Journal des débats 1998-sept-28 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): When homeowners across Ontario received their property tax bill they were very much surprised; unable, in fact, to understand their tax bill.

We in Toronto, especially, were not just surprised but shocked at the inability of this government to ensure not only that this tax bill was easy to understand but that the residents and homeowners would be ensured justice and fairness in the tax structure. The Conservatives passed the first tax bill, which was supposed to settle it. Then, of course, we know the second tax bill had to be introduced to fix the first tax bill. Then, of course, the third tax bill had to be introduced to fix the second one and the first one. In terms of property taxes, chaos was the result.

Today the Liberal Party, under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, has made a very clear indication to the government and that is, let's move on this as quickly as possible and extend the appeal period.

You have agreed to it, even though we know there was confusion even in terms of the appeal period. The Premier got up one time and said, "I'm not quite sure there should be an appeal period."

After public pressure and many demonstrations that not only forced homeowners on to the street but forced small businesses on to the street - there were thousands of them demonstrating on St Clair, on Bloor, on Dovercourt, east and west across the city, and certainly also in other places in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. You'll notice the clock's counting up, so you've got to a minute 30.

ARTHRITIS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On September 23, the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Ontario released a report entitled Patterns of Health Care in Ontario: Arthritis and Related Conditions.

The report is very clear that there is a lack of equity among the arthritis services that are available in Ontario. Areas like the north and southwestern Ontario, for example, have very few services compared to other parts of the province. This is completely unacceptable to us when we know that arthritis is one of our most serious conditions.

The report suggests that by the year 2020, as we age, more than three million people in Ontario will suffer as a result of arthritis and related conditions. The report says that arthritis is a highly prevalent disease, with enormous economic consequences for society in terms of health care utilization, disability and lost personal income. In 1994, the estimated societal cost of arthritis in Canada was $5.8 billion.

The report calls upon the Minister of Health to develop a management strategy for arthritis and related diseases. I call on the minister today to take action immediately on this matter. We know that in order to coordinate services to ensure that primary health care professionals are aware of arthritis, we need a concerted effort. This minister should take the lead in ensuring that we have that management strategy in place.

RUBY CONWAY

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I am pleased to rise today to honour Ruby Conway, a distinguished Canadian, noted journalist and community leader from Port Colborne in my riding of Niagara South. I am most pleased that Ruby is here with us today, seated in the members' gallery.

As a student at Steele Street school and Port Colborne High School, Ruby's teachers knew that she would contribute to her community in the most extraordinary way. They were right.

As a lifelong resident of Port Colborne, she has worked tirelessly for an impressive number of worthy causes and charities, including the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the sea and air cadets, the Red Cross and the Port Colborne Historical and Marine Museum, to name a few.

For over two decades, Ruby has been an important voice in her community. Her award-winning columns in the Port Colborne News and the Welland Tribune have been enjoyed by people of all ages.

She is a woman of abiding passion for local history and heritage. Most recently she was awarded with the Ontario Heritage Foundation achievement award for her dedication to preserving the rich history of our lakeside community. In 1994, she wrote Tales of Tennessee, a vivid account of the social happenings on Tennessee Avenue at the turn of the century.

Even Premier Harris has encountered Ruby's expertise and insight. She recommended, at a Premier's round table at Niagara-on-the-Lake not so long ago, a 24-hour seniors' hotline, which has been taken up in our rural health reform. So she has given us good advice here in the province and we welcome her here today. Thank you very much, Ruby.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The Mike Harris hospital closing commission is meeting in secret behind closed doors to determine the future of hospitals in the Niagara Peninsula. The commission is poised to swing its notorious axe in the near future despite the promise by Mike Harris during the last provincial election campaign that he had "no plan to close hospitals."

Having already closed or forced the amalgamation of 35 hospitals in Ontario, Mike Harris's commission has its eye on Hotel Dieu, Douglas Memorial, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Port Colborne and West Lincoln Memorial for either closure or drastic alteration in their role.

What Mike Harris and his hand-picked hospital closing commission must be aware of is that Niagara has the largest percentage of senior citizens of any municipality in Ontario and that seniors tend to require more hospital care than others in our communities.

Instead of cutting hospital funding by over $40 million, the Harris government should be increasing funding for the operation of our hospitals. We need more funding for nurses, facilities, medical and non-medical staff, and the general operation of our hospitals. Let's restore our hospitals in Ontario and in Niagara to their previous excellent state. We require Mike Harris to keep his promise to do so.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Remember when John Snobelen, the then Minister of Education, got caught on video telling Ministry of Education staff how to create a crisis in education in order to set the climate to make changes to the education system to save money? Well, they've created the crisis now and today they will introduce back-to-work legislation for those schools that are out, but we all know that this legislation won't fix the crisis.

Mike Harris could solve the strikes and the lockouts today by restoring adequate funding to our education system. We all know they've taken out a billion dollars. But what are they doing instead? They are pitting teachers against boards and claiming absolutely no responsibility for the crisis they admitted to creating.

What else are they doing? This government has spent up to $1.68 million on education advertising, on education propaganda during the first two weeks of school. That's happening while class sizes are actually getting larger in many schools. There are no longer education assistants and special assistants to help teachers. Teachers have more students to teach and less time with each of them. That is the reality of what's going on in our education system today.

We call on the government today to fix the real problem and put the money back.

CRAWFORD SMYTH

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to pay tribute to a constituent, Mr Crawford Smyth, who passed away July 15 on his 80th birthday after a lengthy battle with cancer.

Last June Mr Smyth was awarded the Ontario Medal of Good Citizenship by the Lieutenant Governor in a special ceremony at his home, a ceremony which I was honoured to attend. Unfortunately he was too ill to attend the investiture ceremony at the Legislative Building.

Mr Smyth served gallantly overseas during World War II, and upon his return devoted his life to community service work. In war he fought to protect the liberties and freedoms that we enjoy today; in peace he fought to assist those less fortunate. In doing so he made Scarborough a better place for all of us.

In 1957, Mr Smyth began a 41-year association with the Canadian Cancer Society. In the years following he held virtually every position in the organization, from canvasser to president. He started the strawberry social volunteer appreciation evening to recognize the important contributions that volunteers made to the cancer society.

As a member of the Scarborough Kiwanis Club he was instrumental in setting up the Kiwanis Music Festival and their efforts in supporting the Salvation Army's Red Shield Appeal some 25 years ago.

During the celebrations marking the centenary of Canada, Mr Smyth found time to chair both Scarborough's events and also the Ontario Centenary Music Festival. As well, he was a director of the CNE and president of both the Federation of Canadian Music Festivals and the Canadian Bureau for the Advancement of Music. In 1968, then-Mayor Albert Campbell appointed Mr Smyth to the TTC.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

1340

NELSON MANDELA

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On Friday, September 25, over 40,000 students witnessed history in the making. President Nelson Mandela was in town. The SkyDome saw this most impressive figure telling students how important they are to peace and the betterment of our planet. Mandela, the legendary figure, is acclaimed as a world hero, a symbol of hope.

Jim Coyle of the Toronto Star said it so well in his article: "Courage and commitment, dignity and grace, selflessness and endurance. It is possible to empty a dictionary and still not do justice to the man. But children know how," know so well how important it was. We sometimes take for granted how much they know and how sensitive they are and important to our population.

Mandela thanked Canada for being there for South Africa when apartheid was rampant in his country. We in Canada honoured him or in fact he honoured us by receiving the Order of Canada. He also, in his very busy schedule, had a business luncheon and a very impressive dinner that night. Although unable to attend because of exhaustion, he came back and gave a wonderful speech.

The children have spoken so well. It was of course unfortunate at times when they did not greet the Premier in the way we thought the office should be respected. However, we want to thank this great man for being such a great hero to us all.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Shortly after the election of the Harris government, the Minister of Education promised he was going to create a crisis in education in this province, and that's one promise they have kept in spades. Just take a look at the actions. It started with Bill 104, when they stripped away any ability for boards to find local solutions to local problems. It was followed by Bill 160 where they changed all of the rules that affected what used to be done in collective bargaining, and that was followed by a funding formula which stripped much-needed dollars out of our classrooms.

Take a look at what they've done in the last month. They terminated all collective agreements in the province on August 31, just a handful of days before the kids were due back in school. Then they threatened to legislate. Then they threatened not to legislate. Then they sent a letter to clarify, which interfered in bargaining. Then they said, "Don't pay any attention to our letter." Then they threatened to legislate again. Last Wednesday they said, "We won't legislate until we have an ERC ruling." Thursday they said, "We can't wait any longer." No wonder people out there don't know what's going on. No wonder boards like the Catholic board last night decided to keep those kids out of the classroom and the teachers out on the street, because they're going to wait for the government legislation.

You have created a crisis all right. It's a crisis that's going to affect our kids' education for a long time to come. Your legislation today won't fix a thing.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Of all the tasks of government, the most basic is to provide children with the tools to learn effectively. Last week I attended the family resource centre in Port Hope to help with their celebration launch of the preschool speech and language services program for the counties of Victoria, Haliburton, Northumberland and Peterborough. This program, which will benefit some 1,900 children, will help to identify preschool-age children with speech and language delays and difficulties.

With the help of a $357,000 reinvestment from our government, the speech and language working group were able to establish a new 1-800 telephone number so that parents can call regarding speech and language problems; hire another speech pathologist and communications disorder assistant; and help to form and solidify partnerships with social, educational and health agencies.

Through our reinvestments, this government has demonstrated its commitment to children. Our $20-million reinvestment in speech and language services will help to ensure that children in Ontario will be able to develop effective and long-lasting communication skills.

I applaud the staff at the family resource centre in Port Hope and the speech and language working group for their enthusiasm and initiative in developing this program and expanding the existing services.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on administration of justice and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 22, An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997.

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Thursday, June 4, 1998, the bill is ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that during the recess the Clerk received the sixth and seventh reports from the standing committee on government agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 105(g)(9), these reports are deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROPERTY TAX DEADLINE EXTENSION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE PROLONGEMENT DE DÉLAIS APPLICABLES À L'IMPÔT FONCIER

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 61, An Act to extend the deadlines for appealing property assessments and for giving certain notices relating to taxes and charges on properties with gross leases / Projet de loi 61, Loi prolongeant les délais prévus pour interjeter appel des évaluations foncières et pour donner certains avis concernant les impôts prélevés et les redevances imposées sur des biens à bail à loyer brut.

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

Any comments, Minister?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Of course, I think this is the fair thing to do for people, to give them more time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Sudbury, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Eves: I assume the opposition will give the same enthusiastic response to the first reading of the bill that the Minister of Education has to introduce.

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE RETOUR À L'ÉCOLE

Mr David Johnson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 62, An Act to resolve labour disputes between teachers' unions and school boards and to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time / Projet de loi 62, Loi visant à régler les conflits de travail opposant des syndicats d'enseignants et des conseils scolaires et modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les heures d'enseignement.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 74; the nays are 41.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Minister.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Quite simply, this is a bill to get our kids back into the classroom, where they deserve to be. At the same time, it allows the parties to carry on negotiations while the kids are back in the classroom or, if they choose, it allows for an arbitration-mediation process. It also deals with the essential issue of instructional time in these discussions in a definitive way.

I realize that this afternoon there may be different views on this bill. I simply ask that all the members of this House allow the bill to proceed. If the members feel they must vote against the bill, that's one course of action. But vote No quickly, vote No three times, if you must, but allow us to deal with this piece of legislation.

The Speaker: I appreciate that, but that's really not an explanatory note.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I do seek unanimous consent from this House to call the Back to School Act this afternoon and to consider and to vote on both second and third readings of the legislation.

The Speaker: The minister has asked for unanimous consent. Agreed? No.

Introduction of bills.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The government House leader mentioned at his meeting today that the Minister of Education would be rising to bring this matter forward. We have indicated our opposition to proceeding with this bill on three readings in one day. We believe that the debate should commence on this bill, and if the minister wishes the debate to commence, we're ready, willing and able to debate this bill today.

The Speaker: What are you looking for, unanimous consent? Is that the point of order?

Mr Bradley: Yes. I ask for unanimous consent to commence second reading debate on this bill today.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'll get to you right after I put this unanimous consent. Everyone heard the unanimous consent. Agreed? No.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps we can help in this. We've looked at the government's piece of legislation -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I say to the government members, everyone has had their chance for unanimous consent here. I think it's only fitting that the third party be given the opportunity to speak to it.

1400

Mr Hampton: We've had a chance to look at the government's legislation. There are about two pages of this which deal with "back to work." There are about 15 pages which deal with all sorts of other issues. We're prepared at this point in time to sever this bill into two bills: one dealing strictly with back-to-work legislation, in other words, about the first two pages of the bill; the rest dealing with everything else that you've tried to add on and throw in.

We're prepared to deal with the first part here and now. But all the issues that deal with your arbitration procedure, that deal with the changes you propose to the Education Act, we believe they have nothing to do with "back to work." We want those dealt with. I ask for unanimous consent to sever the bill and deal with this -

The Speaker: Okay. The leader of the third party is seeking unanimous consent to sever the bill and that's in order. Is there unanimous consent to sever -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Nepean, I don't want to debate with you. If you're not certain of this, then vote accordingly. All I'm asking you - it's in order to request to sever the bill. You've heard the member say where they'd like to sever it. Agreed? No.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Who said "no"?

The Speaker: Look, I don't have to tell you. I heard a "no."

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice for private members' public business be waived with respect to ballot items 21, 22, 23 and 24; and that notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Mrs Pupatello and Mr Cordiano exchange places in the order of precedence.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Two weeks ago, I met with concerned parents whose children were out of school as a result of a teachers' strike for the second time in 12 months. My message to parents at that time was to wait, to give the process a chance, because we believed that the best solution was for school boards and teachers' unions to achieve a mutually acceptable negotiated settlement. We asked parents to give the system a chance to work. They have waited, and in too many cases their patience has not been rewarded. These circumstances are extraordinary and unprecedented. Some of Ontario's children have missed up to six weeks of class time in a year, and this is not acceptable to the parents and it's not acceptable to the government of Ontario.

Last Thursday I again met with the parents, and at that time I told them I could not in good conscience allow the strike and lockouts to continue. The government is listening to the parents and students of our province, and that is why earlier today I introduced the Back to School Act, 1998.

The parents of Ontario are anxious that their children get back to school and the children themselves are eager to return to the classroom with their teachers. There are so many positive changes waiting for them back at school. The elementary students, for example, will arrive at school to find a new, more rigorous curriculum, over three million new textbooks and a new and understandable report card.

This legislation I'm proposing today is balanced and focused. It is focused first, and above all, on getting students back to school. If passed by the Legislature, this bill would allow parties to continue negotiating but without any further loss of classroom time. Where a strike or lockout has resulted in a loss of instructional time, the legislation would require boards, in consultation with parents and teachers, to develop a plan to make up for the missed curriculum.

The proposed legislation would provide for either party to initiate a speedy and fair mediation and arbitration process. The mediator and arbitrator would of course be required to ensure that the final agreements permit the board to respect all conditions of the Education Act and its regulations. Until an agreement is reached, teachers' working conditions would be either those set by the school board in compliance with the Education Act or those agreed to by the parties. Salaries and benefits, however, could not be less than those in the previous collective agreement. The proposed legislation would also further define the standards on instructional time established by the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997. This proposed definition would confirm what has always been the commonly understood definition of "instructional time" and ensure that teachers spend more time teaching students.

Ontario wants to get all our students back to school. We want children in their classrooms, learning and growing, guided by teachers. We want the issues between the boards and teachers to be settled fairly but without further cost to our students. The proposed Back to School Act, 1998, would, if approved by the Legislature, allow us to achieve these goals in the best interests of all parties, but especially of our students.

I say to the opposition parties, we have a real opportunity today to do the right thing for our children of this province: to vote to let the kids get back to class tomorrow. I hope we will all take this opportunity to serve the children of Ontario. In that regard, I would like to conclude my remarks today by indicating that I will be asking again for unanimous consent to proceed with and vote on second and third readings of the legislation this afternoon.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I think it's important at the outset that we just take a moment or two to determine how we got ourselves - you got us - into this mess. There are 200,000 students across Ontario today who are not in their classrooms, and that is a direct result of your complete mismanagement of public education in Ontario.

From the moment you assumed office you set out to create a crisis. You said that was exactly what you were going to do. You did that by taking $1 billion out of our classrooms. You set out in a very deliberate way to attack our teachers and the teaching profession. Never have teachers in this province felt so undervalued, felt that their confidence was so undermined as they do at the present time.

Then you introduced Bill 160. You were quite successful in turning every single child in the entire province outside of the classroom through that debate. Through Bill 160, you wrested complete control over all education; you took it upon yourself, whether we're talking about curriculum or funding. Then, for some reason known only to you, you decided that you were going to rip up 169 collective agreements. We have never seen the likes of that in this province since the social contract.

Then you introduced a funding formula, which has the net effect of meaning we're going to have fewer teachers available to teach our students, we're going to have school closures in Ontario, and from an individual student's perspective, that student will have less contact time with any one teacher.

Then you straitjacketed trustees so that trustees simply lack any flexibility whatsoever to sit down and negotiate in good faith with teachers.

Last week before a business audience, the Premier continued his attack on public education. He extended the attack to our students. He told the business audience, he told employers, that our kids simply aren't making the grade and that they don't measure up. This from the Premier of Ontario.

Parents understand who is responsible for this mess. In fact, so do kids. You may have noticed an informal poll was taken last week at the SkyDome. Some 40,000 children were offered an opportunity to give thumbs up or thumbs down to the Premier when it comes to education in Ontario, and everybody is aware of the results of that particular measurement.

This is all about kids; there's no doubt about that whatsoever. You say you want them back in the classroom. I want to come back to an offer I made last week. I said if you were to introduce a simple, clean, straightforward, honest bill that merely called for teachers to go back into the classroom and for school boards to be compelled to remove the locks from their doors and to provide for a process of fair and binding arbitration, we would pass that bill and kids would be in their classrooms this morning.

1410

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): They refused.

Mr McGuinty: You refused. We have been reasonable throughout; you have been unreasonable throughout. Parents understand who is responsible for this mess, students understand who is responsible for this mess, teachers understand, as do trustees.

If you want to be reasonable about this, then let's understand what the offer is once again so you can have the opportunity to reflect upon it and to stand up here in the House today and say: "We accept. We want the kids back in the classroom."

If you amend the existing bill instead of trying to have it all ways and to perpetuate this ongoing crisis, if you introduce a new bill or split the existing bill so that the bill we have to debate is in fact one which merely provides for the return of our teachers to their classrooms and requires that school boards take the locks off the classroom doors and provides for a process of fair and binding arbitration, we could have this bill a done deal in two days at most. That's fair. That's reasonable. If you are genuinely intent on returning children to our classrooms, I see no reason whatsoever why you can't accept that fair and reasonable offer.

If, on the other hand, you are intent on perpetuating an ongoing crisis, one that had its birth at the time you took office, one that you have helped promote and cultivate for the last two and a half years, then you won't accept that offer and you'll pretend that it's really us, the opposition, who are in the way of a fair and reasonable offer here when that's got nothing to do with it.

You can't trust Mike Harris to look after the educational interests of our kids. That's been clear from the outset. It remains clear to this point in time today.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Three and a half years ago, the Minister of Education for this government told a bunch of education officials that he wanted to create a crisis in Ontario's education system. Virtually everyone in the province has seen that on tape: the Minister of Education for this government saying he wanted to create a crisis in education.

Now, three and a half years later, after you've taken a billion dollars out of school budgets, after you've destroyed all of the collective agreements the very day before many students were supposed to go back to school, and after you have poured cold water on the negotiations that have been taking place across the province, you have indeed created a crisis, a very sorry crisis: you, the government. No one else has created this crisis. You have driven it in the media, you have driven it with your propaganda advertising, you have driven it with your uncompromising legislation, you have driven it by taking over a billion dollars out of our classrooms, and mostly, over the last three weeks, you have driven it by placing obstacles in the path of boards and teachers every time they've tried to sit down to negotiate a collective agreement.

In all of Ontario history, there have been only three major clashes between the teachers of this province and the government. You have the record of promoting two of those clashes within the last year alone. That's what you've done to education in this province. You said you would create a crisis, and you have created a crisis.

I would like to say just a few words to the students who have been the victims of a purely political strategy choreographed by this government, a strategy that intentionally made children suffer so that you could go out there and vilify and attack teachers. The reality is that because your government has cut a billion dollars from public education, each child's classroom is more and more overcrowded and underresourced. The reality is that you as children can't get the attention from your teachers that you need and deserve. I know you want to be back in your classroom. We want you back in the classroom, but we have a government here that insists on driving this forward, interfering with the bargaining of collective agreements, and now, today, has come here with a similarly uncompromising position.

I'd like to say something to the teachers as well. You know the damage this government's cuts have done to education. You know how much underfunding and under-resourcing of the classroom is happening. You have taken a strong and principled stand against this government's destruction of education in our province. We know you want to be back in the classroom. We want children and teachers back in the classroom, but no one here is going to give effect to a piece of knee-jerk legislation which may well make the situation worse down the road.

I put my offer to the government again. I put my offer to the Premier and to the Minister of Education. If you read this legislation you know that only the first 10 sections - sections 1 to 10 - have anything to do with putting our children back in the classroom. Everything beyond that, from section 11 on to sections 23 and 24, has nothing to do with putting children back in the classroom. It has everything to do with your attempt to go out there and create yet another crisis. I make the offer to this government once again. We are willing to sever the first 11 sections of this bill which deal with back to work, back to school. We're willing to sever them and we're willing to deal with them here, today, now. This will put the children back in the classroom.

