Niagara region is special because it has an aging population. We know from the profile of sufferers of kidney disease and demand for dialysis that it's older generations that require it.

I agree there is a crisis looming in Niagara. This government has abandoned public health care, and very specifically seniors and sufferers of kidney disease in Niagara region and across this province.

BRENNAN HOUSE

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): Traditionally every June a group of Hamilton lawyers make bicycle trips around a Great Lake to raise money for charity. Once again, the Biking Barristers this year are taking to the road in support of the Good Shepherd Centre's Brennan House.

This year, Dennis Reardon and Terry Shaughnessy are joined by David Sherman in their quest to help children. The Miles for Smiles campaign has in past years cycled around Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and from Quebec City to Hamilton in order to boost awareness of this worthy cause. In 1998, the campaign is being generously supported by Guinness Imports, Slainte Irish Pub and Rheem Canada as the Biking Barristers ride around Ireland from June 19 to June 29 in search of Father Brennan's roots.

Brennan House is a service dedicated to homeless children, some of whom are in conflict with the law or are otherwise estranged from their families for a variety of unfortunate reasons. The goal of Brennan House is to assist these children to thrive and achieve an independent lifestyle. While some invariably fall through the cracks of society, for others Brennan House is an indispensable part of their road to success.

I wish to recognize the Biking Barristers - Dennis Reardon, Terry Shaughnessy and David Sherman - and the Slainte Irish Pub in Hamilton for their substantial contributions to children in need in Hamilton and area.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Today is the day that the Ontario disability support program comes into effect. The ODSP is a program that has met with some approval from the disabled community and has by and large received qualified support in this House. However, throughout the hearings into Bill 142 and from activists in the community we have heard indications about problems that we can expect to encounter.

It is clear from a reading of the regulations, which were only released publicly yesterday, that the government is continuing its campaign to restrict access to essential services to the most needy by making them jump through loopholes to meet eligibility requirements. Whether persons with disabilities are better off under the new program is something we have yet to see. The devil remains in the details.

Recently, the Ontario Dental Association stepped into the debate by publicizing its concern about the government's new dental policy for the disabled. In its drive to reduce costs, the government is now moving away from a strategy of prevention to a system that restricts access to dental care for the most vulnerable. Pre-authorization will now be required that will see people having to wait for treatment while an administrator with no dental credentials decides over a period of days whether an emergency exists that warrants treatment.

Other arbitrary restrictions on services are going to further compromise the special needs of children and people with disabilities. Problems like these mean that our attention to the human costs -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Statements.

BANK MERGERS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Last week, the member for Dovercourt and I joined our friend NDP MP Lorne Nystrom, who was on a tour decrying the bank merger mania that has taken hold in this country. We have tremendous concerns about this merger and I wanted to speak to it.

Canada's Big Six banks control 72%, or $700 billion, of all deposit-taking financial assets in the country and 70% of the investment brokerage industry, all but one of the large trust companies and a majority of deposits, consumer credit, small business and mortgage lending.

We're talking about billions of dollars that are going to be in the hands of a very few people who, I can tell you, are not going to spread that kind of generosity around. I can guarantee the bank presidents are going to earn big bucks. The bank tellers, however, are going to be the lowest paid women in this financial sector. That I can guarantee you will be the result of the bank merger.

We urge the people of Ontario to fight these bank mergers and we want to try to convince the federal government to do several things. First of all, allow consumer intervention in bank practices; establish a membership-funded, broadly based financial consumer organization; ensure that the boards of directors have better representation; and urge the federal government to institute a community reinvestment act so as to finance the public -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. The member for Quinte.

1340

RECYCLING IN HASTINGS

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate the Centre and South Hastings Waste Service Board for their achievement in reducing the amount of waste per person per year sent to landfill.

For their efforts, the Centre and South Hastings Waste Service Board was recently awarded a gold award for their municipality waste reductions by the Recycling Council of Ontario. This honour is given to communities that send fewer than 150 kilograms of waste per person per year to landfill. I am very proud to say that the recycling program in my riding has reduced annual waste to 126.79 kilograms per person.

The award was presented in Toronto on April 23 to general manager Rick Clow. Mr Clow said, "The board has to give a lot of credit to the people of centre and south Hastings. We wouldn't have won this award without their considerable participation in the Blue Box 2000, backyard composting and household hazardous waste collection programs."

I want to congratulate Mr Clow and the employees of the Centre and South Hastings Waste Service Board and to echo my thanks to the residents of centre and south Hastings and the riding of Quinte, who continue to make our community a model for others to follow in the field of waste management.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): A press conference was held today to recognize the second anniversary of the death of Theresa Vince. Theresa Vince was murdered by her employer following at least 18 months of sexual harassment in her workplace.

Jackie Carr, Theresa Vince's daughter, was at the press conference and she described the stress and the misery of her mother's life in the year and a half before her death. You could feel the anguish of a daughter in knowing that her mother's complaints had been ignored and that if she had just been taken seriously, her life might have been saved.

In Chatham, this first week in June is Sexual Harassment Week, ordered by the inquest into Theresa Vince's death. But remembering her death will not be enough to prevent this from happening again. Jackie Carr said clearly that her mother's death should teach us that sexual harassment belongs on the continuum of sexual violence. Why, then, has the Harris government refused two years in a row to make this first week of June Sexual Harassment Week across the province? Why, when the government joined with the Human Rights Commission to launch a public awareness campaign to fight sexual harassment, did they not see fit to involve the front-line rape crisis centres in the campaign? And why was there not enough funding for this initiative to run a television campaign? This government has spent $3.5 million on its education propaganda campaign alone, but they couldn't find the money for a significant campaign against sexual harassment.

I wonder, does another woman have to die like Theresa Vince before sexual harassment will be taken seriously? Surely it is not just in Chatham that we should remember and learn from Theresa Vince's death.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It's with pleasure and pride that I rise today and acknowledge that today is Injured Workers Day. Along with my colleague from Dovercourt and our leader, Howard Hampton, we marched today with the demonstrators from the front of the Legislature over to Hart House Theatre, where we saw the first showing of a new documentary called Myths at Work, which outlines exactly this government's continuing attack on injured workers.

We know that under Bill 99, which took effect January 1 of this year, this government has cut by 5% the amount of net income that injured workers receive if they're hurt on the job. We know that you also cut by 5% the premiums your corporate friends pay into the WCB. In fact, you've changed the name itself: You've taken out the word "workers" and you've taken out the word "compensation." It cost you a million dollars just to make that name change, the same million dollars that you cut by eliminating the Occupational Disease Panel, a world-renowned panel that identified the linkages between exposures in the workplace and illnesses and fatal accidents that injured workers face. You killed that for the $1 million so that you could change the name and lay the groundwork to bring in a privatized insurance scheme for injured workers.

Injured workers were here today because they're not going to forget in the elections coming up.

IRISH PEACE ACCORD

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Periodically on the world stage an event occurs which places the spotlight on the true value of the democratic principles we too often take for granted in this great province and in this House. Democracy is a principle which was born and defended with the lifeblood of millions of men, women and children throughout the world.

On May 22, 1998, a momentous historical event occured in Ireland and Northern Ireland. The democratic process was used to bring an end to a civil war which had been raging for over three decades, which had resulted in the deaths of thousands and the wounding and maiming of countless others.

The historic vote on Friday, May 22, broke voter turnout records in Northern Ireland, with a turnout of over 81% and over 71% of them voting in favour of peace. In Ireland, an overwhelming majority of 94.4% of the voters backed the peace accord.

This peace initiative is a joyous occasion for tens of thousands of Ontarians of Irish descent who have lived in the constant fear that the lives of their families were in danger in the war zones.

I am sure every member in this House joins me in sending our congratulations and our warmest wishes to the courageous leaders of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the British government who worked so diligently to bring about this exciting new Irish peace accord.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements by the ministry? Sorry, any motions?

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Mr Agostino and Mr Colle exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business, and that, notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 14.

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

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on June 1, 2 and 3, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Mr Speaker, in compliance with the standing orders, I provided you with written notice of this earlier today. It's my understanding that is the appropriate procedure when a member feels that he or she has been somehow impeded in their duties as a member of the Legislature.

On Wednesday, May 27, 1998, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable John Snobelen, a question that goes to the heart of the events surrounding the death of Mr Dudley George at Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995. The minister referred that question to the Attorney General. The following day, in what can only be described as a premeditated attack on my character, the member for Lambton asked the Honourable John Snobelen a question about the same matter that I had asked the previous day. This time the minister chose to answer the question and he and the member used the opportunity to attack my character. The minister said in the preplanned attack that my question "had the effect of inadvertently misleading the House," "must have been extremely poorly researched," "our research would find no basis in some of the substantive parts of the question." The member for Lambton said, "The member for Scarborough Agincourt is reckless with the truth."

In my opinion, this was a deliberate plan by at least two government members to impede my ability to do my duty of raising legitimate questions about the Ipperwash affair.

To further support my case, I would like to present evidence supporting my belief it was a planned and unfair attack on me.

First, I have reviewed my question in Hansard for May 27 and I stand by every word in my question.

Second, the minister implied that the letter I referred to was some obscure letter written in 1937 that the ministry had some difficulty finding. In fact, the letter and the correspondence around it is absolutely central to the Ipperwash affair.

Exhibit 1, which I have provided to you, Mr Speaker, and will provide to the House, is a memorandum from the Attorney General's ministry from October 1996, when the government dropped 43 Ipperwash-related charges against the first nation.

I draw your attention to the fifth paragraph, which has to do with the same correspondence I was talking about. It says:

"The crown has confirmed the existence of correspondence made in 1937 between the federal Indian Affairs branch and the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests which refers to `the old Indian cemetery, which...is located within the territory now being developed as a park' (referring to what is now Ipperwash Provincial Park). This documentation gives objective support for the reasonableness and the honesty of the accused's belief.

"Further, it has been clearly indicated by the Provincial Division judges at pre-trails that this defence will succeed in all instances when it is raised," the defence that there was evidence of a burial ground.

"Accordingly, this `colour of right' defence is of sufficient significance that the crown concludes that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. The crown therefore must withdraw all forcible detainer charges."

1350

The third point I want to raise, Mr Speaker, is that Mr Snobelen said "the member for Scarborough-Agincourt...who indicated that there were some recent developments." I said no such thing. I did quote from the letter, which said, "When cleaning out the park recently, the engineer discovered an old Indian burial ground." That's from the correspondence in 1937.

The fourth point I raise is Mr Snobelen said: "This," the letter, "came to the attention of the provincial government in 1995, when the Liberal Minister of Native Affairs federally, Mr Irwin, shared it with the media. That's how it came to our attention." That's what Mr Snobelen said.

Exhibit 2, which I have provided you, shows that in fact as soon as the federal officials found the correspondence, they notified the province of its content even before they briefed the federal minister, and this is provincial evidence. This exhibit also shows that the Attorney General, Mr Harnick, discussed the matter with federal Minister Irwin a day before the federal government made a public statement. That's exhibit 2.

Further, as exhibit 3 shows, the provincial government acknowledges receiving the correspondence in 1937. It was the provincial government that was to take the action.

As you can see, Mr Speaker, this is a very serious matter. For the first time in over 100 years a first nations person is dead as a result of a land claim dispute. I ask you to review this matter of principle, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): On the same point of privilege, member for Beaches-Woodbine.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would like to add our words of support to the request for you to review this matter. I strongly believe that the actions we saw unfold in the House last week were a breach of the member's privilege and that he raises important points. I would like to add to his information some disturbing news I have just been made aware of which I think is a further breach of rights and privileges of members of this House.

You will be aware, in the standing orders, Mr Speaker, of a provision under section 124 which allows for a question to be referred to a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly for their review of up to 12 hours. Under that provision, members of the New Democratic Party caucus, members on the administration of justice committee and particularly the member for Welland-Thorold, have given notice that we would wish to proceed with a review of the Ipperwash matter at the administration of justice committee.

It has just recently been drawn to my attention that the government has chosen to refer Bill 15, a budget bill, to the administration of justice committee -

The Speaker: I am not going to say you're out of order, but I think it's a different point of order. What I'd like to do is tell the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that I will take his point of privilege under advisement and report back, and I will take yours as a different point of order. Member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Lankin: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. If I may simply continue from that point, we have been made aware that the government has referred Bill 15, a budget bill, to the administration of justice committee. As you will well know, it would have been the normal expectation of members of this Legislative Assembly that the budget bill be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

I read from the standing orders, the section that sets out the roles of committees, "Standing committee on finance and economic affairs which is empowered to consider and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the fiscal and economic policies of the province and to which all related documents shall be deemed to have been referred immediately when the said documents are tabled."

Bill 15 is a budget bill and deals with the third phase of the government's tax cut, which is indeed a fiscal and economic policy on the part of the government, and I think it is reasonable to have expected it would have been referred to the finance and economic affairs committee.

My contention is that the government, in continuing to stonewall members of this Legislative Assembly from seeking information and full review and full disclosure on the matters involved in the Ipperwash events and the death of Dudley George, has purposely blocked the hearing of the section 124 request on the Ipperwash inquiry at the committee on administration of justice.

You will know that the committee is not allowed to proceed with any section 124 request if there is government business before that committee, and it is our contention that the matter of Bill 15 has been purposely referred to that committee to once again stonewall any attempt on the part of members of this Legislative Assembly from having disclosure on the matters related to Ipperwash.

We believe this is a breach of the privilege of the members and of their rights under the standing orders, particularly with respect to 124, and that it shows further disdain on the part of the government for the members of the Legislative Assembly and for our attempts to have full disclosure on the Ipperwash issue.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, with regard to the first point of order raised by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt -

The Speaker: I've dealt with that.

Hon Mr Sterling: I also dealt with it last week and I just want to reiterate my remarks -

The Speaker: Government House leader, I looked to you just to make comments on it. You said you weren't. So it's dealt with. I'm going to receive it. Perhaps you would deal with the one before us now.

Hon Mr Sterling: Fine.

Mr Speaker, an order to send Bill 15 to the committee on administration of justice is neither unprecedented nor out of order. It's not uncommon for bills to be sent to alternative committees in this Legislature. During the third session of our last Parliament, municipal affairs and housing had four bills. They were sent to four different committees as follows: Bill 61, the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, went to the general government committee; Bill 94, the Metropolitan Toronto Reassessment Statute Law Act, went to the social development committee; Bill 163, the Planning and Municipal Statute LawAmendment Act, went to the administration of justice committee; Bill 198, the Municipal and Liquor Licensing Statute Law Amendment Act, went to the finance committee.

Time allocation motions suspend the general orders of the House and therefore their contents cannot be disputed where they contravene the general rules and practices. As you stated in your ruling of December 2, 1997: "Time allocation motions suspend the standing orders of the House. They suspend them, so whatever rules we have lived by up until this point in time, they're suspended, and inserted in their place is the time allocation order."

Sending Bill 15 to the committee on administration of justice is neither unprecedented nor out of order.

The Speaker: Frankly, I don't see it as being out of order; in fact I think it is in order. There are a million I could think of from the top of my head, examples I can cite where -

Interjection: Name them.

The Speaker: I can't name a million maybe, but certainly hundreds where you could cite examples of where committees were asked to take on certain responsibilities that may have been properly before other committees. There's no real point of order there.

Ms Lankin: Just one further point.

The Speaker: I'll certainly hear another point of order, but on the face of it I'll tell you now that there doesn't appear to be a point of order.

Ms Lankin: Thank you. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, there is one additional point I should have made in my original presentation to you, and that is that I think in the majority of these precedents you are citing - I don't have them in front of me so I'm unable to confirm that it is in all cases - the reason bills are referred to other committees is that the normal committee that would be the appropriate committee to hear that is busy with other government business. In this case it is obvious that the committee is not busy with another bill. The finance committee is free to hear that.

I would just ask if it is possible for there to be a check of the precedents when matters have been referred to other committees to see if in fact the pattern is such that it is because the obvious committee was busy with another bill at that time.

1400

The Speaker: I appreciate the point you're making, but really the matter is immaterial. The reasons are immaterial. What it comes down to is, do they have the power to do this? If the answer is yes, then it's academic why they're doing it, and I don't even want to begin to get into the heads of the government who decided to do this because there are a million reasons why they could do it - I won't name every one of those either. The fact is that they're allowed to do it, it is properly before the House and it's within the rules that we operate by. Therefore it's in order and why they do it is immaterial.

I think I had the member for Essex South.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for seniors to make a statement and then for us to reply, in that this is the first day of Seniors' Month in Ontario.

The Speaker: I don't know the rules. He's not here. Is that proper? How can he make a statement if he's not here? We haven't even got to ministry statements yet. He may be giving a statement.

Mr Crozier: Speaker, you had called for ministry statements and then the point of privilege was raised.

The Speaker: That's right. Before motions. I went back to motions. Having said that, he's here now. Why don't I just get it out of the way early? Is there unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement on Seniors' Month? Agreed?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): No.

The Speaker: No.

Hon Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate you recognized me. I just want to calm down the members opposite. Our office notified the two opposition critics that tomorrow we'd be making the formal -

The Speaker: This is not a point of order.

Ministry statements.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand that the member for Fort William, prior to my entering the House, asked for unanimous consent to make a statement to mark the second anniversary of the death of -

The Speaker: You're going over old ground.

Ms Churley: I'd like to ask again.

The Speaker: With great respect, that has been put. The fact is, it has been put for unanimous consent and it was refused.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I think it is incumbent upon me to introduce the new pages. I wish to welcome the 15th group of pages to serve in this 36th Parliament:

Michael Bos, Nepean; Sean Broda, Don Mills; Anthony Carricato, Sault Ste Marie; Nancy Dang-Vuu, Chatham-Kent; Laura Duke, Mississauga North; Jeremiah Groen, York Centre; Brett Hodgins, Simcoe East; Jackie Hougham, Durham-York; Adrienne Johnson, Scarborough East; Sharleigh Laing, Sarnia; Mary Elizabeth Murray, Brant-Haldimand; Loretta Norton, St Catharines-Brock; Jesse Rissin-Rosenfeld, High Park-Swansea; Laura Robson, Lanark-Renfrew; Jennifer Skinner, Markham; Richard Southern, Oriole; Matthew Trevisan, York-Mackenzie; Racquel Uy Lim, Scarborough-Agincourt; Lee Webb, Middlesex; Drew Wicks, Northumberland; and Adam Wilson, Ottawa South.

