Journal des débats 1998-oct-05 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I rise today in support of Agri-Food Week. Agri-Food Week has been celebrated for years as an opportunity to honour the people who work in the agriculture and food industries.

This week I encourage everyone to take a minute to recognize the hard work and dedication of those who ensure that Ontario is the world leader in the agri-food industry. Today's agriculture is not just about the production of food. The industry has been able to thrive and prosper by using innovative technologies and resourceful methods. We now use agricultural products in everyday life, from the food we eat to the cars we drive.

The diversification is not limited to finding new markets for traditional crops. Farmers are continually seeking out new crops. In some cases, farmers have branched out to produce in non-traditional areas such as aquaculture, ginseng and even peanuts. In other instances, farmers are looking to the past to provide a renaissance in the agricultural industry. In my riding of Essex-Kent, products such as sugar beets are coming back. Kent county entrepreneurs were instrumental in the reintroduction of industrial hemp.

Farmers and the entire agri-food sector can be proud of their work to ensure that the province's second-largest industry is well-positioned to continue as a world leader and will continue to provide a stable base for Ontario's economy.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): The Conservative government has thrown the property tax system into complete chaos. Certainly in my own area of town, but in fact not just in the rest of Toronto but throughout the GTA and indeed other parts of the province we are hearing now in municipality after municipality the problems that are caused by the new tax system that Mike Harris has brought about. It's interesting to note that what people thought at first was just a Toronto problem is now being seen for what it is, which is a province-wide issue and a province-wide problem.

Later today we expect the government to introduce what will be the sixth in a series of bills aimed at fixing another piece of this problem. It won't resolve the whole problem, but at least this one deals with providing an extension to the appeal deadlines for people who feel they should appeal the assessment amounts on their properties.

There is unfortunately, even with this extension, one problem that persists. That is that when it comes to commercial properties, the deadline that is still being given or provided in this new legislation, once the legislation is passed - assuming it is passed in the next couple of days - will only give owners of commercial property less than two weeks to effect their rights and pass on to tenants in the properties, who operate the businesses, the old occupancy tax, which of course this government proudly said it had gotten rid of but forgot to tell people they were actually now asking the owners of the property to pay.

We are going to be calling for an extension of that deadline because we think that's the only way we can be fair to all owners of property, commercial or residential.

LAMBTON ECONOMY

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I'm very pleased to announce that 150 new jobs will be created in the town of Petrolia in my riding of Lambton. The jobs are a result of a new manufacturing facility being constructed by Waterville TG Inc, a manufacturer of automotive weather sealing systems. The warehouse facility will be located on 27 acres of land in Petrolia's industrial park. The proposed start date is mid-December, with completion expected in June 1999.

I commend the town of Petrolia and the Sarnia-Lambton Economic Development Commission for their efforts. Ontario is gaining strength, creating jobs and attracting investments due to the efforts and partnership of this government. Lambton is a good place to invest and do business, and I look forward to continued growth in the Lambton area for the betterment and prosperity of my constituents. This announcement is not only good news for the town of Petrolia and the Sarnia-Lambton area, but also good news for the province. More importantly, it's good news for people looking for jobs in the Sarnia-Lambton area.

CASINO WINDSOR

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Approximately two weeks ago, the president and chair of the Ontario Casino Corp announced in Las Vegas that the OCC is actively considering a second major casino for the city of Windsor. I wanted to rise in the House today and say to the minister responsible, the Honourable Chris Hodgson, that we believe he ought to be actively exploring this idea and actively looking at the idea of reinvesting some of the considerable profits that are being taken out of Windsor back into our community to protect Casino Windsor's current competitive advantage.

Members will be aware, as I know the minister is and the Ontario Casino Corp is, that three new casinos will be coming on stream in Detroit sometime within the next two to five years. This represents a major competitive threat. We in Windsor are confident that our highly skilled, highly trained workforce and well-managed casino can continue to be competitive. We do, however, look forward to the Ontario Casino Corp reinvesting some of their profits back into our community and back into our gaming operations to ensure that that casino continues to enjoy the success it has to date.

While looking at a second casino, the government should also be looking at potentially investing in Windsor's expanded convention facilities and its waterfront parks to ensure and enhance our competitive position to make sure that those 5,000 jobs in Windsor remain safe and secure.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm sure that all members of the House would agree with the often made statement that farming families are the backbone of Ontario. It's a pleasure to stand here today and recognize their hard work, their essential contribution to our economy and their place within the social fabric that binds our communities.

I had the opportunity as Minister of Economic Development and Trade at one point in this province to work with the agri-food industry and to understand that it contributes $25 billion a year to the provincial economy and that it's the second-largest employer in the province and continues to create jobs for Ontarians. Our farmers provide an ample supply of safe and reliable food that is enjoyed not only here in Ontario but around the world, so it is important and it is I think a wonderful opportunity for us to celebrate Ontario's agri-industry.

But I would be remiss if I didn't comment on some of the things that I hear from people in rural communities as I travel the province. They have watched this government break its election promises. They have told this government again and again that they don't like the fact that you're closing rural hospitals, that you're closing rural schools, that rural roads need drastic attention and that your announcements about things like rural youth employment strategies are empty when you turn around on the other hand and close good, steady employment opportunities like Rideau Regional Centre and relocate them into urban centres for political purposes. Farming families are the backbone, but the backbone can be broken. I hope this government will reverse its trend.

FAMILY FUN FAIR

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'd like to seize this opportunity to inform the House today about the highly successful third annual Family Fun Fair that took place at Centennial Park during the weekend of September 18 to 20. The event was organized and implemented by some 45 members of the Rotary Club of Toronto West, along with dozens of friends and neighbours who came together in the spirit of the Etobicoke community.

Some 20,000 residents, as well as corporate sponsors, participated in the Family Fun Fair and raised nearly $13,000 towards the purchase of a new CAT scanner for the Etobicoke General Hospital. This event signifies the true spirit of outstanding voluntarism and community support by the residents of Toronto West. This third edition of the Family Fun Fair consisted of entertainment for children, bingo, a beer tent, an art show and various musical entertainment, as well as the sampling of great fresh Ontario produce.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute the volunteer spirit of the steering committee. Their dedication, compassion and community spirit encompasses the Rotary Club's motto: "Service above self."

I would like to also commend Frank Berndt, president; Gaston Bottero; John Cochrane; John Fletcher; Doug Ford Jr; Rob Ford; Albert Kezes; Herb Roerig; and John Sparks for an excellent community fundraising event. On behalf of all citizens of Toronto, thank you.

1340

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Tomorrow we will be commencing second reading debate on the apprenticeship legislation, Bill 55.

Today members of the OFL were here calling for public hearings into this legislation and they are skeptical about their chances because of the Harris government's poor record on listening. Not once has this minister indicated that public hearings would take place - not to business, not to the apprentices and certainly not to this Legislature.

There is a compelling reason why the public needs to have input into Bill 55. Dave Johnson is putting public safety at risk. He is lowering wages and he's putting more barriers in front of our young people.

Let's not forget that many stakeholders have their experience with Bill 31 on their minds. How could any of them forget that the Harris government rammed Bill 31 through this Legislature without any public hearings. I hope this minister will have some real sense and will insist that Bill 55 proceed after second reading to province-wide hearings that might lead to some real and substantive dialogue.

I have other reasons for concern as well. The majority of changes to the apprenticeship system will be made in regulation by either yourself or your cabinet colleagues. You're stripping the minimum educational requirements out of the legislation. You're creating potential health and safety problems related to training standards and supervision. And you say to industry to trust you to develop regulations that will address these concerns. They don't trust you. My colleagues in the Liberal caucus don't trust you and the public of Ontario shouldn't trust you either.

The minister should announce in this House today that not only is he going to hold hearings -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to protest the decision of the Sault area hospitals' management to cut staffing at the Thessalon Hospital to only one nurse per 12-hour shift.

The new hospital facility is being reduced to little more than an emergency stabilization nursing station. In the view of the hospital staff, it will be impossible for staff to carry out even this function if more than one emergency patient presents at the emergency room at one time if there is only one nurse on duty. Indeed the joint health and safety committee of the hospital asserted in 1996 that having only one nurse on duty per shift would be hazardous to both patients and staff. Security for a solitary staff person on duty for 12 hours in an open-door emergency room is in itself problematic.

The people of Thessalon and area don't understand why the Ministry of Health would authorize funds for a new, renovated hospital facility at Algoma Manor if it is not to be staffed adequately.

I'm requesting the Minister of Health to meet with representatives of the senior management of the Sault area hospitals, the local health advisory committee and the residents of Thessalon to clear this up. I'd be happy to help arrange such a meeting. It's important that we have adequate staff. It doesn't make sense to have a newly renovated hospital facility if the money isn't available to ensure that it's properly staffed with at least two nurses on duty per 12-hour shift.

WOODSTOCK WOOD SHOW

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Joe and Sharon Daniel, the organizers of the Woodstock Wood Show, on a very exciting and successful event. Held this weekend in Oxford county, the 13th annual show drew participants from as far away as England and Australia. This year it was bigger and better than ever, as 15,000 people streamed through the gates at Woodstock Fairgrounds to view more than 400 exhibits.

Joe and Sharon have been involved in the show since it started in 1985 and took over its sole organization in 1987. I'm proud to say that the efforts of this enterprising Ingersoll couple and their family have created the largest show of its kind in North America. From wood carving to equipment displays to educational seminars, this show not only appeals to those involved in the industry but to everyone, from those who enjoy woodworking to other wood hobbies to those of us who simply enjoy viewing the talents of local and international artists.

Not only does the wood show add a unique flavour to the host of events held in Oxford county each year, it also adds to the local economy. This year alone 75 people were hired to help run the three-day event.

It takes more than just organizational talent to put together an event like this. It takes perseverance, patience and a love of community. Joe and Sharon Daniel and their family certainly personify these qualities and all of us in Oxford county are proud of their efforts.

I'd like to add that the planning for the 1999 wood show started in May, and I invite all Ontarians to set aside time on the weekend of October 2 and 3, 1999, to visit this unique event.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on October 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

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."

I'd say the ayes have it.

Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORLD TEACHERS' DAY

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Today we are celebrating World Teachers' Day in Ontario. October 5 was designated by UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, as a day to acknowledge the valuable contribution -

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Even Snobelen can't keep a straight face at that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, members for Lake Nipigon and Ottawa West.

Hon David Johnson: I'm very sorry if the opposition parties don't share our concern with regard to World Teachers' Day.

Mr Pouliot: It's you we don't believe.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): How much are you going to be spending this week?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Ottawa West, Sudbury and Lake Nipigon.

Hon David Johnson: This day was designated by UNESCO as a day to acknowledge the valuable contribution that teachers make to our society. Our government is joining jurisdictions around the world in recognizing the commitment, creativity and caring of the teaching profession.

Ontario relies upon its teachers to challenge and encourage our young people so that they can become confident, knowledgeable and productive citizens. We have excellent teachers in Ontario who have provided valued guidance to the students through the years.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock.

Minister of Education.

Hon David Johnson: I suspect we all have vivid memories of the teachers we have encountered and who have provided that valuable guidance to us.

In my case, I can recall many years ago a grade 4 teacher who was very kind to me. I can recall a physical education teacher in high school who replaced my equipment when the equipment went astray. I can recall a French teacher who would never give up on me, even though my French might not have quite come up to par. I can recall mathematics teachers who took a great interest in me and, as a result, when I went to university I focused on mathematics. These are the kind of people who have a great influence on the youth today, in a one-on-one situation with our students, as they did on me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Oriole, member for Ottawa West, come to order. We're going to get through this statement and I would ask that members of the opposition come to order.

Mr Pouliot: The minister is bankrupt.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon as well.

Mr Pouliot: He needs the IMF.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, come to order.