The other sections which don't deal with having the children and the teachers back in the classroom deserve much further debate, much further examination, and that's what we aim to do. I ask the government again for unanimous consent: Sever the first 11 sections which deal with back to school. Leave out the other sections and deal with them later on. The first 11 sections can be dealt with by way of unanimous consent. Children can be back in the school very soon.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I wish to welcome the 16th group of pages to serve in this 36th Parliament, and they are David Armstrong from York Centre, Ava Baker from Oshawa, Jonathan Bassani from Lawrence, Jennifer Belanger from Simcoe West, Christine Clark from Scarborough West, Andrew Cudmore from Cochrane South, Stewart Cummings from Guelph, Alexander Cushing from Grey-Owen Sound, Keegan Hawkeswood from Windsor-Sandwich, Jason Hrick from London South, Roxanna Keshavarznia from St Catharines, Susan Kidnie from Eglinton, Joseph Lace from St George-St David, Kerry McKinlay from Essex-Kent, Latif Nasser from Mississauga East, Mark Palumbo from Yorkview, Jillian Pelletier from Nipissing, Wallis Rudnick from Ottawa East, Yvonne Takacs from Huron and Lauren Wells from Etobicoke-Humber. Welcome, all of you.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you'll be aware of the offer I made last week, which was a genuine effort to facilitate the return of over 200,000 children to their classrooms. You've introduced today a bill that is 19 pages in length. My question to you is very simple: Are you prepared to entertain any amendments whatsoever, any discussion of a splitting of this bill in order to expedite the return of over 200,000 children to their classrooms?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the minister can respond.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): This government is more than anxious to see the students back in the classroom, and we will sever the bill. If the House leaders can sit down and look at this and come to an agreement, we are prepared to look at a severing of the bill. However, I will say that the bill would have to be severed in terms of part I and part III being in the bill. Part II, which deals with instructional time, we're prepared, under the proper circumstances, to see severed from the bill.

This would require all the members of the House to agree today, if we proceeded on that basis, that all readings would have to be accomplished today and that the kids would have to be back in the classroom tomorrow, because that's what the objective is: to get the kids back into the classroom.

Mr McGuinty: It's interesting to learn here today during question period that there is some flexibility there, because that wasn't expressed by your House leader on behalf of your government just a couple of hours ago. Just so I understand it, Minister -

Interjection.

Mr McGuinty: Speaker, if the Premier wants to take the question, then why doesn't he stand up?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I think you can negotiate elsewhere. This is question period. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: What I'm going to ask the minister to do, through the Premier, is to instruct his House leader to meet with mine, and if they're in agreement, with the House leader for the third party immediately; to meet with them -

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It was our idea.

Interjections.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Isn't it funny they didn't ask that this morning at the House leaders' meeting.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr McGuinty: Is there anything to prevent, Minister and Premier, our House leaders from meeting immediately, right now? Secondly, are you telling me that it's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition? You're prepared to do away with part II of the bill but every other single reference in the bill - parts I and III - is to be maintained? You have no flexibility there whatsoever?

Hon David Johnson: I'm sorry to disappoint the Leader of the Opposition by being flexible. You would think that would be a desirable trait in a government, to be flexible, but the only thing preventing us from having an agreement on this is the inability of the opposition parties to assure us that this bill, if severed, will receive second and third reading today, final dealings today, so that the kids can be back in class tomorrow.

If we can have those assurances from the opposition parties, then the House leader is more than happy to sit down and work out those details.

Mr McGuinty: On a point of order, Speaker: Given the urgency of the situation before us, I am seeking unanimous consent of the House so that we adjourn immediately, that we allow the House leaders an opportunity to meet and to explore -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I want to hear this. Go ahead.

Mr McGuinty: - to explore the possibility that the Minister of Education tells me exists. I'm seeking unanimous consent on that front.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed?

Mr Christopherson: How about we get a question first?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold it. I did not hear a no, so let me ask again just to be sure. I just want to be sure on this. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed? No. I heard a no.

Final supplementary, leader of the official opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Right now we're at the final supplementary on the first question. Leader of the official opposition.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm quite willing to meet with the other House leaders while question period is going on to resolve the matter.

The Speaker: You know what? That may be a point of interest, a point of information, but I don't know how that's a point of order.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That's entirely acceptable to the New Democratic caucus. We'll meet right now.

The Speaker: That's another point of interest or information, but it's not a point of order.

Final supplementary, leader of the official opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold it. Something's coming to me.

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am delighted to continue the meeting I had this morning with the House leaders, where I asked the House leader at the time if he was prepared to split the bill and he said no. I'll be happy to do that.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I am pleased that the government has indicated a willingness to show some flexibility on this front and I'm pleased that the House leaders are going to meet immediately in order to explore the possibility of a resolution of this matter in a timely way.

I think it's important to inject a little bit of levity into this, but the fact of the matter is that this is a very serious situation. There are over 200,000 school-aged children who have not been able to attend their classes, and the reason that has happened is quite clearly because this government has set out from the outset to create a crisis in public education. Now they want to set themselves up as the hero. Now they want to come riding out of the hills and say: "We'll be the saviour. We'll get the kids back in the classroom."

I want to ask you, Minister, are you prepared to admit now that the reason there are 200,000 children who are not able to attend their classrooms is because of your and your government's incompetence and mismanagement of public education in Ontario?

Hon David Johnson: I don't know what the question in all that was, but I will say that in terms of the House leaders' meeting this morning, my understanding is that the opposition parties showed an unwillingness to have this bill dealt with today. If the opposition parties are prepared to deal with this bill today and get the kids back in class tomorrow, then we are anxious to proceed, because at the end of the day that's what it's all about. The instructional time is important because we want our kids to have the benefit of instructional time. But we're certainly flexible here today. If the House leaders can come back with an agreement so that all three parties are prepared to deal with this today and get the kids back in class, and if we're not going to quibble about that, then fine. Let's get the kids back in class and let's proceed with the severance.

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

Mr McGuinty: It will be to the same minister, Speaker.

Minister, if you're so intent on bringing about a speedy resolution of this matter, why did you introduce a 19-page bill? You could have introduced something so much more simple which was designed simply to get teachers back in the classroom. Why did you do that? Why is it that when confronted with this in the light of day inside this Legislature, you suddenly decide: "Maybe it's time for me to rethink this. Maybe I'd better back away from the edge. Maybe I'd better show a little bit of flexibility"? Why did you include an amendment to the Education Act in the first instance? Why is it essential that this be included in this bill?

Hon David Johnson: This bill protects standards that are important to us in the education system. This bill deals with the standard of the length of the instructional program, for example, at 300 minutes per day for our students. We want that protected. That's an aspect of this bill, to ensure that any award that's given respects the fact that our students deserve 300 minutes per day.

You asked about the instructional time. Instructional time is important. It's important to know that our teachers are in the classroom teaching the kids, teaching them the credit programs, teaching the special education programs, the English-as-a-second-language programs, the co-operative programs, the apprenticeship programs.

These are all dealt with in this particular bill. They're all important and if we don't deal with it at this point in time, then I've given notice that we will have to deal with it in the very near future, even if we do sever it. It's important to this government to protect the standards of quality of education, and that's what we will do, either through this bill or at some future point.

1430

Mr McGuinty: Putting kids back in the classroom, those 200,000 who are not there today, has nothing to do with standards. For those 200,000 kids, instructional time is zero; class size is zero. Why did you complicate it? Why did you make it harder? Why did you make it unreasonable for us to expedite this, except and unless you wanted to put us in some kind of hole and paint yourselves as the heroes? If you were genuinely intent on returning those 200,000 kids to the classrooms, why did you put forward an unreasonable bill?

Hon David Johnson: The leader of the official opposition may consider it unreasonable to protect standards for our kids - standards in our classrooms, standards for our students - but this government considers it to be fundamental.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon David Johnson: This government considers it fundamental to protect the standards of education that are alluded to in this bill. This government considers the other aspects of this bill, such as the makeup time for the time that's lost, to be very fundamental and of deep concern to the parents and to the students, something that should be dealt with. This government considers the definition of "instructional time" to be not only important to students, but fundamental in terms of the negotiation processes that are underway at the present time.

But we are prepared not to quibble. I'm asking the opposition parties to say the same thing, that you're not going to quibble today. If we sever out that section, are we going to get your unanimous consent to deal with this bill today?

Mr McGuinty: You never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. You had the occasion, you had the opportunity here today to introduce a bill that was -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I don't grade the quips. It's been a long time since I graded the quips.

Mr McGuinty: From one perspective this is very complicated, but from another it's very straightforward. You've got 200,000 kids who are out of the classroom. What do you have to do to get them back into the classroom? You put forward a bill and the bill simply provides that teachers have to go back into the classrooms and school boards have to stop locking teachers out and to provide for some kind of a system of fair and binding arbitration, and that's it.

You could have done that in two or three pages. You went on for l9 pages and you tried to sneak in this component dealing with instructional time, which you well recognize is very, very controversial.

Again, if you were so intent on returning students to the classroom at the earliest possible opportunity, why did you introduce a complicated, controversial bill today?

Hon David Johnson: I don't think this bill is very complicated, and I do consider that instructional time is an important element, not only for the eight boards in question but for all the other boards that are undergoing the negotiation process.

But we've said that we will take that part out of the bill. So I say to the Leader of the Opposition, we've said we will sever that part. Now, are you willing, with that flexibility, to give us your consent? I'll ask the same question to the third party. Are you willing to give us consent to deal with this bill today, all three readings today, to get the kids back in class? Yes or no? Will you give us that consent?

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party

Mr Hampton: I want to bring some clarity to the issues. I want to tell both the Premier and the Minister of Education that we are quite prepared, here and now, to sever sections 1 to 11 from the bill and proceed with them today: first reading, second reading, third reading. That will get the children back in the schools as soon as possible, possibly even tomorrow.

Everything after section 11 deals with something else, so I want it clearly from the Premier or the Minister of Education: Are you prepared, in the severance, to allow us to debate sections 11 through to the end of the bill? All it would take is perhaps one week. You, yourself, say in the legislation that the appointment of an arbitrator doesn't have to happen for 30 days, so your own deadline is sometime over the next 30 days. All it would take is one week to go through these sections of the bill. Are you prepared to do that?

Hon David Johnson: We have indicated what we're prepared to do. We're prepared to sever the second part out of this bill. The first part deals with the back-to-school legislation.

It's a very simple situation. Will the third party deal with the first part, which is the back-to-school legislation, if the government agrees to sever the second part, concerning instructional time, and deal with it at another point? Will the third party agree and deal with the rest of the bill, which hasn't been severed, in its totality, second and third reading today, and let the kids get back into school tomorrow?

Mr Hampton: Minister, this is your legislation. I'm going to read it to you. Section 4, "termination of lockout": We'll deal with that, no problem. We'll also deal with "prohibition re strike" and "prohibition re further lockout." We'll be happy to deal with the offence section. We'll be happy to deal with the deeming provision, terms of employment etc. All of these things deal with legitimate back-to-work issues, back-to-school issues.

All of the material about an appointment of an arbitrator, the arbitration process isn't going to begin until later on, the processes that the arbitrator must follow, the time limits the arbitrator must follow, the constraints on the arbitrator, judicial review of the arbitrator, all of those things that have nothing to do with getting the children back into the classroom tomorrow - we think we should wait on those. We think they should be subject to further important debate.

Minister, we're prepared to agree to passage right now, first, second and third reading, of all of the provisions which deal with back to school. But those that deal with arbitration -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: Clearly, all those sections that the leader of the third party has indicated beyond section 10 are important to the process of getting the kids back in class, of resolving this whole matter.

We've made an offer. Is the third party going to quibble? Is that what we're faced with?

Interjections.

1440

Hon David Johnson: We have put forward a reasonable position. In the first instance, the bill is a very reasonable bill. However, having listened to the concerns of the opposition parties here today, we are prepared to have flexibility because our number one goal is to get the kids back to class.

We have put forward a very reasonable position in terms of how to sever this bill, and I'm asking you today, yes or no, are you prepared to deal with the rest of the bill beyond that, the part that isn't severed, and get the kids back in the class tomorrow?

Mr Hampton: I find your response a bit confusing, to say the least. If you read the legislation, the first 11 sections are all about getting teachers and students back in the classroom and the conditions under which they will go back into the classroom. We agree with those. We'll support those; first, second and third reading today.

Everything after that deals with an arbitration process. In your own legislation, section 15, you say that the mediation arbitration proceedings shall be within 30 days. All we want is a week to discuss these things. Your own legislation says there's 30 days. Why this artificial constraint?

We can have the children back in the classroom tomorrow. We'll deal with the first 11 sections here and now. By your own admission, the sections that you want aren't going to take effect for 30 days. We can debate those this week and next week. What do you say?

Hon David Johnson: I would say that we have given a very reasonable offer. Part I is the resolution of the back-to-school issue, part II is the resolution of the instructional time and part III has to do with the short title. We have said that we will take part II out, sever part II. That is a reasonable offer that leaves the other two parts that can be dealt with this afternoon. If there is good intention to get the kids back to school, to deal with those two parts this afternoon and get the kids back to school tomorrow, this can be done. This has been done before; this can be done today. It only requires your goodwill to proceed with this.

I ask you, will you give us your consent to proceed with parts I and III today and get the kids back to class?

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

Mr Hampton: To the Minister of Education again: Read your own bill. The first 11 sections deal with getting the teachers and the students back into the classroom. We'll vote for that today. We'll pass it into law today.

The other sections that you're talking about, the arbitration mediation sections, even your own timeline says 30 days. You may not need this, and you probably won't need it, for 30 days. We can debate that material, those provisions, over the next week to 10 days. You'll have them in plenty of time. Are you interested in getting the children back into the classroom tomorrow or are you interested in pushing some of this other material through that has nothing to do with getting the children back into the classroom tomorrow? Which is it?

Hon David Johnson: We're here today because we are interested in getting the kids back to class. We have put forward a fair proposal to deal with this. The leader of the third party apparently won't accept this and is holding the kids hostage for whatever reason, for whatever political reason.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I've said several times here today that we're prepared to proceed with parts I and III today. Part II we can initiate tomorrow and have debate on that tomorrow, but parts I and III will get the kids back into the schools and will clarify the process of resolving this matter of the negotiations. That's a very reasonable position and I ask the leader of the third party to reconsider and put the kids first and allow them to go back to school.

Mr Hampton: The Minister of Education is really confusing. I want to read section 15 of his bill. Section 15 says, "The mediator-arbitrator shall begin the mediation-arbitration proceedings within 30 days of his appointment." By your own timeline there is a 30-day procedure here. Then it says he's got 90 days, that he shall make an award 90 days after the appointment. By your own bill you could easily sever this material and you could very easily have the children back in the classroom tomorrow. We could debate some of these controversial sections and deal with them. You could appoint the arbitrators next week - next Monday, next Tuesday, next Thursday - whenever you want.

Why do you insist on having these provisions when, if you read these provisions, it's clear that you don't need them right away? You can have them sometime in the next 30 days. Why won't you compromise on this?

Hon David Johnson: We have put forward what I think is a very fair and reasonable compromise in this matter, because the definition of "instructional time" is very important as well to the negotiations that are underway. It is a key and central issue in many of the negotiation processes. But we've said: "Fine, if that's your concern, in an effort to get the kids back in class tomorrow we'll set aside that debate until tomorrow. We'll deal with that debate starting tomorrow, but today we'll deal with parts I and III." I don't know why you won't see that we have to get the kids back in class. Have you put some sort of philosophical theory before the need to get kids back into the class?

It's very simple: We're prepared to deal with parts I and III today. Is the NDP prepared to deal with parts I and III today or are they going to hold up our kids and not allow our kids to get back to class? That's the question.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: For the benefit of the House, I would like to ask the minister if he can clarify his answer.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mr Sergio: May I say something?

The Speaker: Clarifying an answer is not a point of order.

Mr Sergio: Can I please -

The Speaker: Tell me what your point of order is.

Mr Sergio: The minister keeps on saying that he's willing to split the bill -

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. Final supplementary, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I think you owe it to people to give an explanation. It's very clear from a reading of your bill that the first 11 sections will have the teachers and the students back in the classroom tomorrow. Everything that follows after section 11 deals with arbitration and mediation that may happen down the road, and even this bill that you've brought in here says the mediation probably won't start for 30 days and doesn't have to terminate for 90 days.

So I don't understand. You can have the children back in the classroom tomorrow. We will vote for sections 1 through 11, first reading, second reading, third reading, here and now. Why are you so insistent on getting something today that you don't need for 30 days and which will go on for 90 days? Please explain that to the students, explain that to the parents, and explain that to the teachers.

We will vote to have the children back in the classroom; the arbitration process -

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: - can wait until next week. What's your answer?

Hon David Johnson: My answer is the same. This is not confusing; this is very simple. Mediation-arbitration does not need to start 30 days from now; it may start much sooner than 30 days from now. Boards and unions want and need these matters to be clarified.

1450

There's no rocket science here. I think it boils down to, has the third party painted itself into a corner or is the third party concerned about the standards that are important in this particular bill? Are they concerned about having this process of resolving the strike get going or are they more concerned about quibbling about where in a particular bill, after what particular clause, and holding the kids hostage as a result and not allowing the kids back in class?

I ask you, leader of the third party, to stand up here today and say you will give your consent on the severing that we propose and allow the kids to get back in school tomorrow.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): A question to the Minister of Education. As a result of your Bill 160 and regulations under Bill 160 issued by your ministry, you're requiring the Toronto Catholic District School Board to consider the closure of 29 Catholic elementary schools here in Toronto. The students, parents and teachers of these 29 schools have been given a very unreasonable deadline of November 15 to decide the future of their schools.

Mr Minister, will you be reasonable and give these parents and students and teachers enough time to respond, beyond this November 15 deadline?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, as the member opposite knows only too well, the Ministry of Education is not requiring any board anywhere in Ontario to close any schools. The Ministry of Education, through the funding formula, is providing adequate funds for the accommodation of the students, and in fact is requiring that if boards are looking at closing a particular school anywhere, they do so in consultation with the parents. The Ministry of Education is requiring that by the end of this year, if boards are intending to have schools count in their inventory, they notify the Ministry of Education. It's as simple as that. But all the decisions that are made in terms of school closures are made by the local board.

Mr Colle: At the public meetings that are being held in Toronto, the board is saying they are doing these closures because of you, your cuts in Bill 160 and your funding, or your lack of funding. Minister, you now have complete control over all aspects of education in this province as a result of Bill 160. We have never had schools close in the city of Toronto, Catholic schools. Now you're asking them to consider 29 schools being closed. Will you stand up on your feet and say you will not allow any of these 29 schools to be closed while you are minister?

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite indicates that a certain board has never had schools close. I don't have the precise statistics here before me today with the new House book, but rest assured I will at the next question period. But I do know that under the Liberal government there were literally well over 100 schools that closed in the province between 1985 and 1990. When the NDP were in office, again there were a number of schools that were closed across Ontario each and every year.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon David Johnson: I'll apologize if I recall incorrectly, but my recollection is that there were nearly 150 schools closed between 1985 and 1990.

The province of Ontario provides adequate funding for school boards for all purposes. There will actually be more money spent in the 1998-99 school year at elementary and secondary than ever in the history of the province, more money spent on elementary and secondary over the next year. Within the context of that increased funding, most of it directed into the classroom, the boards make the decisions on which schools to close or not to close.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Education: Minister, I'm confused by your position today. I want to read to you a memorandum from one of your own ministry officials which is equally confusing. It's dated September 14 and it's a memorandum to directors of education from Michel Robineau of the Ministry of Education. It says, "Attached please find an update of the following reports which outline the status of teacher negotiations as of September 10."

Then it goes over to the Sudbury separate school board and it says - this is the board's position - "Meetings terminated. Will wait for back-to-work legislation." This is September 10, and that was the board's position.

Minister, can you tell us what you did to get the board back to the bargaining table between September 10 and now?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I don't know what the member opposite is alluding to. I have had no involvement in any of the negotiations between the boards and the unions. The responsibility for negotiations rests with the teachers' unions on the one side and the school boards on the other side. That's a process I'd very much like to see work. That's why this particular legislation that's before us today is geared only to those eight boards which have been on strike for some considerable period of time, because there seems to be evidence that the negotiation process in these particular boards is not leading to a favourable resolution. Beyond that, the matters are between the boards and the unions, and they need to make their own determination.

Mr Hampton: What's puzzling about this is that this is an internal ministry document which says the ministry knows that the board has terminated bargaining as of September 10 and that the board is waiting for back-to-work legislation. I am asking the minister, did you do anything at all to get them back to the bargaining table to help resolve this?

I've got plenty of evidence. For example, this is from Don Folz. He's the education director for one of the boards affected by your back-to-work legislation, the Peterborough area Catholic board. Mr Folz sent a letter to you just over a week ago. He told the minister that the two sides were "on the cusp of an agreement. Then you issued your statement and your statement made it impossible."

That's from a director of education. He says that you, the minister, destroyed their bargaining relationship.

I put it to you again, Minister. We've got this legislation. We are prepared to pass right now, today, first, second and third readings of the sections which deal with getting the teachers back into the classroom. The arbitration stuff and some of the material that follows on the arbitration issues can wait until next week. Will you take that offer?