Welcome, and I hope you enjoy your stay.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. I am concerned about what I believe could be, if the facts as alleged are true, one of the worst incidents of conflicts of interest that this House has had to contend with in a long, long time. Can you confirm that Michael French, an individual under contract with the Ontario government to run the competition for the new Niagara casino, was, at the same time, working on a $100,000 casino contract with the eventual winner? Can you confirm that this is in fact what happened and can you tell us when your government became aware of this conflict of interest and what you have done about it?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the OCC has advised me that basically the same process was in place for the Windsor process. In fact I have a letter from the Ontario Casino Corp that talks about their process and what due diligence they have conducted around that.

The allegation that you make specifically, that was mentioned in the Toronto Star article, I believe, on Saturday, is a new allegation to me. The first time I saw it was on Saturday. A formal process was in place for all parties to declare potential conflicts of interest. I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp and their lawyers to check their records to see if this is true and if there was disclosure or if there was not disclosure. If anything improper has occurred, I can assure the House that we will look into it and see what steps to take next to remedy the situation.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, this is a very, very serious issue. This appeared in the Toronto Star on Saturday. It is unacceptable for you not to have an answer available in this Legislature today. If it was really important, you would have had that information and you would have had that answer available today. I think it's in both the greater public interest, as well as in your interest, that we have an inquiry into this matter to determine whether or not these facts as alleged are true. It appears, according to a story in the newspaper this weekend, that there was a certain gentleman who was involved in a conflict of interest here. You can rectify this. You can remedy this. You can address this in the most responsible way by agreeing to have a public inquiry. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Leader of the Opposition tries to let on that you can do government just by snapping your fingers. When we were made aware of this allegation - I've informed you that I saw it for the first time on Saturday. This morning we called the Ontario Casino Corp, as I just explained to you. We've asked that the Ontario Casino Corp and their lawyers give a report back to us to determine (a) whether it is true, and (b) what the process was and what action should happen. I've given you the assurance that if there was anything improper done, we will take the proper action.

Mr McGuinty: This issue has been on the front burner here for quite some time now. You have said throughout that there was nothing to these allegations, that they were spurious in nature, that it was an invention on the part of the opposition party. How many more of these facts do you need to float to the surface before you agree to have a public inquiry? The people of this province are now beginning to pay more and more attention to this issue. It's on your plate. We have an allegation here of a serious conflict-of-interest charge. Why don't you agree right now, because you've got nothing to hide, to hold a public inquiry that will start effective tomorrow in this Legislature so we can all get to the bottom of this?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As the Leader of the Opposition knows full well, until last Saturday all we had were innuendo and accusations, and for all I know that still could be the case with this latest allegation.

What I have done is asked the Ontario Casino Corp, which, as you know, is at arm's length from the government and conducted this process - they had a selection process. They had a review committee. They've had checks and balances in place to avoid any potential conflict of interest. What I've asked them to do, with their lawyers, is to determine if this allegation is true, and if it is true, then I've assured the House that we will take the appropriate action if there has been any impropriety occurring.

But your solution to everything is to have a public inquiry. You've asked for them about 88 times and in 13 different allegations. Let's do this the right way, and that is to ask the question to the Ontario Casino Corp: "Is it true, and did it violate any of the procedures you had in place to protect the process and protect the taxpayers of this province?"

TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. You will know that your colleague the Minister of Education has decided to deregulate tuition fees for Ontario's medical schools. Over the next two years, students will be facing tuition of somewhere between $10,000 and $11,000 a year for medical school. The Ontario Medical Association estimates that students leaving home to pursue medical school studies will face debt loads of up to $80,000 and as high as $100,000.

We already know, and you know this more so than anybody else in this Legislature, that many patients today in Ontario don't have access to doctors in this province. There are too few doctors. We also know that because of demographics with an aging and growing population, the demand for physicians in Ontario will only increase. So this issue is not simply one of accessibility to medical schools; it's one about our continuing ability to deliver quality health care to Ontarians.

My question, Minister: Do you agree with your colleague's decision to deregulate tuition fees for our medical schools, knowing what it's going to mean for health care in Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, through you, to the Minister of Education and Training.

1410

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): It is indeed the situation that we need to ensure we have the proper students coming through our universities to achieve training, to ensure that health care in Ontario continues to improve.

Through the recent flexibility we've given our universities, many of which are not exercising that authority in the first year - U of T, for example, and Queens will not be introducing any fees in their first year - we are following what other provinces have done, For example, Nova Scotia: The leader of the opposition may know that in Nova Scotia the Liberal government has had tuition fees for medical residents for a number of years. Saskatchewan is another province.

Our expectation is that since they are both students as well as assisting in the system, the universities will be very responsive in terms of charging -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, every single medical school in the province is increasing its tuition fees for its medical students, and some plan to go as high as $11,000, such as the University of Toronto medical school right across the street here.

What the Minister of Health has failed to do is to recognize that this is an issue that is connected with our ability to delivery quality health care in the province. There are over 70 communities right now in Ontario that are experiencing doctor shortages. We've got to encourage students to get into medicine, and especially, knowing that students who graduate from medical school who come from underserviced areas are more likely to return to those areas, we've got to make sure we can encourage students from underserviced areas to get into medical school. The problem is that in underserviced areas there are no medical schools. That means that when they come to the University of Toronto, they are looking at $20,000 every year to pursue medical school studies.

Once again, why are you making it more difficult for us to ensure we have a generous supply of doctors in Ontario when there is a growing need?

Hon David Johnson: Indeed we do need to ensure that all areas of Ontario are properly served by doctors. That's why this government, through the Ministry of Health, has taken initiatives in the past to encourage that there would be an adequate supply in rural areas and distant areas. Is that job finished? Can we guarantee at this exact moment in time that we have doctors in each and every rural area? No, we can't, but this government - the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education - has taken initiatives to ensure.

In terms of tuition fees, we also need to ensure a high quality of program through our universities. We are giving universities the flexibility, along with funding we've given to the universities, to ensure they have the resources to have a high-quality program such that our undergraduate students and our students in the medical field are well trained.

Mr McGuinty: The minister has got it right: It is an issue of funding and the problem is you're cutting funding to our colleges and universities. That's the issue. Now you're expecting our students to pick up the slack you've created.

It's already a very real challenge for doctors in Ontario to practise medicine. Many of them are looking south of the border longingly. A number of students who are graduating from our family practice areas in this province are looking to go to the south. There is already a real challenge before our doctors in the province today. It's already hard enough for them to get on with their jobs. Now what you are doing, effectively, is making it more difficult for us to attract young people into the practice of medicine in Ontario. Do you understand the connection? This is more than accessibility now to post-secondary studies; this is going to have a serious, negative impact on our ability to deliver quality health care in Ontario. If you understood that, why don't you agree not to allow universities to proceed with the deregulation of their fees?

Hon David Johnson: The reason is simple: It's because there's more than one issue that needs to be satisfied. There's the issue of quality. We need to ensure that the students at university, whether they're in the medical programs, whether they're in any other type of program, have access to quality programs. We have insisted - the first government which has ever taken this course of action - that where tuitions are increased, the post-secondary institution must identify a quality improvement in terms of the actual program or in terms of the facilities in which the students learn.

This government has taken action in terms of supporting doctors, encouraging them to set up practices in rural areas and underserviced areas in Ontario, and we are taking action at our post-secondary institutions to ensure a high-quality program for students coming through into the medical field.

ABORTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): To the Minister of Health, during the time I had the privilege of holding the portfolio of Minister of Health, the tragic bombing of the Morgentaler clinic took place. I held a press conference the following day to announce that we would move immediately to re-establish the clinic, that we would not allow women's access to legal abortion services to be eroded in any way.

Last month, a different bomb was dropped, not one of physical destruction but one that equally erodes women's access to abortion services. St Michael's Hospital, in taking over Wellesley, as a result of your hospital restructuring, announced that they would no longer be performing abortion services. That's 1,000 to 1,500 abortion procedures per year that will no longer be available to this community. You said nothing, Minister. The silence is deafening. Will you stand today and make it clear, very clear, for the women of this province that the Mike Harris government will protect our right to choose, that you will protect our right of access to legal abortion services and that you will not allow any erosion of service-access levels as a result of your hospital restructuring?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): All of the physicians who performed the abortion procedures had their privileges transferred to another hospital. That has taken place and is in the course of taking place.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Let's be clear: Women in this community had access to a full range of reproductive and sexual health services at the Wellesley Hospital. Now they no longer have guaranteed access because St Mike's has taken over Wellesley as the result of hospital restructuring. Women whose doctors had hospital privileges at Wellesley have had those transferred to St Michael's. If they wish to have a procedure like a tubal ligation, they have no assurance they're going to be able to have that procedure. Why should anyone other than a woman and her doctor have anything to say about whether a tubal ligation is allowed or not? St Mike's is saying you have to go through the same committee process that was deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. A woman who experienced a broken condom or, God forbid, is raped no longer has access to the morning-after pill because St Mike's won't allow it. Minister, I'm asking you directly today, will you take action to ensure that women's reproductive and sexual health services are reinstated at Wellesley?

Hon Mrs Witmer: All patients who require any of the specialized procedures or any of the specialized treatments are going to be accommodated elsewhere. It may not be at St Mike's, but certainly all of the physicians had an opportunity to determine where they would provide those services and they will be provided at other hospitals within the city of Toronto.

1420

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, this is totally unacceptable. Surely you're not saying that women are going to have to take to the streets yet again to protect the hard-won right to choose and to have access to safe, legal reproductive and sexual health services in our communities. That's the point here, and it's not just the Wellesley-St Mike's community; right across the province there's a concern that as hospital restructuring continues, there is no policy framework or direction from you to ensure that these service levels are protected no matter what happens with hospital mergers or service realignment.

In your mail today there is a letter from a Carol asking you to ensure that access to these services is not lost. The letter also asks that you "immediately put in place a policy directive that will ensure your hospital restructuring commission decisions cannot result in the loss of these critically important women's health services."

You have taken such actions to protect rural health care. Minister, will you tell us today that you will do the same for women's health?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the restructuring takes place, we have made sure that any of the specialized procedures that relate to any group of people can continue to be provided at other hospitals within Ontario. Those services, that access, will still be there. They may not be in the hospital, because it's being closed, but those services will still be provided to the patients in Ontario. In fact, when it comes to women's health, we are actually in the process of setting up a women's health council to ensure that the needs of women in this province will be reflected and the appropriate treatments can be provided.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I just want to take this opportunity to introduce, in the members' gallery, a member in the last Parliament, Dr Frankford. Welcome.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Chair of Management Board and it's a question we've been asking for over a week now: the very clear appearance of conflict of interest in your casino selection process and the impropriety that surrounds it.

Every day there is new information about the Falls Management casino consortium. We know already that all kinds of top advisers to the Conservative Party are involved and have been involved in that bid. Prominent Conservatives like David McFadden and George Boddington were involved in lobbying your government, first of all on setting up casinos, and are now part of the Falls Management casino consortium. In fact, they're going to benefit from what they lobbied for.

We know that the Falls Management casino consortium is owned in part by the Latner family. The family gave your party $48,000 before the last election.

Minister, the whole deal stinks of conflict of interest. When are you going to come clean and call a public inquiry so that people can be assured -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): As I told the leader of the third party last week - his critics were asking me the same question - the Ontario Casino Corp has advised me that they've used a similar process to the one set up under your government, basically the same as in Windsor. You have a selection team, you have a group of advisers and you have a review panel.

They've written a letter to me stating that the process is fair, and independent of any influence of any kind. They've also said that the decision that Falls Management best met all the selection criteria was unanimous. There has been no contract assigned as yet because we've been in the process of negotiations. They also talked in their letter to me about the checks and balances around the conflict of interest.

The information that came forward last week in this House is innuendo and accusation. I pointed out at the time that this family that you seem to want to make innuendoes about did a great deal of business with your government when you were in power. I don't know where you would be on that, but when it comes to facts, I can tell you that this government will be open and transparent and will try to check these things out.

Mr Hampton: The fact is that any casino selection process used in the past didn't have a Conservative fund-raiser chairing the selection committee and didn't have Conservative lobbyists on both sides of the process lobbying for a casino and then joining the consortium that gets the casino. That's the difference, Minister. Open your eyes. It's evident to everyone else.

I want to ask you about a further detail. I want to ask you about the Conservative Party's Patti Starr, Leslie Noble. We know that Leslie Noble lobbied and advised the Premier to move full scale into legalized gambling. We also know that her brother, Bill Noble, now works for Gaming Venture Group, a company owned by the Latners, which has received one of the contracts to build a permanent charity casino.

Minister, how many connections do we have to draw? How many connections do we have to draw between Conservative advisers lobbying your government on the one hand and then getting the deal on the other? By the way, that company is also controlled by the Latners. What are you going to do about this?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The leader of the third party's questions are along the same nature as the ones I answered all last week. This was an arm's-length independent process. The Ontario Casino Corp advised me of the selection panel, they had a review team. It's basically the same process that you had set up. As to your allegations about influencing the Premier, I know nothing about that.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you can devise any process you want. The trouble is, if you've got your Conservative advisers sitting on the decision-making process and the same Conservative advisers benefit from the process, it's conflict of interest, and that's as plain as day.

But I want to raise another name. This concerns Michael French. It would appear that at the same time Michael French was working for your government he was working for a business group that was lobbying your government and he was also working for another group that was running the Niagara selection process. Even Donald Trump says there is something fishy here, there's something smelly here. We also know that early on Michael French assumed a major role in deciding who would get the contract in Niagara Falls.

Is this what you mean by opening up Ontario for business: Contribute to the Conservative Party and get awarded a contract? Is this the kind of message you want to send out about how Ontario does business?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I mentioned earlier to the leader of the third party, the Ontario Casino Corp advised me that they had basically the same process that was in place when your party was in power to do Windsor.

As I answered earlier today to an earlier question, the allegation around Coopers and Lybrand is a new allegation to me. A formal process was in place for all parties to declare a potential conflict. I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp and their lawyers to check their records, and I can assure the House that if anything improper has occurred, we will take the proper action.

1430

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, you tell us on behalf of your government that you are firmly committed to obtaining full and fair compensation for all hepatitis C victims. I don't want to ask you about compensation today. I want to ask you about access to treatment.

Today I met with three hep C victims who wanted you to know that while compensation is important to them, they are even more concerned about their access to medical treatment. They told me it can take anywhere from six to eight months to get approval for the drugs that they need, and I'm sure you will agree that that is not acceptable.

You've cut red tape for business. Why won't you cut red tape for hep C victims so that they can get early access to the drugs they need?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): To the Leader of the Opposition, yes, I see here, according to your press release, that you indeed have met with this group of individuals. As you know, I had the opportunity to meet with some of the representatives of the group last week myself. In fact, I've had a letter subsequently from this group and I think you'll be pleased to know that we actually have reduced the time period required to get access to drugs. I think in here it makes reference to six months. That can now be done in about three weeks.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Minister, your government said it is committed to helping all victims of hepatitis C. You said the real issue is not one of dollars but one of compassion and humanity. People are suffering right now. They need access to drugs, access to treatment, yet so far you have refused it. I am asking for three simple things: recognize hepatitis C as a disability; cut the red tape to allow victims of hepatitis C access to the drugs they need; and set up a registry to identify hepatitis C victims.

Today in the gallery are Trisha Beadle, Susan McGuire and Janice Pillon. They know that these are things you can do right now. Will you give them your guarantee today that you will do these things?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I said in my response to the Leader of the Opposition, I have met with representatives of the hepatitis C group. In fact, I want to stress again that today our government is represented at a meeting in Edmonton where we have indicated that we would like to extend a financial assistance package to those individuals who did get hepatitis C prior to 1986.

I know that as of today we have actually said to the federal government and we have said to the other people at that table that they must take off the table for discussion the status quo, and that is that no financial assistance would be provided. We are doing this despite the fact that we have yet to hear from the federal government as to what their position is regarding any assistance for any of these individuals who received hepatitis C prior to 1986.

In response to your question, again I would indicate to you that we have already been responding to concerns -

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

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have another question for the Chair of Management Board. I wonder if the Chair of Management Board can tell me about a company called Comcare. We know that your government is privatizing health care; we know you're closing hospitals and you're turning more and more health care over to private, for-profit companies. That's where Comcare comes in. We've discovered that Comcare is owned by Dynacare, and Dynacare is owned by the Latner family, a very generous contributor to your government.

What we've also discovered is that since you've now decided to privatize home care, Comcare, a Latner company, has come up with new contracts in Lanark county, Perth, Smiths Falls, Brockville and Sarnia. So here's the list: The Latner family is involved in the Niagara casino, the charity casinos, the Dynacare medical labs, Greenwin Properties, which benefits from your changes to rent control, and now Comcare, which benefits from your privatization of home care.

Minister, if you have nothing to hide, why don't you call a public inquiry so we can get to the bottom of all your connections to the Latner family?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, I'll refer this to the Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): If the leader of the third party were to carefully take a look at the number of companies that were privatized and the number that were non-profit that were providing community care service support when they were in office, he would see that the numbers were about the same as they are today. I think it's also important to remember that we have 43 CCACs in this province. Those are community care access centres.

There are boards that support the CCACs. They are locally elected and nominated individuals. What you are doing is casting aspersions on the process that those boards - local representatives - are making, the choices they're making regarding the services that are going to be provided in the community service area. I think it's unfortunate that you would cast aspersions on the people who are making those choices.

Mr Hampton: Let me help the Minister of Health out here. You've put in a rule that says that those CCAC boards always have to take the lowest bidder, that they always have to deal with whoever happens to bid the lowest in a particular area, regardless of quality of care.

My question to you is -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: My question to you is, it certainly bothers other people in this province when they see the Latner family contributing large sums of money to your government; they see you change the medical lab policy to benefit a Latner family company; we see you turn your casino selection process inside and out to benefit one of their companies; we see the connections with the charities selection and one of their companies. Now we're also seeing it with the privatization of home care.