1350

Hon David Johnson: These teachers deserve to be supported by an excellent curriculum and an excellent system. The government has worked to support teachers to recognize their professionalism.

We did establish the Ontario College of Teachers, which is an independent, self-funding and professional body that allows Ontario teachers to govern their own profession with more say in defining and controlling professional conduct and practice.

We've also given teachers the tools they need to boost the achievement of their students. A new province-wide elementary curriculum sets standards across the province, making it clear to teachers, but also to parents and students, what should be taught at each grade level. I'm pleased that teachers were instrumental in developing this new curriculum, that we as a government involved teachers and sought their advice. They were extremely instrumental in developing the new curriculum. Teachers have told us that the curriculum assists them in delivering a consistently high quality of education grade by grade, province-wide.

Teachers also guided the design of the new report card in Ontario. This report card makes it easier for teachers to let parents know how their children are doing in school.

The government has set higher standards for our education system. These standards support teachers and allow them to do what they do best.

This government values the dedication of Ontario's teachers. I'm delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to those teachers today. They are key partners in our plan to give all Ontario students a high quality of education that will equip our students for success in the future.

We aren't the only ones who recognize the professionalism of our teachers. Indeed, as one example, it's largely thanks to the teachers that the Durham Board of Education won the 1996 Carl Bertelsmann Foundation prize for excellence, ahead of all the other jurisdictions in the world.

On this day of world recognition for teachers, we in Ontario can take great pride in the fact that our teachers are among the very best in the world.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Today is World Teachers' Day, and it is a time to celebrate the work and the commitment of 50 million teachers across the world. We can best begin by celebrating the work of Ontario's teachers, and I would like to do so in a way which is based on reality, as opposed to what we have just heard the Minister of Education offer as his way of celebrating.

I want to start by celebrating the efforts of our kindergarten teachers. I want to celebrate the efforts of those teachers who are facing the challenges of educating and nurturing anywhere from 25 to 28 three- and four-year-olds in their classrooms, often in combined junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten grades and, most often, in the Mike Harris kindergarten classrooms of Ontario, with no teaching assistants whatsoever. I want to celebrate the commitment of that teacher I spoke to in my riding on Saturday who has 28 three- and four-year-olds in her class and who did her best to deal with a little child who had an accident in class. But how do you deal with that when you've got 27 other three- and four-year-olds in your class that day?

I want to celebrate the commitment of the elementary teachers who do have that brand-new curriculum in science and in social studies to teach this year, a curriculum that was virtually dropped on their desks in late spring, a curriculum which they are going to have to teach with the added challenge of having no in-service training at all, not even the single-day training that was offered for the math and reading curriculum that was dropped on them last summer. They are going to have the even further challenge of teaching that new curriculum without the benefit of having any textbooks to go with the social studies and science curriculum, because the minister was in such a hurry to make his announcement about their new curriculum that he didn't provide enough time for there to be any textbooks written to go with it. I want to celebrate the achievements of elementary school teachers who are still continuing to teach children despite the almost impossible conditions this government has created for them.

I want to celebrate those high school teachers who are responsible for teaching as many as 75 to 100 students in the course of their teaching day with all the demands that kind of workload brings, those high school teachers who are frustrated because their government is telling the public that they can meet the educational needs of those 75 to 100 students in four hours and 10 minutes a day.

I want to celebrate all that is part of a teacher's real working day: the hours of preparation for class, the marking, the providing of extra help, the counselling, the communicating with parents, the working with special-needs children.

I want to celebrate the countless hours of volunteer time that those teachers put into running a full and a rich extracurricular program for their students.

I want to celebrate the achievements of our students and of public education and I want to recognize that the achievements of our students are indeed the achievements of our teachers.

I was pleased that the Minister of Education, I think for the first time in the history of this Legislature, acknowledged the international award that was received by a high school in the Durham board. I wonder why this government isn't prepared to recognize the other achievements of our public education system.

Why don't they recognize the fact that we have the highest secondary school graduation rate in Canada at 88% and how that graduation from high school rate reflects the kind of teaching and support that have been given by countless teachers to those students over their years in elementary and high school?

Why doesn't this government recognize that the top four students in a field of 4,475 who wrote the international senior chemistry exam were from Ontario schools and that in fact 20 of the top 30 of the students writing that chemistry exam were from Ontario schools? Why doesn't the minister talk about this?

Why didn't the government, if it wanted to celebrate teachers and the achievement of teachers and the achievement of students, retract the pamphlet they sent out some time ago that suggested our students were somehow 15 out of 15 in international tests, when the government knew full well that they cut the graph off at 15 so that the Premier could go around saying our students were at the bottom of the pack?

Why have they been so determined to misrepresent the achievements of students and teachers in order to prove that the system is broken? Then the minister tries to say: "Don't worry. We're only criticizing the system, we're not criticizing our teachers."

I think that we should be celebrating teachers across the world and here in Ontario. Let's value the full measure of their worth and let's respect the vital contribution that our teachers make to ensuring our young people have a quality education.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Seldom in this Legislature have I heard such a cynical and manipulative statement from a minister. This government is something like Mark Antony in the Shakespearean play, "He came to bury Caesar, not to praise him." This government has buried the teachers and now it's giving them faint praise.

This government, from the Premier on down, has systematically denigrated teachers and their role in society, their role in the education system, for two and a half years. The Premier has repeatedly said, and most recently to the chamber of commerce, that our students are mediocre, that our education system is mediocre, that we are not doing enough in the education system in this province. At the same time, because the government has found that the people of Ontario understand that teachers do indeed deserve praise, that they are hard-working, dedicated people who care about kids and care about making it possible for them to achieve to their full potential, the Conservatives are now going around saying, "We never really criticized teachers, we just criticized the union," or "We just criticized the system," or "The teachers are somehow caught in a terrible system that's depriving them of the ability to do what they would like to do for students." Talk about cynicism.

The government has stated that their changes to education mean more money in the classroom and more teachers. They've even said, because they put a cap on the average class size, that there are more teachers in the system, when in fact that is not the case. We just today had the publication of a survey done by the OSSTF of all of the public secondary schools in the province which indicates there are 2,000 fewer secondary public school teaching positions this year, as of October 5, than there would have been before the new funding formula and Bill 160.

1400

The government has these ads on TV right now which say: "We're only asking teachers to teach 25 minutes more. Is it too much to ask?" Well, the dispute about Bill 160 is not about 25 more minutes. Teachers offered to lengthen the periods to allow them to teach more minutes and the government said, "No, we don't want you to do that." The government said: "No, we don't want teachers to teach longer periods. We want them to teach one additional period." That means the dispute is not around 25 more minutes, it's around 25 more students. That's what the dispute is about. The government wants fewer teachers teaching more students, and that's what it's about.

The government wanted to take $1 billion out of the education system, some 70% to 80% of the budgets of school boards is for staff, and the only way they can get that money out is by having fewer staff. That means fewer teachers teaching students; less time for teachers to do things like extracurricular activities; less time for them to do preparation for more classes; less time for them to do guidance counselling; less time to do remedial work with students who need extra help. Students and teachers have been deprived of the resources they need to ensure that Ontario students excel in this province.

It's time for this government to end the rhetoric and to put their money where their mouth is. It's time for the government to say, "We are going to invest in schools. We are going to invest in students. We are going to invest in teachers. We're going to ensure that we have the best system," rather than some kind of system that is on the average, which is what this government wants. It's time for us to value the role of teachers. It's time for us to respect the work that they do for our students in this province.

I ask for unanimous consent in celebration of World Teachers' Day for the House to agree that we should all put on one of these buttons emblematic of our respect for teachers, and to wear them for the rest of the day to show that not only do we respect teachers but we are prepared to give them the resources they need to help the students excel in Ontario the way that they used to and the way they could if we had a government that really believed in teachers.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to wear the buttons? Agreed? No.

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome the 1998-99 Ontario legislative interns who are seated in the Speaker's gallery today. Welcome and good luck.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOLTEACHERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, you've put out a background document today that tells the public that boards will need to hire more teachers. While you were putting out this background document, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation put out their survey of the real numbers of secondary school teachers who are teaching in the classrooms of our public secondary schools this year. Their survey shows the reality that there are 2,100 fewer secondary school teachers in public secondary schools alone. Is your statement simply wrong or did you really mean to say, "Some boards will need to hire teachers but other boards will be cutting teachers," because of your inadequate funding?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I can assure you that some boards are hiring teachers. Let me give you some examples. The Toronto District School Board is hiring 990 elementary teachers. There's one example. York Region District School Board is hiring 117 secondary school teachers. The Simcoe county board is hiring 50. The Ottawa-Carleton board is hiring 150 secondary school teachers.

The funding formula allows more money for teachers. We have focused the money from the funding formula into the classroom so that indeed there's more money for all the activities in the classroom, including more teachers. Our estimate is that over the next three years there will be 3,000 more teachers in the system than there were last year.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Could I just ask the members in the third party who are wearing those buttons - we didn't get unanimous consent, so you'll have to take them off.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm not sure that there was understanding. The unanimous consent requested was to wear a button to celebrate World Teachers' Day. I would ask for unanimous consent again.

The Speaker: That's exactly what was asked for. I put the question and it didn't carry.

Ms Lankin: Would you test the House again?

The Speaker: I don't mind going back, but I'm sure I was very clear on the request and I've already put it. I think they're fairly firm on that, so let's move on.

Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: For a man who likes to talk about his new mathematics curriculum, the Minister of Education is surprisingly reluctant to engage in either addition, subtraction or division. I have the background paper which the minister put out today, and the background paper does indeed say that the ministry estimates that boards hired more than 6,000 new teachers for September 1998. But the same background paper two lines further on says that the pension board has already received 9,500 notices of retirement this year. There seem to be some 3,500 teachers missing. I wonder why the minister wasn't prepared to subtract those two numbers. I wonder why the minister hasn't been prepared to look at enrolment growth numbers, because he says in his backgrounder that there will be funding for teachers required for enrolment growth. But there are 2,100 fewer secondary schoolteachers in our public secondary schools this September, and there are 5,000 more students in those same classrooms this September.

Minister, with 2,100 fewer teachers in secondary schools and 5,000 more students, how can you claim that you have provided more teachers for our students?

Hon David Johnson: The numbers are coming in from the boards. The numbers I gave you earlier and the numbers I give you now are numbers coming in from the school boards largely from towards the end of August. So these numbers are still coming in, the boards are still reporting. We have not got the final numbers.

Hastings-Prince Edward, for example, is hiring over 100 teachers. The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board is hiring about 240 teachers. Yes, teachers are retiring and new teachers are coming on. The funding formula allows for more money in the classroom to hire teachers. I might say that the cap on the average class size is requiring that more classes be created and more teachers be hired - over the next three years, 3,000 new teachers in the system.

The Speaker: Stop the clock just for a minute. Could I just remind the member for Welland-Thorold that we didn't get unanimous consent for the buttons. I'd ask that you remove it now.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Point of order, Speaker: Does the fact that Steve Gilchrist denied us the right to wear these buttons -

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, I'd ask you to remove the button, please.

Final supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: If the minister wants to talk about future years, we need to talk about enrolment growth in future years; we need to talk about retirements in future years. I have to work with the paper the minister provided to the public today, in October 1998.

This minister likes to talk about opening new schools, but he doesn't like to talk about the 43 boards where they're going to be closing schools. He likes to talk about boards hiring new teachers, but he doesn't want to acknowledge the reality of the boards that are going to be losing teachers and how many fewer teachers there are going to be in our classrooms. You don't want to acknowledge the fact that you are replacing only some of the teachers who are retiring. By your own numbers you're only replacing some 6,000 of the 9,500 teachers who are retiring. You don't acknowledge the reality. The reality, real numbers: 2,100 fewer secondary schoolteachers in public secondary school classrooms; 5,000 more students in those same classrooms. There are fewer teachers, with more students. Will you not finally acknowledge that this means less teacher time with every student?