Hon David Johnson: Since we are today reading our internal memos or memos of whatever nature, I also have a memo here from the chair of the Toronto Catholic District School Board:

"The chair of the Toronto Catholic District School Board announced today that the board is planning to open its schools as soon as an agreement is reached with the secondary teachers' union or the government's back-to-school legislation is passed. Naturally, if no agreement can be reached with the teachers' union, the board expects Mr McGuinty and Mr Hampton and the Liberal and the NDP caucuses to vote in favour of the legislation so that students can be back in the classroom as early as tomorrow morning."

It's probably not a great surprise that I get quite a number of letters from various school boards, from various people, but this government has listened in particular to the parents, and the parents have taken quite an interest in the situation. The parents have come to me on more than one occasion, obviously in an organized way and through various means, and have said, "Enough is enough; we need to get the kids back into the classroom."

We have a piece of legislation, I say to the leader of the third party, that will do that today. We'll sever out the second part, and if we do that we're simply asking for your OK to go ahead, get all three readings today, and then we can get the kids back into class. Surely that's what we all want to accomplish here today.

1500

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): My question today is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. My riding of Guelph has a very diverse and interesting arts and culture sector. I know the minister herself is familiar with the Guelph Spring Festival, the Guelph Jazz Festival, the Hillside Festival, and recently she personally she visited the River Run Centre. It too is thriving.

My constituents were pleased to see the finance minister last May announce the creation of a $25-million arts endowment fund to match and invest money for participating arts organizations. I think this is an exciting opportunity here for partnerships among businesses, the government, the community and the culture sector.

Minister, would you please tell my constituents, the arts organizations in my riding and in other ridings across the province how they can access this new arts endowment fund and what the benefits will be?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Certainly this is a very exciting initiative and my ministry is already in the process of communicating how various arts groups can communicate and can access the fund. We have been in touch with all of the arts organizations already and bulletins will be out there.

It is a wonderful way for arts groups to form partnerships. It shows how government can help arts groups, as a matter of fact, form partnerships with businesses and the public, as you mentioned, by matching funds that they raise together. This will lead to more and much greater donations. This has been proved by many such funds dealing with arts and universities. The government is going to match on a dollar-for-dollar basis money raised by not-for-profit arts groups right across the province.

Mrs Elliott: Thank you, Minister. Would you please specify which organizations are eligible to access this fund and how they will go about doing it?

Hon Ms Bassett: Because it's important for us that all arts organizations, large and small, will have access to this fund, we have made sure that all organizations right across the province, of all sizes, will be eligible for the fund if they are not-for-profit professional arts groups. The program recognizes that the needs of different arts organizations differ and we've made the program flexible enough to ensure that smaller organizations will be in a good position to participate and benefit from the fund.

Monies raised will be matched. For example, if you raise $25,000, $25,000 will be added by the government; it'll get to $50,000. This will then generate a certain amount of money every year for operating funds. Anybody involved with arts organizations knows how important it is to have operating funds on a regular basis every year, and that's the idea behind it.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, we are all acutely aware of the fact that we are three weeks, and in some cases four weeks, into the school year and public attention has understandably focused on those students who are out of school because of lockouts or strikes. In the meantime, there are some very vulnerable students who are either out of school or in class without the supports they need to be able to function in their class because you can't get your act together.

We have heard from parents and teachers who are extremely concerned about the fact that, three and four weeks into the school year, the special education dollars that you have committed to support special needs students in our schools have not actually reached the school boards.

Minister, why has the money for special needs students that you have promised to those individual students not actually reached the boards so that teachers and assistants can be hired for their support?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The key word there is "promise," and we will live up to that promise. For the first time a government has protected special education funding. Never in the history of the province has special education funding been protected before, and we have done so to the tune of over $1 billion.

Notwithstanding that we have protected it by over $1 billion, there was the odd report coming back that in a board here or there special education students who had received services last year might not get the same services this year, so we said: "We won't allow that to happen. We'll ensure that every special education student who has been receiving services continues to receive them. As a result, we have gone through an audit process this summer with the various boards. That audit process is coming to a conclusion. There will be at least another $40 million over and above the $1 billion put into special education, and the boards will be receiving that money very shortly to ensure -

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

Mrs McLeod: Here is the real face of a Tory promise: Talk a lot about all the money you're putting into special education, but almost a month into the school year and our most vulnerable students are not seeing the benefits of any of those dollars. This is absolutely inexcusable. It appears to be widespread across the province. We have heard from parents from Essex to Toronto to Thunder Bay and Rainy River. Those boards made their submissions to you months ago. They have been approved. The problems seem to have been ironed out. They're told there is supposed to be enough money. The money has been promised and it is not flowing. Those kids are sitting in classes or at home because they can't get the support you keep publicly promising and haven't delivered, and this morning your ministry officials were on the phone reassuring boards that the money would indeed be coming.

Will you guarantee that school boards will have the money for special-needs students by tomorrow morning so they can hire the staff that's needed to support our most vulnerable students?

Hon David Johnson: This government is committed to special education. This money is flowing through the pipeline. It will all be at the school boards in the very near future. The school boards know this money is coming. All that is happening is that the exact amount is being fine-tuned according to the needs of the individual students and the individual schools.

An independent audit has taken place through the summer to determine the precise amount of money for each board. That is being wrapped up. This government, again, is the first government which has protected this money for special education students, and this money, the first in history to be protected, to be directed solely to special education students, will be announced precisely in the very near future.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Education: I think we would all agree in this Legislature that it is quite unusual for a piece of legislation to receive first, second and third readings in the same day and then be passed into law that day as well. That only happens in emergency or extraordinary circumstances. I agree with you that having children back in the classroom now is an extraordinary situation. That's why I've said to you that all of the sections of this bill, 1 through 11, which deal with getting the children back into the classroom tomorrow, we will pass here and now, one, two and three, first reading, second reading and third reading, today.

What I don't understand is the arbitration measures, which you yourself say are going to take place sometime between the next 30 and 90 days: Why are they an emergency? Can you tell us why they are an emergency? They're not going to happen for the next 30 to 90 days? Why would you want to ram those through? Why is that for some reason an emergency for you? Can you explain that?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, the arbitration proceedings don't necessarily start 30 days from now; the arbitration proceedings could start much quicker than that. I think the leader of the third party knows that. He's making a certain interpretation which he knows is on the far end of the scale.

Secondly, over the years there have been a number of cases of back-to-school legislation before this Legislature, quite a number of pieces of legislation, which have been dealt with in the same day; all three readings in the very same day. There are any number of cases and I'm sure the leader of the third party knows that. Indeed the NDP, during their stay in office, had at least two pieces of legislation which were introduced to the House. So this is not unusual in this kind of circumstance. It's very simple. All it needs is the co-operation of all the members of the House.

Mr Hampton: Again we don't get an answer from this minister. Your own bill provides that even after teachers are back in the classroom and students are back in the classroom there will be time for further negotiation. I haven't heard out of you at all this afternoon why you have to have these arbitration provisions, the arbitrations which don't have to begin for 30 days and continue on for 90 days. I don't understand your position. I don't understand the urgency for this. You've given no reason.

1510

You can have the children back in the classroom tomorrow by passing sections 1 through 11 here and now, today. Why won't you do that, Minister? Why won't you take up that offer? Pass them now. Have this through the Legislature. Have the children back in the classroom tomorrow. Why won't you do that?

Hon David Johnson: It's very simple. Through the years this House has entertained any number of pieces of back-to-school legislation. Many of those have been dealt with on the same day. Why is the leader of the third party holding the kids up for ransom? Why are you holding the kids hostage today?

The third party, when it was in office, introduced back-to-school legislation. There's nothing unusual about this. It simply deals with "back to school" and the process for resolving the dispute. Nothing could be simpler. You had this bill over the weekend. You had the opportunity to see it. I simply ask for your support today.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Recently the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board had good news for a number of businesses in the Peterborough area: 43 greater Peterborough area companies received cheques totalling more than $200,000 for collectively improving their workplace health and safety performance. Minister, could you please expand on the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's safe communities initiative program and its benefits.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I thank the member for Peterborough for the question. As the Minister of Labour, I am extremely proud of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's safe communities incentive program. It's a program that works and it's vital for occupational health and safety and the future of health and safety in the workplaces of Ontario.

The program is a community-based health and safety experience rating program designed to help small business improve health and safety and reduce their compensation costs. Under the program, the companies gain access to an expert health and safety consulting team and new training programs and resources. Participating firms join a group policy. The group then receives 75% of any savings resulting from combined improvements in their health and safety performance. The program is consistent with the Ministry of Labour's goal of encouraging greater self-reliance in the workplaces of Ontario.

Mr Stewart: I was at the meeting they had to give out these cheques and I can tell you that the companies that received them were most impressed with what they have done and what their staffs have done in workplace health and safety.

Minister, can you give this House more detail on how this program has indeed paid off for the city of Peterborough, one of three in Ontario?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The 43 Peterborough area companies received the cheques for their efforts to improve workplace health and safety performance as a group. The participating companies in the Peterborough area reduced their collective costs by more than 60%, but the program also saves lives. The participating companies can boast of an increased level of health and safety in their workplaces. They can be proud of their efforts in making their workplaces among the safest not only in Ontario, not only in Canada, but in the world.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's new mandate is to ensure that Ontario's companies put efforts into the prevention of accidents and into becoming self-reliant in their approach to health and safety. I am encouraged by the results of this program and I'm looking forward to its expansion in the next few months. The Ministry of Labour is committed to Ontario's workplaces being among the safest in the world.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. On August 5 a truck carrying 40,000 pounds of explosives was involved in an accident which caused horrific damage, both personal and property. You have continually refused to call a public inquiry into this as Minister of Transportation. Today will you answer this question for me? Will you confirm what one of your staffers told us at a briefing meeting, that the company carrying the 40,000-pound bomb was under investigation, to quote his terms, "for a variety of issues" before the crash, at the time of the crash and after the crash? Will you confirm that today?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I'd be happy to confirm to this House that the Ministry of Transportation is working 24 hours a day, seven days a week with Transport Canada. As the member well knows, under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, which is a federal piece of legislation, the federal government has the sole jurisdiction to deal with the transportation of dangerous goods. I've made that abundantly clear to the member on several occasions, and yet he insists on wanting provincial bureaucrats to trip over the feet of the federal bureaucrats. That will not get us to the truth, as the member should know. We are committed to getting to the truth in a full and fair investigation.

Mr Bartolucci: The minister should know that the Public Inquiries Act as amended gives you the jurisdiction to call a public inquiry. You have refused my request for a public inquiry. You have refused the request of the town of Walden and the people of Nickel Belt for a public inquiry. You have refused the regional municipality of Sudbury's request for a public inquiry. You have refused Frank Madigan's request, the Liberal candidate in Nickel Belt, for a public inquiry. Will you now accept the fact that 1.85 million people from 104 municipalities across Ontario are requesting a public inquiry by you? Will you now listen to the 1.85 million people across Ontario who want a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Clement: To the honourable member, I'm listening to the law, and the law of this land makes it abundantly clear that there is one person in this country who has the power to order a public inquiry, the federal Minister of Transport. If the member has a problem with the federal Minister of Transport, a federal Liberal, I suggest he talk to that federal member. I want this Legislature to know that Transport Canada is conducting a full investigation. The Ministry of Transportation is working with our federal colleagues.

I think there's a bit of showboating going on. Kirkland Lake council says, "This guy's making political points and we're not here to help him." They're referring to you, Mr Bartolucci, the member for Sudbury; they're not referring to us. Maybe this question wouldn't be asked in two days' time.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have 104 municipalities that say it's you who's responsible.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's not a point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: No, that wasn't a point of order. You're absolutely right.

1520

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We've tried to get the Minister of Education to tell us why he will not sever the first 11 sections from his bill and let those proceed, but the minister seems to be quite hidebound about this, so I'm going to ask for unanimous consent that parts I and III of the bill be severed, that we debate those until midnight and we be permitted to go to committee of the whole to put amendments to them. We agree that we'll have first, second and third reading by midnight, but everything in part II is severed from the bill and the debate on everything in part II will not be until sometime later. This will get children back into school tomorrow. I ask for unanimous consent on that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's a good point, actually. Why don't we seek unanimous consent so you can move a motion, because it's a very complicated request you're making and I can't really get it straight. Why don't you seek unanimous consent first off, so you can move a motion for that particular bill? Is that OK?

Mr Hampton: I'm asking unanimous consent to move a motion which will help us deal with the issue at hand.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, it's non-debatable.

Agreed? Agreed.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I know it's tough. I know it's very difficult - OK, now he's agreed. He can move his motion. You can still say no to his motion, but now he gets a chance to move his motion.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I think I am in the middle of a point of order. That's the difficulty right now.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If this will help with the impasse, I ask for unanimous consent. This is a motion that we will debate parts I and III until midnight. That gives us approximately three sessional days to debate those, and we go to committee of the whole so that amendments can be put on those sections within that time frame. We agree that we'll have first, second and third reading by midnight. But part II of your bill is severed and will not be dealt with and we will not deal with that until sometime in the future.

The Speaker: I think I got that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's not really negotiable. It's not debatable either.

Hon Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm in a point of order. I can't very well do this. The difficulty I have is that I'm in a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: All right. Fine. I'm going to hear the point of order from the government House leader if that's agreeable. Is that agreeable? Point of order.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I think we're in agreement with the general thrust of this. Perhaps if the leader of the third party could put it after petitions, which is about 20 minutes, so that we can put this down in writing and get it straight, if that would be agreeable.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it's reasonable because it's the agreement that the three House leaders had just a few minutes ago back there.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: No. I think the members should know, and I think the government House leader will confirm, that this is essentially what was already agreed to back there and I was under the impression that the government had agreed to that. Essentially, that's what it was.

The Speaker: OK, let's agree to put this after petitions. Agreed? Agreed.

PETITIONS

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

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

"Whereas a tractor-trailer truck carrying a variety of explosives was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Highway 17 west, near Sudbury, causing an explosion which destroyed a 100-foot section of the highway and created a crater 15 feet deep;

"Whereas a shock wave resulting from the explosion broke doors, windows, frames and soffits on houses, causing significant personal and property damage;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what emergency plans are in place when dangerous cargo is being transported on our highways;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have a right to know what protections are in place for residents who live in close proximity to vehicles carrying destructive materials;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what restrictions and precautions the Ministry of Transportation places on companies who haul dangerous cargoes;

"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government call a public inquiry into this accident in order to make recommendations that will ensure this type of horrific accident does not happen again and to answer the many questions the people of northern Ontario have."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition presented to the Minister of Health, the member for Waterloo North, who of course is unable to present petitions in this House and has asked me to do it. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

"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;

"Whereas 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."

It's signed by quite a number of constituents from the Waterloo-Wellington area.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas a tractor-trailer truck carrying a variety of explosives was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Highway 17 west, near Sudbury," in the riding of Nickel Belt, "causing an explosion which destroyed a 100-foot section of the highway and created a crater 15 feet deep;

"Whereas a shock wave resulting from the explosion broke doors, windows, frames and soffits on houses, causing significant personal and property damage;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have the right to know what emergency plans are in place when dangerous cargo is being transported on our highways;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have a right to know what protections are in place for residents who live in close proximity to vehicles carrying destructive materials;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have the right to know what restrictions and precautions the Ministry of Transportation places on companies who haul dangerous cargo;

I affix my signature to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by 7,225 residents from the greater Cornwall area.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission recommends two sites, two boards and two administrations for Cornwall and area hospitals;

"Whereas the HSRC recommends the closing of hospital lab services in Cornwall;

"Whereas the HSRC recommends building upon a site that has no room for growth beyond the year 2003 and will be unable to meet the community's future needs;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to instruct the Health Services Restructuring Commission to consolidate all hospital services at the Hotel Dieu site, which offers 28 acres of property for future development, with one board and one administration."

I have also signed the petition.

1530

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas a tractor-trailer truck carrying a variety of explosives was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Highway 17 west, near Sudbury," and near Nickel Belt, "causing an explosion which destroyed a 100-foot section of the highway and created a crater 15 feet deep;

"Whereas a shock wave resulting from the explosion broke doors, windows, frames and soffits on houses, causing significant personal and property damage;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what emergency plans are in place when dangerous cargo is being transported on our highways...;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what restrictions and precautions the Ministry of Transportation places on companies who haul dangerous cargo;

I will sign this petition.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "Whereas a tractor-trailer truck carrying a variety of explosives was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Highway 17 west, near Sudbury," in the riding of Nickel Belt, "causing an explosion which destroyed a 100-foot section of the highway and created a crater 15 feet deep;

"Whereas a shock wave resulting from the explosion broke doors, windows, frames and soffits on houses" in the riding of Nickel Belt, "causing significant personal and property damage;

"Whereas the residents of" northern "Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have the right to know what emergency plans are in place when dangerous cargo is being transported on our highways;

"Whereas the residents of" northern "Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have the right to know what protections are in place for residents who live in close proximity to vehicles carrying destructive materials;

"Whereas the residents of" northern "Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have the right to know what restrictions and precautions the Ministry of Transportation places on companies who haul dangerous cargo;

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I too have a petition similar to the one just read about a very important issue that's taking place in the riding of Nickel Belt. It states, and I'll just read it once again:

"Whereas a tractor-trailer truck carrying a variety of explosives was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Highway 17 west, near Sudbury" - Nickel Belt - "causing an explosion which destroyed a 100-foot section of the highway and created a crater 15 feet deep;

"Whereas a shock wave resulting from the explosion broke doors, windows, frames and soffits on houses, causing significant personal and property damage;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what emergency plans are in place when dangerous cargo is being transported on our highways;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what protections are in place for residents who live in close proximity to vehicles carrying destructive materials;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what restrictions and precautions the Ministry of Transportation places on companies who haul dangerous cargo;

"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government call a public inquiry" immediately "into this accident" in Nickel Belt "in order to make recommendations that will ensure this type of horrific accident does not happen again and to answer the many questions people of northern Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have."

I've signed my signature to this as well.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a similar petition which greatly impacts the people of Nickel Belt, and there is a great deal of concern. It goes as follows:

"Whereas a tractor-trailer carrying a variety of explosives was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Highway 17 west, near Sudbury," in the riding of Nickel Belt, "causing an explosion which destroyed a 100-foot section of the highway and created a crater 15 feet deep;

"Whereas a shock wave resulting from the explosion broke doors, windows, frames and soffits on houses, causing significant personal and property damage;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what emergency plans are in place when dangerous cargo is being transported on our highways;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have a right to know what protections are in place for residents who live in close proximity to vehicles carrying destructive materials;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what restrictions and precautions the Ministry of Transportation places on companies who haul dangerous cargo;

I sign my signature to the petition as well.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This week is Prostate Cancer Awareness Week in Sudbury, and the following petition is to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario in 1996;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, which is prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Ministry of Health" and the Minister of Health "to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

I affix my signature to the petition.

ROYAL ASSENT/ SANCTION ROYALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her office.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour did assent:

Bill 15, An Act to cut taxes for people and for small business and to implement other measures contained in the 1998 Budget / Projet de loi 15, Loi visant à réduire les impôts des particuliers et des petites entreprises et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures contenues dans le budget de 1998.

Bill 26, An Act to promote public safety through the creation of community safety zones / Projet de loi 26, Loi visant à favoriser la sécurité publique par la création de zones de sécurité communautaires;

Bill 28, An Act to permit the Collection of Personal Information for the Payment of the Ontario Child Care Supplement for Working Families / Projet de loi 28, Loi permettant la collecte de renseignements personnels en vue du versement du supplément de revenu de l'Ontario pour les familles travailleuses ayant des frais de garde d'enfants;

Bill 31, An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi visant à promouvoir le développement économique et à créer des emplois dans l'industrie de la construction, favorisant la démocratie en milieu de travail et apportant d'autres modifications aux lois ayant trait au travail et à l'emploi;

Bill 36, An Act to amend the Election Act and the Election Finances Act, and to make related amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la Loi sur le financement des élections et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois;

Bill 37, An Act to designate a week of recognition for Ontario's Farmers / Projet de loi 137, Loi désignant une semaine de reconnaissance envers les agriculteurs de l'Ontario;

Bill 44, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 44, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la cité de Toronto;

Bill 51, An Act to amalgamate Sunnybrook Hospital and Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital and to transfer all assets and liabilities of Women's College Hospital to the amalgamated hospital / Projet de loi 51, Loi fusionnant les hôpitaux nommés Sunnybrook Hospital et Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital et transférant l'actif et le passif de l'hôpital nommé Women's College Hospital à l'hôpital issu de la fusion;

Bill Pr15, An Act respecting The Corporation of the City of Kitchener;

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College;

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College;

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent;

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting Canadian Information Processing Society of Ontario.

1540

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I guess we have unanimous consent at this point to move a motion without notice.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do we have unanimous consent to move a motion? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move:

(1) That Bill 62, An Act to resolve labour disputes between teachers' unions and school boards and to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time shall be modified by deleting part II under the heading, Amendments to the Education Act, and that this modified Bill 62 go forward for consideration of the House;

(2) That the House be permitted to sit beyond its normal adjournment time, but no later than 11:45 pm, for the purposes of considering the modified bill;

(3) That notwithstanding any standing order relating to Bill 62, An Act to resolve labour disputes between teachers' unions and school boards and to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time, when Bill 62 is next called, three hours shall be allotted to the second reading stage of the bill;

(4) That at the end of those three hours the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill and the bill shall then be referred to committee of the whole House for immediate consideration, and that up to two hours be allotted for consideration of the bill at that stage;

(5) That at the end of that period, up to two hours, the chair of the committee shall without further debate or amendment put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House;

(6) That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

(7) That the order for third reading of the bill shall then immediately be called and one hour shall be allocated to the third reading stage of the bill.