Minister, take the profit out of health care. Take the profit out of your campaign contributors' pockets. Will you hold a public inquiry into how your government is awarding these contracts and the apparent conflict of interest that is everywhere?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would simply respond by saying those are some very serious allegations that are being made. I personally don't know the family in question, but I can say to you that it was your government that realized there were systemic problems associated with Ontario's public and private sector lab system. It was your government that first issued some formal recommendations on changes that should be made to the laboratory system. It was your government that brought in the industry cap on lab billings. It was your government that recognized that lab billing could not go unchecked.

It was also your government, as well as the Liberal government, who have been dealing with the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories, and it was that association that has been giving governments support and advice and input. It was that association that early last year indicated the consideration of a corporate cap. That cap -

The Speaker: New question.

AMATEUR SPORT

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. As the House is aware, I think everyone knows, my kids are involved in minor hockey and minor ball in Huron county, and I am very concerned about sports in Ontario.

There has been quite a bit of excitement and interest, understandably so, of late related to the Toronto Olympic bid. As all honourable members will know, the Canadian Olympic Association approved Toronto's proposal to become the Canadian candidate city for the 2008 Olympic Games back in April. The Premier was part of the team that made the successful presentation to the Canadian Olympic Association.

In my area of southwestern Ontario, there is a great deal of excitement about the London Alliance Canada Summer Games. Can the minister give us an indication of what role the province has in making these games a success?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): First of all, thank you for the question, because I want to point out that the Premier's leadership in making the bid in Calgary for the Olympic Games in 2008 opens the door to all sorts of possibilities for job creation all across the province, as well as economic development in general, as well as probably leaving us a legacy of sports facilities at the end of it.

Those same assets will be transferred to the London Alliance games, because in 2001 we are going to have in southwestern Ontario the tremendous summer games. Jobs will be created, there will be a legacy probably left of the facilities that will be built, and the province in general, but particularly southwestern Ontario, will be greatly enhanced economically, as well as putting it on the map.

1440

Our government has put in, and the Honourable Minister Dianne Cunningham gave on the part of me and for the province -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary. Thank you. We'll go for the supplementary.

Mrs Johns: As my supplementary, concerns were highlighted about safe and harassment-free sports at the Canadian Hockey Association meeting in Quebec City in the last few weeks. Dealing strongly and effectively on this sort of matter is a priority for my family and families that participate in sports all over Ontario.

What is your ministry doing to bring awareness to this matter and how is the government showing leadership in this area of safe, secure activities for our youth?

Hon Ms Bassett: First of all, this is an area of prime concern for our government and I thank the Canadian Hockey Association for highlighting it at this time.

The ministry is working through the provincial sports organizations to send out the message that we will absolutely have zero tolerance on sexual harassment in sports. We are working with our partners and we want to develop further partnerships to make sure that we get this message out. To do this we are distributing a video called Good Sports Don't Hurt, Harassment Does. We are producing a guide to assist Ontario's sports administrators in screening applicants for paid and volunteer positions, and that's in the process right now. We're providing the provincial sports organizations with resources such as model policies, videos and training materials to deal with sexual harassment and policy development.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Today doctors from around the province visited with the three parties in the Legislature and told us that they've come to ask for quality care because it's been taken away in this province. One of the reasons is the slashing and cutting you've done to this province's hospitals. Your funding cuts are directly responsible for lowering the standard of care: longer waiting lists and elective surgery being cancelled.

The Ontario Hospital Association said to you two weeks ago that the situation is getting worse, that the deficits at hospitals this year could be as high as $506 million. The banks may not even be willing to finance the money that hospitals need.

Minister, will you, in front of the doctors who have come today to see whether there is any leadership at Queen's Park, promise to admit your mistake, put funds back into hospitals in this province and ensure we can have the quality health care services for the patients that doctors want to give to them?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I'm not sure if you're indicating that doctors have asked you to make that plea or not. I had an opportunity myself today to meet with the doctors.

Certainly I want to emphasize the fact that we have had a committee set up with the physicians called the Physician Services Committee. It is a committee that moves together to ensure we can provide high-quality patient services to people in this province. There has been a commitment made by the Ministry of Health to work with health care providers such as physicians to ensure that we can provide high-quality health services. We also continue to meet with the Ontario Hospital Association, and as I have said before, when there are situations in hospitals that require attention and require the additional resources, as you know, we are making a response. Part of that response was to make an additional $225 million available to respond -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: Why would you have to be asked by doctors to ask the question? They want the question to be asked on behalf of their patients.

Minister, they know the question has to be put because this year, when you were faced with an emergency room crisis, you waited 10 weeks to even announce a response. What your deputy minister did was send a memo, and I have it here, around to hospitals reminding them that they should be cancelling elective surgery to compensate for your lack of dollars and to make sure people weren't sleeping overnight day after day in emergency room hallways.

I want to cite one case in a Scarborough hospital of a woman who miscarried, who tried to have the foetus removed not once but twice. She was going to be turned away until we intervened to have it happen. Elective surgeries have been cancelled all over this province to accommodate your random slashing. It's on behalf of patients like that that I ask you, will you put adequate funds back into hospitals to ensure patients can be properly treated?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, there is sometimes great liberty taken with some of the facts, so let's make one thing clear.

Dr Dennis Psutka in the Globe and Mail, February 4, 1998, made it clear that: "Overflowing hospital emergency rooms are nothing new and should not be attributed to health care restructuring."

The reality is that our government was the first one to courageously take action to respond to emergency room overcrowding. With the Ontario Hospital Association we set up a task force. The task force was composed of representatives from -

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Speaking of liberties with the truth.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Renfrew North, you must withdraw that comment.

Mr Conway: I'm happy to withdraw it if the minister withdraws the same phrase.

The Speaker: The first thing is to withdraw it.

Mr Conway: I will happily withdraw if the minister -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister, I didn't hear it but you have your choice to withdraw it or not.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I said "liberty with the facts."

The Speaker: Frankly, I see it as the same thing so I would ask you to withdraw it.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'd be happy to if it pleases you.

The Speaker: It's got nothing to do with pleasing me; it's just a matter of withdrawing it.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I withdraw.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister of Tourism, come to order. I don't want to have a debate about it. I see it as the same thing, so it's academic at this point what you think. Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'm happy to withdraw that.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Continuing with the discussion around the emergency room, our government was the very first government to actually respond to the problems that had been there for 10 to 15 years. There was a task force that was set up and the task force made a report. They reported in the morning, and by the afternoon our government responded by indicating that we were prepared to invest $225 million in order to provide for an interim 1,700 long-term-care beds; money into home care services so that patients could be released from hospitals and get the support; money into hospitals so they could open additional hospital beds when there was overcrowding; and money to support critical care and emergency room nurses.

One more point: We are investing this year in hospitals $7.8 billion, and this is an increase of $534 million. We're spending more on health than ever in the history of this province.

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Ma question est au procureur général. Comme vous le savez, dernièrement je vous ai posé une question dans cette Assemblée traitant de la Loi 108. J'ai produit une opinion juridique du Conseil législatif de l'Ontario qui dit que vous ne protégez pas les services juridiques en français qui sont transférés aux municipalités. Vous avez nié cette opinion juridique en disant que votre amendement donnait garantie législative aux francophones vis-à-vis leurs services en français. J'ai ici deux opinions juridiques : la première de Racicot Maisonneuve Labelle et Cooper, écrite par M. Labelle, et la deuxième de Genest Murray DesBrisay Lamek de Toronto, écrite par M. Paul Rouleau, qui disent que votre amendement ne protège pas les services en français. Combien d'opinions juridiques est-ce que ça vous prend, Monsieur le Procureur général, pour admettre que votre amendement ne protège pas les droits des francophones en Ontario ?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): In the context of Bill 108, I can only point out what a number of groups I've been dealing with have indicated about our proposal to deal with French-language rights in Bill 108. ACFO has told us, and it's quite encouraging to note, that linguistic rights and basic principles of law will be preserved when Ontario municipalities are transferred the responsibility for lawsuits and some provincial infractions.

They go on to say, "Now, with the proposed modification to Bill 108, municipalities will have to respect certain principles concerning the administration of justice. This modification protects the linguistic rights included in the transfer. ACFO is very pleased. We say kudos to the Ontario government and we thank AJEFO."

The association of francophone municipalities has this to say: "The revisions discussed and agreed to by all participants on April 21 will further reassure those who may not have been convinced of the commitment of the government to linguistic rights.... The board of directors and member municipalities urge the Ontario government and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed as soon as possible with third reading of Bill 108 within the new session."

1450

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

M. Bisson : Monsieur le Procureur général, c'est clair : toutes les opinions juridiques qui ont été données disent que vous ne protégez pas les droits des francophones. C'est clair. C'est soit (a) que vous êtes complètement incompétent, et vous êtes incapable d'écrire un amendement qui protège des services juridiques francophones, ou (b) que vous savez parfaitement bien que votre amendement ne protège pas les services juridiques pour francophones, et vous faites de la politique avec nos droits, sachant que des gens de votre caucus qui sont proches du Parti réformiste veulent éroder les services des francophones. Quelle est votre réponse ? Est-elle (a) que vous êtes incompétent, ou (b) que vous êtes en train de nous passer un sapin ?

Hon Mr Harnick: Let me tell you what the francophone jurists have told me. They say:

"This is a compromise which, in my opinion, benefits all parties. The government ensures respect for the basic principles of justice and for language rights by municipalities interested in signing an agreement with the Attorney General. The Franco-Ontarian community will benefit from the fact that in Ontario, language rights are associated with statutory and common law rights.

"I would like to thank you for the successful result we have achieved. By protecting existing language rights in this way as part of the transfer to Ontario municipalities of prosecution responsibilities with respect to certain provincial offences and certain federal contraventions, you are the first government to clearly specify the right to a French-speaking municipal prosecutor. I am also pleased that the wording used will ensure the delivery of counter services in French....

"Finally, I would like to thank you for your personal intervention in this matter and for your suggestions which allowed us to protect language rights, which are so important to our Canadian identity. I am very happy that we were able to work together to amend this bill in so positive a manner."

That's what the association of francophone jurists says. Certainly they are satisfied, and the method that we've used extends French services in a way that they never did when they were the government.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, the issue of graduated licensing has been highlighted in the media recently and is a concern to the people in my constituency.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Cochrane South, come to order.

Mr Ford: It was designed to cut down on the risks that new drivers face. As I understand it, before 1994, new drivers of all ages were three times more likely to be involved in a serious or fatal crash than experienced drivers. Also, collisions were the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 16 and 24 years. Minister, can you tell this House and my constituents what our new drivers must do to obtain driving privileges?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I thank the member for Etobicoke-Humber for the question. It is true that graduated licensing was introduced in 1994. Indeed the member for York Mills was lobbying for a full two years before that for this very worthwhile program.

Under the GLS, all new drivers will have at least 20 months' driving experience and have passed two driver exams prior to becoming fully licensed. In the G1, or first stage of the licensing process, new drivers must be accompanied by a licensed driver with four years' driving experience, have a zero blood alcohol level, refrain from driving between midnight and 5 am, have a seatbelt for all backseat passengers and are prohibited from driving on 400-series highways and other high-speed highways.

To pass the G2 stage, drivers must pass the basic road test. New drivers will remain in G2 for 12 months and continue to build on their driving knowledge. These new drivers must also have a zero blood alcohol level and must have a seatbelt for every person in the car. I'm pleased to say that death, injuries and collisions among novice drivers have declined significantly since the introduction of graduated licensing.

Mr Ford: Minister, I know my constituents will be glad to hear that graduated licensing has been working. However, could you please provide me with some more details on the interim evaluation of graduated licenses? How much safer are our new drivers?

Hon Mr Clement: The statistics, which are very exciting for those who are concerned about safety, are a matter of public record. I can tell the honourable member that the overall collision rate for novice drivers under GLS has improved by 31%; fatality and injury collision rates are down by 24%. The collision rate for novice drivers between the ages of 20 and 24 saw a dramatic decrease, with a 38% decrease in collisions for male drivers and a 49% decrease in collisions involving female drivers.

The benefits, if I can make this final comment, for GLS means that there are safer roads for all drivers. It also means 900 fewer visits to emergency rooms, 2,000 fewer days in the hospital for collision victims, 800 fewer ambulance calls and 13,000 fewer hours of police time required to investigate collisions. I believe that this is an important fact for Ontario. I thank the honourable member for the question.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. In view of the comments made earlier by my colleague from York South in regard to the cuts and deficits the hospitals are facing, we've added to the crisis in Hamilton-Wentworth with an extensive backlog in the area of orthopaedic surgery. Some doctors I've spoken to in the Hamilton area report waiting lists of up to three years for joint replacement surgery, up to 400 individuals on those waiting lists. Dr Frank Smith, a prominent Hamilton physician, says, "We're now reaching the point that we're not able to cope with the enormous burden."

We're talking about senior citizens here. We're talking about individuals to whom access to surgery makes a difference between being confined to their homes or being able to function fully and properly in the community. Minister, I ask you, in view of the difficulties we're facing, will you today commit to increased funding for hospitals in the Hamilton area to clear up the backlog and ease the burden of many of the senior citizens who are waiting for the surgery?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): One of the reasons we're reforming our health care system is so that we can address the needs of the aging population. The aging population requires a greater expenditure of health care dollars, and we have identified the fact that there are some priority areas that need our attention and we have been reinvesting dollars. Priority areas are cardiac care, cancer care, hip and knee replacement, and of course dialysis.

We have been making announcements over the past couple of years. We have reinvested a total of $3 billion. We will continue to ensure that those priority services are there for the individuals who need them and we will endeavour to reduce those waiting lists to the greatest degree possible.

Mr Agostino: The problem becomes that you continue to make announcements - Minister Wilson made announcements, you have made announcements - but the money is not flowing. It is not reaching the level where patients are going to benefit from this. Very clearly, you can understand that a three-year waiting list for surgery for a 70- or 75-year-old senior citizen who is confined to a bed or to a home is unacceptable anywhere in this country, particularly in Ontario.

Minister, the announcements sound good. The feel-good press releases help. The reality at the end of the day is that seniors and people who are waiting for surgery are not benefiting because the money is not flowing and the cuts that have been made are far too deep.

I saw an individual in my office on Friday who has been waiting in excruciating pain for six months. She must take painkillers every four hours, every single day, because of the pain. It's been three months and she is still to get a date for this type of surgery. You can understand the impact.

Specifically, can you tell me how much money will be allocated to Hamilton-area hospitals to clear up the backlog in orthopaedic surgery, and when will that money start flowing?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I can appreciate the situation that people in this province face when they require hip and knee surgery. It is for that reason that recently, when I made the most recent announcement concerning additional money for hip and knee surgery, we set up a patient registry system in order that all future reinvestments could be directed and targeted to the areas of Ontario where individuals are most in need of this surgery and where we can reduce the waiting list to the greatest degree possible.

This registry was greeted with tremendous support from the surgeons who are involved in this type of surgery and from the physicians, so I hope that we can address the concerns of those individuals you speak about.

1500

TIRE RECYCLING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Last March with great fanfare you stated that the tires buried in Egremont township would be removed and recycled when the weather got better. As of 11:30 this morning, you still had not lived up to this promise. But what is worse is that your ministry has indicated, and I have a letter here stating this, "that the groundwater is severely contaminated with carcinogenic substances and that the aquifer may become contaminated."

Minister, it sounds like you may be removing the tires, but you're leaving the toxic sludge and toxic water. When removing the tires, they're going to dig a pit next to the tire site, draining the water into the new pit, removing the tires and then putting the toxic water back into the original pit, with the hope that these contaminants will break down naturally.

We're talking about toxic sludge and toxic water here. Will you commit today to remove the toxic water and the toxic sludge before the aquifer is contaminated?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I am taking the advice of my technicians and my scientists with regard to the treatment of this particular matter. They have assured me that whatever method they choose will take care of the problem that is there, a problem which incidentally was created because a previous minister wouldn't take some aggressive action with regard to the removal of these tires. That happened in the last administration.

Ms Churley: Minister, you are aware that that was an urgent situation and that was a recommendation from the local area at the time. We're talking about the present situation. It is your responsibility to clean it up.

I want to talk to you about a resurgence of tire fires in Ontario in general. Many people are suggesting that this is a direct result of a lack of enforcement by your ministry, most particularly due to the massive cuts you've made. But there are many of these ticking time bombs across the province. The residents of Brantford know this all too well. I'm sure you're familiar with the Otterwood Tire site in Brantford. There was a fire at this site last December. There are well in excess of 5,000 tires on the site. The owner does not even have a certificate of approval, nor has he applied for one. The first order against the company was given on October 15, 1997.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Ms Churley: Minister, they are out of compliance. When are you going to accept responsibility for the tire sites across the province and bring in legislation to deal -

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Riverdale. Minister.

Hon Mr Sterling: The collection of tires and the problems related to that have long been ongoing in this province. We are at the present time looking at various options to deal with this long-festering problem.

With regard to individual sites, I understand there are significant problems in Brantford. My ministry issued an order last December but ran into some difficulties with regard to that. I am, however, attempting to deal with this in a more generic manner so that we will have the powers and the laws and the regulations behind us in order to deal with these in a more aggressive manner.

I'm amazed that the previous government and governments before this time have not given environmental officers the tools they need in order to enforce the laws we have in place.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: My hope is that this Legislature, with the help of the opposition parties, will give our environmental officers the necessary tools to deal with people who are collecting tires illegally and not taking care of -

The Speaker: New question. Member for Durham-York.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. I read a report describing a resolution coming from the recent NDP convention. It indicated the need to end funding cuts imposed on programs to combat violence against women.

Minister, you were in my riding recently when we presented funds to a local coalition of women's groups. Help me with this. Could you please clarify for my constituents and the members of this House the degree to which this government is committed to combating violence against women?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): It seems that a lot of people must have seen that resolution at the NDP convention, but the fact of the matter is - and I think that the NDP caucus here at Queen's Park understands because they've been working with us in many regards to make this a priority for the government - we actually do spend more money. We spend more than the $100 million that was there when we first became the government.

But I think the most important part of that is that we're focusing on delivery of programs and so there has been a rearrangement of the money to put it into front-line programs as opposed to administration, some 30 programs across nine ministries. In addition to the $100 million, we of course are spending $27 million over the next five years.