Hon David Johnson: I can only reiterate that the funding formula has more monies for all of the categories in the classroom, including teachers, including supply teachers, including paraprofessionals, speech pathologists to support teachers, including librarians and guidance teachers - all of the above, more money.

Plus the fact that we have capped the average class size board by board so that the class sizes cannot continue to grow year after year as they have at the elementary level - and they've grown at the secondary level too - means that there will be more classes and, believe it or not, there is a teacher in every class. More classes, more teachers; 3,000 more teachers over the next three years. The teachers are already being hired. Over 250 in York region; board by board, more teachers.

1410

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I do hope the Minister of Health will be more forthcoming in responding to some of the realities that have been inflicted by the government in communities around Ontario, specifically, Minister, the cuts you've made to hospitals. You've cut hospitals in each and every community around the province. We've talked to you about Hamilton, about Ottawa. You've declined to take responsibility, just as your government has declined.

I want to ask you particularly about the impact that you've had on some of the new hospitals in this province, specifically a new hospital you opened with a lot of fanfare in Barrie, the Royal Victoria Hospital. It's open and it's got eight brand-spanking-new operating rooms. But only your government could turn that into a bad-news story because four of those operating rooms can't function. Why? They can't function because you won't pay the hospital enough money to use them. There's the heritage for your government right now: four empty operating rooms in Barrie.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Kennedy: Residents are having to leave to have babies delivered, to have cardiac surgery. Will you put a proper amount of money into the Royal Victoria Hospital and all the hospitals -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): To the member opposite, this government is very proud of its track record when it comes to health restructuring. Despite the fact that the federal government reduced our transfer payments by approximately $2.5 billion, this government is very proud to have increased health service funding for people in this province by at least $1.2 billion. We will continue to increase that funding each and every year in the future, because unlike the federal government, we recognize health services are a priority for people in this province.

We have been working with our partners in the hospital sector and we have been ensuring that our hospitals are structured in such a way that as we look at the future, we look at today, we look at the needs of the population that is changing and aging and growing rapidly, we are putting in place a continuum of care -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - which means that many of the services that have formerly been delivered in the hospitals will be available in the long-term-care sector -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I don't know exactly where it is you plan for those surgeries in Barrie to be. They're not going to be in the community and they're not in those four operating rooms that you won't fund properly.

In not even a year's operation, they have a $4.3-million deficit. They have a $6-million deficit this year. It would be $10 million except they've had to cut services and not provide for people, so that people are backed up, as they are all over the province, in emergency rooms.

The same situation exists in a new hospital in Orangeville. You made a big to-do about opening a hospital and what have you done? You've got it running a $1.6-million deficit. This big, bold government has just dumped its debt on to the hospitals, on to sick people in the province.

In Collingwood you're paying for a renovation. You've got 47 beds funded and you're building 70 beds. You've got 25 brand-new beds that you built with your money and you won't give them the money to staff the nurses.

Minister, again, will you take some responsibility, some -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I certainly hope that this information being presented today is a little different than some of the information in the past. I hear the member who represents the Orangeville community saying that the information as presented doesn't seem to be exactly as he recalls it to be.

We have been working very diligently with hospitals because we recognize that they have new and emerging needs. As you know, in order to address some of the situations in the province, we have set up a working group with the Ontario Hospital Association to ensure that where there are areas where there is a need for additional services to respond, we will have the appropriate resource allocation available to those hospitals, so in the very situation, the Orangeville situation, and situations across this province we are studying very carefully in conjunction with the OHA in order -

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: I just hope that in those various committees and task forces you have you're not tying up the valuable time of doctors and nurses who are needed in these communities, because what you have done is very simple. You have taken $800 million from hospitals and you have foisted the cost of that - you don't know how to make them run more efficiently; instead you just dump the cost on the hospitals and on the patients, so that Maxine Ferguson's father in Collingwood went to emergency and was on a stretcher for two and a half days. An 83-year-old man found it impossible to sleep for two and a half days. When that man was admitted, he spent eight days in that hospital, showing how badly it was needed.

Minister, that's your fault. It certainly becomes your fault if you ignore your responsibilities. That hospital in Collingwood is running a deficit. So is the hospital in Orangeville and so is the one in Barrie. They're brand-new hospitals and you won't let them do their jobs -

The Speaker: Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I say, we are very proud of the additional investments that we've made in health services. Let's go back to Simcoe county in particular. We know that we have invested more than $6.7 million in the Simcoe county hospital priority program. We have invested in Healthy Babies, Healthy Children. We have invested in the Ontario drug benefit program. We have invested in community-based mental health services. We have moved forward to strengthen the hospitals in Ontario in order that we can provide the services as close as possible to the homes of individuals. We have increased the number of MRIs, and there will be 35, and we're increasing dialysis centres across this province.

We are providing $1.2 billion more in spending, and yet the federal government tells us -

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

SCHOOLTEACHERS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Despite the comments of the minister and his colleagues over the last few months and weeks, the people of Ontario understand that the government's agenda on education is about cutting. It's about less money in the system, it's about fewer teachers and it's about fewer schools in the future.

How can the minister continue to maintain that there are more teachers in the system as a result of his reforms in the face of the evidence presented today by OSSTF which indicates that in the public high schools of Ontario there are 2,000 fewer teaching positions than there would have been prior to the government's changes in Bill 160 and the funding formula? Will the minister admit that the controversy around Bill 160 now is not about 25 more minutes' instruction, but about 25 more students per teacher, fewer teachers teaching more students and more classes?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, I want to say that the objective of the government is around quality. That is what the objective of the government is: quality in education. We need to improve the education system in Ontario. That speaks to issues such as the new curriculum, such as the new report card, such as the province-wide testing, such as the purchase of textbooks - some $55 million worth of textbooks have been purchased; another $45 million will be coming in the near future - such as capping the average class size and increasing the number of instructional days so that our students have the benefit of the same number of instructional days as students in other provinces. That's what the issue is.

In terms of the number of teachers, there was a statement at one time that there would be 10,000 teachers fired. Your party, I'm sure, and the Liberals said there would be 10,000 teachers fired. Now we see that the school boards are hiring teachers. Algoma is hiring over 70 teachers; the Rainbow District School Board is hiring over 100 teachers. Within three years there will be 3,000 more teachers in the system.

1420

Mr Wildman: The minister knows that he's not talking about net new positions; he's talking about replacement positions, and all those who have retired have not been replaced.

Fewer teachers means fewer options at the secondary level. Less funding also means fewer schools. The minister has indicated in a directive sent out on June 15, "School consolidation decisions are to be finalized by board resolution, and appropriate alternative arrangements for the pupils in the schools to be consolidated are to be developed before December 31, 1998."

This government has set a deadline for closure of schools, with decisions to be made by the end of this calendar year. Then last week the minister said: "This government is not imposing any deadlines. There is no deadline regarding school closures for school boards." Which is the situation? Are you requiring school boards to make decisions about closing schools by the end of this year or not?

Hon David Johnson: Whether to close a school and when to close a school is the prerogative of the local school board, as it has been when your government was in power and when the Liberals were in power. Each and every year through your period in office and through the period when the Liberals were in office, schools were closed at the decision of the local school boards. They picked the time; they made the decision. In your case, over 100 schools were closed; in the case of the Liberals, about 140 schools were closed.

That remains the fact today. If school boards wish to diminish their capacity, then we have indicated that they let us know by the end of the year, if they wish to diminish their capacity for the purposes of the new pupil places. If they don't wish to, that's their choice. If they choose to close a school, that's their choice, and if they decide on a particular time to close the school, if they should so decide, that's their choice.

Mr Wildman: I guess they don't get the adjustment funding if they don't meet the deadline. I guess that's what the minister is saying, but it's up to them.

He says the decision is up to the school boards, but I have a letter here addressed to one of his colleagues, Mr Wilson, from one of his constituents, Jackie Knisley, an RN, in which she says: "In your busy schedule you found time to speak with me concerning Duntroon Central School, which yet again has been threatened with closure. When I mentioned this grave problem to you your words were, `Oh, I won't let them close your school.'" She goes on to say they were extremely happy about this.

You've just said that the decision on school closures is local boards'. Is that really the case, or is it the case that the decisions result from the funding formula your government has set forward, and if anybody wants to stop a local board from closing a school, they should go and see you or one of your cabinet colleagues, who will then make the final decision?

Hon David Johnson: I'm not familiar with any particular letter. I'll only say that in terms of Simcoe county, for example, there are some $5 million worth of monies which have been guaranteed to flow into Simcoe county to assist in terms of the construction of new schools in Simcoe county over the next number of years. Indeed, we expect that over the next three years there will be fairly close to 200 new elementary and secondary schools under construction in Ontario, providing accommodation for 120,000 students across the province and getting rid of a good number of the portables in which students are accommodated at the present time. The Simcoe county budget is up. Their new pupil places budget is more than adequate.

This government has taken a bold initiative in terms of constructing more new schools than any other government in recent history.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Housing. A homeless man, Vernon Ross Crowe, died on the Toronto streets last Friday, I'm sure you will recall. People are dying because of the lack of appropriate affordable housing, and people who work with the homeless are very scared about what will happen this winter. The city of Toronto says they will have a shortage of 320 to 460 hostel beds this winter: 460 people who will have to sleep on the streets, not because they want to but because they have nowhere to go.

Minister, what are you going to do now, not sometime in the future, not after other task forces report, but now, to make sure no one freezes on our streets this winter?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'll refer the question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): We've been working very closely with municipalities as we seek to find new ways to address the problems that those who find themselves homeless are experiencing. That's why we have maintained our funding for homeless shelters. We pay 80% of that. That has not been reduced; it is not being reduced. I think that demonstrates the commitment we have had to helping our municipal partners deal with what is a very serious issue.

Mr Marchese: I do not detect from this minister or the other minister of homelessness a scintilla of empathy for the people who are suffering on our streets, not one scintilla of empathy from either of those two ministers. We have a crisis and she, through her arrogance, says, "We are doing more than before," yet the crisis continues to worsen.

You should get out, Minister, with the other minister of homelessness and get away from Moore Park and Rosedale once in a while. I urge you both, Ministers, to come and take a walk with me in the streets of not Rosedale but downtown Toronto to see the kind of tragedies we are experiencing. Will the both of you come and take a walk with me to see what I see on the streets of Toronto?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We have met with many of the agencies who deal with people who are homeless in this city and in other cities across the province. My parliamentary assistant, Mr Carroll, has been meeting with many municipalities and many community agencies who deal with this. He has received some very excellent feedback. He has met with Anne Golden, who, as you know, is doing the Toronto task force. Anne Golden is calling for a national coalition of provincial governments and municipal governments to sit down with Ottawa to see how we can better address what is indeed a national problem.

But I would repeat that in this province not only do we cost-share 80% of that, and will continue to do that because we think it's an important support, but we are also helping to get more and more people off social assistance so they can afford accommodation. Some 304,000 fewer people are now on welfare than there used to be because of our reforms. We know they are in jobs. We know they are better off when they are employed. They're able to afford accommodation.

We will continue to push forward -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Marchese: All this minister does, and it seems to be the same answer as last year: They continue to meet with people as the tragedy worsens. They have helped to make this tragedy worse than before through their direct policy of welfare slashing. The cancellation of social housing only means one thing: More and more people are on the streets.

Tomorrow evening, a non-partisan group I've helped put together will be asking all governments to put housing back on the public housing agenda.

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: They laugh, but it's a tragedy they helped to worsen.