(8) At the end of that time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

(9) That in the case of any divisions relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes and that there shall be no deferral of the vote pursuant to standing order 28(h).

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Mr Sterling: Before calling the bill which has just been introduced today, I would ask for unanimous consent to revert to introduction of bills so we can introduce a bill relating to part II of the bill.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSTRUCTION TIME: MINIMUM STANDARDS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES HEURES D'ENSEIGNEMENT : NORMES MINIMALES

Mr David Johnson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 63, An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time / Projet de loi 63, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les heures d'enseignement.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Carried.

Minister of Education.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): No comments at this time, Mr Speaker.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just for the information of the House, I think we all recognize that the long title of Bill 62, if and when we get to debate it today, as per the motion passed with unanimous consent, will have to change as per the bill that has just been introduced by the minister.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE RETOUR À L'ÉCOLE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Orders of the day.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Bill 62, An Act to resolve labour disputes between teachers' unions and school boards and to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: That's exactly the one raised by - the titling of this second reading debate. The bill has now been changed. It no longer includes an amendment to the Education Act on instructional time. I don't want to prolong this, but maybe it's necessary to make an immediate change to that name in order to introduce this revised bill.

The Speaker: I think it's true that they can amend that at committee of the whole today. I'm sure they have that on the table to amend at committee of the whole, don't you? Okay.

Mr Dave Johnson moved second reading of the following bill:

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm delighted to be able to speak to this bill this afternoon and to congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the House, because this really is an issue that doesn't involve politics. This is an issue that involves kids. It involves getting kids back into the classrooms, which I'm sure we all agree they should all have been attending right from the very beginning.

The bill, if it's passed by this House today, will reopen the schools that have been closed unfortunately by either strikes or lockouts over the last several weeks, denying our children the right to be in the classrooms that they so much deserve.

1550

The bill would achieve that goal and would achieve it in a manner that's fair, I believe, both to the school boards and to the unions. Those are the same bodies which unfortunately have encountered an impasse in so many of their negotiations over the past few weeks.

The bill would also ensure that there is a consistent application of the provincial education standards through this process. Those education standards are most important. Some of them have been alluded to during the question period here today and perhaps during the statement period by the members, but those standards, as one example, involve the maximum size of the classes.

We've indicated through Bill 160 that the class sizes would be capped at 25 at the elementary level and at 22 at the secondary level to ensure a quality of education in Ontario. Unfortunately, I might say that those class sizes have been increasing. People talk to me about the class sizes and they say, "Minister, there's not necessarily a correlation between the average class sizes and the quality of education." There are various academics, for example, who hold this opinion that there isn't any absolute proof in a study somewhere that there's a precise correlation between the average class size and the quality of education. To them I say, ask the parents. Ask the students or the parents about -

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Ask the teachers.

Hon David Johnson: You're absolutely right, ask the teachers. Ask the principals, ask the people who are there in the classroom, who have a stake in the classroom, and they will tell you that the average class size is important.

Unfortunately, what's happened between 1991 and 1997, as one example, is that the average class size at the elementary level has gone up each and every year. It's time to put a stop to that growth in the class sizes.

Some people say to me, "There still will be classes of 35," or "There still will be classes of 40." But you know what? If we didn't put the cap on the class size, they'd be even greater still. The smaller classes get bigger, the bigger classes get bigger, the average classes get bigger. They all get bigger, but we've put a stop to that. For the first time in the history of education in Ontario, we have said that cannot carry on. We must stop the growth in the average class size in Ontario: 25 at the elementary, 22 at the secondary.

It's interesting that some boards are having to work to meet those standards because their average class sizes are higher and they have to bring them down. They've negotiated some of those, as my colleague has indicated, with the teachers, with the unions during that period of time, and those negotiations and those contracts -

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): Social contract.

Hon David Johnson: -social contracts as a case in point, have resulted in some higher class sizes. I don't think we want to see that. So we've, for the first time, put a halt to that.

But what's happening now is that some of the boards are having to work, because they're having to make more classes, smaller classes, hire more teachers. Isn't that great? The money is based on those class sizes and it's protected. It's based on those class sizes, so they have the money to do it, and that's just great. That's one of the standards that we're very concerned about in education.

Another standard, I might say, is the number of days that our students have: 190 instructional days in Ontario. At the secondary level, that includes 10 days of examination time, but those days for the first time recently give our students the same number of instructional days as students in other provinces. It reflects perhaps not kindly on us, on the government of Ontario, on the Ministry of Education, that we had let this slip over the years so that our students were getting fewer days of instructional time than students in other provinces at the secondary level, our students receiving 10 days below the average of students across the rest of Canada.

Then what happens is that the students from Ontario participate in international tests, they participate in national tests, and the results are not what we would want to see. The results, unfortunately, are that the students from the province of Ontario do not score as well as students from Alberta or British Columbia, and frankly too many other provinces, in mathematics, in science.

Is it any wonder? Has it been any wonder in the past? If our students don't have the opportunity for the same number of instructional days, if they don't have the benefit of lower class sizes, if the class sizes keep increasing, they're not given a fair opportunity. Our teachers are not given a fair opportunity.

The Premier last week in a speech said we have excellent teachers in the province of Ontario but the system needs to be changed. That's what he was referring to: the system. The system is such that our students did not have the advantage of the same number of instructional days as students in other jurisdictions, and the system was such that the average class size continued to grow year after year. That's what we have changed, and that's what we need to protect.

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: Thank you to my colleague across.

Through this bill, we are insisting that those kinds of standards be protected and that the resolution, the arbitration process, not be able to impinge on those kinds of standards which we have set in the province and which we think are most important.

We have listened very closely to the parents. The history has been that governments traditionally listen to the Education Relations Commission before legislating back to school. The Education Relations Commission has been involved, if my statistics prove correct, in about 11 other circumstances over the past 20-some-odd years. There was a circumstance under the Liberal government in Wellington, I believe; in Lambton and East Parry Sound and Windsor with the previous government. You may recall those circumstances, as a government, that required legislation. Perhaps in one case the legislation actually was proclaimed but didn't come into effect because the matter was resolved, but nevertheless there were a couple of other cases where legislation was required and was passed.

This is a matter that comes up from time to time and requires considerable thought. The Education Relations Commission has often given advice to the government on when legislation should be brought into the House, but the reality is that the Education Relations Commission generally takes a considerable period of time. I don't have the precise average number of days. I believe it's up into 30-some-odd days, somebody calculated, on average. Those are school days, 30-some-odd school days, on average, before the Education Relations Commission said: "This school year is in jeopardy. Our advice would be that legislation be considered." That's too long, in our estimation, this time.

We have listened to the parents particularly from the region of York, who are affected both at the elementary and the secondary level through the separate school system. They have shown remarkable patience but they have come to us and said that it is time to proceed. It is time to proceed for the sake of the children; it is time to proceed for the sake of their education.

Of particular concern are those students in their last year of secondary school who will be going on to post-secondary education, who will require that grounding in their last year to be competitive and to take the best possible advantage of college or university or as they go out into the workforce. For those students, all the students, it is time for us to act. I am heartened by the reaction up to this point that the members of the Legislature are behind, I believe, the resolution of this matter today.

1600

There will be the matter to consider which has been severed from this bill. This government has shown great flexibility in being able to deal with essentially half of the bill. The other half of the bill, I might say, is most important. The other half of the bill deals with the definition of "instructional time," which was the topic of debate last year during Bill 160.

This government understands what the definition of "instructional time" is. The definition of "instructional time" is teachers teaching our students in the classroom. It's as simple as that: teachers teaching our students in the classroom. Parents understand that definition of instructional time. But some of the negotiations have taken place and have pushed the bounds of that definition, which, while we understand it, while parents understand it, was not contained within Bill 160.

As a matter of fact, instructional time has never been defined. The NDP government, the Liberal government, all previous governments, previous Progressive Conservative governments, have not ever defined the term "instructional time," nor have they defined the term "pupil," for example. These are words that I guess -

Mrs McLeod: We left it to the bargaining unit. We didn't have chaos.

Hon David Johnson: - the critic from the Liberal Party says it was left to the bargaining process. Unfortunately now the bargaining process is pushing the bounds of the definition and is including activities which clearly are not classroom activities within the definition of "instructional time." Parents and this government understand that while these activities may indeed be worthwhile - monitoring cafeterias, for example, is worthwhile; hall monitoring is worthwhile - they're all worthwhile activities but they are not instructional time and they shouldn't be treated as instructional time.

Bear in the mind that the secondary school teachers in Ontario traditionally have had three and three quarter hours of classroom activity, but the remainder of the day is outside of the classroom. I'm sure they have a myriad of functions that they must accomplish. Perhaps cafeteria supervision and hall monitoring are part of those activities, but we simply say that those non-classroom activities should not be part of instructional time.

That's what the other part of the bill will accomplish. It will make that clear by making the definition of "instructional time" clear, that it does involve classroom activity, regularly scheduled classroom activity, the teaching of credit courses, but not only credit courses, they could be co-operative programs, they could be apprenticeship programs, English as a second language. Special education is included, of course; remedial action is included. All these activities are included.

By defining "instructional time" in that way, I believe we are enhancing the quality of education for our students and we are setting a framework for more successful negotiations. Removing one issue, apparently, where there is some shadow of a doubt in the minds of either the unions or the board, removing that shadow of a doubt as to what "instructional time" means, will surely set a more solid framework for successful negotiations, and I'm confident that it will be helpful to those boards that haven't yet been able to negotiate a contract.

We've severed that out, though. We've said if that's of concern to the opposition parties, if they don't wish to see instructional time defined as part of this particular bill, if they were going to hold up the bill to get kids back into the school because of that issue, then we'll take that out. We certainly have that flexibility, because our main goal is to get the kids back into the class. We will deal, though, with instructional time at another date, and that other date could be as early as tomorrow because it remains the most important issue.

I guess I won't take a great deal of time here today, because we do have a spirit of co-operation and we do have, I believe, the very real prospect of getting our kids back to class tomorrow.

But I want to say that when the kids do go back to the class, particularly at the elementary level, they have a good deal to look forward to. I'm really proud that this government has introduced a new curriculum, a better curriculum. It's long overdue, and I hear plaudits from across Ontario with regard to a new curriculum that stresses the basics, that has specific expectations. For the first time in many a year, the students know what they are to accomplish by the end of that year, and the parents know what the students are to accomplish and the teachers know what the students are to accomplish by the end of that year. The teachers had no specific expectations at the end of each year. At the end of grade 3 and at the end of grade 6 they had expectations, but in the other grades it varied from school to school, from board to board, and the teachers have communicated this to me.

I must say that I was involved earlier in the summer with about 800 teachers in marking the grade 3 mathematics test. You'll be relieved to know that I wasn't marking, but the teachers were marking. We needed - I say "we," but the Education Quality Assessment Office, the EQAO, needed about 1,800 teachers for this whole marking process, 1,800 teachers for the grade 3 test, the reading and the writing and the mathematics. How many do you suppose applied to be involved?

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): It was 5,500.

Hon David Johnson: You're right. Derwyn Shea wins the prize. He was right on: 5,500 teachers applied because they thought it was a wonderful exercise. They've been involved in it all through the piece.

Ms Mushinski: They like it.

Hon David Johnson: They love it. They love the testing and they love being involved in the marking. They're extremely supportive. You may be surprised that they gave me a round of applause when I spoke because they were so delighted by the process. It was good for the students. It's good for the teachers; it's a professional development tool. They love the process.

I'm finding that teachers in general - I'm talking about the elementary level - have been involved, and our success has been that teachers have been involved in every aspect of the reforms we've brought in at the elementary level, whether it's the testing procedure that they helped design and which is extremely successful and which we will be expanding - I'm pleased to be able to say that we'll be expanding the province-wide testing - or whether it's the new report card, which teachers have been involved with in terms of designing the report card, ensuring what needs to be on the report card, or the electronic report card, teachers and educators from every board across Ontario have been involved with the electronic report card, and it has been successful - every student in the province of Ontario at the elementary level will have one by Christmas of this year, a new report card - or whether it's the $100 million worth of resources, which a few members of this House tried to stall, I might say -

Ms Mushinski: Which ones?

Hon David Johnson: Can we remember any members in this House who tried to stall?

Ms Mushinski: Across the other side of the House.

1610

Hon David Johnson: Nevertheless, we proceeded with the purchase of the textbooks at the elementary level.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Yes, the American textbooks.

Hon David Johnson: I will say that the books were delivered on time - the Canadian textbooks, printed right here in Canada, the whole process involving Canadians; $68 million worth of textbooks purchased for $55 million, a discount of about $13 million. I might say the taxpayers of Ontario are very delighted that we've had a discount of some $13 million.

How many books does that buy? Thousands, millions - over 3.2 million books at the elementary level going out to each and every elementary school in Ontario. That's almost three books per student.

Mr Gerretsen: What's so special about that? In schools you need books. You've always bought books.

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite asks what's so special -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The Minister of Education has the floor. Order.

Hon David Johnson: It's a very controversial question that's been posed to me from Liberal ranks: What's so special about books in our classrooms? I've been hearing from parents across Ontario that there is a totally inadequate supply of books, that students are sharing books. There's one book per classroom or maybe three books per classroom, the books are old, they're held together by duct tape, or it's simply that the resources that boards have had for textbooks have been diverted to other purchases or other events -

Ms Mushinski: Like retirement dinners.

Hon David Johnson: - or who knows where? But they have not been going to buy the books, so this is special. We're hearing back all across Ontario: "My goodness, we've new textbooks. We haven't seen new textbooks like this for a long, long time."

And you know what? We haven't even come to the end of it. Having saved that $13 million - and the next phase is coming along, which is science equipment, I'm delighted to say, plus some computer software - there will be more books again, because we're going to use up the whole $100 million. We're going to buy new books, kindergarten resources, computer software for kids and science equipment. We're going to get that discount again and we're going to have just tonnes of this equipment going into the classrooms.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite congratulates on the fair funding formula, the fair funding formula which directs more resources, more funding into the classrooms.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Like special ed.

Hon David Johnson: Like special ed, you're exactly right. More monies for special education, more monies to teachers, more monies to supply teachers, more monies to textbooks, more monies to computer software, all of these functions in the classrooms. Guidance teachers, librarians, all will have more money, more resources, right across Ontario for the school boards.

Now, I'll stand on my feet right here and now and I'll admit to the opposition parties and to the people of Ontario that there will be less money for administration. There will be less money for bureaucracy. There will be less money being spent outside the classrooms of Ontario. But you know what? On balance, when it's all added up, the total, even though there is less money for bureaucracy, less money on administration, there will be more money spent by the school boards because there is more money going into the classroom. That outweighs the reduction in administration and bureaucracy.

There will be more money spent on elementary and secondary education in Ontario this school year than ever before in any other school year in Ontario. It will be spent more wisely. It will be spent on students. It will be spent on teachers. It will be spent on improving the quality of education in Ontario.

It takes a little bit of strength and conviction and it takes teamwork, and I'm proud to be associated with a government that has had the conviction to do this, to make these changes, because certainly there has been criticism. Any time you change the status quo, it's not always popular, but we're doing it, setting a table for a better quality of education for our students in the future.

The new curriculum will not be fully implemented this fall, we all know that, but it's going to be started. Social studies, for example, was announced not long ago. The material obviously doesn't develop overnight, and coordination with the curriculum. But you know what? If I have a choice between starting a new curriculum this fall, getting it started and getting it underway and having it phased in over a period of time, if that's one choice, and another choice is to take that new curriculum which teachers have worked hard to develop, because they know it's a better product, and stick it on the shelf, as I think some opposition members would want me to do, and leave it there for a year, I can tell you where my choice lies. My choice lies in getting it started and getting it into the classroom. Have it phased in if necessary, but let our kids have the opportunity to take advantage of it at the first possibility.

At the secondary level, the reforms are being initiated as well. These reforms build on the reforms in the curriculum that we have from the elementary level. As an example, the reforms in the curriculum at the secondary level will build on what we have begun at the elementary level so that the mathematics in grades 9 and 10 will flow from the mathematics we introduced last year at the elementary level up through grade 8. There will be a continuum and the one will fit hand in glove with the other. The same is true in language and all the other programs at the secondary school level.

I'm also delighted that the other initiatives at the secondary school level will take place very shortly, the extra emphasis on mathematics and language, the basics, which parents have been saying have been lacking for many years, the requirement for a literacy test that I must say has been extremely well received across Ontario. Employers and parents say that there are too many cases where young people graduate through our system but are unable to read or write effectively. Now, for the first time, a literacy test will be introduced at the secondary level and it will be a requirement of graduation. If the student fails the literacy test, which will take place in grade 10, then there will be remedial action, and if they fail it a second time, more opportunity for remedial action. We do need our students to be literate and able to pass the literacy test as they graduate from secondary school - another quality initiative that this government has put forward.

Some of the initiatives are particularly pleasing, although they may not fit into the same category. The volunteer component, for example: I'm very pleased that we have introduced a requirement at the secondary level concerning volunteer work, some 40 hours of volunteer activity. Many of our young people would greatly exceed that today, but we want all of our young people to have the advantage of volunteer work within their communities. We want them not only to be good students, to benefit from the quality education program we are introducing, but we want our students to have the benefit of volunteering and being good citizens, not only of their community but of their province and of this fine country, Canada. We're proud to be Canadian and we want them to feel that pride through their community work.

I thought it was important to talk about a few of the quality initiatives, because we want the kids back into the classroom, we want the teachers back into the classroom because we feel we have in Ontario the breaking of a new dawn in quality, more improvements in our education system. We want our students to have the advantage of those improvements, we want our teachers to have the advantage of those improvements and we want them all back in the classroom.

1620

Perhaps with those few comments and in the spirit that we want everybody to have the opportunity to speak today and have this matter dealt with today, I will again say that if my understanding is correct and this House is prepared to deal with this matter, all three readings today, along with some committee of the whole time for some amendments, then I applaud each and every member in this House. Say what you will about me or about the Ministry of Education or this government. Put your amendments forward and they will be considered in committee of the whole. But let's have the resolve to deal with this matter today. Put the kids first. Get this matter dealt with and get the students back into the classroom.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Duncan: I want to respond to the minister by saying that he referred to what he called the new dawn. I would suggest that the darkness descended on education in September 1995, when the then minister said he wanted to create a useful crisis in education. Let's just review for a few moments what creating a crisis meant.

In March 1996, this government cut $533 million out of the education system - $533 million by your own budget - and they also made the NDP's cut of $425 million permanent. What did that include? That included $231 million from operating grants and $167 million from capital. Capital is what we use to replace portables. That's what we use to buy computers. That's what we use to buy an appropriate amount of textbooks - $150 million from adult education, $145 million from junior kindergarten, $39 million from transportation.

If that wasn't enough, in September 1997, at a time when they had no money for those things, they had $1 million for a propaganda campaign aimed at putting forward their own record, which is abysmal in education. Leaked documents at the time revealed that the government's intention was to cut a further $667 million from education, and the list goes on and on till this year.

The minister spoke of average class size. I've spoken to teachers and students and families in every school in my riding and very few of them have seen the average class sizes.

Test results: The government talks about test results improving. If you look at the test results, you'll see there's an unequal distribution of good marks. What we need are the very kinds of services this minister has cut.

We will vote in favour of this bill, but the reason there's been no school for the last few weeks is because of this government's mismanagement of education. The minister doesn't know what he's talking about.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm happy to have these two minutes to respond to the minister's comments. I would remind him and everyone in this House that they've had three years of a good economy, with lots of money coming into these provincial coffers, something that we New Democrats were unlucky not to have had. But that's okay; it's a different problem that we're talking about. They're squandering all this money on the income tax cut that goes to the wealthiest Ontarians. Had they not given money away to rich people, we would have had so much money to be so helpful in so many areas.

Mr Shea: Oh, give it up. The Liberals in Ottawa -

Mr Marchese: Please, member from High Park, would you come on this side? I can't hear you very well.

Mr Shea: Are you sure you want me to come over there?

The Acting Speaker: Member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr Marchese: Just to remind the member here, with all this money, they have taken $1 billion out of the educational system. Billions of dollars coming into provincial coffers as a result of the good economy, and what did these people do? They just sock away from the educational system.

What did they do through Bill 160? Bill 160 centralizes control in the hands of this minister and this Tory government. They have taken control away from boards of education. Boards have no more power or money left to negotiate with those teachers. Yet you have the Minister of Education saying how it pains him that those negotiations haven't been able to go very well and that it hurts him to have to bring in this legislation because he would have liked to have had a different result. If you've taken complete control and boards have no more power or money to be able to negotiate with those teachers, what is left for them except very little?

We're dealing now with a bill that we have to of course deal with on the basis that we all care about kids, and we do. That's why we've negotiated this deal with this minister today.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I commend the Minister of Education and the Premier for agreeing to change the process here, demonstrating putting students first. There's no question that's what's happened here today. Clearly I would have to comment that Mr Hampton has shown some leadership here. He's really taken the lead here and I respectfully mean that. We now know who the official opposition is, that's for sure.