We appreciate the assistance that we've had from over 500 groups and individuals who let us know where their priorities were, and this is definitely a priority for our government, as it was for governments previous to us. We're spending more money on violence against women in Ontario.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we are concerned about the quality of health care in Ontario;

"Whereas we do not believe health care should be for sale;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is taking steps to allow profit-driven companies to provide health care services in Ontario;

"Whereas we won't stand for profits over people;

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

I add my signature to this petition.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): This afternoon I had the chance to attend an event organized and supported by injured workers, together with my leader and the member for Hamilton Centre, and I have this petition to present.

"Whereas the Harris Conservative government's Bill 99 has cut benefits and stripped rights from injured workers; and

"Whereas the government's new deadline for appeals of WCB cases threatens to deprive thousands of injured workers of any opportunity for justice; and

"Whereas injured workers and their supporters have set aside June 1 of each year to rally support for the cause of justice for injured workers; and

"Whereas this cause of justice will not be achieved until Bill 99 is repealed;

"Therefore, we call on the Legislature of Ontario to repeal Bill 99, restore fair benefits and a fair appeal system and undertake a complete reform of the system to finally achieve justice for injured workers."

I've affixed my signature to that as well.

ABORTION

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I present this petition on behalf of 700 of my constituents.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I've got a petition here that reads like this, and it is directed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario has committed the government of Ontario to enacting an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office;

"Whereas the expiry of the government of Ontario's current term of office is fast approaching;

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario has further committed the government of Ontario to working with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, to develop such legislation;

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has unanimously passed a resolution that it keep its promise to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office and that the government of Ontario work with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, to develop such legislation; and

"Whereas the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, of which Bloorview MacMillan Centre is a supporting member, has provided to the government of Ontario the document A Blueprint for a Strong and Effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which contains many examples of barriers experienced by people, including children and young adults, with disabilities; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario committed in its 1998 budget address to supporting people with disabilities through a variety of measures, including the creation of an Ontarians with Disabilities Act;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, of Bloorview MacMillan Centre, a family-centred rehabilitation facility serving Ontario's children and youth with disabilities and special needs and their families, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately act on its commitment to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office and, in doing so, include effective means to eliminate barriers experienced by children and young adults with disabilities and special needs and their families, and also to involve the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, including children and young adults with disabilities and special needs and their families, in developing such legislation."

I will affix my signature in full agreement with this petition.

1510

PROTECTION OF HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by many people from Grey and Bruce counties.

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly which I'd like to read.

"Whereas the Minister of Education intends on taking more than $1 billion out of Ontario's education system at a time when there is an increasing consensus on the importance of supporting our schools and classrooms; and

"Whereas per pupil funding in the province of Ontario now ranks below other jurisdictions such as Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri and Nebraska; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now embarked on an advertising campaign which will cost the taxpayers of Ontario over $1 million; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris commercial doesn't constitute an important public announcement and instead is clearly an abuse of public funds, because they are self-serving political messages which are designed to influence public opinion; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government could cancel the advertising campaign and use the $1 million which belongs to the taxpayers of Ontario for the purchase of 40,000 textbooks;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris government to cancel their blatantly partisan, self-serving political advertising campaign and redirect the taxpayers' $1 million to classroom funding."

I concur with the content of the petition and I will affix my name to it.

ABORTION

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy to sign this petition.

NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads:

"Whereas nursing is key to quality health care; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to provide high-quality care; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be heard and consulted on health care issues; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be recognized and treated as equals in the health care system; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to have meaningful participation in all aspects of health care reform; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be advocates for their communities and the people they care for without fear of reprisal; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to work in settings that are free from harassment and discrimination and that nurture learning, diversity, personal growth, job satisfaction and mutual support; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to work in conditions that promote and foster professionalism and teamwork; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to deliver care in an integrated, publicly funded, not-for-profit health care system that is grounded in the principles of the Canada Health Act;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to honour, promote and respect the nurses' bill of rights as outlined above and to ensure that these rights are enshrined in all aspects of health care."

I have attached my name to that petition.

HOME CARE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 1,127 signatures collected by Lorraine Fines from the town of Orangeville. It's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas sufficient new funds have not been allocated from the province to provide the quality and quantity of services offered by the community care access centre of Wellington-Dufferin, thereby resulting in a change to the eligibility criteria and the decision by the CCAC not to include homemaking services to the disabled, frail and elderly as an insured service, and decreasing the amount of support and relief services available for relatives and others who provide care for an individual at home;

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

"Increase the funds allocated for health care in Wellington-Dufferin in order for the community care access centre to support individuals to remain in their home by reinstating homemaking services to the disabled, frail and elderly; reinstating caregiver support in the form of respite services back to 60 hours per month as provided by the former home care agency."

I have placed my signature on this document.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here about a matter which really concerns Ontarians, and that's the fact that the rules have been reformed so there's less debate about a very important matter. I'll just read this petition:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care and quality education; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has passed new legislative rules which have eroded the ability of both the public and the media to closely scrutinize the actions of the Ontario government; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now reduced the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its rule changes, has diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead has chosen to concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to withdraw his draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I support this resolution and I have signed it.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I wish to present a petition signed by Catholic ratepayers from my riding.

"Whereas the provincial government is planning to make significant changes to the delivery and governance of education in this province; and

"Whereas we as parents believe that school councils should play an important role in education with clearly defined responsibilities, limited to their particular school communities; and

"Whereas we as ratepayers are extremely disturbed that consideration is being given to abolish school boards and eliminate decision-making by locally elected representatives,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the present structure of school boards within the province of Ontario continue to have a major role in governance of the schools to deal with broad policies as advocates for the students in their community, to provide cost-efficient educational services and to be directly accountable to the parents and local ratepayers."

I sign this petition.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition with respect to education advertising.

"Whereas per pupil funding in the province of Ontario now ranks below other jurisdictions, such as Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri and Nebraska; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now embarked on an advertising campaign which will cost the taxpayers of Ontario over $1 million; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government could cancel the advertising campaign and use the $1 million which belongs to the taxpayers of Ontario for the purchase of 40,000 textbooks;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris government to cancel their blatantly partisan, self-serving political advertising campaign and redirect the taxpayers' $1 million to classroom funding."

I'm pleased to affix my signature, along with dozens of my constituents, to this particular petition, which we think is in the best interests of the province of Ontario.

1520

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government continues to chronically underfund and cut public sector expenditures to pay for a 30% tax cut; and

"Whereas we believe these cuts have greatly reduced the ability of the public sector to deliver the quality of services all Ontarians expect in health, education, environment, law enforcement and all other services expected from a government to create a just society;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario be dissolved and a general election be called immediately."

OPPOSITION DAY

TUITION FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe there is unanimous consent for me to move the motion that has been tabled in the name of Mr McGuinty.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? There is unanimous consent.

Mrs McLeod: I move that:

Whereas Mike Harris is responsible for a 60% increase in tuition fees on top of the 50% increase under the previous NDP government; and

Whereas students are already graduating with $28,000 debts; and

Whereas tuition deregulation will cause tuition fees to soar and debt loads to skyrocket; and

Whereas Mike Harris has not just raised tuition fees, he has also forced students to take on more and larger loans and has told families they will have to contribute more; and

Whereas the Mike Harris cuts to colleges and universities are the deepest of any jurisdiction in North America over the last two years; and

Whereas Mike Harris has prevented students from earning their own way by cutting back on the amount of money they can earn in a year and by cutting back on the amount of earnings they can make through summer jobs programs; and

Whereas Mike Harris student debt load levels are already too high; and

Whereas students and their families are already experiencing "sticker shock" at the high cost of these programs; and

Whereas no student in Ontario should be denied the opportunity to get a degree or diploma;

Resolved that the government listen to the students, professors and financial institutions who say that debt levels are already unmanageable; and

Resolved that the government adopt the Dalton McGuinty commitment to freeze tuition fees and halt opportunity-killing tuition deregulation; and

Resolved that the government stop forcing students into greater debt to make up for the Harris cuts to universities and colleges in Ontario.

We've chosen to focus debate today on the growing disaster of high tuition and soaring levels of student debt. There is a crisis in post-secondary education today, a crisis facing the young people who want the opportunity to go on to college and university, but who know that their families can't support them and know that getting a post-secondary education is going to mean years and years of being burdened with debt after graduation.

There are a number of facts that have led to this crisis, and I just want to underline those today.

The first fact is that under the previous New Democratic Party government there was a 50% increase in tuition and the cost to students; the student's share of the cost of an education continued to grow. It is interesting that now the New Democrats are no longer in government they appear to have gone back to believing in zero tuition, but that belief seemed to have been set aside while they were sanctioning a 50% increase in tuition as a government.

The second fact is that this Mike Harris Conservative government, which promised that a slight increase in tuition would be part of their election platform, has actually sanctioned nothing less than a 60% increase in tuition over the term of their government, a 60% increase in tuition across the board. That has meant that the student's share of the cost of education has now risen to some 35%. In some institutions in this province, the student's share of the cost of education has reached 50%.

There once was set out in writing a Mike Harris Conservative Party belief that a fair share for students was 25% of the cost of education. But it seems that that belief has been excised from any document or they'd like to excise it from any document bearing the stamp "Common Sense Revolution" because that is one of the unkept promises that this government would like to forget about.

The third fact is that it wasn't enough for the Mike Harris government to sanction a 60% increase in tuition across all programs, undergraduate, graduate and professional; they decided they would bring in deregulation, the second province in the country to allow deregulation. Nova Scotia, the only other province that has deregulated tuition fees, has the highest tuition of any province in this country. We are second and we will soon surpass them because this government has seen fit to deregulate graduate programs and many professional programs.

What we're already seeing is that decision to deregulate, to allow institutions in these particular areas of deregulated programs to charge whatever they think the market will bear to their students, that freedom, that flexibility which the minister described as having been given to the institutions, is going to mean increases in tuition in some programs as high as 120%.

What that means is that government-owed debt, the debt owed to government, whether provincial, federal or to the university, for a student who wants to go to medical school at the University of Toronto, could well be as high as $81,000. That does not include private debt and it doesn't include the debt which apparently those medical school students who become graduates and go into residency programs will have to incur to pay this idea of tuition on their residency programs. Amazing that the University of Toronto has decided it wants its medical residents to pay back their student loans even while they continue to pay tuition for their residency programs. The Harris government has nothing at all to say about that. They want to wash their hands of any responsibility for what colleges and universities do in these deregulated programs.

The fourth fact is that the Harris government has washed its hands of ensuring that debt loads for students remain manageable. They have allowed "the sky's the limit" increases in the deregulated programs. They've sanctioned a 60% increase in other programs. The only commitment that they require from universities and colleges in the deregulated programs is to ensure that the college or university itself lends the student more money and puts in place some kind of repayment plan to get that money back from the students when they graduate, a repayment plan which is supposedly going to be sensitive to income.

That at least is consistent with what the Harris government has always claimed was their answer to soaring tuition and increased debt, that they would put in place something called an income-contingent repayment plan so they would assure students that if you were going to have large debts you wouldn't need to worry because you would only have to repay those debts as your income after graduation allowed it. Of course what that really means is that students will have more debt, they will pay more interest on the debt because all their government is really doing is allowing them to take longer to repay the debt if they don't have a good-paying job immediately after graduation.

That is hardly an answer for students and is certainly not a way of keeping debt manageable. But this government couldn't even get that plan off the ground because the banks that were approached to work with them on their new student assistance loan repayment plan said: "We won't participate. We won't participate because the student debt load is already too high."

In Nova Scotia, where they had an income-contingent repayment plan to deal with the high debt loads of their highest tuition in the country, the bank that was responsible for administering that has withdrawn from the program because student debt load is so high that the student was too big a risk for the banks to be a lender and to manage that loan after graduation. The bank said: "The debt was too high. We're not prepared to work with you, government, to get into your income-contingent repayment plan." The banks also said: "There are already too many lenders. It's too confusing. You can't have a good debt management plan for a student and for graduates from our colleges and universities because they owe money to the province and they owe money to the federal government."

1530

What did this government do in answer to the bank's concern? They added to the debt with deregulated tuition and they got another lender, the college or university itself, into the business of lending money. This government basically took its traditional approach. They said, "We can't solve the problem so we will just dump it on to the institutions and we will leave the burden of that debt on the students themselves."

Of course, this government did not wash its hands of any further responsibility for helping students manage reasonable debt until it had already taken a whack at the existing student assistance program. This is a government and a minister who want to brag about having a so-called new plan for student assistance. It was a part of the budget that was highlighted. But in fact there is no new Ontario government plan for student assistance. This government had the sheer gall to take the dollars that are currently in the student assistance plan in Ontario and roll them in under the umbrella of what was a welcome federal government initiative, their millennium scholarship fund. But all this government did was buy into the name of a program which was welcome. They didn't put any new money into it.

When the Minister of Education talks about 300 million new dollars into the new student assistance plan, they aren't new dollars at all. That $300 million that the minister talks about is the same $300 million that three months ago this government took out of the loan forgiveness plan and put into something which they now call a grant: exactly the same money; no more assistance for students. In fact this government, in the meantime, has dismantled the student assistance program and the support that has been provided traditionally to Ontario students bit by bit.

They have raised the level to qualify for loan forgiveness or for what is now called a grant, which means more debt for students; $1,000 more debt per year that this government sanctions before they will provide any relief for students at all, and of course that means less cost for government even though it means more debt for students. They made students dependent on their families for support for an extra year before they can get any assistance at all; again, more debt for families and less cost to government.

This government decreased the amount of money that students are allowed to earn without its affecting the assistance they can get from the Ontario student assistance plan. Again, that let the Harris government make cutbacks in student assistance funding but left students with even more debt. This government then decided it would save even more money by simply cutting part-time students out of student assistance altogether and it forced single parents on welfare to go into debt to get even a chance at a post-secondary education.

What does this mean to individuals? It means that besides the fact that there is less cost for government, less responsibility for the Mike Harris Conservatives and a lot more debt for students, many young people, many single parents, many adults who want to improve their employment possibilities by getting a post-secondary education simply won't go to college or university. It doesn't matter how much you tell them that they will be able to improve their employment possibilities and pay back their debts after graduation, people are afraid to take on debts that range from $25,000 to $100,000.

I just recently had a letter from a young woman who is 25 years old, a graduate of a four-year program here in Ontario, now working in a fairly low-paying job teaching in Saskatchewan and believing that she now faces personal bankruptcy because she simply can't begin to make the repayments on her Ontario student loan. She does not want to be a bad citizen, she doesn't want to be a defaulter, she doesn't want to be a bad credit risk. She wants to teach, she wants to contribute, and instead of that she has been put in a position of facing a future of debt. People will not take on that kind of risk of debt.

I was at Yorkdale Secondary School, an adult education centre, last week talking with people who are about to graduate from that program. They are devastated because these people, many of them single parents who've gone back to get their secondary school diploma in the hope that they can improve their situation through education, know that the door has been shut to them on a post-secondary education in Ontario.

Now we have deregulation, which means a two-tiering of our post-secondary education system so that some programs in some schools are going to be accessible only to those who can afford them. We are going to have a two-tiering of our institutions, with those universities and colleges that believe they can charge higher fees and still attract students coming to be better funded than those that can't, particularly universities in more remote locations. Then we are going to have the kind of two-tiering that says we have some colleges and universities available to those who can afford the best and we are going to have other colleges and universities for the rest.

We successfully managed to confront and to avoid the two-tiering of education in this province right up until the time that this Mike Harris Progressive Conservative government - hardly progressive at all - decided it would set aside the values and goals that have always been the hallmark of Ontario education, elementary and secondary and post-secondary education, and allow the market to dictate who would have an opportunity to get that invaluable educational opportunity.

We know that colleges and universities are cash-strapped after $400 million in cuts and after a budget that provided only a very few dollars to a very few selected programs. We know that we are 10th and last across the country in the funding of post-secondary education. But the answer is not to make up for the cuts on the backs of students. The answer is not to put signs on the doors of some of our colleges and our universities saying they are for the rich only. The answer is not to drive a generation of students deeper and deeper into debt. The answer is not to have the lowest funding and the highest tuition of any province in this country.

That is why we call on this government to listen to the students, the professors, the financial institutions, the families who say that debt levels are already unmanageable and are going to deprive their young people, students of this province, of the opportunity to pursue the college or university program of their choice; to adopt Dalton McGuinty's commitment to freeze tuition fees to stop the opportunity-killing deregulation of tuition; to stop and take time to determine what is fair and affordable as a share for students to pay for their education and to ensure that we have a student assistance plan in place to protect students from being ridden with debt for years after their graduation.

That is the purpose of our motion today, and we trust it will have the support of all members of the House who truly believe that post-secondary education is an opportunity that should be available to every qualified student.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to support the resolution this afternoon because I am particularly concerned about the very serious level of student debt already in this province, considering that this province, admittedly due to cuts from all three parties when they were in government, is now the lowest on a per capita basis for funding of post-secondary education of all provinces in this country. It has gone progressively down in terms of funding. When the Liberal government was in power, Ontario was eighth in funding; under the New Democratic Party government Ontario was ninth in funding per student; and under this government, the Conservative government, we are now 10th on a per capita basis in terms of funding post-secondary education.

How is it that we in Ontario, the richest province, the province that has between 30% and 40% of the economy of the whole country, that has a population of about 12 million people, that has enormous wealth of resources, are the last in per capita student expenditure for post-secondary education in this country? How is it that we lag behind Atlantic Canada or the Prairies?

Partly because we are so low in per capita expenditure for post-secondary education, governments of all three parties have allowed a higher percentage of the cost of each student's post-secondary education to be paid for by the student or his or her family through tuition fees.

You will know that our party has recently gone through an exercise that we have called Dialogue for Change. We have dealt with many policy areas, put out discussion papers and had grass-roots discussions with people right across the province, not just members of our own political party but also people with interests in various policy areas right across Ontario, and have come forward with proposals for policy initiatives in these areas that were recently debated at our party convention in Hamilton and were passed.