On Thursday, a community coalition, including famed scientist Ursula Franklin, will be asking all levels of government to declare homelessness a national disaster that needs serious public resources. Anne Golden in her interim report has called for 5,000 supportive housing units to be built in Toronto alone. You were wrong, Ministers, to get out of the business of housing, and unless you get back in, you will be directly responsible for the tragedies on the streets of Toronto. What are you going to do now about the tragedy, not down the line?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the honourable member's concern for individuals who have found themselves homeless in this city and other cities across the country, but one of the objectives we have is not to simply build a whole bunch of new buildings where we found that the cost of that government housing was more than what was being paid in the private sector. What is important is to get those individuals into programs that will help them, get them off welfare and get them linked up with housing and accommodation.

As you know, with our homeless task force, we have increased funding to help with those supports. Mr Carroll will be coming back with further recommendations. We've been working with Anne Golden to see the recommendations she'll be coming forward with as we work with our municipalities to improve the supports for people who find themselves homeless, because we do know and we do recognize that it is an issue, it is a problem. These people need help. We also understand that there need to be better mental health supports too. As the stories in the Star are showing this week, mental health is also an important priority.

1430

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): My question is to the Minister of Transportation, who refuses to listen to the mayors, police chiefs and police commissions across the province who have repeatedly ask you, almost begged you, to allow the use of red light cameras to stop this epidemic at dangerous intersections. All your ministry can come up with are endless excuses and unworkable schemes like hiring private security guards to act as red light rent-a-cops to watch over an intersection. When will you stop stalling and start to listen and allow these cameras to be used so that accidents can be prevented and lives can be saved? When will you stop the stalling?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I don't know what the honourable member is talking about. We have been working day and night and night and day to come up with a solution that is actually going to tackle the problem of aggressive driving and red light running in our province.

I had a superb meeting with the mayor of Toronto on Thursday. We agreed on three things: We agreed that there's a problem; we agreed that we had to work together to find a solution; we agreed that potentially part of that solution would be technology, but it has got to be combined with an education program and it has got to be combined with the maximum sanctions allowable by law, which means you've got to identify the driver.

If the honourable member has some solutions that have not been thought of, I'd welcome him to the table, because we want to have a solution that's not only going to be looking good rhetorically but is actually going to help solve the problem.

Mr Colle: At least we're getting somewhere. Finally the minister has agreed there is a problem, so we are getting somewhere. Secondly, I'll tell the minister that I had a private member's bill which proposed the solution of installing red light cameras. You blocked that bill.

I'll tell you, if you don't listen to the police chiefs and you don't listen to the mayors, why don't you listen to Mr Roger Laporte, who last year lost his 40-year-old son to a red light runner? He's asking you as the minister to stop with the politics, listen to ordinary citizens who have been hurt by your inaction and install the cameras. Will you listen to Mr Laporte, who doesn't want his son Michel to die in vain? He's saying to you: "Stop the stalling. Allow the cameras."

Hon Mr Clement: There have been some tragedies on our roads, some of them at intersections, absolutely right. We owe it to those victims to not only come up with what looks good maybe in the next day's newspaper or in a private member's resolution; we owe it to them to come up with the best solution possible that is going to tackle the problem. If I have to spend an extra day or an extra week to find that solution -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: Our commitment as a government is to find the solution that focuses in on that red light runner. I couldn't agree more with the statement that was uttered in this House in 1993 that I read in part: "The other concern I have about this legislation is that the electronic monitoring and photo radar are aimed at the vehicle as opposed to the driver.... I think it takes it a step away, makes it less effective and is unfair when the ticket comes to the person who is the owner of that vehicle." I agree with that statement.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Who said it?

Hon Mr Clement: Who said it? Jim Bradley, the member for St Catharines. I agree with him; that is the right approach.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Are members allowed to mislead members of this House?

The Speaker: That's out of order. You can't say that.

Mr Bradley: I asked you -

The Speaker: No, there's no question. You're inferring.

Mr Bradley: - are members allowed to mislead the House?

The Speaker: Of course not.

Mr Bradley: Thank you. I'm glad to hear that.

Interjection: You were doing it for years.

The Speaker: I want to caution the members that I understand the question the member for St Catharines put, but I think it's a loaded question regardless of how you placed it. So I would caution members that isn't acceptable either, as well from the member for Cambridge; that's unacceptable too.

Mr Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The minister, who has to consult with Preston Manning before he does anything, knows full well -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

New question.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. I want to say to the Minister of Transportation that in case he has forgotten, my colleagues and I are still in favour of photo radar, so I'll be very interested in what answer he has to my question about this issue of red light runners. Minister, whatever this is about - and of course everything we do is a little bit about politics - this issue is about saving lives.

I want to bring you back to where we are and, more important, where you are on this issue. I was a bit puzzled, I have to tell you. Late last week you had a meeting with Mayor Lastman. He comes out of the meeting and says, "We have an agreement to proceed with some pilot projects." I thought, "It's not as good as going ahead with full-flight legislation, but at least it's a step in the right direction." You come out of the same meeting and say, "There's no agreement." So where are we? Are you going to proceed with pilot projects, are you going to proceed in some way now rather than two or three or four months from now to bring in legislation on this very important issue?

Hon Mr Clement: I'll say to the honourable member and to this House what I indicated to the mayor last Thursday, what I indicated to the mayor of Mississauga last Friday, what I would like to indicate to any other regional chair or mayor or member of this Legislature: We want to work together with people who have new, creative, workable, effective ideas that are going to get at this problem. Part of that solution is technology that was hitherto unavailable.

I would put to the members of this House that part of the solution has to be education, to get at the aggressive drivers and their techniques, to re-educate them on proper road techniques.

The third component of this has to be the maximum sanctions that are allowable under our laws, either the Highway Traffic Act or other acts, to target that red light runner and to deter that aggressive driving behaviour. The best way to do that is to identify the driver. We are working with our municipal colleagues, with my colleague the Solicitor General, with my colleague the Attorney General and with this caucus on a workable solution, and I invite him to the table as well.

1440

Mr Silipo: I'm glad to be invited to the table, but more important than that is that we need legislation, and we don't need it four months from now or five months from now. We quite frankly don't need it after somebody else has been seriously injured or killed at one of these intersections; we need it now. I want to reiterate to you the position we gave you last week, which is that we as an NDP caucus are prepared to facilitate the legislation going through in a quick way to ensure this issue gets dealt with.

Rather than discussing this and studying this behind closed doors, bring the information that you have, bring the draft legislation, bring it by next week, and we will facilitate the legislation going through the process of this House and getting this problem addressed. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Mr Clement: I'm willing to sit down with the member or his caucus at any time. It may not involve legislation. There may be other ways we can get at this problem that do not involve legislation.

Speaking of legislation, though, I want to set the record straight in terms of the proactive nature of this government when it comes to this, as other issues. We increased the set fine for red light running to $185. We increased the minimum fine to $105. We established, through the Ministry of the Solicitor General, community safety zone legislation, which in turn doubles the fines for unsafe intersections yet again. These are the kinds of things we have done. We have increased the amount of money for community policing. My colleague Minister Runciman has been front and centre on that.

We've been talking the talk, we are willing to do more things to get at this problem, and we have been walking the walk more so than any other government in the history of this province, and we are proud of that record.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My question is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services and it concerns the whole issue which the opposition has brought up several times when people exit the social welfare system of this province and what happens to them. I would like to know, Minister, based on Ekos Research Associates -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Just give the opportunity for the member to place his question, please.

Mr Hastings: Many times in the past members of the opposition parties have wanted to know what happened to these people - where did they go? So we have now come up with some good research from Ekos Research Associates -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Hastings: See, they don't want to know. It's too bad we get interruption here all the time when we want to ascertain what the facts are. What I'd like to hear from the minister is what are the specific facts dealing with the research of some 2,041 people who were on social dependency of social assistance in this province, where did they go, and what specific individual choices did they make, based on that survey?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I understand the opposition's concern about not wanting to hear good news, but neither of the two opposition parties, when they were in government, thought it was important enough a question to ask when people were leaving social assistance.

We've had over 300,000 fewer people trapped on welfare since we came into government. We've done two surveys already; we're planning on doing more. It's interesting that the survey company, the independent and very reputable survey company, which also did work for the two parties across the way - they didn't have any problems with the survey company's credibility at that time. What that survey has found both times we've done it is that the vast majority of people who are leaving welfare are doing it because they're going into jobs, which is exactly what we want to see. And not just any jobs. Most of them are going into full-time jobs and they're going into jobs that are paying much more than the minimum wage, so our economic reforms and our welfare reforms are doing what people on welfare want and what taxpayers want, getting more people off welfare into paid jobs.

Mr Hastings: It would be interesting to follow up in terms of a certain intolerance of wishing to learn about the facts when you've already made up your mind, from the members opposite. What can we expect in the future based on the present trends of the last two specific surveys? What are your expectations of the third one in terms of the reasons people are leaving social welfare, of whom those people across there would have probably 800,000 now?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Again I can understand why the opposition has some difficulty talking about people leaving welfare, since during their 10-year period in power we ended up with the highest per capita number of people on welfare this province had ever seen in its history. We are reversing that trend by helping people get into paid jobs, which is certainly where they want to be.

As I mentioned, over 300,000 have left. As I have travelled around the province, I have met with municipal officials, people on social assistance who are participating in Ontario Works and finding it a very helpful, useful program. I have also met many individuals who have actually got employment through the support and the reforms we have given them. I recently met with the regional chairs who pledged their commitment and support to a program that they believe is working and that they believe we should be doing more with.

Recently I was in Orillia with my colleague from Simcoe East, where we got to meet a group of individuals who were on social assistance who had actually created a whole tourist support facility there in the community of which they were extremely proud, and they were actually getting employment offers because of the contacts they had made.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. I want to ask you about the crisis in our schools and school space in particular in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I would like to quote Ron Larkin, who is the chair of the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic District School Board where 25% of students are currently spending their whole day in portables. He says, "By any standards this is a crisis, and it's the result of underfunding and will only get worse due to the fact that the funding formula released by the ministry is totally inadequate."

We have in this board a massive number of kids in portables. There are 347 portables housing 9,000 students - that's more students than some school boards have in total - and your ministry says that this board has 6,000 surplus pupil spaces. The formula doesn't recognize the space for adult education, for ESL or even for a school for unwed mothers who are being trained so that they can go back to work, so you're preventing some of them from getting a proper education.

Will you and your government take some responsibility for the crisis you've created, by restoring the necessary funding and pushing back the -

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

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I can only say that this government has created a fair formula which allocates money across Ontario on the basis of need. The member opposite may not be happy with the funding formula which allocates about 200 new schools over the next three years to accommodate about 120,000 students.

To quote the director of York Region District School Board, "It is wonderful news for us." That's one board that's happy. To quote the secondary school students, "This money will be helpful in solving problems such as overcrowded classrooms in schools," that from the president of the Ontario Secondary School Students' Association.

We are attempting to deal as fairly as possible with the students' needs all across the province.

1450

Mr Patten: Minister, I asked you about the Ottawa-Carleton area. Mr Larkin again said, "It's apparent that this government doesn't understand the educational requirements of the students of the Ottawa-Carleton area." They made a proposal to you in May, and I'd like to ask you why you or your ministry never responded and listened to their recommendation. They said you should have a special fund for capital needs, take the growth challenges and deal with those separately and take what you call surplus space and look at that, because that's in the core part of cities. You put them all in one big pot, and you know what? Everybody loses. The rural areas and the downtown cores of the cities are pitted against the suburbs, so nobody wins in this situation.

Many of those schools are being utilized, for ESL, incredible programs that are going on, and somebody here on Bay Street decides that in that particular area nothing is happening. Those people don't have an identity. They have no existence. You're saying numbers rule the day, and then you say it's the board's decision. It's your decision because of your funding formula. Will you accept some responsibility for it?