My wife's a teacher and we have five children. I hear first hand that people want their kids back in school. In the last week I've been receiving over 20 calls per day in my riding of Durham East. I've visited six or seven schools in the last week. The consistent message I hear is very clear, "When are you going to get the kids back in the classroom?" Clearly this government responded. We've listened and we've taken this important step, and today I go back to the NDP's foresight in realizing putting the students first.

When I was visiting the schools and talking to people on the phone, there was one consistent message I heard in Durham. I heard it from teachers confidentially. They told me to keep Marshall Jarvis and Earl Manners out of Durham, "We want our own local solution, not a provincial union solution." They're trying to hold them in solidarity. As a teacher, my wife is being forced to work to rule. She's being forced to deny her attention to young elementary students. I know just how hard it is on many of the teachers I speak to. They really are unwilling partners in this almost conspiracy to bring the government to task.

I go back to what the minister was saying. Clearly our goals are for putting the student first, quality and excellence in education. Just look at our curriculum. Look at the report card. Look at the standard testing. Look at the student-focused funding model. Putting students first is a -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Curling: It's rather passing strange that this government comes into the House today and behaves like it wants so much on behalf of children. They sat around. You saw the minister fold his arms many times on resolving this matter. He could have done it a long time ago and he waited until September 28, when he felt that somehow he had listened to the people, after he had bullied them through the process - typical of this government - had harassed the teachers all through the process, had bullied the principals, had bullied the vice-principals, and then he went around announcing today with great smiles how many textbooks he has produced.

Ask the teachers, when did they ask them to have some input into this matter? A very limited time. They dropped this at their door and said, "Distribute it." You ask those teachers what kind of relationship they have with this minister, or any of the ministers from this bullying government, who come about in every way to make a terrible confrontation and then want to come with a smiling face, saying they feel somehow happy with what they have done.

Let me tell you, many of the parents today are not happy with what's going on. They feel this government has completely lost touch with reality. They feel that brute force is the way to go and they feel so awed with this power. But thanks to the democratic process, when the time comes for a reckoning, they will throw you out just like they threw out Mulroney and all those others like that before.

The fact is that when I speak to the teachers, they have no kind words for this kind of government. Furthermore, when I speak to the children, they seem to understand this issue. They are more concerned about this. They spoke so loudly - 40,000 in unison booed the Premier, not for education but for all the bullying things he's been doing.

1630

The Acting Speaker: Minister, you have two minutes.

Hon David Johnson: Just to wrap up, I thank the member for Durham East for his comments. I think he summarized the matter quite well.

I would say to the members for Windsor-Walkerville and Fort York that I'll attempt to have you take advantage of the new curriculum in mathematics.

Mr Shea: Remedial mathematics.

Hon David Johnson: Remedial mathematics, because I assure you that the amount of money spent in elementary and secondary for this school year will be above and beyond any monies ever spent in any other year in elementary and secondary.

Mr Shea: Where's your math, guys?

Hon David Johnson: The question is, where's your math, guys? I think the answer is you really don't care about the math; that's an inconvenient fact that I'm sure you all greatly ignore, as you have in the past.

It's not hard to figure it out. There has been over $13 billion in the grant which has been guaranteed. Throw on top of that the textbook purchase; throw on top of that some $200 million in telecommunications; throw on top of that special education; throw on top of that extra money that was doled out to ensure class sizes were maintained, and on and on, and what will be spent in Ontario in elementary and secondary is pretty close to $15 billion over the next year.

I will say again, we have reduced the amounts of money going into administration and bureaucracy and all this extra money is going into the classrooms to improve the education system. If the opposition parties don't like that, if they prefer the money going into bureaucracy and administration, well, good, carry on with your statements, because we'll fight for the classrooms of Ontario.

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

Mrs McLeod: Madam Speaker, I ask to share whatever time I leave with my colleagues from Sudbury and Hamilton East.

I would love to use my time to shed some light of reality on some of the comments the Minister of Education has just made about educational issues in general, but I intend to direct my comments specifically to this unprecedented piece of legislation, which is before the House this afternoon.

I want to make it clear at the outset that the minister used the term that he was glad to see the opposition parties would now be behind the bill. Let me make it absolutely clear: We cannot be behind a piece of legislation introduced in the way this legislation was introduced and which is still setting incredibly dangerous precedents in the nature of the legislation and the back-to-work rulings that it makes.

We will expedite the hearings of this bill, the debates on this bill, knowing that the government intends to use its considerable majority to pass this bill, hoping that perhaps, since we have some debate time, there will be some consideration given to the amendments we will put forward, although I am doubtful because I believe the government has chosen to use this back-to-work legislation as a way of advancing an agenda that it has been pursuing for the last three years. But we are not behind a bad piece of legislation.

If by some remarkable feat the government were to actually look at our amendments, then we would feel happier about the nature of the legislation, but we could still not condone the way in which it was introduced.

The minister began his comments by saying that this is an issue which doesn't involve politics. I wish for the sake of the 200,000 children who have been out of school that it was not an issue involving politics, because if it were not involving politics this government could have acted in a way which previous governments faced with strike or lockout situations have acted and brought in a piece of back-to-work legislation that was honest and fair. It would still have been the most complicated back-to-work legislation we had ever seen, because we have a situation of unprecedented chaos, but they could at least, if their goal was to get kids back in school, have brought in a piece of back-to-work legislation which was consistent with the past practice and precedent of this House and which would undoubtedly then have had the consent of all parties to proceed, as back-to-work legislation has had in the past.

That is not what this government chose to do. They chose not to wait for the Education Relations Commission ruling on jeopardy. They chose not to bring in back-to-work legislation which was to have teachers back in school, kids back in the class, and a fair and reasonable arbitration process. They permitted contract-stripping and they went even beyond that and provided a part II of the bill which had nothing to do with the back-to-work legislation, which was essentially the son of Bill 160, one of the things they didn't make clear enough when they did their Bill 160 and which they intended to bring forward today as part of back-to-work legislation, a piece of legislation which in fact would have served to advance the government's agenda in its Bill 160 even further.

I'm glad there was agreement to at least set part II of the bill aside so we can have some further debate on what the government is doing with this sequel to Bill 160. Nevertheless, we are faced with a piece of back-to-work legislation, minus part II, which is still unprecedented, both in the way in which it was introduced and the scope of issues with which it deals and with the specifics of the arbitration process which is established.

What I want to do is deal with the many ways in which this legislation that we are debating today is completely unprecedented. It is unprecedented first of all in that it follows a creation of chaos that is indeed totally unlike anything this province has ever seen before. As my colleagues have said in different forms this afternoon, it is the Harris government which sets out deliberately to create a crisis, to bankrupt the system, to create the kinds of conditions which have nothing to do with the well-being of students or the quality of the teaching and learning environment, but to bankrupt the system and create the conditions which would allow them to impose their agenda, what the previous Minister of Education called transformational change - transformation indeed, solely and exclusively in the direction that the Harris government wants to set for its primarily cost-cutting and public relations purposes.

I think we have to remember that this is the government that took control over all of education, all of the conditions under which collective bargaining is now taking place, including all of the funding. It was also the government that declared null and void as of September 1 every collective agreement between every school board and every employee group. Whether the boards were amalgamated or not, the agreements were considered to be null and void. Let's remember that this back-to-work legislation which deals with eight boards is just the beginning of what this government is going to have to do to deal with the chaos in collective bargaining that it has created. We still have the vast majority of boards without agreements with either their elementary or secondary school teachers, and we have all of the non-teaching contracts where negotiations have not even begun. How many pieces of back-to-work legislation is this House going to be dealing with because of the chaotic conditions this government has created, the kinds of conditions that make it virtually impossible without, again, unprecedented efforts on the parts of both teachers and boards at a local level to reach a local agreement?

This legislation is unprecedented because, for the first time, we're seeing local negotiations attempted under conditions that have been imposed by the central government with funding that is completely and totally controlled by the central government. The government has set all the rules. They control all the strings. Then they turn to teachers and boards, the very people the Premier said only months ago couldn't be trusted with quality education. They've turned over the dirty work of actually trying to make these conditions work in reaching an agreement.

The boards, I understand, have found it difficult to know what to agree to, let alone what to offer at a collective bargaining table, because in many cases the boards don't even know the real funding situation. They may know what it is for year one, they may feel somewhat comfortable with their funding in year two, but board after board across this province is saying, "We don't believe we can reach an agreement, because we don't know what our funding will be in year two." Why don't they reach an agreement for one year? Because the government set a rule, Bill 160: Any agreement that is reached that is a one-year agreement is automatically deemed to be a two-year agreement.

Do you know how many boards are out there prepared to sign one-year agreements based on what they know about the funding that this government is prepared to give them but are reluctant to sign an agreement that will be deemed to be a two-year agreement because they don't know what their funding will be in year two? Talk about an impossible condition for local agreements to be reached.

We then have a further unprecedented situation, as if it isn't already getting complicated enough. Government controls all the conditions, government makes all the rules, government controls all the funding, and the government isn't even very forthcoming in terms of the amount of funding that the boards are going to get, particularly in year two. Then we have an unprecedented degree of intervention on the part of the central government in the local negotiation process.

1640

I know the Minister of Education has said again today that he's not involved in any way in the collective bargaining. He's not physically present at the table, but what would you call a letter that comes out from the Minister of Education that suggests he is going to bring in legislation somewhere down the road that will clarify the central issue that is of debate at that collective bargaining table? Talk about confusion.

Do you know how many boards were on the verge of being able to reach an agreement with their teachers until the minister sent a letter that said: "At some point in the future I'm going to bring in another piece of legislation which will set new terms and conditions, change all the rules once more. And don't forget, I'm the person with the money, so if you happen to have reached an agreement and it doesn't fit with the legislation I'm going to bring in somewhere down the road, you board members are going to be left with a deficit, and that's not legal"? Talk about intervention in a way which is totally inexplicable.

Then we have a different kind of intervention; we have the intervention of government advertising. Anybody who doesn't think that the kind of advertising this government has been doing throughout the negotiating process is a direct intervention in the efforts to reach local bargaining has no idea of the difficult circumstances under which boards and teachers have been trying to reach agreements, all of these impossible conditions that boards and teachers, I think in most cases in good faith, have been sitting down and trying to work through.

In the tensions of that collective bargaining effort, we have the government, in its total lack of wisdom or lack of concern, deciding that it will have the Premier on television talking about the failure of the system. The minister was anxious today to clarify the fact that the Premier only talks about the failure of the system; he's not really teacher-bashing. I don't know how you can talk about the failure of the system when the teachers feel responsible for the quality of the system and not think you're teacher-bashing.

If they want to say that the Premier wasn't teacher-bashing when he went on television, right at the most critical point in collective bargaining procedures, that he wasn't teacher-bashing at that point, how would you explain the clock ad that started to run this weekend, an ad that is so distorting of the work of teachers, so misrepresentative of what teachers do in our schools, and an ad which directly impacts on the most central controversial issue at the bargaining table? Clearly that ad has nothing to do with getting a resolution at the local level. It certainly provides no information. If the government wanted to provide information that would help in the bargaining situation, they might have provided it for the parties at the bargaining table.

This was purely and simply a public relations effort. I suggest that this government, from beginning to end and I'm afraid well into the future, is always and only concerned about politics. The disruption of school for so many students has been turned by this government to its political advantage. At least they've attempted to do that by using advertising like the clock ad to further demoralize and demean the work of teachers in order to advance the government's agenda.

This government could have taken positive measures to support local settlements. We have proposals that could have been taken forward, immediate steps that would have helped to get local agreements. The government could have abandoned this requirement that every contract be a two-year agreement. There are boards and teachers that would want to reach two-year agreements, and that should happen. Who wants to be back at the bargaining table again under these circumstances? But there are other boards that were rightfully saying: "We don't know what our funding will be in year two. We'd like at least to avoid the disruption of a strike. Let us have a one-year agreement." There are in fact a number of one-year protocols out there that are allowing teachers to be in their classrooms today which may be invalidated by the legislation that's before us now.

The government - the minister - could have given an assurance that in the sequel to Bill 160 he was not going to mandate that every teacher would teach seven out of eight classes, which would virtually destroy extracurricular activities and which again is a central concern at the bargaining table.

The minister could have looked at some of the very real problems that some boards with large enrolments are having in implementing the average class size because of a lack of physical space and because of the restriction on capital provision for new schools that this government has imposed. There could have been some phase-in that would have allowed boards and teachers to reach an agreement. In fact, there was one agreement proposed along those lines and the Minister of Education said, "No, sorry, there's no flexibility around the rules we've put in place."

Most important of all in the long term, if this government wants any kind of sanity, if they're concerned at all to create the conditions for teaching and learning that would be good for students, they will undertake an immediate review of a funding formula which has been seen to be arbitrary, to have been put together too quickly, which has been shown to have no concern for the impact on quality of education. Take the statements of Justice Cumming, the only independent individual who has been given access to volumes of testimony about the real impact of the funding formula on students in the classroom, who has said that for some boards in Ontario, if they are to implement the government's rules in Bill 160, with the government's limitations on funding, they will have to cannibalize the rest of their educational system.

How do boards and teachers sit down at a bargaining table and engage in concessions bargaining? Because that's what we're talking about. Teachers aren't out there looking for financial increases. We're talking about what people have to give up to live within this government's funding. How do they reach agreements that would cannibalize their education system? In good conscience, how do they do that?

Not just to get past this immediate crisis, but to see some long-term health restored to our education system, there must be an immediate and independent review of the funding formula so there can be some agreement on what will actually work for students in the classroom when it comes to dollars.

I'm not optimistic that the government will agree to any of this. They wouldn't agree to it in the past. They haven't shown any willingness to create positive conditions for reaching local agreements. I don't think the government is prepared to do this because they just might find that they can't sustain their cost-cutting agenda. When the public finds, as Justice Cumming suggests, that the education system would have to be cannibalized to live within this government's funding restrictions, the public might say: "Wait a minute, you said there weren't going to be any more cuts to education. Why are we having to cannibalize our education system? Why are we having to strip services and programs away from students?" The government might find it couldn't sustain the public pressure of people saying, "We want something more for our students." It's so much easier for the government to create all the rules, control all the dollars and then tell boards and teachers to go out and find some way of solving this impossible situation.

Instead, again, we have the government washing its hands of any responsibility for the chaos it has created, but not hesitating, as the Premier did with the chamber of commerce, from going forward and, in the midst of all of this tension, bashing teachers and the educational system. The Premier gained a standing ovation that day from the people at the chamber of commerce luncheon. He gained nothing in terms of an improvement in the quality of education for our students. Our teachers felt further demoralized. I ask, how can teachers provide quality education? How can they pick up on that curriculum the minister keeps talking about - the only thing the government comes back to in terms of what they might have done for education - how can teachers implement that curriculum when they are so demoralized because they have a Premier and a minister and a government that are constantly demeaning and devaluing their work?

If this legislation is unprecedented in the degree of government intervention we've seen, it is also unprecedented because it deals with eight boards at once. Now that's clearly a measure of the sheer chaos that the government has created. We're actually, I suppose, somewhat fortunate that there are only eight boards, because there could well be 70 boards being dealt with in this back-to-work legislation, times two - elementary and secondary school contracts. As I suggested earlier, this is just the beginning of what we may see with back-to-work legislation because the bulk of contracts are not yet settled. Never before has there been back-to-work legislation that affects eight boards at once.

We're going to have eight separate arbitrations. That I think is actually preferable to having a single arbitrated settlement which would be imposed on all eight boards and would clearly become the model then for the imposition of the Harris government's social contract. Instead of having a new social contract coming from a different government, we are instead going to have the chaos of eight different arbitrated settlements. Again, I suggest this is just the beginning.

1650

There is, I believe, no incentive in this legislation - in fact, just the opposite; there is a disincentive, given this legislation - for boards and teachers to reach local agreements. The boards have been given unilateral powers to set working conditions for the period of the arbitration. Clearly that is a financial benefit to boards because they don't have to hire the staff that would be required to maintain current staffing levels. They can put different working conditions in place and they can therefore hire less staff and save some money. That guarantees that boards are going to be under pressure not to reach local agreements to change the working conditions, to strip the contracts and to let the government bring in back-to-work legislation and get an arbitrated settlement.

It would take an incredibly courageous board, a tremendously committed board of education to take the risk now of sitting down and actually negotiating contracts with their teachers. I hope it will happen, and I will have great admiration for those jurisdictions where they can still sit down after this legislation and attempt to work out good local agreements under conditions that have become even more complex and more restrictive than they were before.

It will take courage on the part of boards because, on the one hand, they have been given unilateral powers to strip contracts for a period of time if they don't settle, and, on the other hand, they know that they have the hammer of this government's funding hanging over their heads. If they should settle for something which the minister in his wisdom somewhere down the way decides is too rich for his blood, the boards will not be given enough money to fund. It's going to be very difficult not to simply do what this government is asking boards to do, and that's to be the enforcers of the government's dictatorial policies.

I hope that will not be the case, because I really believe good local agreements are infinitely preferable to arbitrated agreements, certainly preferable to the kind of chaotic arbitrations we're going to see under this legislation, and I will speak a little bit more to that. It's also preferable to have good local agreements reached because it does something for the continued relationship between the teachers and the trustees who are going to manage that educational system in the future under all of the circumstances the government has created.

I wonder, if you get dictatorial policies being enforced by the trustees because they feel they have no choice, what that does to the willingness of teachers to go all of the extra miles that teachers go in the course of their working day. I wonder whether teachers are going to feel they might as well just work those four hours and 10 minutes the Premier tells the public in his ticking thought is the length of a teacher's day. When the Premier accuses them of working only that amount of time, I can understand why teachers will say, "If that's what he's going to tell the world, if that's what the Premier thinks of us, then maybe that's what we'll actually do." I don't think teachers will take that step, because despite everything this government has done to dump on them and demoralize them, teachers are committed to their students and they're going to continue to go the extra mile.

The Minister of Education has said today that part II of the legislation, which has now been temporarily withdrawn and which clarifies further the definition of "instructional time," removes any shadow of doubt about what "instructional time" means. This legislation is unprecedented in that it goes so far beyond back-to-work legislation for the boards where there are strikes and lockouts. Part II of the legislation as the government introduced it today applied to every single board in the province, totally inappropriate in back-to-work legislation and definitely not the place to be debating a central issue of concern, not only in terms of the bargaining situation at the local table, but a central issue of concern in terms of what our secondary schools are going to look like in the future.

The minister says it removes any shadow of doubt. Maybe the minister hasn't read what is now a new bill defining "instructional time" and hasn't noticed the clause where it says that the Minister of Education, by regulation, can change the definition of "instructional time" in any way that he chooses at any time in the future. That is hardly removing the shadow of doubt as to what "instructional time" means.

I come back to the minister's letter where he said he was going to achieve his definition of "instructional time" - the ministry's agenda, the government's agenda - in two steps. I think part II of this bill as it was originally presented is really just step one, and we've yet to see step two.

People must know that the question of the definition of instructional time is the issue of how much of what a teacher does and must do in their work with students is included in the definition of instructional time. The way in which part II of the legislation, which is now going to be considered separately, is worded raises all kinds of questions. There will be legal considerations - that's one of the reasons why it simply could not have been passed at the drop of a hat - as to what it does to existing agreements, as to what's going to happen in the future. Are existing agreements that have been reached going to be forced to change by this, or are we going to have two categories of teachers: those who were before this clarification of instructional time, who reached agreements before this clarification, and those whose agreements are reached after?

Of even greater concern than the confusion for me is the issue of what's been left out of the definition of instructional time in this part II. What's been left out are all of the things that teachers have to do to prepare for their classes, all the things they have to do in terms of preparation of materials as well as the development of their lesson plans, all that they have to do in terms of the marking of papers if there really is going to be that high standard of evaluation that the government likes to talk about, all of the time that teachers spend counselling students, all of the time they spend doing individual remediation work, tutorial work, with students. That's all left out. You can teach a remedial class, but tutorial work with students is no longer part of a teacher's instructional time according to the legislation the government has presented today.

Certainly the extracurricular activities are not part of a teacher's instructional time. Teachers aren't asking that extracurricular activities be part of their instructional time. They're simply asking that their workload be such that they have enough time in the evenings and after school to commit to the extracurricular activities that every high school student will tell you are an integral part of a full high school curriculum.

Part II of the legislation is here - fortunately now removed for at least further debate - because the government saw a way of using its back-to-work legislation as a means of taking its agenda further, because the definition of instructional time is purely and simply about cutting teachers. From the very beginning, this government's goal has been to take $1 billion out of education. That's a goal they've achieved, and their goal was to do it by cutting teachers. The definition of instructional time, or the limitations on instruction time, was all about making sure that boards would be cutting teachers so that they could cut their costs and so that the government's funding formula would fit because there would be fewer teachers in our schools.

The government's goal originally was to cut 10,000 teachers out of our secondary schools. Because they did make some slight modifications under the public pressure of Bill 160, cut back a little bit on their original intention, the expectation is that what's now in Bill 160 would cost us about 7,500 teachers. There are boards across this province who are saying: "We don't want to cannibalize our education system by cutting that many teachers. We're prepared to look at other ways of living within the government's funding formula in order to avoid losing teachers and losing the programs and services to students that those teachers are providing."