1540

One of those discussion papers in the policy area that I'm most concerned with was to do with education. It was entitled Not for Sale: the Future of our Public Education. One of the areas that is dealt with in the Dialogue for Change paper on education is post-secondary education. We had significant input from administrators, faculty, support staff, but particularly from post-secondary students, in developing our position with regard to post-secondary education. I would commend it to all members of the House.

The major concern that is uppermost in the minds of students right now - I should say not just current students but also most recent graduates - is the level of student debt. Ten years ago, the average graduate in Ontario had a debt of approximately $7,000 on graduation with an undergraduate degree. That has now grown, depending on the particular field, to somewhere between $17,000 and $25,000 per graduate. With the proposals that are before us for deregulation of tuition fees and further increases in tuition, over the next 10 to 20 years we will see the average debt load per graduate in Ontario rise to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40,000 to $60,000 on graduation. It's no wonder, as my friend from Fort William says, that many students are suffering sticker shock when they look at the costs, not just tuition but their accommodation, their books and all the ancillary costs that are a part of participating in a post-secondary school education. Many of them are saying, "Look, I can't afford this," or "My family can't afford it," and they're forgoing it.

This is a question of access to post-secondary education. All of us in this House must understand and believe that all students who are capable and have the initiative should have access to a post-secondary education. They should not be limited by the size of their pocketbook or by the income of their families. Unfortunately, the changes we have seen in tuition, particularly in the last two and a half years, but even previous to that, are making it very difficult for low-income or middle-income students and their families to be able to afford a post-secondary education.

If this trend continues, and it can only continue if we deregulate tuition fees, even for graduate courses, it will have very serious detrimental effects on the ability of those students from limited or moderate means to attend post-secondary school and gain a degree and gain the education that, I think all of us believe, if they are capable and have the initiative, they should be able to enjoy.

It seems to me that a good-quality public education system is the basis of a democratic society. If we do not have a well-trained and well-educated, knowledgeable, analytical, questioning public, we cannot have a thriving democracy. While access is a very important question for the individuals themselves and for their families, it is also of major importance for all of society, not just in terms of the ability of an individual to make use of skills and gain employment that will mean higher income, that will make it possible for the individual to contribute to society and provide for themselves and their families, all of which is important, but for the very basic reason that we must have a well-qualified, well-educated public if we're to continue to have a thriving democracy in Ontario and Canada.

The resolution points to the fact that Mike Harris's cuts to colleges and universities are the deepest of any jurisdiction in North America over the last two years. That's quite true. I pointed out that in Ontario funding for universities is the lowest of all the provinces, but we're something like number 48 in terms of all the jurisdictions in North America. How does any government justify that?

On top of the increase in tuition fees we now have the deregulation of tuition fees. This is an interesting argument that has been carried on for some time. Many of the administrators of universities and colleges have said they want to have the flexibility to set their own tuition fees, frankly, because of the cuts they've faced from the province. Because they're not getting as much revenue from the provincial government, these administrators are saying that for those very popular programs, or programs that will lead to degrees that will enable those graduates to earn a very good living, they should be able to increase those fees to help balance off or make up for the losses in revenues they receive from the public purse.

I've said over the years that this is a rather interesting position for this government. This is a government that campaigned against debt. This is a government that said it did not want to saddle the next generation with the cost of carrying and paying off the public debt that was growing in this province. This is a government that squarely said it was against public debt. Yet when we look at post-secondary education, at colleges and universities, what this government has done is that through its cuts - as soon as it came into government it cut $400 million from post-secondary education - and now with the changes in tuition fees accumulated over the last two and a half years and the proposal now to deregulate and allow for deregulation of tuition fees, this government is replacing public debt with private debt.

The very generation that the Conservatives said they were determined to protect from having to pay off the public debt is being saddled with enormous private debt because of the changes in tuition fees.

We've come to understand now that this government, the Conservatives, are not really against debt; they're just against public debt. If they can replace it with private debt, all the better. You don't want to saddle the next generation with public debt; we saddle them with private debt to the point where if an individual graduates from university with a debt load of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $60,000 or more, it's the same as if that individual was starting off in life with a mortgage but no house.

1550

The argument has been made in terms of deregulation that some programs - professional schools at the post-graduate level, for instance - will lead to graduates being able to make a very good income and that therefore they should be able to pay off more debt. For instance, suggestions have been made to increase tuition for medical school, law school or business administration, that these fees could be deregulated and essentially the institutions will be able to charge what the market can bear, so we might see tuitions of $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 a year for some of these programs.

It also has been argued that some of these programs will cross-subsidize less popular programs. For instance, if an institution were to charge $20,000 a year in tuition for business administration programs, somehow that would then cross-subsidize less popular programs, such as PhD programs in anthropology. Frankly, that doesn't work. It may be that a $20,000-a-year tuition for a business administration MBA program will pay for that program itself, but it doesn't cross-subsidize other programs. That's been shown to be inadequate for paying for other less popular programs, so we can deal with that.

But what about the argument that these individuals will make a lot of money and therefore they should be able to shoulder more debt as opposed to someone taking an arts degree, for instance? Obviously physicians in our society are very well paid because all of us in our society value the very important role they play in terms of treating the sick and maintaining human health in our society. Many physicians, particularly specialists and surgeons, can make a very good income under our medicare system.

I heard an interview just yesterday on the radio with a student at the University of Toronto medical school. She was halfway through her program. She already had a debt of $40,000 halfway through her program. This is the accumulated debt for her undergraduate program and she's now halfway through her medical school program. She has accumulated debt of $40,000.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): How much would she make in the first year?

Mr Wildman: That's the question. I suppose if an individual goes into private practice as a physician she should be able to make a very sizeable income, but what if this individual doesn't intend to go into that kind of practice? What if this individual decides that she wants to treat the sick in the Third World? What if this individual wants to join an organization like Médicins sans frontières, for instance? That physician is not going to make a very sizeable income. Yet who of us could denigrate the role of physicians who choose to treat the sick in Third World countries? Who of us would denigrate the role of that organization I mentioned, Médicins sans frontières, in Afghanistan right now where they are attempting to get in to treat the victims of these horrendous earthquakes? If an individual joins that kind of organization, then that individual is not going to make a very large income. How is that debt going to be paid off?

Or, for that matter, what if someone is studying law? It can be argued, depending on the area of law, that the individual could make a very good income on graduation and therefore should be able to pay more tuition, because that individual then can pay off the debt afterwards. What if this individual intends to practise in an area of law that does not have particularly high remuneration? For instance, what if this individual is hoping to practise law in a storefront operation in some of the poorer areas of the inner city? Who, then, will pay off this debt? Yet can anyone argue that this kind of law practice is not beneficial in our society?

I suppose a successful corporate lawyer can make a good income. I don't pretend to be expert in this field, but it seems to me that it takes many years for someone to establish himself or himself in that kind of practice, and over those initial years of practice his or her income may not be that high. Even if the individual is not practising law in some sort of altruistic type of operation but is even in corporate law, it seems to me many junior lawyers work for major law firms for a number of years at rather modest incomes before they become the epitome of the stereotype of the wealthy lawyer.

Interjection: Bob Rae.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Keep Bob Rae out of this.

Mr Wildman: Well, Bob Rae is a good example. Bob Rae, on graduation, practised storefront law in a working-class neighbourhood in London, England, long before he achieved the rarefied atmosphere on Bay Street.

Mr Conway: He is now listed as a federal lobbyist, as one of those cats; for Disney, no less.

Mr Wildman: He also works for the Red Cross, as I understand, on a very difficult issue that all of us hope will be resolved very soon.

What about other types of professions: accountants and so on? I don't know that these incomes are going to be at such levels, at least for the first 10 years or so after graduation, that are going to make it possible for people to pay off these kinds of debts.

As I said earlier, and as was mentioned by the member for Fort William, many of these students in senior grades in high school looking at what they are intending to do after graduation, no matter what idealistic views they've had and held for many years about what they intend to do to try to help serve society, will look at the prices involved and the number of years they may have to take to pay off their debts and they will say, "No, I'm not going to go."

Many people would say, "Well, these people should be assisted by their parents, by their families." I think that's true. I think they should be. But not all families are able to do that. I think many families, particularly those in the middle-income or lower-income levels, are living from day to day, from one paycheque to the next, and they don't have the wherewithal to save the money we're talking about now to pay off education, particularly if we're talking about a situation where a family, a couple, needs extra income to establish a fund that will grow over the lifetime of the child until he or she enters post-secondary education. Many young couples, with all the pressures on families today, are not able to do that. More often than not, we also have people who are not in the traditional two-parent family or two-income family but we have single parents who aren't able to assist and to save money for their students' education.

1600

I think the deregulation of tuition fees on top of the increases we've seen is obscene. I think we should be immediately freezing tuition fees, and then we should be trying to determine, through a consultation with the federal government, the lending institutions, students, faculties and administrators in the colleges and universities the level of sharing: how much public commitment there must be to individual students' education at the post-secondary level and how much the individual herself or himself should be obligated to pay.

This may sound very radical but it's an idea I put out there. It's certainly not our policy, but it's something we should think about. At a time in our society when most people needed elementary school education, grade 8, in order to get a job and be able to provide for themselves and contribute to society, under Egerton Ryerson that elementary school education was paid for by the taxpayers. Then when we got to the point where most people needed grade 10, or what was called second form in continuation schools in those days, public funding for that level of education was accepted in our society. Then when we got to the point of my generation, when most people needed at least high school to get a job and provide for themselves and contribute to society, the taxpayers funded education to the end of secondary school.

Who of us would argue that now an individual needs at least a college diploma to be able to get a job and provide for themselves and contribute to society? Many would argue that most people would need both a college diploma and perhaps an undergraduate degree from a university. I wonder, shouldn't we now be considering whether the public, through taxation, should be funding that level of education, if it is something that is needed by the vast majority of our society in order to compete and to contribute?

On top of the changes in tuition fees and the deregulation, this government has changed the student assistance plans to a point where it has become punitive, in my view. My friend from Fort William mentioned a number of the changes under student assistance. I would just like to point to a couple.

This government, which of course cut the incomes of people on social assistance by 22% almost as soon as it gained power, then said to those individuals, often single parents who may have dropped out of school as adolescents, returned to school and now want to go to college or university to gain a diploma or a degree to enable them to provide for their families, that if they qualify for the Ontario student assistance plan, OSAP, they no longer qualify for any welfare - no social assistance at all. So not only must they fund their tuition and their books from student loans, they must also pay for their shelter, clothing and food, not only for themselves but for their children, out of student loans.

This is a government that says they want people to get out of what they call the welfare trap. If anything is trapping people on social assistance, it's that program, it's that change by this government, telling those people that if they go to college or university, they're going to have enormous debt, not only for the cost of their education but for their living day to day and for the needs of their families.

We think that students should be able to earn a modest amount and not have that netted away in terms of calculating student assistance. Certainly the contribution from the study period income should not be deleted entirely.

Also, bursaries and awards should not affect the entitlement. That's another thing this government has done. Bursaries and awards, scholarships and so on, are supposed to be programs that are put forward because of students' excellence, a reward for that. But what has this government done? This government calculates those things and subtracts the amount that the student has received from the amount they are eligible for for loans, for assistance.

A student should be able to work part-time through the year and not lose all of that in terms of assistance. Even a vehicle - some students need vehicles, particularly if they're living at home and attending university rather than living in residence, and yet this government calculates a vehicle as an asset and it's deducted from the amount that they can claim for student assistance.

The proposal for income-contingent repayment plans is not a solution. First off, the government has been talking about that for two and a half years while they've increased tuition fees and it hasn't occurred yet. Graduates in the last couple of years have got increasing debts but, on top of that, the proposals for changes to income-contingent plans that were previously suggested would extend the length of period for payback for 20 or 25 years, would compound interest to the point that debt would increase exponentially. No wonder the banks aren't interested in it. The banks can see a bad loan when they're presented with one.

What we're seeing already is a skyrocketing of bankruptcies among people who are in their late twenties and early thirties in our society. These are people who are saddled with student debt and they can't pay it off. They haven't been able to get regular work. Many of them are working on contract since graduation, one contract to the next, and they can't pay. If that's the case already with an average debt load of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20,000 on graduation, what it is going to be like when the average debt is $40,000 or $60,000? Surely this government, above all, does not want to bring about a situation where many, many people in our society believe their only way out is by declaring bankruptcy early in life. What does that mean for the rest of our society and our economy?

We must freeze tuition fees and we must then work out a reasonable approach to how we fund post-secondary education in determining how much of the cost should be paid by individuals and their families. Post-secondary education is a right, not a privilege, in our society. It is a necessity, not a luxury, in our society. It is necessary for individuals in order to provide for themselves and contribute to society, and it is a necessity for our society if we are to remain competitive in the information age and if we are to ensure that we maintain a free and democratic society.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'm pleased to rise today in the House to respond to the statement by Mr McGuinty. When we were elected in 1995 on a platform which included reform of our province's educational system, particularly the post-secondary system which is critically important to Ontario's productivity and global competitiveness, at that time we committed to update and improve a wide variety of components of the post-secondary system. Some of these commitments include increasing accessibility to our universities and colleges, increasing the quality of Ontario's post-secondary education system and increasing the accountability of universities and colleges.

Ontario has one of the highest participation rates in post-secondary education in Canada. According to the most recent data from Statistics Canada, Ontario's full-time participation rate as a proportion of the population 18 to 24 is at 35%. This is as compared to the participation rate under the Liberal government; in 1990 the Ontario rate was only 26%, or 20% lower than it is today.

1610

Under our government's programs, students continue to enrol in full-time studies at colleges and universities in record numbers. Ontario's participation rate has not declined over the past year. Every year, data produced by the universities' own lobby group, the Council of Universities, show that a majority of students who apply to go to university are accepted and registered to attend.

The 1998 Ontario budget announced over $600 million over the next three years in new investment in post-secondary education. This includes an additional $29 million in annual grants phased in over three years to recognize the contribution of Ontario universities that have increased students' access to post-secondary education and enhanced job opportunities.

Furthermore, the government will invest $150 million over the next three years to implement the access to opportunities program to enable twice as many students to enrol in computer science and high-demand engineering programs.

Funding for the Ontario student assistance program is 33% higher than in previous years. However, Ontario plans to create a new student assistance program which will be designed to meet the needs of Ontario students and to limit student debt.

The government, in partnership with the private sector, will reward excellence in graduate studies in science and technology through new graduate scholarships and $75 million will be awarded to students over 10 years through this initiative. In addition the government, in partnership with the private sector, will provide $75 million over 10 years for new research excellence awards to assist the province's world-class researchers to attract talented people to their research teams.

The government has also committed more than $10 million to four projects that will enhance strategic skills, as well as another $20 million this year for other skill partnerships. The projects in this province include Georgian College and the Industrial Research and Development Institute, a centre of expertise for automotive parts design and manufacturing technology; Conestoga College in my riding will expand its capacity in metal machining, electronic engineering technology, mechanical engineering technology and information technology; Humber College will expand the telecommunications learning institute, a partnership between the college and leading businesses in the telecommunications industry.

The government, together with the institutions, is providing more than $600 million for new measures in post-secondary education over the next three years so that qualified students can access post-secondary education. The Ontario student opportunities trust fund, established in 1996, will assist an estimated 185,000 students over the next 10 years. In 1998-99, the Ontario student opportunity grant will provide an estimated $300 million in grant assistance for approximately 92,000 students. The average grant will be about $3,300, with students most in need receiving up to $10,000.

It should be noted that the universities are not required to increase tuition fees. The decision to increase fees rests with the board of governors of each institution and any new revenue that is derived from tuition fee increases must meet certain conditions.

First, such funds must be used for improvements in the quality of educational programs. Thirty per cent must be set aside for student aid. Institutions must make public a quality educational improvement plan within 12 months after approving a fee increase and report annually thereafter to show how the revenues were actually used.

Universities are required to ensure that adequate financial aid is available for all academically qualified students accepted into additional cost-recovery programs. For first-entry programs, additional financial assistance provided by the university must be in the form of grants, not loans. For second-level entry programs they must be combined with income-contingent repayment or remission. This is designed so that no students incur unmanageable debt loads. Universities that do not comply will have their operating grant reduced by this government.

The balance of increased revenues will be used for improvements in the quality of students' educational programs, or in the case of computer science, engineering and related college programs, to expand the number of places available to students to study in these fields. Students in engineering and computer science will benefit because with more spaces they are likely to be accepted into these programs.

These measures give flexibility to the system by allowing universities to enhance the quality of the programs while providing for more funding for student assistance. There will also be greater accountability to the university community for the use of tuition fee revenue.

In specific response to Mr McGuinty's point that students are graduating with a $28,000 debts, I'd like to provide the accurate figures. The $25,000 debt level quoted in various media, television and radio is a national estimate provided by Human Resource Development Canada. It does not take into account the provincial grant programs that provide students with significant debt-reduction assistance.

The average Canada and Ontario student loan debt, from the Human Resource Development office in Ottawa, for students who completed their studies in 1996-97 was $17,181 for a four-year university student, $11,574 for a two-year college student, and $8,475 for a one-year private vocational student. The overall average after the payment of provincial grants to reduce students' debts was $12,169.

Ontario will spend $534.5 million on student support in 1998-99. That's up from $400.7 million in 1995-96.

Ontario continues to be committed to implementing an income-contingent loan repayment program which will provide post-secondary students with flexible loan repayment terms that will be sensitive to graduates' incomes.

Mr Speaker, I believe we are splitting our time with three others.

We are working with and for the students of all of Ontario.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to join the debate on our opposition day motion with respect to student debt and student debt loads. By the time this government is done, university tuition will have gone up on average by 59.2%.

The member opposite just spoke dispassionately about some statistics he got from some faceless government office somewhere. We spent a few weeks this spring out talking to young people at our campuses. I spent time particularly at the University of Windsor and at St Clair College, two very fine post-secondary institutions in my riding. We got little cards back from students on a voluntary basis. We asked them to tell us what their debt loads were and we asked them to share with us how they're going to finance their future education. It was interesting. We actually had cards back, and I say this, where students had no debt, where they didn't have any debt - very, very few. Then we had some cards back that had what appeared to be astronomically high and unbelievable figures of debt, figures that quite frankly we just took out of the equation because they didn't seem realistic. Perhaps it was a prank; perhaps it was a government supporter out trying to undermine our campaign and trying - again, as the members opposite often do here in the Legislature - to confuse the debate with false and sometimes difficult-to-understand arguments.