Hon David Johnson: I will say that in the Catholic high school system there is a school opening, for example, in Barrhaven later this month.

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: The member didn't mention that in his remarks. I'm surprised the member conveniently forgot about that.

In the Catholic district school board in Ottawa-Carleton, there is almost $2 million flowing, which will support schools 10 times the value, to the tune of about $20 million worth of schools in the Ottawa-Carleton district.

Never before in the history of Ontario has there been the kind of construction that is about to begin in the province, supported by this funding formula. Will it solve every board's problem everywhere in Ontario? Obviously it won't solve every problem in every board in Ontario, but there will be $800 million worth of construction beginning this year, $1.5 billion worth of construction within the next three years and 120,000 students accommodated. That will be the biggest project in the history of Ontario.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Attorney General. Last week I asked the minister responsible for women's issues about cuts in your ministry which could put some women in serious danger. Women who are victims of domestic assault are now personally responsible for serving restraining orders from family court on the very men who abuse them. Remarkably, she didn't know what I was talking about.

To clarify, I have a memo from your ministry dated July 26, 1996. In that memo, you told the court to no longer serve documents for women who can't afford a lawyer. This document does say that there should be exceptions made for cases where personal safety is feared. Minister, don't you understand what this issue is about? All restraining orders are about personal safety, and in some cases women are having to serve them or be responsible for serving them themselves.

I ask you today, will you make sure the courts don't put women at risk a second time? Will you change this directive immediately so that all women can feel safe, knowing they don't have to confront their abusers a second time?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the question from the member. I'd like to advise the member that we have prepared guidelines for non-represented litigants on how documents are to be served. The options include personal service, if someone else can do it, either through a friend, a relative, a lawyer or a private process server. Private process servers are available to serve these documents at the same cost that sheriffs traditionally serve documents and are available through the court system and can be accessed through the court system.

I might also tell the member that documents can also be served by mail. That is a very viable way of serving documents.

Certainly, as the member quite accurately says, in certain circumstances where there are non-represented litigants, the ministry will continue to serve these documents through arrangements with the local sheriff. We have taken a look at a number of options, and they do exist. I appreciate the question from the member.

Ms Churley: Minister, you still don't get it, do you? The week before last a woman was actually told by the court in Belleville that she was responsible for serving both the restraining order and the custody order on her abuser herself. It is her responsibility to find a way to deliver that. We were told by the clerk in Etobicoke that the court does not ever serve any restraining orders.

This is unacceptable, Minister, and I'm asking you today to look into it and do something about it. It is happening out there. This is one issue in a complex web of programs and services women face when seeking safety and justice.

The inquest into the death of Arlene May told your government that you should set up a steering committee to help you through this maze of programs and legal jurisdictions so that abused women are better protected. You haven't moved an inch on this yet. You're supposed to be getting in touch with advocates and front-line workers, and you haven't done it.

Will you commit today, three months after the May-Iles recommendations were given to you and after -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for Riverdale. Member for Riverdale, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Harnick: I can tell the member that we have moved on setting up that committee. That committee is in fact being set up and is operating. I can tell the member that we have started to comply with a number of the jury's recommendations: increasing funding for specialized services for abused women, enhancing funding for legal aid, doubling the number of victim/witness assistance programs, creating eight new specialized domestic violence courts, expanding the use of domestic assault review teams, and crowns receiving extensive and ongoing training.

I can also tell the member that she is quite right that the sheriff no longer serves these documents. That information, as conveyed by court representatives, is accurate. It is also true that the serving of documents can now be done in exactly the same way as it was done before, using private process servers or the mail. If that is not clear or if the member feels that has not been properly conveyed, I will look into that and make sure the information is being conveyed to people. I appreciate the member's help.

AMATEUR SPORT

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. In June of this year, Variety Village, which is in my riding, hosted the Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled. They were a great success. I'd like to thank the ministry and congratulate Variety Village.

Recently, the 31st annual sports awards recognized the contributions of Ontario's best amateur athletes, coaches, volunteers and corporate citizens. I know the province is providing opportunities for Ontarians to excel in amateur sports. Minister, what other events and activities took place over the summer to further develop amateur sport in Ontario?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I want to thank the member for Scarborough West for his question. Certainly there are many things we're doing in recreation. I want to congratulate, first of all, Variety Village for putting on the games, and everybody who attended. I know the minister for children, the member for Mississauga South, was there, as well as the member for Scarborough West.

One of the things that I wanted to say we are doing is to focus attention on athletes in this province. At the SkyDome just two weeks ago we honoured our outstanding athletes in this province. We also honoured our coaches, our volunteers and our administrators. As you know, that is one of the bases of sports in this province. Elvis Stojko and Joanne Malar won athletes of the year for 1997, and I want to commend them.

One of the other things that we have done over the summer - we have had, as you mentioned, the games for the physically disabled in Toronto, but also the Summer Games in Guelph, the Ontario Special Olympics in Sudbury, and the Ontario Senior Games in Windsor, all of which brought together communities, brought together athletes. It focused attention on athletes and what they can do and it set new records. I think this helps Ontarians see what we can do for our amateur athletes across the province.

Mr Jim Brown: My daughter participated in the Winter Games last winter, and Variety Village was such an exciting event, but we're talking about elite and high-performance athletes. What is your ministry doing about normal people who don't have the high-performance aspect?

Hon Ms Bassett: I want to reply to the supplementary from the member for Scarborough West. Certainly we in the Ministry of Recreation focus on making and helping Ontarians to be physically active. As you know, being physically active makes you healthier, better thinkers, better citizens, better everything, and as you get older, it works to your advantage to stay fit.

We are trying to encourage people, especially our youth, to start getting involved in sport as soon as they can. Through the government's recreation development fund, we support initiatives in smaller rural communities, aboriginal communities and local area service boards. These initiatives will help get our kids involved in sport and recreation at an early age, whereas otherwise they might not have been able to do any of this kind of thing.

A second focus we have is getting Ontarians active. If we want to be healthy and productive well into our senior years, the reality is that we've got to recognize that we're not. Only 1% of Ontarians work out. We've got to start. We are helping them focus on exercising regularly.

1500

HIGHWAY 3 BYPASS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. It has happened again. The headline in the Windsor Star today says the Essex bypass is a death trap.

In answer to my question on Thursday, your reply was, "This ministry has just initiated plans to initiate a planning study to develop a strategy for the future transportation needs of this particular section of Highway 3, including the possibility of future widening." Minister, that answer was, frankly in my view, not very clear. Could you tell me, in view of the fact that there has been another accident over the weekend in which three people were injured, what you might do?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I thank the honourable member for the question. Upon reflection, after hearing what you've just repeated back to me, I was somewhat inelegant in my phraseology, and I apologize for that.

There will be a planning study for that particular section of Highway 3, and part of the engineering, part of the study, will look at potentially widening and other methods, which perhaps you and I can't think of on the floor of the Legislature today, to make that road safer.

Mr Crozier: Thank you, Minister, I appreciate that. Just to emphasize what we're talking about, the Essex OPP did a blitz last week on this stretch of highway. They stationed as many as five cruisers on the highway during morning and afternoon rush hours. The officers handed out 150 tickets, 35 warnings and arrested two impaired drivers over the five days. We need this kind of enforcement in the short term every day.

Minister, in view of what you also said last Thursday, where you said, "If there's a way that we can improve the safety on this particular road, I believe that we can work together to do that," as I have in the past, I'll work with you, your ministry officials and, as you've suggested, anyone else to stop this carnage. I know you have my support, and I hope you will accept that.

Hon Mr Clement: I can say to this House, indeed, that we have a strong track record of working with the local area politicians to improve Highway 3. It was just this summer, in fact, that the honourable member and Jack Carroll, the member for Chatham-Kent, and the local mayor of Leamington worked together for the Highway 3 bypass, which in fact had been a long-awaited project for that area which is not only going to improve the economic viability of that area but also the safety of that area. In the spirit of that co-operation, I believe we can co-operate in this matter as well.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. People in East York are very concerned about cuts in service to the Mortimer bus line. The TTC is threatening to cut service from the present 20-minute service to a whopping 40-minute wait for night service and all day Sunday. There are a lot of seniors in East York. The Mortimer bus line runs the whole route from one end of East York to the other. The street is dark and deserted, often, at night. There aren't that many businesses. Your government has cut all subsidies to the TTC. It is the most undersubsidized public transportation system in North America. As a result of your cuts, the TTC is now threatening to raise fares and cut services for the people of East York and across this city. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to reinstate some of that funding so we can save these vital services for our citizens?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I thank the honourable member for the question. I can tell her two things: First, in terms of capital funding, I don't believe the TTC can shed any tears, except perhaps crocodile tears, because as part of this budget Minister Eves and this ministry were able to cut a cheque for $829 million for capital funding for the TTC. We're very proud of that commitment that we made. That money is flowing.

Second, on operating, with due respect to the honourable member, this government gave the municipalities $2.5 billion worth of tax room by taking half the education off the property tax. That is more than enough money to settle this problem as well as many other problems.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition.

"We, the undersigned taxpayers of Ontario, believe that the timeline established by the Ministry of Education and Training for the implementation of school closures and consolidations to qualify for funding under the grant for new pupil places is inadequate for appropriate consultation and effective decision-making. The effect of the compressed timeline means that boards who have established processes of appropriate consultation for major decisions of this nature are forced to short-circuit their own processes or lose access to significant and necessary funding.

"We, the undersigned taxpayers of Ontario, ask the ministry to reconsider its deadline of December 31, 1998, to allow adequate time for boards, schools and parents to make these painful decisions in an effective and considered way."

It's signed by a large number of concerned parents, and I have affixed my signature in full agreement.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition regarding the Workers' Health and Safety Centre.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas each year in Ontario approximately 300 workers are killed on the job, several thousand die of occupational diseases and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas during the past decade the Workers' Health and Safety Centre proved to be the most cost-effective WCB-funded prevention organization dedicated to worker health and safety concerns; and

"Whereas the WCB provides over 80% of its legislated prevention funding to several employer-controlled safety associations and less than 20% to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre recently lost several million dollars in funding and course revenue due to government changes to legislated training requirements; and

"Whereas 30% of Workers' Health and Safety Centre staff were laid off due to these lost training funds; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre now faces an additional 25% cut to its 1998 budget, which will be used to augment new funding for employer safety associations in the health, education and services sector; and

"Whereas the WCB's 1998 planned baseline budget cuts for safety associations and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre will be disproportionately against the workers' centre and reduce its 1998 budget allocation to less than 15% of the WCB prevention funding,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the WCB's proposed cuts and direct the WCB to increase the Workers' Health and Safety Centre's funding to at least 50% of the WCB's legislated prevention funding; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the WCB to significantly increase its legislated prevention funding in order to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

I proudly add my name to those of these petitioners.

DOCTORS' SERVICES

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): In keeping with your directions, Mr Speaker, I will not give a political speech as I read my petition. It's from the citizens of Wallaceburg, about 2,800 of them. Basically, it asks that their community have equal access to physician services, the same as those enjoyed by larger urban centres, and that serious visible measures be put in place immediately to address the physician shortage crisis.

I proudly affix my signature.