This government clearly wanted to make sure that boards couldn't find any other ways. They were going to cut those teachers and this government's agenda was going to be upheld no matter what. They were going to bring in legislation that would strengthen the enforcement role of the school trustees and, if that failed, the enforcement role of arbitrators. There's no question that this will be a subject of debate when part II of the legislation comes forward as a separate bill.

But let's be absolutely clear about why the government chose to bring it in today. They didn't need to do that. They could have split this bill off. They didn't need to do it in the beginning. They could have split it off before the weekend, as our leader had suggested. They could have split it off before today, knowing that they would not get unanimous consent to a bill that included something which should have had no part of back-to-work legislation. But they saw this as their chance, under the cover of wanting to put students back in the classroom, which we would all support, to further advance their agenda of cutting more teachers out of our secondary school system.

I'm not going to take the time to itemize the job losses we've already had. The sad reality is that although the government has had to moderate its cutting of teachers slightly, and although some boards have reached agreements which avoid the cutting of teachers, the reality of the government's funding is that we are seeing teacher job losses in board after board across the province, and that will be a subject of concern in future days.

1700

I want to draw the attention of the Legislature to something that is unprecedented in part I of the bill which will be brought forward for second and third reading today. It is unprecedented in the way in which it limits the ability of the arbitrator to make rulings awards in each of these eight situations. The arbitrator is constrained in a number of ways under section 17 of the bill, which we will be proposing be deleted entirely because we don't believe that arbitrators should be in any way constrained. If it's to be a fair and honest arbitration process, the arbitrator should be able to go in, and in his or her wisdom and judgment and knowing all of the facts, make the best award that is considered to be fair and reasonable. But that wouldn't be good enough for the government. They don't want to trust public sector arbitrators to actually go in and make fair and honest independent awards. So they've brought in section 17 of this bill which limits and constrains what an arbitrator can do.

I have some concern there is some legal lack of clarity in whether or not the arbitrator is able to make awards that relate to teachers' instructional time. They are not able to make any awards about the scheduling of students' instructional time, that's clear, but it seems less clear whether or not that affects the teachers' instructional time. That gets too complex for me to spend a lot of time on. Suffice it to say that we would like to see section 17 eliminated along with that particular constraint.

It's important that I help people understand why this is so unprecedented and so sweeping and so impossible in its scope. Each of these eight arbitrators is to go into each of these separate boards and is to make a decision about not just salaries and benefits, because that is rarely an issue at the table, but essentially the way in which programs are delivered to students, and the amount of teachers' instructional time is one of the issues in terms of delivery of programs to students. Class sizes are other aspects of the issue the arbitrator will have to look at, virtually the whole gamut of the program. They have to do that and they have to make sure that any award fits Bill 160, which is of course the law of the land and we all recognize that. But beyond that, they must make sure that any award will not leave the board in a deficit position.

We know this government has introduced ability to pay as the criterion for arbitrators. We know public sector arbitrators have said they cannot work with that kind of limitation and it's going to be very difficult to get arbitrators who will even be prepared to enter into these arbitrations. But this takes ability to pay a step further because this is saying the board must not run a deficit as a result of the arbitrator's award.

How does the arbitrator make this decision? We have schools in every board that are slated for closure. Boards are wrestling with those decisions now. Why are they slated for closure? Because the government has restricted the amount of space they're prepared to fund and the amount of money they're prepared to give boards to keep them clean and light the space. So boards are looking at closing schools. They know that if they don't close schools, they don't have enough money to pay the other bills. That's the position the government has put them in. The money was cut off on September 1. They're already in a deficit situation, trying to keep the school space that they now have heated and lit and clean.

The arbitrator is supposed to come in and say: "You were supposed to close a lot of schools and that's how you're supposed to get more money. If you close your schools, you won't have a deficit and then I've got more money with which to make my award." Is the arbitrator going to come in and decide which schools close? Is the arbitrator going to come in and decide that Romney school in Chatham-Kent is going to close because the board needs the money in order to reach that settlement? Without knowing those kinds of decisions, without pre-empting those kinds of decisions, how does the arbitrator know what revenues the board will have to pay for the cost of an award, to make sure the board doesn't have a deficit? Do you have any idea how impossible these circumstances are?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): Read the bill.

Mrs McLeod: Read the bill indeed, I say to Mr Flaherty, because your arbitrators must look at ability to pay and the ability of the board to run a deficit.

I would ask the government members opposite, since the government members are so anxious to be part of the debate - unfortunately the minister didn't give them a chance to be part of it - what happens if an arbitrator goes in and looks at ability to pay and under ability to pay says, "You know what, this board can't afford to pay for what I consider to be a fair and reasonable settlement"? What does the arbitrator do then?

He's constrained by this legislation. He's got to bring in an award that fits the government's rules and he's got to bring in an award that doesn't let the board run a deficit. So what does the arbitrator do then? Does he come back to the government and say, "Government, you're the funder. You're the one that controls the ability to pay. You're the one that's going to have to ante up for a fair and reasonable settlement"? If the arbitrator has that kind of freedom, then you might get a fair and reasonable arbitration. But that's not the way this legislation has been written.

Madam Speaker, very quickly: This legislation is unprecedented because it allows the boards to strip contracts, at least during the term of the arbitration. This is something this government has tried to do for some time now, totally unprecedented in the way in which back-to-work legislation has ever been brought into this House before. Always in the past back-to-work legislation had been based on teachers returning to the classrooms on the terms and conditions of the previous agreement. This government has said, "You can return on the terms and conditions of the previous agreement as far as salary and benefits are concerned, but when it comes to working conditions, the issue where we're pushing our cost cutting and our teacher cutting, the boards can strip the contracts." They were prepared to recognize the precedent of existing contracts as the basis for return to school when it came to salaries and benefits but not when it came to the central theme of their cost-cutting agenda.

I suggest this government tried to bring in contract stripping when Lennox and Addington teachers had been out on strike, and when they were bringing in back-to-work legislation, they tried to bring in contract stripping. We said then, "We cannot give unanimous consent to any back-to-work legislation that involves contract stripping," and the government at the last minute withdrew the contract stripping. They decided this time, because it was so mammoth, so chaotic, they could get away with what they've tried to do before, and it appears, given their majority, they will succeed, in spite of the amendment that we'll be proposing.

They also made an unprecedented step in deciding to bring in legislation before the Education Relations Commission had ruled on jeopardy. The Education Relations Commission, as the minister acknowledged, was monitoring very closely what was happening to students -

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs McLeod: The Education Relations Commission was the one part of Bill 100 that was left in Bill 160.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Durham Centre, come to order.

Mrs McLeod: This isn't board legislation; this is the government's legislation that they supposedly duly considered and they left in the Education Relations Commission to monitor collective bargaining situations and to rule when students were in jeopardy under a strike or lockout situation. We know the Education Relations Commission was carrying out that role conscientiously. We believe they were very close indeed to ruling on jeopardy in at least one or two of these situations, but the government couldn't wait for that. Why, Madam Speaker, is an unanswered question. Why would the government insist on moving ahead immediately without waiting those few hours in order to have their own law fully implemented as a framework for collective bargaining?

I find myself wondering if this is the end of local collective bargaining in Ontario because it becomes meaningless if the government controls all the conditions, intervenes at will, as this government has indirectly. But I don't think that what this government wants is total centralized control, because I don't think this government wants the responsibility of living with the results of having total centralized control. They want to set all the rules and control all the dollars, and they want the trustees and teachers to take the fall for trying to work under these impossible conditions. They will be happy, therefore, with a hodgepodge of arbitrated awards and they will now make arbitrators responsible for the fallout if these awards simply don't work.

I just want to conclude because I know I have colleagues who wish to speak. The amazing thing over the last weeks, despite all of the complexity, all of the new rules that aren't understood, all of the government intervention, the craziness of trying to reach local agreements when there's no local funding source other than what the government provides, is that agreements were being reached. It's quite phenomenal that there were any agreements reached under these circumstances. The fact that there were is a reflection of the commitment to local bargaining, the hard work and the willingness to make sacrifices on the part of both parties, boards and teachers.

They needed some flexibility, and at one point Marshall Jarvis of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association actually praised the Minister of Education for allowing some local flexibility that made one local agreement a possibility. That was before he became totally discouraged by the minister's arbitrary intervention which prohibited other agreements from going ahead.

The public boards and teachers felt that some real progress was being made on the negotiating front, but since this legislation was introduced at least one board has pulled out of the negotiating process altogether.

1710

This government could have acted positively. It could still act positively to prevent further strikes and lockouts, and a hodgepodge of back-to-work legislation and arbitrated settlements in the future. It could act positively to indicate that it will deal honestly and responsibly with the issues that are going to have a profound affect on the quality of education in the future.

We will be proposing amendments to the legislation which we believe would set in place at least some reasonable process of arbitration, in the hope that there could be awards that would work for students in the classroom over the long term. We hope that the government would recognize that this back-to-work legislation or future back-to-work legislation which we may see will not solve any of the real issues that are limiting the ability of teachers to implement real measures to improve the quality of education in our classrooms.

This legislation is consistent with the government's approach of teacher-bashing and system-bashing so that they can cut their costs by cutting teachers. I think it guarantees we're going to continue to have chaos and demoralized teachers. It solves no problems at the bargaining table. It certainly solves no problems - in fact it creates greater problems - in terms of the atmosphere for effective teaching and learning in our classrooms. We will not have good teaching and learning conditions until we have a funding formula that works for students truly in a fair way, until we have some local flexibility so there can be really good local agreements that respond to local priorities. We won't have conditions for effective teaching and learning until the government comes to have some respect for the work that is done by teachers in the province of Ontario.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I want to thank my colleague from Fort William, our education critic, for allowing some time for a couple of members of our caucus to speak on this bill as well.

My colleague from Fort William has outlined very clearly the serious flaws in this legislation and the motivation of this government in bringing in such flawed legislation at this time. I come at this from the perspective of a member whose community has had 9,000 high school students locked out for almost three weeks. Having spent seven years as a school trustee, I certainly understand clearly the difficulties the board is facing.

It is clear that what we see here in front of us today has been caused by this government. This is a crisis that could have been avoided. This was a dilemma that could have been resolved, had this government not decided that they were going to attack public education. The agenda from day one was an attack on public education. You attacked it by cutting over a billion dollars from the funding of education in this province; you attacked it by bringing in draconian pieces of legislation with regard to education funding in Ontario, with regard to trying to control education in this province. What you have done today is force an educational crisis that we have not seen before and is unprecedented in the history of the province. It was not necessary to be where we are now.

I believe that in my own community the school board was wrong in locking out the teachers. However, this province, this government, this Minister of Education have been wrong and in my view seriously flawed in how they have approached education funding in Ontario, particularly this ongoing attack on teachers. This government decided they were going to make teachers the enemy. This government decided from day one that they could score some cheap, sleazy political points by attacking the individuals who are responsible for delivering the education system in this province. You have not been constructive; you basically have been destructive in your approach.

You do not get a better education system by cutting out a billion dollars, you don't get a better system by ensuring that a few bureaucrats and a few senior staffers in the Premier's office control the education system in Ontario, and you don't get a better education system by bashing the individuals who are responsible for delivering quality education in Ontario.

You've attacked them through the Premier. You've attacked them through the millions of dollars you have spent on government advertising. The latest insult came about a week and a half ago. In the middle of this work stoppage throughout the province, you went ahead and spent another $700,000 telling parents the wonderful job you're doing when it comes to public education, those same parents whose kids were not in school as a result of your actions, as a result of what you have done.

This bill that was introduced last week had more to do with attempting to embarrass the opposition than it had to do with getting the kids back into the classroom. It was not necessary to bring in such a wide-sweeping, 17-page bill that seriously changed many parts of the Education Act. It was not necessary but you were more concerned about political gamesmanship and blame than you were about getting the kids back to school. You could have brought in a very simple bill. You were forced today, and embarrassed by the opposition, to back off your position, to move away from that 17-page bill and deal with the back-to-work legislation.

We as an opposition party - our leader Dalton McGuinty has made it very clear - oppose this bill. It is fundamentally flawed. However, we are not going to be obstructionist. We believe kids belong in the classroom. The kids believe they should be back in school; the parents and the teachers believe it. They don't want to be on the picket line. They don't want to be out there. They want to be in the classroom. They want to be on the football field coaching. They don't want to be out there walking a picket line, often in situations where they have been locked out and have not chosen to go out on strike.

I go back to what is driving all this. Why do the Premier and this government hate teachers so much? Why do you continue to mislead the people of Ontario through your advertising and public attacks, to somehow suggest that teachers work three hours a day and this is only about another 15 minutes? Why don't you tell the people of Ontario about the prep time that is involved in getting ready to teach a class? Why don't you tell the people of Ontario about the time teachers take to mark tests and exams and essays and book reports, and every other assignment they give students? Why don't you tell the people of Ontario how many hours teachers put in after school, on the football field, on the basketball court, on drama, on the stage or every other aspect in which they get involved in helping kids? Why don't you tell them about that instead of continuing your ongoing bashing, hurting quality education in Ontario?

Parents are not going to be fooled. They're not going to buy your argument. They're not going to buy your attack on teachers. They know what you've done. They've experienced the libraries with no librarians because the boards can't afford to staff them. They've experienced the textbooks that have been held together by tape and glue because boards can't afford to buy new ones. They understand the large classrooms. They know who's to blame for that. They understand the crisis we had last year and this year in the education system. They know who to blame for that. It is the government of this province. You're not going to fool them. Your public relations campaigns and your millions of dollars of advertising are not going to fool parents, but what is more disturbing and dangerous is that it is not improving quality education in this province.

When you have a Premier who stands up in front of a group of business leaders and attacks students, teachers and the educational institutions in this province by saying they're inadequate and that our graduates are inadequate, how does that help? How does it help sell Ontario? How does it help us make a better province to invest in and create jobs in when the man who is responsible for building confidence, for positive outlooks and self-esteem in this province, by the message he gives out stands up and tells business leaders we're not quite good enough in Ontario? I disagree with the Premier. We are good in this province. Our students are very good in this province. Our standards are good and we don't have to take a back seat to anyone.

The reason we are there, and we have some of the best skilled and trained people in the world in this province today, is because of the work of teachers and school boards and previous governments of all political stripes who understood how to improve education in this province, but more importantly because of the parents and the students over the years who have dedicated themselves and have worked very hard. That is why we have the workforce, the education and the skills in this province despite what the Premier would like us to believe, that we are not adequate or good enough.

1720

Frankly, what is happening here today with this bill is a step backwards. It's another attack. Unfortunately the wounds that have been opened - as professional as teachers are, they're going to go back to the classroom tomorrow morning or the next day once this bill is passed - are going to be difficult to heal. You don't continue to kick people in the head, treat them like second-class citizens, attack their integrity, attack their professionalism, attack the core they stand for, why they go into teaching. You don't heal those wounds simply by sledging the hammer of government over their head and saying, "You are going to be forced back into the classrooms."

There are fundamental issues of underfunding, of larger classes, of less textbooks, of less supplies, of less computers, of inadequate buildings. They're not going to be solved as a result of you today ramming through a piece of legislation that is going to force teachers back to the classroom tomorrow. What I suggest this government do is take a step back and work with the parents, the teachers and the school boards. There is a better way of achieving results than what you are proposing here today. You're not fooling the teachers, the parents or the students by what you're doing here. You're simply hurting and destroying public education.

Maybe that is the aim of the Premier, to destroy public education so that some day he can stand up and try to bring in an American-style system, bring in private schools, voucher systems, that will destroy the system we have built over the last 125 years in this province. I urge this government to listen to what's going on out there, get their heads out of the clouds and get on with the real job of providing education.

I'm happy to leave the rest of my time for my colleague from Sudbury.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Members of the House, as we round off our first hour of debate, I would like to bring a perspective - it's called the Sudbury perspective - to this debate. I would like to thank the member for Fort William, our education critic, and the member from Hamilton who have really outlined what the crux of the problems are with regard to the educational policies of the Mike Harris government. But I'd like to talk about Sudbury for a little while and try to outline to you across the way and to the third party, but also to the people of Ontario who are watching, how negative an impression the Mike Harris government has left with regard to education and the future of our children and students in Ontario.

Sudbury was the first board to go on strike. It started on September 1. They are still out on strike. It didn't take the people in Sudbury long to rally the troops, teachers included. We wanted a quick resolution to the strike. We gave a simple solution to Mike Harris and to Dave Johnson, the Premier and the Minister of Education, "You can repair the problem by repairing the funding formula."

This wasn't the first time members of the opposition had said this to the Mike Harris government, but it was probably the first time that a lot of parents from Sudbury said it to the government. It was probably the first time that a lot of students said it to the government. It was probably the first time that there was unanimity of thought at least with the board and the teachers in that the problem was the funding formula. But did Mike Harris and the Tory government listen? The answer is categorically no. What we saw happen in Sudbury we saw escalate across Ontario. It was a problem that could have been dealt with very adequately and very properly by listening to what teachers, to what parents, to what trustees and, most of all, to what students were saying.

I wrote a letter to David Johnson early on in the strike asking for his intervention, as did countless numbers of parents, teachers and students, to no avail. I wrote Mike Harris and asked him to delay his trip to Malaysia and China, to allow that bid to go ahead with Morley Kells, the guy he appointed to be chair of the Olympic bid proposal. He wrote back and said, "No way." He wanted to go to Malaysia and China. All of these are indicators of what he really felt and how serious he was about solving the problems in Sudbury, because had he addressed the problems in Sudbury, he wouldn't have had the problems he has across Ontario.

Interjection.

Mr Bartolucci: The Minister of Labour makes idly silly comments that make absolutely no sense and do not enhance the debate, and the people of Ontario should know that that's happening.

He didn't listen to the people of Sudbury. He didn't listen to the students across northern Ontario, especially in Nickel Belt and Sudbury. He didn't listen to the parents in Sudbury. But they brought the entire Tory caucus to Sudbury because they wanted to make an impression. Immediately the high school teachers tried to seize the opportunity to get a meeting with him. It didn't happen. He wouldn't do it. The parents tried to get a meeting with the Minister of Education. It didn't happen. He wouldn't do it. The students who were out of school tried to get a meeting with the minister and the Premier. It didn't happen. They wouldn't do it. I suggest to you that all of a sudden, at the last hour, a meeting with the York parents convinced the minister and the Premier that it was time to act.

I think my niece who is in grade 7 answered it best when her mother said, "What made him act all of a sudden?" She said: "Ma, haven't you seen the ads on television? It's all about the plan Mike Harris has for education in Ontario." That's an observation from a grade 7 student. I think it is pretty telling when a grade 7 student will see through the sham of the Harris government. I suggest to you that's a very sad commentary on the approach Mike Harris wants to use with regard to education.

Let me talk for a very short period of time about two different people. One of them happens to be my brother, Chris Bartolucci, who is a teacher at St Charles College, who for 23 years has gone into his school at approximately 7:15 in the morning, and because he believes in coaching kids, doesn't normally come home until about 7:30 or 8 o'clock at night. During that time he heads up a department. He works very hard for kids. He believes in Catholic education. He believes in education. He believes that children are important.

This year, for the first time in 23 years, he wasn't able to coach football because of Mike Harris's inability to fix a problem that could have been and should have been addressed at the time of drafting legislation, Bill 160. He tells me there's a good possibility that some of the kids he would have been coaching will miss out on scholarships to other universities this year because they weren't able to take part in extracurricular activities, thanks to Mike Harris. There is a major difficulty with those students who haven't been able to take part in extracurricular activities. There is an example of a good teacher who is being punished by poor educational policy.

Let me talk to you about a student. I will call here Tijana; that's her first name. What's happened to Tijana, in talking with her mother, is that she's turned off of the process. She has no respect left for board employees or board trustees. She has no respect for what she sees as a government that continues to play games with education. She is certainly upset with the teachers. She's upset that parents didn't count in this debate, that students didn't count in this debate, that the process didn't allow for early intervention to solving the problem when the government knew all along these were some of the problems that were going to happen.

The contentious issue here is teaching seven out of eight, as opposed to six out of eight.

1730

I tried during Bill 160 to show the importance of teachers having time to plan lessons, to mark students' work, to contact parents, to organize extracurricular activities, to meet with students, to set up teaching materials for their next class, to consult with administrators and fellow teachers, to deal with discipline and guidance matters, to communicate with community workers and organizations, so that students will get a well-rounded education. That's what high school teachers do with that fourth period or that seventh period out of eight. That's very important time.

The legislation that is being proposed, that will ultimately pass, will create in various sections of Ontario an inferior quality of education. It won't be because the parents don't want it; it won't be because the students are at fault; it won't be because the teachers are at fault. It will be clearly on the shoulders of Mike Harris and the Tory educational policy, which, without doubt, has not enhanced the quality of education. It has not made for greater participation in education. It has not expanded the choices students will have. It will not increase the students' access to proper textbooks etc.

What we see here is weak legislation in Bill 160 being supported by weaker legislation which was presented in the House today. I suggest to you that our primary motive here is to ensure that students get back into the classroom as quickly as possible and that we have ideal learning conditions. In order to do that, Ontario will have to vote out Mike Harris.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to raise a couple of issues in response to the statements of my friends from the Liberal Party. It seems to me that education has been central to Ontario politics as long as we have had politics in this province, going right back to Egerton Ryerson. Those who would argue, as the government has at times, that we shouldn't bring politics into this are engaging in sophistry. Frankly, politics is the process that we are involved in, all of us, and we should admit that.