1620

Let me tell you, a lot of students responded with a lot of passion to these cards. We called it Shattered Dreams. This young woman in her first year, from Paincourt, Ontario: $6,000 debt. Here is somebody from Kitchener, second year: $5,000 debt. Stratford, Ontario, third year: $20,000 in student debt. Toronto, Ontario, fifth year, in graduate work: $46,000 in debt. Someone from Newmarket, Ontario, in the 905 belt: $40,000 in debt. Here's one from my riding, third or fourth year: $8,000 in debt. Someone here from Holland's Landing, Ontario: $18,200 in their second year of university. Here's someone from Brantford: third year, $15,000. Here's someone from my community again: a first-year student, $13,500.

Here's one - I didn't believe this one at first. We called the student. This student: "approximately $50,000," and then he puts next to it, "That's correct" - $50,000. I'll say it again: $50,000. That's his writing; that's not me.

You can hide behind your false statements and your misleading accusations and you can refuse to deal with the reality that you have increased or will increase tuition by 59.2%. Only the NDP approach that, and they don't want to talk about those five years when they raised tuition by 42% after promising not to raise tuition. They don't want to talk about all their broken commitments about public auto insurance and on the social contract. Like you, they wanted to raise tuition. We say freeze tuition. They talk about freezing it now, but they did nothing but raise it. Many of these students who wrote to me accumulated a chunk of their student debt under the NDP.

Here's a young woman, $18,000 in two years; she stopped being eligible for OSAP, she marked on here. Here's one at $11,000 after one year, with six years to go, and this particular student has penned in: "Think about it, Harris." Another: $40,000 for four years of university, three of which were under the New Democrats. Another: $39,800 and rising; that student is from Brockville. Here we go: $4,000 in first year. That may not seem like a lot to many of you, but to a lot of young people in this province, what does that mean? It means that education will be more inaccessible to them. That means they will be carrying a substantial debt well into the latter years of their lives.

Why? Because it was more important to you to give a tax cut that will benefit very few and make our public education system less accessible to tens of thousands of young people right across this province, people who will be good contributing members of our society, people who will add value to our economy, people who will pay taxes. Instead of giving them hope for the future, we've shattered their dreams - you've shattered their dreams. Instead of giving them a good starting point, you've undermined their ability with a huge debt at the very beginning of their young careers.

So I say to the members opposite who have spoken on behalf of the government, you can run and do what the NDP did and try to pretend you didn't do this and you can try to pretend you're a friend of education, but the people understand and will know come the next election.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm happy to have this opportunity to speak to this resolution. I want to get to the member for Windsor-Walkerville in a second.

It is important to have these opportunities to raise these issues, and this is indeed one of them. Listening to the member for Windsor-Walkerville, you'd think that the Liberals are as pristine as mildew in the morning, just to listen to that guy. Did you hear him? "We're not like the Tories and the NDP before them. We are so pristine. Elect us, and we won't increase fees ever again." That's the kind of talk you get from this guy.

Mr Wildman: Except in 1987.

Mr Marchese: Except in 1987-88.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Oh, come on. That's ancient history.

Mr Marchese: I realize that was a long time ago. Memory is not as elastic as we would like, but people do have an elastic memory. The member for Windsor-Walkerville is going. I want to speak to him as he leaves. Memory is elastic for some of us, and mine says that you fine Liberals in 1987-88 raised fees in good, healthy economic times. I ask you, why would you do that when you have a healthy economy?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): What about the taxes, Rosario? What did they do with taxes?

Mr Marchese: Taxes? Oh, Liberals are so pristine on the issues of taxes that they wouldn't raise taxes ever. Good God, please, not them. If you elect the Liberals, they're going to solve every problem for every little person and big person in Ontario.

Hon Mr Harnick: Rosario, what about spending?

Mr Marchese: Spending? Please, that's another matter, but let me try to fit it in if I can. I love the Liberals.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Only one member has the floor, and that's the member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I appreciate your support, Speaker. I've got to tell you, when the member for Windsor-Walkerville speaks, it animates me. It does. I would have toned it down a little bit, but listening to that fellow, every fibre in the body becomes lighted by passion, as you can see.

The beauty about being a Liberal is that all you have to do is say, "I'm a Liberal," and everybody is supposed to say, "Amen." "God bless. I'm a Liberal." They've got a policy for everybody: "I'm for the little guy. I'm for the big guy. I'm for the guy in the middle. We're for everybody. We represent the left. We represent the right. We represent the middle. We represent everybody. Elect us and nobody in this province of Ontario is going to be left out."

That's the Liberal Party - beautiful. I'd love to be a Liberal sometimes because you can do anything you want and say anything you want. You can say to the poor people, "I represent you, poor people," and you can say to the wealthy - and they've got a lot of wealthy backers, I tell you. They do. They pretend that only you fine Tories have wealthy backers, but the Libs? Martin, the millionaire Martin, the finance minister at the federal level, the $25-million man: He's a wealthy guy. Did you see these four consultants in the Toronto Star the other day? These guys are all millionaires. They've got big bucks. They don't need any financing from anybody because they've got their own money. They're so pristine on that side.

Mr Gerretsen: What has this got to do with education?

Mr Marchese: You're so right. I want to get on to the issue. You're quite right. I was deterred for a passionate moment because the member for Windsor-Walkerville just made me do it. He brings out the best in me. I beg your pardon, Speaker. I want to get back to the issue now if I can.

On the issue at hand, nobody is pristine. The Libs did it, but they only went as far as the NDP. We did it too; we admit it. They were difficult times, I've got to tell you. And now the Tories are doing it under booming economic times.

You've got the big bucks in your pocket, right? You've never had so much money in your life as government, and what do you do? You cut in every area, while pretending always, "Oh no, we put money in." On the one hand you want to say how much you cut bloated bureaucracies, and on the other hand you say: "No, we put more money into universities. No, we put more money into education. Good God, we've put more money into health." They blow and suck at the same time. I don't know how you can do that. I don't know how on the one hand you can say, "We're cutting," and on the other hand you're saying, "We're spending big time." How do you do it? Please don't become Liberals in this regard. You can't have it both ways. You can't.

1630

You've had loads of money in the last couple of years and you could have used the money effectively to help everybody. But in this particular instance, you could have used your billions of surplus dollars to help university students. Having a daughter in university is a good lesson for me, because it teaches me the real cost of post-secondary education. I don't have to be told how costly it is, because I know, and my daughter knows how costly it is.

Mr Wettlaufer: So do we.

Mr Marchese: Maybe some Tories know the cost, I don't know. But Tories, being as wealthy as they are, never have to worry about it. We have a class system; these people are class-connected. They're for the big guys and privatization of everything that moves and deregulation of everything that moves. They understand, we understand, and I think everybody out there understands it as well.

When they deregulate, as they're doing, they don't have a problem with that. Why? Because by and large, these folks here to my left, although right-wingers, have got the bucks. They've got the bucks not to have to worry about spending a mere $5,000 a year, depending on the program, or maybe $6,000, $7,000, $8,000 or $9,000. It's not a big deal. And perhaps to send their children to live in residence as they travel to another city - when you do that, of course, your costs increase. It's no longer just the tuition fee of $4,000, and now, with the deregulation, possibly $8,000 or $10,000, depending on the profession they're in, but if they're in residence we're talking big bucks. They have it.

Most homo sapiens, unlike homo superior Tories, have a financial problem, because they've got little jobs, like the bank tellers, who earn about $22,000 or $23,000. Bank presidents earn about $1.5 million, excluding bonuses. Big and small: Tories big and the rest of the world small, having to fend for themselves, having to find money to try to help their children on a salary of $20,000, $25,000, $30,000, $35,000 or $40,000 a year. It can't be done, because once you pay for your own social needs that connect to housing, that connect to clothing oneself and feeding oneself, you've got very little left over. So you can't help your child, or your big, grown-up daughter and son, with assistance with respect to tuition fees. You can't, let alone sending them to another town and helping them with the additional fee that entails. Most homo sapiens can't do it.

We've got a real problem in terms of how this party is dividing the issue, according to class: those who can afford it, which is where the Tories are very much situated, and those who cannot afford it. That's the dilemma that ordinary working people face, having to struggle to cope with this deregulation of university fees. This government is so happy to deregulate, because as they do this, they no longer have to take responsibility for hiking fees. They can say, "We didn't do it, the universities did it." As they have downloaded to municipalities the housing, public health, more welfare costs and more child care costs, they are now downloading tuition fees to the universities, and they quite proudly tell you - I mean, Mr Prichard, the president of U of T, in his oleaginous manner, is quite happy to have this government deregulate for him. On the one hand he's happy because he says, "If these Tories don't give me the money, I've got to get it somewhere." But on the other hand, to be so happy - I say "oleaginous manner" because it is a bit greasy, I can tell you.

What it means is that as you raise tuition fees, you exclude thousands of people. Why he should be happy to do so, I do not comprehend. While on the one hand he says, "Part of the money that we are going to raise through the hikes will be used for student assistance," that is only an assertion; it is not fact. We clearly don't know whether any of those few dollars are going to help a few people or a few more people, but it's certainly not going to help the vast majority of students who are in need. The fact that presidents are saying, "Don't worry. Don't be completely unhappy with deregulation. We're also going to help our students who are in need" - again I argue that it's an assertion, not a fact.

Everybody should worry, but people like my daughter have the existential experience. They know what it takes to go through a university education and not have the money. I have to tell you, I wish as a father I had the money to be able to pay for her tuition fees, but I do not, and I earn a good salary. It may surprise you, Speaker. You seem surprised. And it may surprise some of the members of the opposition that I cannot afford, having a good salary -

Mr Wettlaufer: I find that hard to believe.

Mr Marchese: Exactly. The member for Kitchener says he has a hard time believing what I'm saying. I make a good salary. I am middle class, to all intents and purposes. As a former teacher and as a member of provincial Parliament, earning a good salary, I cannot afford to help my daughter. Where is the rest of the society, who earn less than I do? We know that the people who are affected and afflicted by this problem are the middle classes in particular, and the working class, who only earn $25,000 or $30,000 or less, is more severely afflicted than the rest of us. Those who are listening know that what we say on this side of the House is true. Quite clearly, the forces of evil are on the other side, and they know that.

With this discussion on university fees, it is quite clear in the minds of most of the middle class that they can't afford to help their kids. Some people are blessed and put some money aside and are able to give that $5,000 every year to their children, and they're done. Hopefully, the kids will be grateful for what they did, and they move on. But the vast majority do not. So while you gloat on the other side with smiles about how good this is and how good this is for students and how much money you've put into universities and say, "Gee, why are they complaining?" -

Mr Wildman: After they took $400 million out.

Mr Marchese: But they don't talk about taking money out, and when you raise that issue they get offended. They have a grimace of offence. "Why do you raise such issues? They're not true," they probably argue. Right, member for Kitchener? But they don't talk about that.

The issue of access is a very critical one for me. I got involved, as a former teacher and then as a trustee with the Toronto Board of Education, on issues that relate to what we called, and still call, streaming. Working-class kids and people of colour get streamed very early on in life, and once kids get sorted out into the various groupings, when you are in group 3 it's very difficult to move from group 3 to group 2 to group 1. Once you are committed to a special education program, it is very difficult to get out of that special education program.

That is why I never supported groupings of that nature. That is why I support what is called cooperative grouping, where every student is in the same class irrespective of ability, so that they all learn from each other, so that no one is sorted out into a stream and committed to that stream forever.

Those working-class students and people of race who are lucky enough to break out of that mould then have to face other kinds of difficulties down the line: the financial difficulty. If you're lucky enough, as a working-class child or as someone who's a person of colour, you then have to face the issue of: "Do I have enough money to get into university?" That's a real, real problem.

1640

The problems of streaming - there is just so much research on that topic that I could go on for some time, but we don't have that time. I need just to say that once you've made it, what we need to do as a society is facilitate education for those students as opposed to creating yet another burden. What you Tories are doing through this measure, particularly deregulating, is that you're creating yet another hurdle for those kids who've made it through the educational system.

Mr Wildman: A barrier.

Mr Marchese: You've created yet another barrier, and that's a more difficult barrier. My daughter took the year off last year to try to make some money so she can have enough money for the following year and the year after that. It's a difficult thing. There are a lot of people in my boat who have the same kind of problem.

What you're doing is that you're creating yet another burden for people to deal with. You're closing and shutting the doors for a whole number of people under the guise of making the educational system better.

Mr Wettlaufer: It's called responsibility.

Mr Marchese: Responsibility, my foot. The language of Tories, all these guys say and all you hear from them, is: "We are improving post-secondary education. We are increasing accessibility. We are increasing quality." I wrote the words down from the previous Tory speaker. "We are increasing accountability." All they do is just mumble words that they hope the public thinks they're actually doing, whereas in fact they're doing nothing of the sort.

My friend from Algoma talked about the income contingency fund. He made it quite clear that when you lower the payments, it means more payments down the line. He was quite clear on that. You people know that. Even the banks, as much as I berate and wail against them, they too said it's a bad plan, so you people don't know quite what to do.

We spoke about that and we have spoken to the issue of access. We've spoken to the issue of downloading. Therefore, the matter now that I want to touch on very briefly is the whole issue of private interest versus public. What you Tories are doing - and it falls very much in line with your corporate friends, people like the Business Council on National Issues, conservative think tanks such as the Fraser Institute, the National Citizens' Coalition et al. These are the types - your buddies, closely connected to you - that you folks listen to, you family-value Tories you. These are the same groups that have been telling governments that education should be more expensive, that students should be paying a larger portion of the cost and that there should be a bigger differentiation between the élite universities and, dare I say, the proletariat kind of schools. That's what you people are encouraging: a class system.

You people are well situated in that regard and you know what you're doing. The Business Council on National Issues know what they're doing and they know what they're telling you. You people are listening to that garbage day in and day out. You have created a class system, where you are encouraging private interests versus the public interest. Universities have always been designed to protect the public interest; they are the institutions that are there to protect the public good. What you are creating is an individual who is concerned about his private needs, and it fits very well into your class system.

That's why people need to fight this government. That's why the vast majority of poor working people have to fight this government. Don't be confounded by their politics. If we're united, we can defeat them, in spite of what they have done and do to us on a daily basis.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and Training, responsible for colleges and universities, I'm pleased to respond to the motion on accessibility to Ontario's post-secondary education system.

I appreciate the comments from the member for Fort York. Accessibility, for every government, is a concern. Whether it was the NDP, which was in power last, or the Liberals, accessibility for people across Ontario is a major issue.

I appreciate the honesty from the member for Fort York, unlike maybe the member for Windsor-Walkerville - not that he's not honest. When we talk about accessibility and when we talk about tuition fee increases, the member for Fort York rightly pointed out that the NDP increased tuition fees by 50%. When the Liberals were in power, they increased it by 35%. I guess I could accept the argument from the NDP more readily. Although I totally disagree, I can accept their argument and understand it. But when the Liberals say they now want to freeze tuition fees, although while they were in power they increased them 35%, I guess I have a problem with that.

We're all worried about costs. The member for Fort York talked about his daughter going to university. I have four children, and two of them are college age right now. I'm concerned about the cost as well. Fortunately, my son has paid his own way. Hopefully, my daughter will do that. But they are fortunate.

For the opposition to say members on this side of the House don't understand, don't really care, it's really not right to say that, because of course we care. How we ensure that our post-secondary education system is accessible is where we differ. We think differently about how to do it. In my few moments to speak, I hope to address those concerns.

When I was appointed parliamentary assistant in April 1997, I made a commitment to tour the colleges and universities across the province. My tour basically boiled down to one thing: to listen, to hear their concerns and bring those concerns back to the minister.

I met with students, I met with faculty, I met with the presidents, I met with support and administration staff. The highlight of the tour so far has been the northern tour. I met with all the colleges and universities in the north, and they told me that no one in government had done such an extensive tour of the north. They were very appreciative of that, and I certainly was too, because they have unique needs.

Time and time again, the students told me that they wanted a quality education at a reasonable cost. They knew there was a cost and that the government had to get its financial house in order, especially after the previous governments went on spending sprees. They knew that money didn't grow on trees, as I suspect the NDP thought it did.

They said: "We are now seeing reinvestment in post-secondary education, and that's good. But we also realize that we have to share in that investment. After all, we benefit from our education." That's what they told me.

Although cost was a factor, and it still is a factor, more importantly, they wanted to be assured that they were getting quality education so they could get the jobs in their fields of study, good-paying jobs, so they could pay their loans in a reasonable time frame based on their income. I couldn't agree with them more, and that's exactly what our government is doing.

1650

I was really surprised, especially with my children going to college, and also talking to the students. What I found out was that no one really sat down with them and went through what their skills were, what their aptitudes were, what courses they should be taking based on those skills and aptitudes, where the jobs were available, what was the default rate on those courses that they were taking, what was the pay of those jobs, and what was the financial plan to get through their universities and colleges.

We don't have a system in place, and everybody's responsible for that: the students, the colleges and universities, and government. So there's really concern out there and I believe what we're doing addresses these problems. It's not just about accessibility. It's about the quality of our post-secondary education system and it's about increasing the accountability of the colleges and universities. That's what we were elected to do, I believe, to look at all those three areas in post-secondary education.

When we talk about accessibility, the government needs to provide funding to assist students, and that's exactly what we're doing. We've established the Ontario student opportunity trust fund to provide student aid to post-secondary education. This program is a partnership between the colleges and universities, the private sector and government, where government matches dollar for dollar what is raised with the colleges and universities and the private sector.

This is a major and phenomenal success story in Ontario. I remember our first budget. I think we had only put in $100 million for this matching fund. Well, we've had to increase it to $300 million and that has grown to $600 million. This will assist 185,000 students over 10 years.

We've also increased OSAP, the Ontario student assistance program. People get that confused with the actual loans versus assistance. OSAP is grants, it's loan forgiveness, it's interest relief and it's bursaries. It's actually dollars - you might want to call them free dollars - from the government.

Interjections.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Absolutely nothing's free.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order.