1510

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition reads as follows:

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology; and

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer" medical "services; and

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres; and

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of over $40 million in funding for" the operation of "Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study; and

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement with the contents of this petition.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government's `downloading' to municipal taxpayers is directly responsible for the $36.3-million shortfall to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth; and

"Whereas the Harris government `downloading' is directly responsible for creating a property tax crisis in our region; and

"Whereas the Harris government, while boasting about its 30% tax cut which benefits mainly the wealthy, is making hard-working families, seniors, homeowners and businesses pay the price with outrageous property tax hikes and user fees for services; and

"Whereas city and regional councillors are being unfairly blamed and forced to explain these huge tax hikes, Hamiltonians know that what's really going on is that they are being forced to pay huge property tax increases to fund Harris's 30% tax giveaway to the rich; and

"Whereas homeowners, including seniors and low-income families, are facing huge property tax increases ranging from several hundred to thousands of dollars; and

"Whereas the Harris government `downloading' has led to huge property tax increases for business that will force many small and medium-sized businesses in Hamilton-Wentworth to close or leave the community, putting people out of work; and

"Whereas Hamilton-Wentworth region is proposing that the Harris government share in the costs of an expanded rebate program, worth about $3 million region-wide;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris government immediately eliminate the $38-million downloading shortfall that is devastating and angering homeowners as well as killing businesses in Hamilton-Wentworth."

I support this petition, so I add my name to it.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have a petition as well relating to property tax, but this is for the removal of what's popularly known as the Ted tax in Flamborough. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the town of Flamborough has placed $639,000 of a $1.354-million provincial grant into the Borer's Creek reserve fund;

"Whereas the town of Flamborough's diversion of $639,000 into a Borer's Creek fund will result in an approximate 5.71% property tax increase;

"Whereas the town of Flamborough, by returning the said $639,000 to the Flamborough property taxpayers as intended by the province, will result in an approximate 5% property tax decrease;

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

"To take the steps necessary to ensure that the $1.354-million grant paid by the province of Ontario to the town of Flamborough be applied for the purposes it was intended for, thereby ensuring that the residents of Flamborough not be subjected to unfair property tax increases."

I agree with this petition and I sign it accordingly.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has announced its intention of dumping the financing for ambulances, social housing and public health care services on to the backs of municipalities; and

"Whereas this irresponsible action will create a shortfall of more than $18 million for local governments in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Whereas local representatives in St Catharines and the Niagara region will be forced to either raise property taxes by as much as $200 per household or cut services; and

"Whereas Mike Harris called municipal representatives `whiners' when they tried to explain to him that his proposal was unfair and would create gaps in important services such as the delivery of public health care services; and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing accused local representatives of being opportunistic simply because they attempted to point out that the Mike Harris proposal was unfair and primarily designed to fund his ill-advised tax scheme; and

"Whereas the Harris government refuses to listen to the representatives who work most closely with their constituents, those being the municipal representatives;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris government to scrap its downloading plan, which will cause either an increase in property or an unacceptable cut to important and essential local services."

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

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition regarding health care funding in Hamilton-Wentworth.

"Whereas the Harris funding cutbacks are having a devastating impact on hospitals and patient care across Ontario, and have resulted in an anticipated $38-million deficit at the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals; and

"Whereas the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals will receive $4 million less in revenue from the Ministry of Health and other sources; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris funding cuts are causing a crisis in hospital care in Hamilton-Wentworth, with hospitals facing huge deficits, cuts to patient care and bed closings; and

"Whereas Scott Rowand, president of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp's hospitals, spoke out recently in the Hamilton Spectator, saying, `For the first time in my career, I don't know how to fix this problem other than an awful lot of closures of programs and services needed by the community'; and

"Whereas Mr Rowand went on to say: `We need more cash in the system and we need it now. And that is cash to deal with the issues that we are dealing with today. Don't ask us to do anything more because the people in the system are at their limit.'

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris government stop underfunding Ontario's hospitals to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and act immediately to restore funding to the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals so they can continue providing quality health care services to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth."

I proudly support these petitioners.

SCHOOL SPORTS

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition that was brought to my attention by Moe Ajram, president, and Kari Coish, the vice-president of the Williams athletic council. It reads as follows:

"We, the students at Dr G.W. Williams Secondary School, feel that sports are essential at our school as well as others. They build many new friendships while we are learning great skills. We enjoy all aspects of high school sports and we are very upset that they are being jeopardized this year.

"Sports have always played a role in the school environment and we are not willing to give them up now."

PROPERTY TAXATION

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

"Whereas Mike Harris has imposed skyrocketing taxes on small business owners in Windsor because of his government's downloading debacle;

"Whereas many small business owners in Windsor who pay commercial property taxes face increases of more than 100%;

"Whereas the Harris government tax assessment system is confusing, chaotic and an administrative nightmare for municipalities;

"Whereas the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers called the Harris tax assessment system a `high-risk strategy' that will create `serious problems' for taxpayers and municipalities; and

"Whereas Windsor small businesses facing massive tax increases will be forced to pass on these increases to their customers, causing a decrease in business and causing the Ontario economy to suffer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to devise a fair and uncomplicated system of tax assessment."

I join the members of the Pillette Road business improvement area in my riding in signing this petition.

1520

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition regarding the keeping of young offenders' services professional and public.

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Honourable Janet Ecker, has announced that she will sell the services and programs at Ontario's secure custody facilities for high-risk young offenders to the private sector; and

"Whereas this decision will move these important services away from the government's responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the public, the young people in their charge and the workers who supervise and provide treatment to young offenders; and

"Whereas we believe strongly that elected officials should be directly accountable and responsible for all children and adults who are in custody as ordered by the courts of Ontario and that no private company should profit from crime;

"Therefore, we urge the minister to keep our secure and treatment facilities for young offenders professional and public."

I add my name to those of these petitioners.

AVORTEMENT

M. Bob Wood (London-Sud) : I have a petition signed by 115 people.

«Étant donné que le système de santé en Ontario est surchargé, et qu'il faut couper des dépenses ;

«Étant donné que la grossesse n'est ni maladie ni blessure, et que les avortements ne sont pas des procédés médicaux ;

«Étant donné que la majorité des avortements se font pour des raisons de convenance ou de finance ;

«Étant donné que le gouvernement provincial possède l'autorité exclusive pour décider quels services seront assurés ;

«Étant donné que le "Canada Health Act" n'exige pas qu'il faut payer des procédés facultatifs ;

«Étant donné que des évidences considérables montrent que l'avortement peut nuire à la santé des femmes ;

«Étant donné que les citoyens d'Ontario ont payé plus de 45 000 avortements en 1993, à un prix de 25 $ millions ;

«Alors nous, les soussignés, demandons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario de cesser de fournir des fonds publics pour payer des avortements.»

Le Président suppléant (M. Gilles E. Morin) : Je vous félicite, monsieur le député, de la qualité de votre français.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 63, An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time, when Bill 63 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(h) shall be permitted; and

That the order for third reading of the bill shall then immediately be called and the remainder of the sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:55 pm or 9:25 pm, as the case may be on such day, 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;

That the vote on third reading of the bill may, at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House, be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceedings "Deferred Votes"; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the divisional bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to share the time equally between the three parties; and that the government speakers will lead off and whatever time is remaining shall be reserved for the member for Middlesex, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, to speak last in the debate, whatever time is remaining in our fair share of the third of the time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I wish to share the time as well with the member for Wentworth North and the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I'll be speaking for approximately 10 minutes. I'd like to address what's happening locally with the proposed changes under Bill 160 and instructional time with reference to the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board.

I noted this summer hearing many times the commercials from the various teacher union organizations that the education system was in disarray and was not going to be as good this year as last year. These ads basically said, and I think everybody in Ontario heard them over and over again, that if the teachers are teaching an extra class, from six to eight and now they're teaching seven out of eight periods, how could that improve public education, that if teachers had to teach an extra 30 students a day, how could that improve public education? I have to say that listening to those ads, if you believed that, that would be a disturbing development, and frankly the answer to the rhetorical question would be that these changes can't possibly help public education.

What I've decided to do, rather than deal with the rhetoric from either side, is to deal with what's happening locally with the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board as a result of changes to Bill 160.

What's happening there is that there is now funding for the Catholic system equal to the public system. When I was a parliamentary assistant in education, which seems like a long time ago now, I would go to the schools, and I discovered that the Catholic system was funding the public system. There was about $1,000 less for each and every student available to the Catholic system than there was in the public system.

Now the government has addressed that situation and given equal funding. It doesn't matter whether you're public or Catholic, it doesn't matter whether you're in Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto or northern Ontario; basically the same monies are available to you as a student. That is fair. I recall going through numerous committee hearings where everybody conceded that was the fair thing to do, but no government has had the courage to deal with the problem. That was finally addressed by Bill 160.

In practical terms, how does that affect the children in my area in the Catholic district school board? It affects them in this manner: First of all, the Catholic board got an extra $6.5 million in funds provided to them. That's somewhat contradictory to the notion of the opposition that there's $1 billion cut out of the education system, that the whole purpose of Bill 160 was to take money out of the system. Frankly, that's just not happened.

The amount being spent on education when I was parliamentary assistant was $14.1 billion. I noted from the Ministry of Finance figures, which have been audited now, that this year there's $14.4 billion going to be spent in education, and it's anticipated that next year $15 billion will be spent on education. So the amount of spending on education is going up and not down.

I can say, quite frankly, that we did try to take money out of the education system. When I was there, we told the boards to cut $440 million out of their budgets, and that basically just did not happen. The boards were unwilling to find administrative savings. That's what they were instructed to do. They took two approaches: One was to fire young teachers, and/or they raised taxes in their area.

One of the areas where that did not happen was in the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, where Pat Daly, who is the head of the board, took a personal pay cut himself. He scoured his budget and found administrative savings so that in that school board, despite the cuts, there were no impacts in the classroom at all. This was a board that was spending approximately $1,000 less per student than its public equivalent.

To move forward to today and what happened this year, as I have indicated, as a result of Bill 160 this board got an extra $6.5 million, which tends to confirm that there is more money being spent on education than in the past and contradicts the fact that $1 billion has been taken out of the system.

What happened with that $6.5 million? As I've indicated previously, half of it went to increase salaries and benefits to local Catholic teachers employed by the board, and the other half went to buy books, went to pay for extra resource teachers, went to pay for extra elementary teachers and went to pay for the fixing up of two schools that were in bad shape.

1530

Now I would like to address the issue of instructional time.

Are the Catholic teachers in our area teaching an extra class? The answer is that, yes, they are, but only for half of the year because they have a semester system in the Catholic system in the Hamilton area.

Are they teaching an extra 30 students? I'll go into the details of it in a moment, but the fact of the matter is that they are not teaching an extra 30 students. After the changes were all said and done and Mr Daly in his innovative fashion, as usual, looked at the budget and rearranged class size, in fact this year the Catholic teachers in our area are teaching two students fewer than they did last year, so they have fewer students to teach than last year and have more time to deal with the work for each and every student.

How has that happened? What has happened is that the government, through Bill 160, has legislated a secondary school maximum average class size of 22 and an average teacher instructional time of 1,250 minutes per week, which is still less than the average being taught by most secondary school teachers in the rest of the country. This is what Mr Pat Daly has done with the extra money that has been provided to him.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was counting the numbers in this place, and there is no quorum. Could you check, please.

The Acting Speaker: Would you please verify if we have quorum.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Wentworth North.

Mr Skarica: Twenty-two members in the House, including yourself, Mr Speaker, which is the average number of students in the classes in the Hamilton-Wentworth schools in my area. What Mr Daly has done using the tools in Bill 160 and the extra monies provided to him is this: He has reduced the average of the board's class size - last year it was 26 - to 22 this year. This results in at least 450 additional classes to enhance student timetable choices and enrich learning opportunities.

He has asked teachers, on average, to teach an additional 24 minutes per day. This means that the teachers have to teach seven classes, four in one semester and three in the other semester, over the year. This meets the requirement for minimum teaching time as outlined in Bill 160, but really has no impact on the students in the classroom.

Mr Marchese: How do you know?