What is important here is to recognize that this situation was precipitated by the government's own action. There are those, like my friend from Fort William, who believe as I do, that the government fully intended this to happen. There are others who would be a little more kind than we might be, I suspect, and would say it is possible that the government didn't understand the ramifications of what they were doing. I think that is being too charitable.

The fact is the government fully intended to harm the education of students in Ontario. The government fully intended to demoralize the teaching profession to the point that they would take action in protesting what the government was doing to education as a last resort. The government fully intended to play politics with the education of students in this province by bringing in this kind of legislation, the kind of legislation that all of us should oppose, that all of us should be opposed to in principle and opposed to for the sake of the children.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I'd like to comment also on the comments that were made by the Liberal caucus. I would agree with the member for Hamilton East that teachers don't want to be locked out; they want to be in the classroom. I also agree with the member for Sudbury and the member for Fort William that we all want to see students back in the classroom.

We all know that Ontario school boards and the teachers' unions are currently negotiating their first collective bargaining agreement under the Education Act, and all of us want those negotiations to work.

When we look across the province, we know that many of the teachers and the boards across the province are making it work. It hasn't been easy and there's certainly no one on the government side or even in this Legislature who would say those negotiations have been easy. They have been difficult, but many boards across the province are negotiating good contracts with the teachers. It can be done. We've seen that. Those boards and teachers know that it's about our children. It's not about government, it's not about boards, it's not even about teachers. It's about our children.

I'd like to give one example for those boards and teachers that have not negotiated contracts. They should use the example of those boards I mentioned, but they should also use the example of what happened in the college system. The college professors and faculties have been without a contract for two years. Did they go on strike? No, they didn't. They worked and worked and worked agreement. It hasn't been easy. They worked agreement and they got agreement. They didn't go on strike because they knew the importance was the education of their students.

Mr Gerretsen: I suppose the first thing that ought to be said is that what happened here today at least shows that democracy can work, where three different parties come at a problem from three different ways but realize that what's most important is to get the children back to the classroom, and that's why the arrangement was worked out. Let there be no mistake about it: This party disagrees with the legislation that's in front of us.

I'd like to simplify things to a much greater extent than we sometimes do in this House. It baffles me to believe that the government keeps saying that it's improving education, making class sizes smaller, when all you have to do is look at the overall fiscal situation. They have taken $1 billion out of public education since they came into office about three years ago. About 80% of all the money that's spent in education is spent on teaching salaries, whether we're talking about the school system, the university system, the college system, whatever. If you take $1 billion out of education, in effect you're cutting out teachers. How can you say then that somehow classes are getting smaller, when in effect there are fewer dollars around for the teachers who are out there? The class size has to increase if you're taking that kind of money out.

The other issue I very quickly want to mention is the advertising dollars that have been spent by this government. So far it is $6.4 million that could be spent on education, money whereby we could be buying some more books for education, as the Minister of Education so piously talked about earlier, that is being spent currently on advertising - and that's over the last two years - on pure propaganda.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to have the chance to comment briefly on the positions put forward by the Liberal caucus representatives and to say that I think, like everyone else, we understand the importance of having our children and our teachers back in the classroom, where they belong. That's why we went to great lengths today to try to find a way in which we could sever the bill that was in front of us and to deal with the most immediate issue first, even though we will not be supporting the legislation, to at least allow the government to bring it forward and to deal with it and then to put off to the normal course of debate and discussion in this House those parts that make the more fundamental, long-term changes, such as, in this case, the definition of what is instruction for the purposes of the new education laws, which will continue to cause the grave problems that the Harris government has already caused in the system.

You cannot reconcile a position of the government that says it wants to reduce class size, which implies having more teachers, with a position on the other hand that says, "We're going to reduce the amount of money available," as the Harris government has done to school board after school board, which then puts school boards in the position where they have no other alternative but to reduce the number of teachers they have. Those two things cannot be reconciled. The improvements we need in our school system and which we all purport to say we want will not happen and cannot happen until there is a willingness politically to actually put back into the school system at least those amounts of money that Mike Harris is taking out of the system.

That's why I am proud, as a member of the New Democratic Party caucus, that we not only say we believe in reinstituting that funding cut, but we actually are talking about how that can be done by taking back portions of the tax cut that go to the wealthiest citizens in Ontario, giving us as a province the ability to find that $1.5 billion to $2 billion that in part can go back into the education system, which we all in this House say we want to see.

The Deputy Speaker: Response?

1740

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the comments that have been added to the debate. I want to concur with my colleague from Dovercourt. All of us on this side of the House want to have our students in the classrooms. We want the students of the eight boards that are particularly affected by this legislation, that are currently in a strike and lockout situation, to be back in their classrooms. Because we want them back in their classrooms as early as possible, we are prepared to expedite the debate on legislation which we nevertheless believe is badly produced and presented legislation.

We also, though, want to make sure that students are able to be in classrooms in boards across this province. We don't want to see more strikes and more lockouts and more students' education disrupted because of the impossible conditions which this government has created to reach local agreements. We want students in every classroom in this province to be in settings which are creating conditions for effective teaching and learning. That's why we so deplore the kinds of tensions that this government has created for local bargaining, tensions and conditions which have made confrontation virtually inevitable at a local level and which have militated against any locally arrived at solution. We believe the best solutions for students are not centralized, dictatorial decisions imposed on the classrooms, but arise from local boards and teachers and parents and students looking at local priorities and local needs and doing their best to respond to them.

Those conditions for reaching local agreements that reflect local priorities and create good conditions in local classrooms will not exist unless this government takes longer-term steps to address the problems they have created, including an immediate review of a funding formula which is at the root of the confrontation which is occurring between teachers and boards in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? Member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: At the outset, I'd like to reserve some time for my leader. We will divide the time, if that's acceptable to the House.

I want to say clearly at the beginning of this debate that our caucus is diametrically opposed to this legislation. We will be voting against it. We will be putting amendments on the most distasteful parts of this bill. If the government is determined to go through with it, we hope the government at least will listen to the amendments put forward and will respond by accepting at least some of the amendments to try to alleviate some of the major problems with this legislation.

I think we should all recognize, from whatever point we look at this legislation, that the most important people in the education system are the pupils, the students at the elementary and secondary levels. They feel put upon and their parents feel put upon. They feel that they have been used and they don't have any control over the situation, that other people, whether it be the government, the boards or the teachers, are making decisions that directly affect their lives and they don't really have any say. I know the frustration they must feel at not being in the classroom and not being able to benefit from the education that they all want and need in order to do well in their own lives and in our society.

The second most important people in the education system are the teachers. They are the people who have to implement any changes, whether it be curriculum changes, whether it be types of instructional changes or organizational changes in the education system. Unfortunately today, because of the approach this government has taken, both the legislation the government has brought in and passed and the statements that have been made by the Premier, the Minister of Education and Training and other members of the government about teachers have led to a very serious deterioration in morale among teachers. Teachers feel that they have indeed been put upon, that they are being blamed for every conceivable problem in society, yet they are not being given the resources, the time and the funding required to try to respond to some of those serious societal problems that teachers are now expected to deal with in the classroom and outside of the classroom.

The reason we are so diametrically opposed to this legislation is because we do not believe that simply ordering an end to strikes and lockouts, ordering teachers and students back into the classroom, will resolve anything. As a matter of fact, in our view, simply ordering teachers and students back into the classrooms will probably exacerbate in the long run the problems that we're facing in education today.

It's interesting. I've received some e-mails, as I'm sure most members of the House have, on this issue over the last few days.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What is e-mail?

Mr Wildman: I'm told it's got something to do with electronics, as opposed to what is sometimes called snail mail. I've got a couple here which I'd like to refer to.

"Dear Sir:

"Bill 160 is the problem. Legislation will not remove Bill 160. Back-to-work legislation for teachers is no answer. It will not solve the problem.

"Please do not support Monday's bill. Please use the opportunity to draw attention to the real problems of cuts to education funding resulting in fewer teachers servicing more students."

That's signed by Peter Brewer of Brampton.

I have another one here from a parent. It's addressed to me and it says, "While I realize that the media focus of late has been on the teachers' strike, many of us with children that are currently attending school are still struggling with the effects of the government's funding changes."

She goes on to say, "I found it ironic that I received the government's promotional material that included a growth chart subtitled `Helping Your Children Reach Their Potential'" -

Mr Bradley: Paid for by?

Mr Wildman: Paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario. I have that here somewhere, but I know we're not supposed to use props, so I'll just refer to it.

She says she received this "on the same day that I found out that my special-needs daughter, who started kindergarten this year, would not be getting an instructional assistant, due to the funding changes.

"My daughter functions at about the level of a two-year-old. She cannot talk, is not toilet-trained and is subject to fits of temper due to her frustration at being unable to communicate. At present," due to the absence of her instructional assistant, "there is no one who can take her out of the classroom when she gets disruptive. So not only is my child not getting the attention she needs, but the other children in the class are suffering as well.

"I would like to know how my daughter is supposed to reach her full potential when there isn't even enough resources to have someone take her to the bathroom, let alone help her with her classroom work. I'm sure the money spent on your marketing campaign would have gone a long way towards providing the basic services we need in the classroom."

That's signed by Maureen Vance.

1750

I have another one from a student. It says:

"My name is Heidi Butler and I'm 11 years old. I go to A.E. Duffield public school and I am in grade 6. Recently our class received a letter concerning the cutbacks in our supplies, teachers and our education.

"My classmates and I have a great concern about our education. The letter noted that we might be losing 1.5 teachers and we might be losing instrumental music, which I've been waiting to do for such a long time and next year I finally would have had the chance. Another thing we might be losing are resource teachers. Next year we will have 33 students in our class. How can one teacher help all 33 kids?

"If five kids needed extra help, our teachers couldn't help them and manage 28 more kids. Those kids who need extra help end up giving up and dropping out of school, and then one thing leads to another and you can imagine what happens next.

"Some of the teachers we may be losing are some of our best. This isn't just happening with our education. Premier Harris...is taking important things away and giving half of that back and everyone thinks he's great. Well, he's not.

"I'm sure I am not the only one who thinks this way. Everyone's futures are on the line. Please don't push us around."

This is a grade 6, 11-year-old student from London. That testifies to the state of education, thanks to this government.

These are only three e-mails, but we have one person who says, "Ordering teachers back to work doesn't resolve the problems presented by Bill 160." We have a parent who is very concerned about her special-needs child who will not have an educational assistant to help her. That's not going to affect just her education; it's going to affect the education of the other kids in her class. We have a young student who says there are 33 kids in her class and the teachers can't give them the kind of personal help that they need.

Ordering an end to lockouts and strikes that have kept students and teachers out of the classroom will not resolve any of these problems. They will simply order kids back into classes that have 33 kids in them, that do not have educational assistants, that do not have the resources they need to provide the education that the kids need and deserve. That's what this legislation does. At best, it could be referred to as a Band-Aid. It gets rid of the lockouts and strikes that are happening right now, but it does absolutely nothing about the needs of education, the needs of students across Ontario. Those needs are not being met largely because of Bill 160, the changes this government has made in education, the money the government has taken out of the education system and the new funding formula, so-called, which takes money away from kids' education.

The combination of all of those things, as my colleague from Dovercourt said, puts boards of education and trustees, another important group of people involved in the education system, in an untenable position. In many boards today trustees are trying to grapple with this conundrum. On the one hand, Bill 160 purports to put a cap on average class sizes. It says there will be an average across the board - these new district boards that have been imposed on the people of Ontario - of 25 at the elementary level in class and 22 at the secondary level. But in most cases those numbers are mythical. They don't exist.

My youngest child, my daughter, just started junior kindergarten this year. She's really excited about it. She really wanted to go to school. She's ready to start to learn to read. She wants to learn how to add and subtract. She does spatial - she even knows parallelograms, which I didn't know about until I was much farther on in education than she is. But she is in junior kindergarten, and junior kindergarten in the school board that was the precursor of the school board whose jurisdiction she is now under used to be every day, half days. They used to try to keep junior kindergarten at 15 students, max. For anything over 15 students, the teacher had an educational assistant to help, and they never went over about 22.

This year, Tiana's first year in school, about which she is really excited, there are 27 kids in the class, and it's not just a junior kindergarten, half day every day. Instead of a half day every day, they now have two full days one week and three full days the next to try to save money on the busing because of the funding formula.

They have one teacher. It's not just for junior kindergarten, but for a mixed junior and senior kindergarten. So we have 27 children going three days one week and two days the next week, full day, at ages four and five in a mixed junior and senior kindergarten. They have one educational assistant. If they had 30 kids in the class, they would get two, but because it's not up to 30 yet, they only have one. So they have one teacher and one educational assistant.

There's a lot of noise in this classroom. There is not a lot of room for the kids because, as any of you who have been to a junior kindergarten or a kindergarten will know, they have various play areas, interest areas. The sandbox, the water area, the little kitchen and other things take up room, take up space. The mats take up space. There isn't very much room.

My little girl is still excited about her experience at school. I hope she continues to be. But if this government insists on taking away from the resources that are required to give my little girl and all the other little girls and boys in this province a quality education, they will hurt all of them. They will change their attitudes about school and education, they won't achieve as they should, and this government will also be responsible for harming our whole society.

Whatever money they have saved now will be spent later on, because every study that has been done shows that for every dollar spent in good-quality early childhood education, seven dollars are saved in the long run because of fewer dropouts, less dependence on social assistance, less problems with delinquency, less incarceration, more post-secondary education graduates, more people with good jobs who provide for themselves and their families and make a contribution to society.

1800

That's what this government has done to education. Passing back-to-work legislation, back-to-school legislation, putting kids back into classrooms and schools that are inadequately funded because of this government's funding formula will not resolve a thing. As I said, it may in fact exacerbate the situation.

So we are opposed to this legislation. We are opposed to it in principle. We're opposed to the truncation of the collective bargaining process that this government has imposed on teachers and boards. But we're also opposed to it because we believe fundamentally that this government has harmed the education of our children in this province, continues to harm that education and is simply trying to respond to the concerns of those parents where there have been lockouts and strikes by ending them without doing anything about the long-term problems facing the students and the education system.

Some might argue, "At least if you get the kids back into the classes and get the teachers back into the classrooms in the schools, then they can negotiate all of these matters and they can be resolved in the long run." What happens? How are these boards supposed to respond to the needs of these students when they have a funding formula that says they must have fewer teachers despite an average class size legislated which says in many cases they need more teachers?

Some boards responded by locking out their teachers. I must say as an aside that I found it bizarre when I received a copy of a letter from the chair of the Catholic board in Toronto which he had addressed to my leader requesting my leader to support back-to-work legislation to end the lockout in Toronto. I found that bizarre. If the chair and the members of the board of trustees of the Toronto Catholic board wanted to end the lockout, all they had to do was unlock the schools. They locked the teachers out. If they want them in the classroom, let them in. You don't have to pass back-to-work legislation to end a lockout.

This government signalled very early on though sometimes conflicting statements that the government intended to legislate at some point or other. At first they said they were going to wait till the Education Relations Commission had ruled jeopardy. For political reasons they decided not to wait for that. But they indicated they were going to legislate early on. It certainly was not in the interests of boards like the Toronto Catholic board to negotiate. All they had to do was wait. As my leader raised in question period today, all they had to do was wait for legislation. There was no reason to negotiate.

I noticed that the Minister of Education and Training, in introducing this legislation, said this is not to prevent boards and teachers from continuing to negotiate and come to agreements. Why on earth would a board, particularly if it doesn't have the money it needs, try to negotiate when now this government has intervened with this kind of legislation? It's not in the interests of the board to do that. It may be in the interests of the students, but again, to be fair, if the board doesn't have the money, there isn't likely to be a settlement and a resolution of the problems facing students.

This legislation was really objectionable when it included not just back-to-school legislation requirements, but also amendments to the Education Act which would basically impose what the Minister of Education and Training said in the letter he sent to all the boards a couple of weeks ago; that is, a redefinition of "instructional time" and a decision to control what could be negotiated by teachers and boards, not just in those eight boards where there are disruptions, but for all the boards in Ontario.

I am pleased to say that as a result of the discussions among the parties and the House leaders today the government agreed to remove at least that portion of the bill so that we can sever that and it has been introduced as another piece of legislation, another bill, that will be debated. After this matter has been dealt with, it can be debated at greater length.

I found it a little bit odd or passing strange that today the leader of the official opposition, after we had suggested severing the bill, got up and said, "If the third party would agree, perhaps we could sever the bill." Surely he would understand that we would agree with our own idea, but then again he might not have understood that, I don't know. At any rate I'm glad that all three parties at least were able to move in this direction. However, there remain, as my leader emphasized today, sections within this back-to-work legislation which are indeed objectionable and which we would have preferred to see severed as well. We intend to bring in amendments to try and alleviate some of the worst aspects of those sections.

I don't like back-to-work legislation. I don't believe it serves the students of the province or the collective bargaining process at all. This is draconian legislation. This is legislation that will impose fines of $2,000 per day for an individual or $25,000 a day for a union that doesn't comply. That's pretty tough legislation. The minister says that he does this with a heavy heart; it seems to me he does it with a heavy hand.

It imposes the terms and conditions, the so-called seven out of eight. The problem with this argument of course - this is very hard for most members of the public to grasp if they're not directly involved in education - is that the majority of secondary schools in Ontario today do not have an eight-period day because they are on a semester system. They are on a four-period day. To have seven periods out of eight doesn't work because there aren't eight periods. Boards can't reorganize the schools by going from a six-out-of-eight to a seven-out-of-eight timetable because they are mostly now on a three-out-of-four timetable. What it means is that for one semester some of the teachers will be teaching four periods out of four, and these are long periods, in some cases anywhere from an hour to 75 minutes.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): It's almost like working in industry.

Mr Wildman: I hear one of members saying it's almost like working in industry. Let me tell you that other professionals, whether they be lawyers or accountants or whoever, have time during their day to do preparation, to prepare briefs, to prepare presentations. That is part of their workday, and up to now that has been accepted as part of a teacher's day, to have some time during the day to prepare for the lessons that teacher is teaching the students. If you give a teacher a timetable of four periods out of four, it's not 25 more minutes a day as the Premier is wont to say. It's an hour or 75 more minutes of classroom time, but it's also an extra couple of hours of preparation time and marking added on outside of the school day.

That's why teachers are upset and it's also why we don't have any extracurricular activities this fall, because if I'm a phys-ed teacher who also teaches some math and up to now I've coached basketball or football, during the day I use some of my time to prepare for practice in the evening, to get the equipment ready, to allocate time and to figure out what kinds of plays we're going to practise, what the needs of various players are and what kind of coaching they need. I don't have any time to do that if I'm teaching four periods out of four, so therefore I am not going to coach in the evening. As a result, there are no extracurricular activities this fall.

1810

Ordering teachers back to work in this legislation is not going to do anything about that. It's not going to re-establish extracurricular activities. It's not going to start up the drama club. It's not going to ensure that the orchestra is operating. Students aren't going to have the opportunity to participate in the chess club or to play sports. It's not going to happen, and that is a very important part of their educational experience. It not only develops the skills involved in those various things, whether it's musicianship, acting ability or sports skills; it also helps to develop teamwork and sharing and gives individuals a feeling of achievement and helps them to learn leadership.

It's a very important part of education, and directly as a result of the changes this government has imposed through Bill 160 and the changes in the funding formula, it has ended. We are denying the students of Ontario something that every one of us in this Legislature had the opportunity to experience when we were in elementary and high school, whether we were members of the math club, the science club, the football team, the basketball team or the school orchestra, the school choir or whatever. We're denying that to students today, and it's really unfortunate.

With Bill 160, two pieces of legislation came into conflict with one another. This government, through Bill 160, took teachers out of what was called Bill 100, the teachers collective bargaining act, and put them under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Under the labour relations act, contracts can't be changed without renegotiation, but Bill 160 also imposed new terms and conditions on the teachers which were in contravention of collective bargaining agreements that had been arrived at over the years between teachers and boards. It said that teachers will teach seven out of eight, so many more minutes per day, per week, but at the same time it put teachers under the labour relations act, which said you can't change these things without negotiation.

So much of what this government has done is contrary to the needs of students and teachers that it's no wonder the morale of both is so low today.

As part of the back-to-work legislation, this bill imposes arbitration. What is really disturbing and what we as a party cannot accept is that the legislation severely circumscribes what the arbitrator can and cannot do in trying to come to an agreement between a teachers' federation and a board. It states that the arbitrator may not make an award that would interfere with the board's right to determine the scheduling of pupils' instruction. Scheduling the number of periods that a teacher would teach was something that was negotiable under Bill 100 and most boards and teachers' federations thought it was still negotiable even under Bill 160. But what has happened here is that while it may be negotiable, you can't arbitrate it.

The arbitrator may not make an award that would interfere with the length of the instructional programs provided to students on school days and the length of the pupils' instructional periods. The arbitrator must ensure that an award will not cause the board to incur a deficit. That's another way of saying the arbitrator must take into account the ability of the employer to pay in making a decision.

Mr Froese: What's wrong with that?

Mr Wildman: What's wrong with it is that this government has imposed an inadequate funding formula, which means it's going to be very difficult for the arbitrator to come up with any agreement which is acceptable.

Mr Froese: There is more money put into the classroom. You know that.

Mr Wildman: That is one of the silliest comments. That is the biggest myth. This government believes that if they say it enough times, if they say it often enough, no matter how untrue it is, people will believe it. The fact is, this government has taken over $1 billion out of the education system. The minister says, "Oh, yes, I admit that we have cut funding to administration." Well, they have cut funding to administration - not very much, but they have. But they've cut enormous amounts out of classrooms.