Mr Froese: We've increased it by 30% since we took over office, and that spending is estimated for the 1998 to 1999 fiscal year end at $530 million.

We also looked at, if student fees are to increase - and again, the opposition just doesn't get it. They don't get it. How many times do you have to tell them, we're not increasing fees.

Mr Wildman: You are allowing them to increase.

Mr Froese: We're allowing them to increase, okay, but the decision is up to the colleges and universities. Where the colleges and universities choose to increase fees, there is some regulation. Each institution must place in reserves 30% for student aid, in addition to the amounts they've set aside in previous years. The maximum they can increase is no more than 20% for those who are currently enrolled in a college or university program.

Mr Caplan: For second-entry graduates. Come on, Tom.

Mr Froese: And I'll talk about that.

For programs with additional cost recovery - and those are business, commerce, secondary entry courses, dentistry, law and medicine for the universities, computer science and computer engineering for colleges - OSAP will recognize tuition fees and auxiliary fees to a maximum of $4,500, and for a co-op it's another $850. But the colleges and universities must provide aid to students who have additionally demonstrated need based on OSAP criteria over and above the $4,500.

For the first-entry programs the aid may be in a grant form or a loan form, provided that the student's total debt, including repayable OSAP loans, does not exceed the normal $7,000 for a normal academic year.

In second-entry programs, the loan may exceed $7,000 but it has to include by the universities and colleges an income-contingent repayment provision.

One question that might be asked: If colleges and universities are to provide assistance to students, will this lead to higher, unmanaged debt loads for students? The answer is no, because for the first-entry programs the student's repayable debt, including OSAP repayable loans, cannot exceed $7,000, just like it is today. So they get, through OSAP, the reduction down to $7,000.

In second-entry programs, the loan may exceed $7,000 if it includes an income-contingent repayment provision. This will ensure that no students will incur unmanageable debt.

When we talk about accountability and quality, again, if the universities or the colleges decide they want to increase the fees, there is a system put in place whereby they can increase them 5% this year and next year, but it has to go to improve the quality of student programs. Examples are: smaller class sizes, curriculum enhancement, additional materials and equipment, and more access to teaching faculty. They can also increase 5% over the next two years if additional programs are improved, such as more access to computers and more opportunities for research.

We are also investing $135 million over the next three years to improve competitiveness in university research by matching dollars from the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

The member for Fort York quite correctly pointed out that we do have support in the colleges and universities system, and it hits right on exactly what we're talking about where, if they are going to increase fees, they have to increase the quality of program. Paul Davenport, president of the University of Western Ontario, in a letter written May 7 said:

"Western strongly supports your government's policy of turning over the responsibility for setting fees to our board of governors, and we will use the new responsibility in a way that improves the quality of education and protects access for students from all economic backgrounds. Your policy on fees will encourage universities to build on their strengths and to offer programs of the highest quality to their students."

Robert Prichard, president of the University of Toronto, also said on May 7:

The University of Toronto "has adopted a new student financial aid policy which guarantees that no qualified student will be deprived of the opportunity to study at the University of Toronto due to lack of financial resources. This guarantee will ensure that access is protected for all qualified students regardless of means."

There is support. When we talk about accessibility, right away the opposition says, "There's no participation." The member from Kitchener talked about the participation rate. It's 35% compared to the Liberals' 26%. He talked about the data that the council of universities show, so I won't get into that.

My time is running out. I know the member for Northumberland wants to speak. I don't know how much time he's going to get.

Interjections.

Mr Froese: You want me to speak instead of him? All right.

Before I get into the funding, I would like to read a quote from Lyn McLeod, who is the Liberal critic on education, I presume. When she was the Minister of Colleges and Universities, on October 26, 1998, this is what she said.

Mr Wildman: No, 1988.

Mr Froese: Sorry, 1988. You're right.

"The onus is on Ottawa, not Queen's Park, to ensure that Canadian universities are as well funded as their American counterparts." Figure that one out from what she's saying today. The federal government cut the province by $2.2 billion in transfer payments to post-secondary education, health care and social services, and here the critic for education said that Ottawa, not Queen's Park, is the one to provide the funding. I don't understand why she doesn't take all her members with her, go to Ottawa right now and hammer on the door to provide that funding. I encourage her to do that. If she would do that, I'd be there right beside her, helping her out.

1700

The government's commitment to post-secondary education is considerable. Funding for post-secondary education, including grants to colleges and universities as well as provincial support for student assistance, will be $2.9 billion in 1998-99. We mentioned already in the 1998 Ontario budget that we're providing $600 million over three years in new investment, and that includes the $29 million that was mentioned before to recognize those Ontario universities that have increased students' access to post-secondary education.

I'd like to touch for a few minutes on the access to opportunities program, and the $150 million that we've provided to enable twice as many students to enrol in computer sciences and high-demand engineering programs. This is where we talked about not only access for students, with the $150 million, but about accountability and quality of programs.

Mr Wildman: What about sociology and geography?

Mr Froese: If you will bear with me, I'll just get to that.

There has been extensive dialogue with the university community on the access to opportunities initiative, which is a partial cost recovery program that will allow universities the flexibility to invest in quality programs and expansion of student spaces in the high-demand technical programs. This program will create thousands of new student spaces in the high-demand engineering and computer science programs in Ontario's colleges and universities.

Apparently there has been a misunderstanding on the obligations of the colleges and universities and I want to clear up some of that. Universities and colleges that wish to deregulate tuition fees - they don't have to but if they want to - must comply with the components of the plan, including improving quality, increasing seating capacity and setting aside 30% of increased revenues to help students who are in need. They cannot, and I repeat, they cannot, simply increase tuition fees without providing the service improvements I've mentioned.

I want to mention again - and you might be sick of hearing it but you have to understand - it's the universities that increase the fees, not the government. The decision to increase tuition fees is made by the board of directors of each institution. Any revenue that is derived from tuition fees must meet certain conditions. First, such funds must improve the quality of the education programs, as I mentioned before, and 30% must be set aside for student aid. They must make a public quality education improvement plan within 12 months after approving a fee increase and report it annually thereafter to show how the revenues are actually used.

Universities and colleges are required to ensure that adequate financial aid is available for all academically qualified students accepted in additional cost recovery programs. For first-entry programs - I know we explained this a little bit earlier but a little bit more detail here - additional financial assistance provided by the universities or colleges which must be in the form of grants, not loans. For second-level programs, they will be combined with income-contingent loan repayment programs, as well as grants.

This is designed so that no students will incur unmanageable debt loads. This is a real plus for the students across the province. If they don't comply with that, their operating grant will be reduced by government. They must comply.

Mr Gerretsen: How is that a plus for students?

Mr Froese: The opposition wants to know why it's a plus. They only talk about accessibility with dollars. Two previous governments never addressed the quality of the program or the accountability of the system. The balance of increased revenues will be used for improvements in the quality of students' educational programs, or in the case of computer sciences, engineering and related college programs, to expand the number of spaces available to students to study in the fields they choose. Students in engineering and computer sciences will benefit because more spaces will be available, and obviously they'll be more likely to be accepted into the course.

These measures give flexibility to the system by allowing colleges and universities to enhance the quality of their programs, while providing at the same time more funding for student assistance. There will also be greater accountability to the university and college community for the use of those tuition fees.

On Friday, Speaker - you probably are aware of this - the universities and colleges received the details of the access to opportunities program in a memo from the ministry. The memo informed universities that the province will provide - I hope the opposition hears this. They talk about more money; here it is. We will introduce a new annual grant of $5,000 for each engineering student, $3,500 for students in computer science, and $2,000 for new college students beginning 1998-99, which is this fall.

In addition to this new annual provincial grant, universities and colleges can access one-time expansion funding for those programs up to $19,600 per student through access to opportunities, government and private sector funding. Our government strongly believes in a shared responsibility, and that's why we've made available for the private sector to match contributions, and the government will put up $9,800 per space.

The program to increase the number of student spaces in high-demand programs is a partnership between government, universities and colleges and the private sector, and it's long overdue. As you are no doubt aware, Speaker, the Canadian Association for Technology Advancement highlighted a crisis in Ontario's high-tech industry when reportedly 20,000 high-tech jobs in our province are unfilled because we don't have the educated people to fill them. Twenty thousand people could have jobs today if they were educated, and that's why we're doing what we're doing.

Access to opportunities will help correct this situation, create thousands of job opportunities and improve Ontario's international competitiveness. With the implementation of this program, we anticipate an increase in the number of spaces available in the programs by 20% for this fall, in time for the students who are graduating this spring to take advantage of this new access to opportunity.

We believe accessibility will be there, we believe quality will be there and we believe we have put in place our plan to ensure there is accountability in the system to make it happen.

1710

Mr Conway: I want to join the debate this afternoon. I've had the pleasure of listening to most of the previous speakers, and I must say, while I didn't agree with everything the previous speaker had to say, he gets full marks for a valiant defence of a controversial policy. We've all been around this circle in my time here, and I've got my sins for which atonement is probably due, but there is a qualitative difference today compared to any time in my prior life here as a member of the assembly. We are now looking at qualitatively different realities. We're talking today about accepting tuition fees on an annual basis of five times the inflation rate. We're talking about driving tuition into a stratosphere where it has not previously been.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): You raised it.

Mr Conway: Yes, we raised it, it's true. I as minister approved tuition fees, and so did Dr Stephenson and so did Mrs McLeod and so did Richard Allen. That is a given. Almost always in those circumstances there was a two-part announcement. The government approved a tuition fee increase, and at the selfsame time there was an adjustment in the support to students. That did not happen in this case, and it's a very noticeable difference.

But that's not really my focus. My focus is that we are talking today about rates of increase that are well beyond what we've seen before. It has been pointed out by previous speakers, including the current Minister of Education, that in my time as minister we increased the rates by 30% over a five-year period. I haven't myself gone back to look at it, but I bet you that's more or less the inflation rate over a five-year period. I can tell you that in the mid-to-late 1990s we're looking at inflation of approximately 2%, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less. We are talking now about annual increases of 10%. That is the difference.

Let me say something else. I say this to my generation, and I say it in a non-partisan way. I spent five years in university. I was able, fortunately, to pay most of it through summer work and some scholarship and other money. But it was only possible, quite frankly, because the Robarts and the Davis administrations felt the political pressure from people like my parents, who fought through a Depression and fought through a war, and they did so for some cause: They wanted their kids to have an opportunity they did not have. For my generation - I'm 46 years of age and I want to thank Bill Davis and John Robarts and my parents' generation, because they made it possible for me to get a virtually free university education. I paid $2,000 at the beginning and I think it was probably $2,500 at the end, and there were two or three job offers waiting for virtually all of us upon graduation.

That my generation, which got it for nearly free, should ascend the nearest pulpit and preach ad nauseam that our kids, this generation, should pay a much, much greater fee is the alpha and the omega of hypocrisy. I am so tired of reading Globe and Mail editorials and Ottawa Citizen opinion pieces written by 40-something baby-boomers who want a decidedly different policy for this generation of young adults than that which Mr Davis and Mr Robarts provided for mine.

More than anything else, that's my anger in this. I am just furious, I am absolutely furious, to be lectured by some of these people who got it virtually for free who now stand up and say to my 19-year-old niece, who tonight is up in Eganville, Ontario, with her friends looking at her prospects at McMaster, Queen's, Western - and when I hear the president of the University of Western Ontario say he thinks it's a great idea, I bet he does. I never heard a defence secretary who didn't like the sound of McDonnell Douglas or Boeing's latest stealth bomber. Of course he likes it.

I say, only for myself because my critic would not want to share in this, if I were a 19-year-old today and thinking of going to Western Ontario, do you know what I'd say to Mr Davenport, who can hardly contain himself in his cheering, not so much for the government announcement but for "Let the sky be the limit"? "Mr Davenport, I'm not going to give you one red penny until I see a forensic audit of the way you're running the University of Western Ontario." Boy, I wouldn't give him one red cent before I got a damn good look at how he's running that institution, and I'm telling you, by the time that forensic audit was finished, I suspect it would not be S. Conway who would be embarrassed, if some of the audits that have been done previously in this province or, more interestingly, in the United States are any guide.

The nerve of the Davenports of the world - the nerve. It's too bad Mike Gourley's leaving us. I don't know how many of you know where Gourley was before he became the Deputy Minister of Finance. I don't want to embarrass him, but he's a very bright, insightful fellow is our Michael Gourley, and I could certainly embarrass a few people, telling a few tales out of school, at what was found at certain institutions.

It just enrages me when I hear the likes of Davenport and his pals in the $200,000 club saying, "Oh, of course, let the 18-year-old kid from Palmer Rapids or Eganville or Deep River or Beachburg in the rural areas of my part of the province - no, I think these people should pay a few thousand bucks more to come to my institution, where I have done precious little to show increased accountability." Boy, would I like to get a look at Western, to name but one.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Then he goes home in his limo.

Mr Conway: Oh, he's got his limo.

I don't want to get distracted, but where is the shame in this place? We're talking about young people. I repeat, there are few things that I am more thankful to my parents for, having as they did survived the Depression and survived the war, to give their kids, all seven of us in my family - I think it totalled 35 years of university education. That was made possible largely because we had a public policy that made it affordable. I'm telling you what you all know in your hearts, that when we increase these fees to this level, we are going to bar entry to a number of people, without a doubt. All the literature in this jurisdiction and elsewhere points to it.

I believe in our liberal democracy because as one of its tenets we believe in education as a first order of public good, and what are we saying to our community and what are we saying to young people, Tom Froese's kids and others? They are not stupid. They hear us talking as legislators at the board of trade and wherever else about marginal tax rates for people in high-income categories: "They're too high, they might leave." Those are real issues, and I don't dispute a Conservative's or a Liberal's or a socialist's worry about that. But what about the 18-year-old who in Eganville tonight is looking at his or her prospects - 11,000 bucks to go to med school, 80,000 to 90,000 bucks of debt at the end of that road?

Think about it for a moment. If you're a kid from Harry Danford's area, you're going to think twice about incurring $80,000 or $90,000 of front-end debt before you go down the road to Western. If you're Danford or Conway, you represent all kinds of people who don't have to worry just about the increased fee for tuition, but we've got the living expenses. Every single one of my constituents, like my friend from Muskoka-Georgian Bay, every one of our kids has to pack up and leave town. They don't have the option that five million people do in the Metro area of going to three or four universities in the area. They don't have that choice if they live in Britt or if they live in Palmer Rapids or if they live in Rawdon township. They have to pack up lock, stock and barrel and leave town.

There's an equity issue there that Davenport I don't think understands, but that we as a Legislature have a duty to understand. It's not an easy question, and I don't agree with perhaps even all of my colleagues in some aspects of this. I have said from the beginning I accept differential fees; I always have. But 11,000 bucks for one year in med school? That is beyond the pale. There's some very good literature, and I'm sorry I didn't bring it to the House tonight, about what this pricing policy is doing to both private and tier-one public universities in the United States. It is causing all kinds of trouble.

Mr Froese: What's the answer?

1720

Mr Conway: I think we're going to have to look. I tell you, Tom, I will not stand here and endorse an annual tuition increase five times inflation. That is too bloody high. I think we're going to have to look and find some answers. I'm not going to be trite about this. I listen to my friends looking at their kids' college and university education. You know, Stats Canada just a few weeks ago published a bulletin, and I'm going to conclude with this because I'm biting into somebody's time, I'm sure. "In the period of 1990-97 in Canada, there were created net new 770,000 jobs." But the reality was, "For people with a college and university education, there were 1.8 million new jobs. For people with a high school education or less, 1,050,000 jobs were lost."

Education, and most particularly higher education, is, as Bruce Little said in the Globe and Mail, "the brutal divide of a modern economy." As we head into the 21st century, college and university education is going to be for Tom Froese's kids what a high school education was for Tom's father. We'd better understand that and we'd better have a policy that is sensible - affordable, yes - but that recognizes that higher education has to be and must be seen to be a public good available to all citizens irrespective of what their incomes are or where they live in this vast and magnificent land.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I thank you for the opportunity to respond and speak on opposition day particularly as it relates to education and tuition fees.

I sat over here on the government side, listening to my good friend from Renfrew North telling of all the troubles and all the problems and all the things that are wrong with what we're doing. But you know, opposition has a responsibility to come up with some alternative suggestions. I was keenly listening to see if there might be an alternative tuition suggestion and I recall that at the last NDP convention they came up with the brilliant suggestion of free tuition. The only upsetting part for the Liberals is that they didn't come up with that idea first. How practical.

It's not surprising at all, but I heard the member for Renfrew North making reference to the Robarts government, to the Davis government, and yes, it was very nice in those days to be able to keep tuition low. You came out to a market with all kinds of jobs, a large number of jobs readily available, and yes, I recall those days. Why? It was because taxation was reasonably low and we didn't have the insurmountable debt in this country that we're now struggling with.

Where did that debt come from? I won't get partisan here because it came from several different stripes of government looking at very socialistic directions, and the end result was the problem we have today: the extremely high taxation, the extremely high debt and deficit that we're struggling with. Yes, we had our parents who came through a terrible Depression. They survived it, they also survived the Second World War, but they never imagined, never dreamed, when they were struggling with that Second World War, that they'd end up with the debt that we have today. They paid off the war debt and they were very proud to have paid off that war debt, but they didn't expect to end up with the provincial debt that we have today and end up with the federal debt that we have here today.

Free tuition? What a novel ideal. I wasn't surprised when it came out in the paper, what the NDP came up with, but then the old Liberal "tax and spend," they just love it, and the NDP "spend and borrow," and here we are in the present debt situation that we have today.

The idea of limiting tuition really is an artificial ceiling, and the economists can tell us what happens with artificial ceilings. We came through it with rent control, and what did we end up with? A billion-dollar boondoggle on an annual basis -

Mr Gerretsen: Who started rent control?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Mr Galt: - nobody developing any new accommodations, any new rentals, any new homes, because of the total -

Mr Wildman: That was Bill Davis's idea.

Mr Galt: The reason it came in - yes, it was in the Bill Davis government but it was a minority government, and who pushed it through but the socialists? No question. The NDP wrote it in, and here we are with rent control, an artificial ceiling that really is just more indication of what happens when you bring in those ceilings. We also, back in the 1950s and 1960s, saw what happened when you brought in an artificial floor for various prices of butter and eggs and some of the agricultural commodities. We ended up with all kinds of surpluses that had to be disposed of.