Mr Skarica: One of the reasons I know they are not being impacted is the following statistic, which strangely enough no one in the opposition has ever bothered to mention: Last year in the Catholic system in my area, the teachers were teaching six classes, an average 26 students, which numbers 156 students. However, this year, even with the additional class - that's seven classes times 22 students - the teacher's workload is 154 students, which is exactly two students fewer. Six classes times 26 is 156, and seven times 22, according to the math I took way back when, is 154. That's exactly two students fewer. So even after the changes, even though there is an extra 24 minutes of teaching time, what has happened is that teachers have actually fewer students in their classroom by a dramatic amount.

Four students out of 26 is approximately 15% to 20% fewer students to teach for each and every teacher per class; in fact, the totals are that there are fewer students now for them to mark, fewer students they have to deal with, so that means there is more time for each and every student after the changes.

Another thing I heard many times in the two years of committee hearings was that there was an agenda against teachers, that what the Tory government wanted to do was take money out of education and what was going to happen was that there were going to be dramatic losses in the teaching profession. During the Bill 160 hearings and during the protests, I heard from teachers over and over again, "We're going to lose jobs," or "There are going to be dramatic job losses in my area." I heard the number 10,000 teachers province-wide, and I don't know how many that would translate to but that would definitely be several hundred in the Hamilton area.

The fact of the matter is that in our area, in the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, not one teacher will lose his job due to these changes. After the changes in Bill 160, there has been no impact in the classroom other than 24 minutes of instructional time, there have been fewer students assigned to each and every teacher, and no teacher will lose his job. I think that's a pretty fair balance in trying to deal with both fiscal responsibility and making sure that our children get a good education.

I'd like to take what Mr Daly has done and contrast it to what the teachers would have liked to have done with Bill 160 and the instructional time issue. What the teachers would have liked to have done - this was in their demands - was teach six classes, period, just like last year. This would have resulted in the need to hire 65 additional teachers to the board at a cost of approximately $2.5 million. At the same time that they didn't want to teach any extra time, the reason the board would have to hire all these extra teachers is that there are fewer students in each and every class, so really what was happening was if the teachers had got their way or the unions had got their way - I always try to distinguish between union demands and what the rank-and-file teacher would like - the teachers wanted to keep the same number of classes. They would have been teaching fewer students, which would have cost the board about $2.5 million.

That leaves an extra $4 million, and what the teachers' union wanted the board to do was spend that $4 million on raises for the teachers, which would have cost the board an extra $4.5 million and would have resulted in a 15% increase over two years. It also would have meant there would have been no money available for books for these kids. There would have been no extra resource money available, no money for hiring extra elementary teachers, no money available to fix the schools that were in bad shape, basically no money available to help children out in the classroom. It would have all gone to extra salaries and benefits. That is what has been happening in our classrooms for probably the last 20 to 30 years.

When I went around the province, I was amazed at the fact that when you went into the Catholic schools, which were spending $1,000 less per student than the public system, they both looked the same. When we went to the classrooms, you couldn't tell any difference. Basically what was happening in the public system was that most of the extra money wasn't going to the kids, because I didn't see any extra books, I didn't see any extra facilities. In fact, one of the nicest high schools and one of the best-equipped high schools I saw was St Mary's high school in Hamilton. They had a fabulous video room, a media room that was incredibly well equipped, the best I saw in the province. The difference was that this extra money was being spent by the public system on extra administration costs and extra salaries and benefits. It's interesting to note that there was the extra money then put into the Catholic system to equalize it to the public system, the unionized sector wanted all of that money for itself, even to the detriment of the kids, because there would have been no money available for books, there would have been no money available for resources for elementary teachers or to fix up the classroom itself.

1540

Another proposal of the Catholic unions in my area was that while they were prepared all right to do a little extra for the extra 15% in salary, what they proposed for instructional time - they wanted to keep to the six out of eight but they were prepared to do extra instructional time - lunchroom supervision was to be counted as instructional time. Hallway monitoring was instructional time. How lunchroom supervision or advanced lunchroom supervision would help the kids to prepare for the global economy is something no one ever explained to me. If this is for the kids, how does hallway monitoring as classroom instruction help the kids prepare for the global economy?

No one has provided me with that answer. I think I know why that answer has never been provided to me. It's because there isn't an answer. That's not going to help the kids. That's just a way of trying to get around Bill 160, a way of ensuring that a quality education will not be provided to the children at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer. Really, I think that's what we all want: quality education for our children, but at the same time a reasonable cost for the taxpayer so that we're not swamped with taxes and we can all have a reasonable lifestyle, and as well that we can compete in the global economy with societies that have lower taxes.

What I see from our local board is Bill 160 functioning very smoothly. In fact, you can see direct benefits to the children. I list them as follows: There are extra books in the classroom this year. There are extra resource teachers in the classroom this year. There are extra elementary teachers who have been hired, so there are more elementary teachers in our system than last year. Not a single teacher in the high school system has lost a job. No teacher will lose his or her job due to these changes. There will be fewer kids in the classroom so that there will be more individual attention for each and every child. As well, in sum total, the teachers will have fewer kids to teach this year than last year. So putting all that together, I see tremendous benefits to the children: extra resources, extra books, more class time, fewer class demands on the teachers other than the 24 minutes per day.

If Bill 160 is what that is about and if what we're all about here in the Legislature is providing quality education for a reasonable cost to the taxpayer, we've done that. We now have fair funding for each and every student in the province. I can only imagine that if each board did what Mr Daly did, using the tools of Bill 160 in the Catholic system - that's why there is all this extra turmoil in the Catholic system. There has been an infusion of money into the Catholic system. I think the total figure is $300 million. So really, there shouldn't be any problems in the Catholic system. They've got extra money; $300 million is nothing to sniff at, it's a large amount of money. But it is the sector that's showing the most strife. I suspect the reason for that is - as in my board, it's probably province-wide - the teachers' unions don't want that money to go into the classroom for the kids. They want all of it to go to pay for enhanced benefits and salaries to teachers. While I personally wouldn't oppose that - I don't see why a teacher can't make a reasonable salary or even more than the maximum they're making, if they're an excellent teacher - the fact is that we are increasing spending province-wide but we have a duty to the taxpayer, all of us, to use fiscal responsibility and make sure the taxpayer is paying a reasonable amount of taxes. I think we're at that point now where people are taxed out and cannot pay any more taxes.

The bottom line is that this year we're spending more money that ever before in the history of Ontario towards the education system, but the difference between this year and last year is more of it is being specifically directed at the students. If the other boards use the innovative tools of Bill 160, the extra money that's available to them in the Catholic system by Bill 160, I can see a very enhanced benefit to the students and there's no reason why the students in the Catholic system will not only continue to have quality education but will actually have a better education system this year and in ensuing years than they did last year.

In conclusion, I think the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board is a vivid and clear example of how Bill 160 - if properly implemented, if the tools are used, if we could only have the co-operation of the unionized sector, if all the money, the extra resources and the allocation of resources will be directed into the classroom, then what we will have is an enhanced education system and quality education for our students at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer. That's what we're all here for. That's what the design of Bill 160 is for and that's what a government should and would want to achieve with any legislation for education.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. I wish I didn't have to, because we're dealing once again with what we refer to as a time allocation motion. That means that once again Mike Harris is choking off debate in this Legislature of an important piece of legislation. There are many members of the Legislature who would like to be able to speak to this bill.

Under the rule changes that Mike Harris forced on this province and on this Legislature in particular, there is much less time available to debate important pieces of legislation, to draw out arguments that should be made publicly and to try, remote as that opportunity is, to persuade the government to change its mind on certain provisions within the bill. Time after time this government uses what is called time allocation or the choking off of debate as a device to limit the kind of public debate that should take place on issues of this kind.

It is one of those issues which members of the news media are not interested in, not necessarily the people who are here at Queen's Park but their editors and their producers, who, when asked if they should cover a story of that kind, when you're changing procedural rules, are quick to say, "No, it isn't an interesting enough topic." Yet the changing of the rules of this House, of the procedures of this House, has had a major effect, a major impact on democracy in this province. What is disconcerting is that new governments taking over, having been handed a tool of this kind, are very reluctant to make the change to a different kind of system.

The debate is again a debate on education this afternoon. I must say, rather than being angry with the government, I am standing this afternoon with a sense of lament that a once strong and vibrant and well-funded education system is under continuous and constant assault by Mike Harris and those who advise him, particularly the non-elected members of the Legislature: those in the Premier's office, the 20-something and early-30-something Fraser Institute types who advise the Premier on what he should do; or Tom Long, who is a Conservative operative in the backrooms, or Jan Dymond or any of these other people whom members of this Legislature may know but the general public doesn't.

What is unfortunate is that the government, under the leadership of Mike Harris, has decided that it should try to divide the people of this province, to turn one sector of the province against another sector of the province.

In education in particular it is important that we have a team approach, that we have boards of education and the elected trustees working together with the teachers and administration so that we can produce for the students of this province and for the parents of those students the kind of education system of which we can all be justifiably proud.

What we have now as a result of Mike Harris using the bulldozer, of Mike Harris moving ahead quickly, radically and drastically without assessing the impact of the policies is disruption and instability within the education system in this province. But that is not limited to the education system alone; it is in the health care system and many other areas where the Premier and his closest non-elected advisers have decided that it's smart politics to set one part of the province against another. It seems to me that what is important is the building of a consensus in this province, of trying to bring people together. If you're trying to implement change within an education system or a health care system, it is important to enlist the support and the expertise and the enthusiasm of those who are on the front line of the delivery of those services, whether they be health care services or educational services.

1550

Instead, the government has chosen to attack members of the teaching profession and has used - we cannot use in this House words such as "misleading" or "lying" or things of that kind. We can't use them for a very good reason. That is because there should be an assumption in the House that all members are honourable and that all members are going to tell the truth. So we find creative ways of trying to say that what the government states or what the opposition states is not necessarily accurate. That's the way I would place it this afternoon, to say that the information, in my opinion, that is put forward by the government on many education issues is not complete and is not always accurate. That's most unfortunate.

The government is engaging now in an orgy of advertising the likes of which I have never seen in Ontario before. I have watched three different governments in power: I have seen the Davis Conservative administration, which had some advertising that people might complain about, I've seen the Peterson Liberal administration and the Rae NDP administration. All those governments have certainly provided information to people in the province. What is substantially different this time is the kind of advertising, if not the volume.

Yes, every time you reach into the mailbox now you pull out yet another pamphlet. You must have pulled this one out the other day, which is strictly government propaganda. It is one supposedly on education, put out by this government at a heavy cost to the taxpayers. I guess you have to pull it open like this. It's got all kinds of good things to say about what the government is doing in education.

If the Conservative Party were paying for this - and heaven knows, with all those fundraisers they're holding, they have the corporate crowd, the most powerful and the richest people in this province, who are saying thank you to Mike Harris and his crowd for providing them with the kinds of policies they want, such as deregulating. You see, you don't have the kinds of environmental regulations or legislation you used to have. Or putting the fox in charge of the henhouse: In so many cases where you had a government agency, such as the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, impartial, publicly funded, supervising several areas of business activity, you've now put that group in charge of themselves.

The tax cut that was brought about, which was a 30% income tax cut in this province, benefited the most wealthy people in the province the most in terms of dollars they got in their pockets. Those people have said thank you to the Conservative Party. They show up at the fundraisers, and the Conservatives managed to rope a few other people into it by just suggesting that if they show up at a fundraiser maybe their hospital or their school will be treated better, or something of that nature. There's that implication - or a thank you for a grant.

I'm not going to get into that issue, but I simply want to point out that the Conservative Party has money overflowing its coffers. The members should be happy with that. My good friend the member - I was going to say for Etobicoke Centre but I would be premature if I were to say that; I have to say Etobicoke-Humber - would agree with me, I'm sure, that the Conservative Party has millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in its war chest. When I think of that, I wonder why the taxpayers of this province have to pay for this government's propaganda, pamphlets that keep showing up at the doorsteps of people, in the mailboxes. Here's something from David Lindsay, who was, you'll recall, the principal secretary to the Premier, who was the communications guru in the Conservative caucus. He puts this out.