Why do you think so many boards have cut so many teachers' positions? Why do you think this government had to negotiate with the teachers' federations for an early retirement package so that so many teachers could leave the profession? Because the boards don't have enough money under the funding formula to continue having the same number of teachers they had before. Teachers are in the classroom. You take money away from teachers, you're taking money away from that classroom. If you don't have enough teachers, it means more kids per classroom, not less. It means larger classes. It means less time for students individually with teachers.

I'll give you an example. Sault Ste Marie, under their old collective agreement, had negotiated a maximum class size of 33. It didn't say classes had to be at 33; it said that had to be the maximum and it's been coming down over the years. This year, as a result of the funding formula, in most high schools in Sault Ste Marie every class is 33. Every class. Why? Because we now have this enormous board, the largest board geographically in Ontario, the Algoma district board, which doesn't just include the city of Sault Ste Marie but includes many, many widespread, very small communities.

It includes one of the smallest high schools in Ontario, the Hornepayne High School, which is about 320 miles north of Sault Ste Marie. That school has 90 students, total. At the OAC level in history in Hornepayne they may have three students. Obviously if you're going to make up an average across the board that is going to come out to 22, the number of students in each class in the city is really high. That's what's happened. Thank goodness they had negotiated a maximum class size before so that they at least couldn't go over 33, because they would have. It's true that in the past they had very small classes in Hornepayne. They always did because they don't have very many students there. But the city of Sault Ste Marie students didn't have to have larger classes because they had to work out some arbitrary average with Hornepayne.

Why aren't there more teachers in those schools? Because the board got cut. The funding formula means less money for the city of Sault Ste Marie and for the Algoma district board. That board has over the next three years a progressive cut.

This is what is really weird and really scary: The arbitrator must not only take into account the ability to pay, the arbitrator must ensure that the award will not cause a deficit, but he must also provide a written explanation of how the board will pay any increase that has been part of the settlement without incurring a deficit. So now we are going to ask arbitrators to come up with a budget for the board.

The arbitrator is going to have to be able to explain within so many days to the government how the board is going to implement any increase. With the small amount of experience I've had with arbitrators, I can tell you that this isn't going to happen. I think this pretty well means there are not going to be any increases, because it's beyond the pale to expect arbitrators to be able to come up with a plan to tell the board how to spend its money.

1820

It says here that boards and unions can submit joint or separate plans to the ministry for making up lost instructional time within seven days of the end of the strike or lockout. I think it's probably a good idea to make up the instructional time, but again I wonder what this is going to do for morale in the system. It says the board must consult with the parents, but if they don't come up with a plan, a plan will be imposed by the ministry. This government likes imposing things. They like to order people to do things. You take the money out. There isn't enough money for the kids, there isn't enough money in the classroom, so you just order the boards to fix it, to resolve it.

It's interesting. Even where the boards and the unions can come up with plans, where they agree on a plan, the minister can overrule the plan. The minister can say, "I don't like the way you've decided to make up the time." Maybe they've decided to extend the school day or something. I don't know what plan they might come up with, but they come up with this plan and the minister says: "No, I don't like that. Instead, I'm going to order you to keep the same school day you have now but you will continue teaching for an extra two weeks or three weeks or four weeks at the end of June into July." As a matter of fact, I think that will probably happen, because it has happened already. After the protest last fall, the minister requested boards to tell him how they were going to make up the time, and when they came up with plans he didn't like, he told them they couldn't do it. In the Ottawa area, in eastern Ontario, where they had the ice storm on top of the protest and had missed an additional amount of time, this government came in quite arbitrarily and told the boards how to make up the time.

I think this legislation is just part of an overall approach this government has, and that is best exemplified by the Premier's comments the other day. The Premier was speaking before what is sometimes called a blue-chip crowd, a business group, and he said, in essence, that business leaders shouldn't hire graduates, not just in Ontario but in Canada. This is the government, ironically, that says it wants to create more jobs. But the Premier, the leader of the government, gets up before a business group and says the graduates in Ontario are inadequate: "They can't spell. They don't know English grammar. Don't hire them." How do you think that affects the students of this province? How do you think it affects the morale of the teachers? How do you think it affects the parents?

The Premier also goes abroad and makes speeches there about the quality of our education system, that he wants business investment in this province and that one of the great advantages we have is our highly skilled workforce. I guess the Premier decides what he's going to say about education based on the particular political intent he has at the particular moment. But I suspect his statements to the business group here in Toronto were closer to what he really thinks than what he said in the United Kingdom last year when he was asking for foreign investment to come and was touting the highly skilled workforce we have in Ontario.

This government claims they have increased the funding for classroom education. They believe that bringing in back-to-work legislation will resolve an immediate problem facing students and parents in the education system in this province. Well, this is what's going to happen: Starting next year, particularly in some parts of rural Ontario, we are going to see school boards closing schools. That's what's coming.

I'd like to hear the members of the Conservative Party who claim that they have put more money into the classroom explain to rural parents, to the students of small-town and farm country in this province, how it is that if they put more money into the classrooms, more money into the education system, small schools in rural Ontario are being closed. I'd like the members of the Conservative Party to talk to the downtown, inner-city parents in Toronto and Ottawa and explain to them why it is, if they're right that they've put more money into the classroom, that small schools in Toronto and Ottawa, neighbourhood schools, are going to close. I'd like them to explain to the rural small towns and to those neighbourhoods in urban Ontario why it is that the school, which is one of the central institutions in the community, is going to close down. I'd like them to explain how ordering teachers and students back into the classroom helps to resolve that.

The fact is that Bill 160 has caused this problem. It has been exacerbated by a funding formula that takes money out of classrooms, doesn't put more money into them, and this legislation is not going to resolve it at all.

I'd like to defer now to my leader, who will complete the time for our caucus.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I want to make a few comments upon the government's legislation, but most of all I want to make some comments about the procedure they employ to get the whole province to this legislation.

This is a government that said three years ago, not two months after they were sworn in as a government, that they were going to create a crisis in education. The then Minister of Education stepped in front of a video camera and said, "The government needs to create a crisis in education." Then over the next two and a half years, they proceeded to take a billion dollars out of elementary and secondary classrooms, and that is being felt and has been felt virtually everywhere in the province.

Then they brought in Bill 160, and Bill 160 had in it a clause which in effect wiped out all the teachers' contracts and all the collective agreements to deal with schools and education as of the end of August 1998. So get this: At the very time when schools had to be opening in the fall of 1998, at the very time when you need teachers and caretakers and school secretaries and maintenance people, all those people who make the education system run, this government destroys all the contracts for our schools.

1830

Expecting one or two new contracts to be negotiated and to be signed at that time would be acceptable. Expecting 10 or 12 new contracts to be negotiated and signed and agreed upon would be exceptional. To create a scenario where literally hundreds of contracts are wiped out and have to be negotiated and signed at that time creates chaos, it creates a crisis, and that is exactly what this government set out to do. That's what you've done in Bill 160.

But it doesn't end there, because what this government has done over the past month is try every dirty trick it can to derail the negotiations that were happening, to pour cold water on the discussions that were happening and to frustrate the meetings between boards of education and teachers to work out acceptable collective agreements. You've done it.

In my own case - the board of education which covers my home town - the board and secondary school teachers were in the process of negotiating a collective agreement, and guess what? Guess who calls? While they're negotiating, officials from the Ministry of Education call and they start asking people on the board's negotiating team, "What are you negotiating and what does it mean?" and so on and so forth. I don't need to tell people what the effect would be on someone who's actually at the negotiating table when you start getting pointed questions from government officials, Ministry of Education officials, about "What's your bargaining position? Why are you bargaining this?" It's an attempt to frustrate. It's an attempt, frankly, to destroy or at least delay whatever successful bargaining is happening.

In the case of the board of education in my home town, that didn't happen. The teacher negotiators and the board negotiators said: "Look, Mr Johnson and the Harris government officials, you keep your agenda down in Toronto. We're about trying to get teachers in the classroom and students in the classroom. We're not going to buy into your crisis strategy. We're not going to buy into your chaos strategy," and they signed an agreement.

It's incredible. We've got here a Ministry of Education memorandum, and the memorandum deals with a number of boards of education in northeastern Ontario. This is a memorandum dated September 14, and the memorandum sets out, "What's the position of the separate school board in Sudbury?" It says, "The separate school board in Sudbury is taking the position that there aren't going to be any more negotiations, and they're waiting for the government to introduce back-to-work legislation." As of September 10, you were already putting out the feelers to some boards, saying: "Don't negotiate. Don't worry. We're going to legislate them back."

Mr Wildman: Twenty days ago, almost.

Mr Hampton: Twenty days ago, almost. That's right there. It's written in a ministry memorandum what the position of the Sudbury separate board is - no more negotiations, await back-to-work legislation - further evidence that you have created this crisis, that you deliberately strategized to create this crisis, that you deliberately strategized to create a situation where collective agreements were not being negotiated and not being settled.

You have used the children of this province and you have used the schools of this province as pawns in your cynical game. That's why we're going to vote against this legislation. We're going to vote against it because you, frankly, have strategized this from the beginning. Everybody in this province wants to see children back in the classroom. Everybody in this province wants to see our schools functioning again. But, by God, the people who have seen your strategy, the people who see the manipulation that you've gone through, the people who've seen the crisis that you artificially created can't stomach what you've done, and people are not going to forget it. People are not going to forget that you strategized this, that this is what you were aiming for, that you aimed to vilify teachers, that you aimed to destroy the collective bargaining or, at the very least, frustrate it and delay it. People are going to remember that and they're going to hold you accountable.

We've got this bill in front of us now and it's so incredible, because if you read the bill, only the first 10 or 11 sections really deal with getting students back into the classroom. The rest of it has nothing to do with getting students and teachers back into the classroom. It's all part of this government's agenda.

I'm thankful that we got the most offensive parts of this out, that we've managed to get them severed, but I say to this government, throughout, from the beginning, you have not followed an educational agenda. You have not followed an agenda which puts our children, our students, first. You have followed your own narrow political ideological agenda. That is what this is all about. It has been about that from the beginning, it has been about that right up until today, and it will continue.

But I have news for you. Children will be back in the classroom, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps Wednesday, but the most offensive parts of this are going to be laid open to public scrutiny, and when the difficulties continue in our schools, because the difficulties are going to continue - this legislation is not going to solve the problem you have created. It's not going to solve the underfunding; it's not going to solve the underresourcing. The legislation that you're bringing in here is not going to solve all the problems that have arisen and are now arising in our education system, in our schools, and we're going to be here every day, day in and day out, pointing out the continuing problems in our schools that are resulting from your agenda.

I was in a couple of schools in Scarborough last week. I was in Cornell and St Margaret's public schools. Cornell is overloaded with temporary classrooms out in the yard that we have got to do something about, but when you talk to the teachers and the parents there, they'll tell you there is no plan to do anything about this. Those children are going to be stuck in those temporary classrooms, those portables, for a long, long time -

Mr Wildman: With the mould.

Mr Hampton: With the mould, yes; with all the mouldy problems, the bad air problems, the health problems. Your government is not going to do anything about it.

Then you go to St Margaret's and you find a school that was constructed for about 250 students, maybe 300 at the most, and there are over 500 students now jammed into that school. Does your government have an agenda to help that school, help those children, help those families? None. We talked to the parents and we talked to the teachers. There is absolutely no agenda. They have basically been told, "This is it."

You go into the classroom and you find kindergarten classes that are far too large. Anyone who teaches kindergarten will tell you that the most children you should have in a kindergarten class is about 18 students. That's the top end. You can't find in those schools kindergarten classes with less than 18 students. You can't find them. The kindergarten classes are all up around 25, 26 or 27, and you cannot deal with the educational needs and the developmental needs of those children with classes that large with only one teacher in a classroom, and no teacher's aide, no teacher's assistant. They have all been taken out of the classroom because of the cuts you have imposed on the school system.

I invite parents across the province to go into the schools, go into the classrooms and see on a day-to-day basis the havoc that this Conservative government is creating in our schools, and this legislation will not fix any of that.

To give another example, we know that by the time we get around to December, under Bill 160 boards of education will have to have identified the schools they're going to close. We know, for example, in the Waterloo region close to 10 schools have been identified for closure. Which schools are these? Overwhelmingly they're the smaller community schools out in the rural area. They're the schools that are part of the fabric of the community. They're the schools that bring parents, children, teachers and the community together. These are the schools that you're going to close.

If we look, for example, at a large city like Toronto, the schools that you are already proposing to close because of the limitations of your funding formula, because of how much money you have taken out of the system are overwhelmingly going to be the good neighbourhood schools. They're smaller schools, schools that are integrated into the neighbourhood, and they're the very schools that you are going to force to be closed.

1840

This legislation is not going to fix in any way the crisis that this government has created for our children and for our teachers in our schools. This legislation, which we are going to oppose, which we are going to vote against, frankly is nothing more than a band-aid fix. It will get children back into the classroom, but it is not going to resolve any of the underlying issues, any of the very difficult issues, any of the crisis issues you've created in our schools. I just say over and over again, shame on you, shame on this government.

At the heart of it, what's going on here is this: This government values giving the wealthiest people in this province an income tax scheme. You value that more than you value the education of our children. At the end of the day, when you sweep away all the smoke and mirrors, what you're doing is taking over $1 billion a year out of education and you're using that money to finance an income tax scheme that is only going to benefit the wealthiest people in this province. That's what you're all about. That's why you are so wrong. You don't understand yet that people in this province value the education of their children more than they value some phony income tax scheme that doesn't benefit the majority of people. You're going to find out over the weeks ahead how strongly people in this province oppose your central direction, that you would take money from education, would take money from health care in order to finance this phony income tax scheme.

I want to say to the government that over the next few days, as we debate those parts of this bill that have been severed, the most offensive, the most odious parts of this bill that have been severed, we're going to keep coming back to this theme, we're going to keep coming back to this issue. Frankly you don't have an educational agenda. You only have a political agenda, which uses our students, which uses our children, which uses our school system as a pawn in that very negative and destructive political agenda. You don't have an educational agenda. If you did, you'd be putting back some of the money you've taken out over the last three years and you'd be stopping this process of trying to take money out this year.

We're going to vote against this. We're happy that children will have the chance to go back to school later this week, but I want to say to parents and children across the province that merely having children back in the classroom is not going to fix the huge problems in education that this government has deliberately gone out there and created.

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

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): A number of the opposition members have talked about the underfunding of the system and basically said the government has taken out $1 billion, I've heard. Mr Hampton was quoting the newspapers as saying $300 million was taken out of the system. He said just a couple minutes ago that all kinds of money has been taken over the last three years.

What are the real facts? I obtained statistics from the Ministry of Education. When we took over government in 1995, what was being spent on education in the elementary and secondary levels was $14.1 billion. In 1997 that increased to $14.4 billion. It has been anticipated that in this calendar year the expenditures will go up to $15 billion. So arguments that we're cutting education to pay for an income tax cut are really false on both levels. We're not cutting education, and if you look at the budget, the income tax cut has in fact been self-funding and we're making more now, the government is receiving more revenues after the income tax cut, than before. So both of those statements I suggest just don't bear up under scrutiny.

I'd like to talk about what's happening locally in our system. There's a lockout in the Roman Catholic high schools. What's interesting about what has happened locally is that under Bill 160 our local Roman Catholic high schools got an extra $6.5 million. I got that budget and I wondered, "What is the board spending that $6.5 million on?" Half of it has gone for teachers' salaries and extra benefits, and the other half has gone as follows: to fix two schools, to buy books, to hire special education teachers and elementary teachers. That's not acceptable to the union, because their demands simply -

Mr Gerretsen: Why not, to buy books?

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Horrible. Why not?

Mr Skarica: That is not acceptable. The fact is that the union wants 15% raises over the next two years, which would consume all of that money so there would be nothing going to the kids in the classroom. That's what this is all about.

Mr Bradley: What the government always says, and I know the Minister of Education and the Premier say this when they're in trouble, is, "Our problem is that we are just not communicating well enough." Then they pour millions of dollars into television ads, radio ads, full-page newspaper ads, pamphlets that they send around to every household in Ontario, wasting the taxpayers' money on self-serving advertising. I remember Mike Harris when he ran: He was all about saving money. This government, the Common Sense Revolution, wanted to look at every possible expenditure and make sure it was a well-spent dollar. Now there they are just throwing money away on self-serving government advertising, the worst I've ever seen. The worst example I've ever seen is with this government.

Instead of trying to keep people together, instead of trying to build a consensus in education in this province, these people are trying to set one group against another. Those teachers out there who happen to think it's the board of education's fault should look beyond the board of education, and to Toronto. They should pin the tail on the donkey, as the old game used to go as a child, and the donkey resides at Queen's Park in this particular case, in some building at Queen's Park.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: No, it is not the chief government whip, but I'm close when I say that.

Here the government is. It's got boards fighting with boards, teachers fighting with boards, teachers fighting with teachers. Instead of trying to improve the system the Minister of Education decided to defund the system so that 7,500 teaching positions would completely disappear. He's been successful in that, for sure.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This legislation may well get children back into the classrooms but it's not going to get quality education back into our schools. Howard Hampton talked about the need to get out there and take a look at exactly what's happening. Come on down to Edith Cavell school in St Catharines where special-needs teachers this year have no teaching assistant, where special-needs teachers are buying pencils and apparatus out of pocket to take into the classroom because they're simply not available to the kids in their school in their given classrooms.

Talk to the teacher from Barrie I did, her first year teaching up in Barrie. I was over at Club Roma on Saturday night. Talk to that teacher, a first-year teacher, a grade six teacher. She had to buy her own piano. She's the music teacher. She bought her own piano and moved it into the school. There wouldn't have been a music program with the appropriate tools if this teacher hadn't out of pocket, as a first-year teacher, literally - it's not a new piano. She bought a used piano and took it into the school so that she could teach the fundamental music curriculum to those kids.

It's not isolated to those two incidents. Get out there. Get out of your limousines and take a look at what's happening to the classrooms of this province after you've ravaged them with your defunding of public education. It's happening at the preschool level; it's happening at the elementary level; it's happening at the high school level and, quite frankly, at the post-secondary level as well.

We're seeing kids who are increasingly being deprived of what I believe very strongly is their right to quality education because this government, as has been indicated and will be indicated again, is far more adamant about giving its rich friends a tax break than it is about adequate levels of funding for public education, be it in Welland, Thorold, Pelham, St Catharines, or quite frankly any other part of this province. If you people got out of your chairs, out of your weird, wild world of fantasy, and saw the reality of it you'd be ashamed of yourselves.

Mr Froese: I'd like to reiterate what the member from Welland -

Interjections.

Mr Froese: Certainly not the member for Welland, but what the member for Wentworth North said. The fact is that $15 billion is being spent on education, more than ever before, and the money's going into the classroom. Under the funding model, there's a non-classroom category and there's a classroom category. Within that category of classroom spending, the money can be moved around, and it's going to the kids in the classroom via teachers.

What we're seeing across the province is that boards who are negotiating contracts with the teachers are finding the funding within that model to do it. We see across the province boards upon boards that have negotiated deals, settlements, that are advantageous to their kids because the boards, the parents and the teachers in those areas know that the kids are first and they're number one. They're willing to negotiate settlements, and that's what this bill is about.

Those who have not negotiated should take those examples of the boards and the teachers and the parents negotiating those contracts. I said earlier too that they should take the example of what's happening in the college system - two years without a contract. Did they go on strike? No. Why? Because the most important thing was the students and their education. They continued to work to make a deal, and that's what this bill is about. It's to get the teachers back into the classroom and to keep negotiating those contracts and those deals that need to be made. That's what this bill is about, that's what the minister talked about, that's what the parents have been pleading with our government to do, and we're doing it.

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

Mr Wildman: I'd like to thank the members who have responded to my comments and those of my leader. I would just say that if the members opposite are so convinced that there is so much more money in the classroom, perhaps they could explain why in Sault Ste Marie -

Interjection: Where?

Mr Wildman: I'm just using an example. The schools in Sault Ste Marie, schools that used to be cleaned every day, are now cleaned every other day. Why is it that schools where they used to clean the boards and the brushes every day are now cleaned every other day? Only in the math classrooms, because there they use the boards so much, have they agreed to clean every day. The reason is simple: The board doesn't have the money. The board, under your funding formula, has had to make cuts. I suppose the minister would argue that cleaning the schools is administration and therefore it doesn't count and therefore you're not taking money away from the classroom, but I'll tell you that the atmosphere for the students and the teachers in those dirty classrooms and those dirty washrooms and those dirty gyms is terrible.

I'm not making this up. I didn't suggest to the board that they should stop cleaning every day. They did it because they don't have the money, thanks to your funding formula. And I'm not talking about a public board; I'm talking about the Catholic board that supposedly got more money under your funding formula. Under your funding formula the Catholic board cannot clean the schools adequately, much less teach the kids, and this legislation is not going to solve anything. It's just going to put kids back into dirty classrooms.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr David Johnson has moved second reading of Bill 62. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1855 to 1900.

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

Ayes

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, James

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hodgson, Chris

Johns, Helen

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 35.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated today, this bill stands referred to the committee of the whole House. I do now leave the chair for the House to go into the committee of the whole.

Report continues in volume B.

page deliberately left blank

28 septembre 1998