We are making change for post-secondary education and, yes, I can understand the concerns, but just for a moment let's look at some of the spinoffs that are occurring from public education.

One of the things that's happening as a spinoff from our public education reform is the fact that the private school and independent school operators are very concerned with those changes. Why are they concerned? Well, in the past it was the disgruntled parents who took their children out of the public system and put them into the private schools and independent schools, and they have had in the past few years great, long lists of people wanting to get into private schools What's going on now? All of a sudden, with the changes in the education system, they can see that the public is going to be much happier with the public education system and the demand for private schools is going to go down. End result: They're not going to be getting the same kind of response to their education as they were in the past.

I looked in the red book and I found that on tuition it's all things to all people. That wasn't too surprising. Then I looked in the Common Sense Revolution and I think, just for the public at home, they really should know what we said in the Common Sense Revolution.

What the Common Sense Revolution said, page 12, the sixth edition - it became so popular we just had to keep printing it: "Our universities and community colleges have suffered from government's failure to set priorities, resulting in lower-quality service to students. We believe that sufficient funding can be provided while still reducing the burden on the taxpayers by $400 million.

"Colleges and universities must take on the obligation to find as much of that $400-million saving as possible by streamlining their bureaucracies and operating systems. The remainder of necessary funding can be found by charging students a fairer share of the costs of the education they receive."

It goes on. There's quite a bit here, but it's very specific to what we're doing. We do in fact keep our promise, as has been indicated earlier.

What has been happening with tuition increases in the past? As our friend from Renfrew North indicated, he as Minister of Education did grant some increases, and during the Liberals' term that increased by some 35%. It increased during the NDP term by some 50% from 1990 to 1995.

I think we should also look at the participation rate of students between the ages of 18 and 24 at university. When the Liberals were there it ran at 26%. Today it's running at 35%. That's an increase of approximately 35% of our young people who are taking part in post-secondary education.

What's happening with the budget? Some $2.9 billion is being spent on post-secondary education. That works out to some $300 per year for every man, woman and child. Whether it's a young child in diapers or an elderly person in a walker, that works out to $300 for everyone that's going to help with provincial support and grants for universities and community colleges.

During our term we have announced $600 million of new money over the next three years to be spent on universities and community colleges. Some $150 million over the next three years will be used to double the number of spaces for computer science, and we'll also double the courses for engineering, a very demanding program indeed.

I'm also very pleased to find that with the student opportunity trust fund, where we match dollar for dollar the public donations, we have some $600 million in reserve to support students. With the Ontario student assistance program, commonly known as OSAP, in the 1995-96 budget there was some $400.7 million in spending, which has increased this year to $530 million, an increase of 33%. That's the kind of money that this government is spending on post-secondary education.

1730

With the increases in tuition, 30% of all the increase will be set aside for student aid, and it's estimated that this year alone there will be some $85 million set aside. It must be linked to quality of student programs, quality improvement plans must be produced, and it must also be related to additional education programs.

By allowing tuition fee increases, what this is really all about, the increases for universities and also for colleges, is enhancing the program quality. It's back to when you put that ceiling in place, like happened with rent control, quality ends up suffering, and certainly it has in this instance. It's also related to increased funding for students and to providing greater accountability.

It will increase very significantly the numbers of engineering spaces and computer science programs as just mentioned, and also related programs in community colleges.

There is a limit of course. It sounded from the previous speaker as if there was absolutely no limit. For most courses it will be limited to 5% per year for the next two years. The first 5% has to be related to improved quality of student programs, and the second 5% per year for additional educational programs.

There are some other programs where there are all kinds of jobs and opportunities out there, such as dentistry, law, medicine, pharmacy, where we are allowing more discretionary increase with additional fees. In those various programs, it averaged out in the past to about 8%. That's what the tuition represents of the total cost of the educational program. That means the public is paying the other 92%, or 92 cents on the dollar, for those programs, and that doesn't just quite seem fair. However, to protect the students already in those programs, we are limiting that increase to some 20%.

I think it's important to have a check on some of the quotes that we have from people, particularly the Liberal government in the past. From Lyn McLeod back in the 1980s -

Mr Gerretsen: That's ancient history.

Mr Galt: "`The onus is on Ottawa, not Queen's Park, to ensure that Canadian universities are as well funded as their American counterparts,' says Lyn McLeod, Ontario Minister of Colleges and Universities."

The source is the Bulletin of the University of Toronto, November 1988.

She's also aware, I'm sure, if that's history and she doesn't want to recall her quote, of the Liberal government in Ottawa cutting some $2.2 billion out of transfer payments for post-secondary education, health care and social services.

Then there was the quote:

"A lot of Ontario institutions are hurting financially because the government is tightening the purse-strings. Hospitals are closing beds and cutting back on services. Universities are rejecting qualified students because of overcrowded facilities and out-of-date equipment. Nixon [former Liberal Treasurer] in refusing to offer substantial, needed funding, suggested that such institutions look for `innovative' ways to raise money from other sources."

That quote is from the Financial Post, July 5, 1988.

I did make reference to the red book earlier, but there's really nothing in that red book that warrants comment at this time.

I would like to bring a quote to your attention which -

Mr Gerretsen: Come on. What do you mean there's nothing worth commenting on?

Mr Galt: No, I won't quote Lyn McLeod from before.

This is Bonnie Patterson, president of the Council of Ontario Universities, in a press release, May 7, 1998:

"The Ministry of Education and Training's new tuition fee policy is an important step towards ensuring that our universities have greater flexibility to set fees and, more importantly, to reinvest revenue in improving the quality of education for students," coming from the universities.

From the press, talking about post-secondary education in the Globe and Mail:

"Important facts emerge from that StatsCan study. First students are still paying only a fraction of the real cost of their education. In 1995, for every dollar in tuition fees, universities got nearly three more from the government."

The heading, "Let Tuition Fees Rise," Globe and Mail, October 1, 1997.

Then another quote:

"Deregulation is a necessary condition for institutional development and adaptation, which will lead to expanded opportunities for learning. This position is practical, not ideological."

That's from the Report of the Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education, page 19, December 1996.

Looking at tuitions and doing something with post-secondary education is really about getting people working here in Ontario, and we've been doing a lot to help get people working and creating jobs in Ontario.

First, we've eliminated a tremendous amount of red tape. We've created a climate to encourage business. We've reduced taxation. It is a bit discouraging just as we get rolling, then up come strikes from people like drywallers. The future for jobs is information technology, and that's really the area that's developing very, very quickly in this country. It's disturbing to see that once we get below 8% unemployment, we don't have the necessary skills in this country. We start going overseas and looking outside of the jurisdiction of Canada to find the trained people.

Just touring a plant recently in Cobourg, the manager of that plant said to me: "I don't want to hear anything more about unemployment. I'm unable to hire the people with the skills who want to work and get on with it." The skills that they require are just not available. We all know for years and years, going back for several decades, that we've always been short of tool and dye makers and have had to go out of the country to find those.

The opposition often talks about the brain drain and "Why are people leaving this country, going elsewhere for jobs?" The reason is high taxation. Who created the high taxation? Who created the high debt? No wonder -

Interjection.

Mr Galt: That's right. The high taxation came from over there and the high debt came over from the NDP.

There's no question some of our people, law, dentistry, medicine, are getting cheap tuition, going through university here, and once they graduate, then what do they do? They want to move to where it's very cheap taxation-wise, and it's understandable why they would be doing that kind of thing.

To wind up - we're down to just a few seconds - we've really been talking about tuition, improving quality of education, recognizing that there has to be a change in Ontario. I've talked about a lot of the quotes and some of the things the Liberals were saying in the previous government. Above all, this change in post-secondary education will certainly improve quality education.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Time won't allow me to respond to some of the garbage that I heard over there, even from the NDP who themselves have contributed to this great increase. I was taken aback - I must comment about the member for Fort York attacking the Liberal government of the time, a government which had increased tuition fees 50%, then coming and attacking us and turning around to the present government, increasing it 60% and saying that is access.

Let me just take a few minutes to represent a few of the concerns of citizens in my constituency and also of my two daughters. Upon graduation each daughter had about $30,000 worth of loans to pay back. Of course after the first degree you would feel they would have access to jobs. No. One other daughter had to go on to do her master's, and Deone has done very well.

She's typical of what's happening in my constituency and people who are concerned about access to education, because this government has made it so difficult with the increase in tuition fees. One of the members was talking about rent control. That also has made it so difficult, that students today who go outside their area to rent are finding a rapid increase in the cost of their rental accommodation - another increase, another denial of access to education.

They have the gall to stand here and say that by doing all that they are improving access and improving quality of education. I don't know why you don't swallow your tongues, speaking that way. You just took these briefing notes from your bureaucrats and said, "Let's read it." Have some sort of conscience within yourself and say, "Is this true access?" No, it is not access, not in the least.

Then you bring in some rather fancy talk about income-contingent loans. The poorer people will pay more, because if you forgo your loans and only pay interest, in the long run you will be paying more.

Don't come here and try to convince us you're doing well in regard to access. Don't come here and tell us that things are so bad when in the meantime, while you have money, you're giving it away and increasing the debt and putting a greater load on those who are graduating and not finding jobs. Many of those people who are graduating are trekking to the United States to get jobs to pay off their loan, a greater loan that you have increased. You should be ashamed of yourselves, talking about improving access and improving quality of education in our province when you are doing the reverse.

1740

Mr Caplan: I'm very pleased to join this debate. I would just point out to all the members that the rules of the game really have changed. We live in a global society, in a knowledge-based economy, and when you live in that kind of society what happens is that your most important investment is the investment you make in people.

Look at what our competitor south of the border has done. South of the border, 48 of 50 states have increased by an average of 10% the amount of money they are funding into public education at a post-secondary level. By contrast, what have we done in Ontario? Remember, we're in direct competition with the United States. We've decreased our amount of funding by 15% over that period of time. So while our competitors are investing in their young people, we're pulling back those funds. We're placing a greater burden - in fact, Ontario, as many of my colleagues have noted, ranks 10th out of 10 in terms of university funding in Canada. It is a national shame.

I must also share with you the fact that in the last provincial election campaign, my Tory colleagues promised that university tuitions, the amount that students should pay towards the cost of their university, should be about 25%. In fact, I'll quote from the Blueprint for Learning. It says, "Tuition fees should be allowed to rise over a four-year period to 25%." Last year tuition fees accounted for 35%. In fact, at Nipissing University, tuitions account for in excess of 50% of the cost of university. Isn't that amazing? Another broken promise, doubly broken in North Bay. I can't imagine how the member from that region looks at himself in the mirror.

University tuition is part of it. One of the other parts is access to student assistance. Let's look at what the government has done to restrict and remove access to student assistance. They have increased the amount that parents must contribute towards their children's education. You might want to say: "Listen, we've funded a tax cut. People have extra money." Well, for a typical family of four earning $60,000 combined income, your tax cut is about $2,000 over four years. But for one year, you're now required to fund $8,000 towards the cost of post-secondary education - $8,000 over one year.

The government has changed their plan from loan forgiveness to a plan of grants. This saves the government some money in interest payments, and you have claims by members of the government and the Minister of Education that this is so-called new money. It is not true.

The government says: "We're going to move to an income-contingent plan. One of the things we're going to do is make it easier for our students to repay the amount of loan they have." So what did they do? They went to the federal government and said, "Join us in this plan." The federal government said: "We're not interested. We're interested in helping students and we're going to come out with a system of scholarship and grants." Then they went to the banks and the banks said to them: "We're not interested in your income-contingent plan. The reason is because you've done absolutely nothing to restrain the amount of debt the students are going to be facing."

So now what have they done? These genius financial managers have now said: "Great. We'll lay it on universities. We'll make them give loans on an income-contingent basis to students," when the banks, when financial institutions, when the federal government, when students themselves have said this is a bad idea.

I want to highlight a couple of other areas. One is in the area of part-time students. This government has said that part-time students no longer qualify for even one penny of OSAP, not one red cent. That is an absolute shame. I cannot believe that people who are looking to upgrade their skills and their abilities cannot get any help from the government.

I'll highlight only one last example. The provincial government has been nickel-and-diming students. There used to be a phone line that you could call as a student to find out what the status of your file was. It was a 1-800 number; it would go to Thunder Bay. They changed that. Now it's a toll system to a 1-900 number. Nickels and dimes.

There is just no end to the shamelessness of Mike Harris and the Tory government. They have treated students with contempt. It is time they adopted Dalton McGuinty's suggestion of a tuition freeze today, and I'm proud to support that resolution.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): It's my privilege and my special responsibility, I feel, to raise the issue of the tuition fee skyrocketing that's taking place in this province and to try to bring home to the members of the government the significance of their so doing.

On the one hand, we're simply talking about tuition fee hikes. But what we're really talking about here in its essence is how bright a future our province is going to have.

Today in the Legislature the Speaker took the opportunity to introduce to us the new group of pages. There are perhaps 20 new pages in here who are in grade 7 or 8.

Maybe it's opportune and only right that we look into the face of the future rather than discuss this concept in the abstract. For government members in particular I think it's important to understand that if these young people do well, our province does well. If they don't have an opportunity to pursue post-secondary studies because they've been shut out because the cost is simply too great, that doesn't bode well for our province. That doesn't bode well for us as individuals.

Let's remember, this is a public-private gain. That's what post-secondary studies are all about. It's a win-win situation. Whenever any young person in our province who has the ability to do so goes on to pursue post-secondary studies, that's in the interest of all Ontarians.

So when we strive to make sure that college and university studies are affordable by Ontario's youth, that is more than just some kind of effort on our part to be kind to young people. It's part of the most intelligent industrial strategy you can have in a knowledge-based economy.

I think people understand implicitly now - there's been so much change that's been unfolding all around us - that we can't get by simply by taking things out of the ground or by cutting down trees that grow on the face of the earth. We've got to, wherever possible, invest in our young people and cultivate the human mind. That's our greatest resource today - people - and right now we've got young people who are graduating from their first degree at university with a debt load in the range of $25,000.

Three weeks ago I visited Sault Ste Marie. They have an unemployment rate in Sault Ste Marie of 20% and rising.

1750

I had the opportunity to speak to a group of high school students. All of those students told me they intended to pursue university studies. They will have to leave Sault Ste Marie in order to do so.

I was thinking to myself, if one of them wanted to pursue medical studies here in Toronto at the University of Toronto, that would mean they'd have to, of course, move here and pay for their rent, their food, their transportation and their books, and that would be in addition to an annual tuition fee of $11,000. That would mean that if you wanted to pursue medical studies at the University of Toronto and you were from out of town, you'd be paying about $20,000 every year. There are three years in medical school. That would be $60,000. They would already have a $25,000 debt load from their undergraduate degree, so we're up to a total of $85,000 to pursue medical school.

I think it's important for us just to stop for a minute and ask ourselves, how many of us in here are enjoying the quality of life that we lead, how many of us are enjoying the economic returns that we experience as a result of our parents, the previous generation, deeming that it was important to keep the school doors open to us? They had the courage and the vision and the simple understanding to know that it's absolutely vital that we make room at the university and college table for our young people so that they can pursue post-secondary studies.

This government's lost sight of that good example. Not only did the government before, the NDP government, hike tuition fees by 50%, this government is hiking them by 60%. Then on top of that they're deregulating certain kinds of programs, like the professional degrees - medical school, dentistry, architecture, engineering, law school and the like.

We used to play by some rules which I think most people agreed were quite fair when it came to getting into college and university in this province. Those rules were very simple: You had to work hard and you had to get good marks, and if you did those two things, you'd get into college or university. Now we've got a new rule. A third new rule to be added to the others now obtains. That third rule says, "But you've got to be wealthy, your parents have to have money." Now, not only do you have to have the marks and the hard work, but you have to have the personal or the family wealth.

I think that's a step backwards. The reason we enjoy the quality of life that we do in this province is because so many of us have had the opportunity to pursue post-secondary studies. That's because previous generations have said, "Look, it's important that we pay our taxes and that we fund post-secondary studies to the extent that young people can pursue those studies in a way that's accessible and affordable to them."

Suddenly today in Ontario, in 1998, we're changing all of that. We're telling young people: "You want to pursue post-secondary studies? You're on your own." We feel no sense of responsibility. We who have been through the system, capitalized on all the opportunities, acquired the good education, got the good jobs, earning the good income, now say to the province's young, "You're on your own."

I think that is nothing less than selfish and I think it's nothing less than shortsighted. It's absolutely critical that we make sure in this economy, which people understand if it's going to be very successful has to be knowledge-based, we've got to understand that it's in our selfish interests - and maybe this is the language I should be speaking to the government - that our young people be able to pursue post-secondary studies.

Quite clearly, the government doesn't understand that. They've decided that a tax cut is more important than making sure we keep the doors open at our colleges and universities to the young people from the struggling middle class and from the poor, and we do have poor in Ontario. The best way to remove yourself from that - I can think of my dad: from the Ottawa Valley farm, six kids, he was the only one who went beyond grade 11. I can tell you, his father had left home, his mother was on her own. He would not have been able to go on and pursue studies right up to the post-PhD level unless universities were affordable to him. He worked damned hard to get there. I can tell you, as one of 10 kids in my family, that we have all benefited from the older generation that kept the doors open for us. I like to think that we have all done well and we're all paying our taxes, and I know we all have the expectation that we will do in our turn our part to keep our colleges and universities open to people who can't afford to spend a huge amount of money to acquire a post-secondary education.

I'm asking government members now to reconsider their post-secondary tuition fee policy; to understand the real consequences of jacking up those fees and putting them through the roof; to understand what it means to the hopes and dreams of our young people; to understand what it means to the very future of our province. The more we can keep post-secondary education affordable and accessible, the brighter the future we are going to have in Ontario. They've got to understand that.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr McGuinty has moved opposition day motion number 3. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1757 to 1802.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the members take their seats. Mr McGuinty has moved opposition day motion 3.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Marchese, Rosario

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Kells, Morley

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Runciman, Robert W.

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 30, the nays are 51.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

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

The House adjourned at 1807.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

1 juin 1998