If this were the Conservative Party putting this out, I would say fair game; I'm unhappy that they have all kinds of money to do that, but that would be fair. It's not fair, it's an abuse of public trust, an abuse of public office when the government of Ontario puts this out. If you turn on the radio, you hear more ads from the government of Ontario, paid for by the government of Ontario. If you turn on the television set, you see even more ads out there which are involved with the government putting out a propaganda message.

It's the nature of the message which is most important. They are spending a lot of money, yes, millions upon millions of dollars of taxpayers' money out there, to do this self-congratulatory, self-serving, blatant, partisan political advertising. I am surprised that I haven't heard from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation on this, or the Ontario Taxpayers Federation, or - what is the one Colin Brown used to head up?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): The NCC.

Mr Bradley: Yes, the National Citizens' Coalition. Those people are all very good at being very watchful about government expenditures. I've been waiting to hear from them about those new highway signs that say: "Your Ontario tax dollars at work. Mike Harris, Premier." They cost all kinds of money. I'm sure tomorrow or the next day - I remember my friend Frank Sheehan, who is in the House today, used to be with the taxpayers coalition. I'm surprised that some of his friends in the taxpayers coalition, who were very vigilant about government expenditures when the NDP was in power, haven't been chastising Mike Harris for squandering millions upon millions of dollars on self-serving, congratulatory advertising. In fact, I suspect my good friend Frank will bring forward a private member's bill that will prevent his own government from wasting all this money on self-serving, congratulatory messages, full-page ads of this kind.

The newspaper editorialists: I've been looking for them, because they're good at watching government expenditures. When the NDP was in power, I remember seeing editorial after editorial chastising the NDP, whenever these editorialists thought that somehow there was going to be an expenditure that couldn't be justified. Now, I know that Conrad Black, the friend of the Conservative Party, the friend of the right wing, owns and controls these newspapers. He perhaps doesn't want his newspapers to criticize those who are prepared to spend, to squander all kinds of money on an orgy of advertising at the taxpayers' expense.

Those gruff talk show hosts I hear in Toronto, or my friend Lowell Green in Ottawa: These are gruff people and they're usually watching carefully for governments squandering money. The silence has been deafening. This government is going to continue to spend, to squander, to throw money into self-serving, congratulatory advertising as long as they can get away with it.

I'm confident that the Ontario Taxpayers Federation and the National Citizens' Coalition are going to be issuing a press release on this to denounce it, and that the editorialists are going to be joining in this, and the talk show hosts are going to be joining in the condemnation of this kind of political advertising. We're not talking about an ad which calls for tenders - quite legitimate. We're not talking about an ad that says to the people, "You should get your influenza shot, and here's how you can get it," to prevent influenza. That's quite legitimate.

Ms Lankin: Or "You should get your health card and here is how you do it."

Mr Bradley: I won't go that far. The member says, "You should get your health card." They were just a bit in line with what I would call political advertising. But that's the past tense. I don't worry about the past tense now, just as I don't worry about the fact that many of the things the Conservative government is doing in education today were started by Dave Cooke. I don't worry about that, that it was the NDP Minister of Education.

I think the member for Beaches-Woodbine would agree with me that you'll find a consensus on many of these matters. The Minister of Education likes to get up and trot out that there should be some kind of standardized testing taking place. I'm sorry, I don't remember a debate in this House - there can be over the kind of testing and the specifics, but I know all three parties are in favour of that. Everybody wants a high-quality education system. Everybody knows that the new curriculum initiatives started under the NDP, not under the Conservatives. They were already doing that. So on many of these things that the minister talks about, there's a consensus. Where there's not a consensus is on the withdrawal of close to $1 billion from the education system by the minister.

In other words, we're seeing an increase in the number of students in the system. This government is not making the same kind of expenditures per pupil, per student, that was the case in the past.

1600

Members may remember that in the middle of the negotiations between the teachers' federations and the government, in the hallway in the Whitney Block, they questioned Dave Johnson - I'll use his name so people know; he's our Minister of Education - about how many teaching positions he thought would disappear as a result of Bill 160. He was relatively new to the system then. In those days, he didn't know that ministers sometimes should be like Pinocchio. He said, "I would estimate 7,500 net teaching positions would disappear in this province." That was the minister's own estimate of positions that would no longer be there. Even with retirement and new people coming in, "7,500," said the Minister of Education himself.

Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't mean to interrupt the member, but I've been provoked by the number of government members leaving. Could you check and see if there's a quorum, please?

The Acting Speaker: Would you check if we have a quorum.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: As I was saying, what it appears to be all about is the government wanting to defund education.

If they were honest about it up front, I wouldn't agree with them even then. But I think people would have respected them more if they were up front and said, "Look, the real reason we're doing this is that we want to cut 7,500 teaching positions out," because their bluff was called. Remember the negotiations that were taking place between the government and the members of the teachers' federation, who at that point were fighting Bill 160, which they and many public figures said would be detrimental to the province? Bill 160 has nothing to do with all this quality stuff or things of that nature; what it has to do with is taking money out of the education system.

If the government had been honest and up front, its Reform Party supporters would have said, "Yes, we agree with you that we should fire out of the door 7,500 teachers net." If you were honest and up front about it, I think people could have accepted it. But what you've tried to do is pretend somehow you're bringing, net, more teachers into the system; that at the end of this exercise, because we have more students in the province per capita, we will have more people to work with those students. That has been the inaccuracy in the information the government has provided.

The government has very clever people working in its advertising departments. They hire the best Conservatives they can find to do their advertising, and they're happy to get that cash in, those whose advertising agency is making the money. But you don't enlist the support of people, you don't bring people together, by attacking them or by providing information which is not accurate to the public. When I see some of those television ads or hear those radio ads or look at the full-page ads, I know the contents of those ads are not accurate. If they were accurate, honest and up front, I wouldn't be in the House today complaining about them.

There was a fight going on during Bill 160, not between the Harris Conservatives and the teachers' federations; it was a fight between those who believe in a strong, high-quality, publicly funded, vibrant education system and those who do not. Because, you see, those who cater to the very rich in society, to the most powerful in society, know that those people have other options. They have the expensive private schools they can send their children to. If one were to be suspicious, one could make the conclusion that by doing damage to the publicly funded education system the government is now moving towards, first of all, charter schools and then more and more private schools, so that the children of the very wealthy, of the most powerful people, as is the case so much in the United States, will go to those systems and leave the public system to those who don't have those financial and powerful advantages.

That would be most unfortunate, because the role of the publicly funded education system is to provide equality of opportunity. We cannot determine ultimately the outcomes of people. We cannot assume that everyone will be successful in business, the professions, in industry, in any particular line of work. We can't ensure that is the case. But our role and responsibility as legislators is to ensure that we have a high-quality, vibrant, strong, publicly funded education system so that we have that equality of opportunity, so that the son or the daughter of people of very modest means has the same opportunity as those of the richest and most powerful people in the province, so we can truly say we have equality of opportunity, not equality of opportunity only for those who are the richest people in the province. That's what is most unfortunate, that many people in the government actually believe there should be one set of rules for the rich and the powerful and one set of rules for the rest of the people.

We also see that in post-secondary education, where we're going back to the 1940s or 1950s, where in fact only the children, as they grow up and become teenagers and into their 20s, of the wealthiest people in the province or only those children who have the most capability academically will be those who can advance into higher education. That is what is happening. If you are wealthy in this province, if the children come from a wealthy family, an advantaged family, they will be able to go to university, because that can be funded. If they come from modest incomes, that's much more difficult.

There are two sets of people we will see in education as we make it more costly for the students; one is the children of the very wealthy and the other group, quite legitimately, would be those who are extremely clever, extremely intelligent and able to get all the scholarships and so on. But the many people out there who have perhaps less talent than others, but still a lot of talent, and don't have the money are going to be left out of the equation, and that's disconcerting, because parents I talk to in my constituency are worried that their children will not be able to go to the community colleges and to the universities across this province.

They recognize as well that Mike Harris has removed rent control. A lot of people don't know that, because the government did it in a very sneaky way. They said, "We're not removing rent control, but if you move out of a place, then that apartment, that rental dwelling, is no longer controlled under rent control." Students move quite often, so they're going to be finding the cost of housing, of accommodation, much higher, along with the cost of tuition.

Some of the university presidents, not all, have applauded the government for deregulating tuition and for allowing the universities to charge much more for programs, for instance, for doctors or lawyers or commerce, a bachelor of commerce or master of commerce and so on, the post-grad master's programs around the province, graduate programs. They are allowing the university to charge much more for that. What does that mean? Again it means that the children of the wealthiest shall have that wealth perpetuated by means of a system which is skewed in favour of the wealthy and the powerful in the province.

I want all students, regardless of what background they come from - and certainly the young people from wealthy families are as entitled as anybody else; I like to see them in university and community colleges. But I also want to see the others there as well. I don't want to simply see two classes of people, where the wealth keeps increasing for one class, where more and more one group of people has more and more of the money while the people at the bottom have less and less. That's the kind of polarization we've seen happening in the United States. I don't want to see that duplicated here, yet I know that many of the policies of this government militate in favour of that.

1610

I've heard the minister and one of the Conservative members who spoke earlier speak about the fact that there are supposed to be 22 students in the classroom in secondary education. Well, I talked to Russ McBride, of Lakeport high school, who phoned me to say that in the next semester he would have 41 students in his advanced history class - 41 students would be in his class. The government tries to get the message out to give the impression that somehow no class will be above 22. The minister uses the term that they're "capped" at 22. Once in a while he'll allow the word "average" to slip in, but for the most part he likes to give the impression that the most you're going to see is 22. That simply isn't the case.

I'm going to go back to when there was a discussion taking place over potential amendments to Bill 160. I remember the Minister of Education saying, "I want more contact time between teachers in secondary schools and the students." The teachers' federation people who were having discussions with him said: "We think we can accomplish that. Why don't you lengthen the school day and our teachers will teach longer periods? Why don't you do that? That seems sensible. You can eliminate some of the professional development days and we can probably shorten the time allocated for the examination days. We'll have more contact with students." Of course what they were doing was calling the bluff of Mike Harris, and when the government said, "We don't want that," it was quite clear then that what they wanted was to fire out the door - by the minister's own admission, not mine - some 7,500 teachers or teaching positions. That's what it was all about, and I think you have to be honest and up front if that's what you're going to do.

I deplore the attack by members of this government on elected trustees. While any one of us may quibble with or quarrel with something an individual trustee has said or done somewhere in the province, by and large these were people who had an interest in education and were prepared to work hard to see that the education system in their area worked. What Mike Harris has decided is that he wants all the power here in Toronto in the office of the Minister of Education or, probably more accurately, in the Premier's office as to what kind of decisions will be made in education, with no flexibility to the local people.

That is totally contrary to what the Conservative Party over the years has stood for. The Conservative Party always believed in local autonomy in years gone by. The Reform Party doesn't, but the Conservative Party believes in local autonomy.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Some of my friends who are now contesting the nomination in St Catharines-Brock, unlike my good friend Tom Froese, who, though I may disagree with him from time to time, I would consider to be one of the more moderate Conservatives - perhaps that says something, Tom, about the Conservative Party these days, but I would consider Tom to be one of the more moderate Conservatives. Those within his own association, some of those who have been less than helpful, are people who are significantly to the right of Tom and what I consider to be the mainstream Conservative Party in this province over the years.

I look at that and say this is lamentable, because you're taking all the power away from the local area and centralizing it here in Toronto under whatever government happens to be in power. I think there is a role for trustees elected by the people in the area to play in some of the educational policy which will be implemented within a local area.

What you've done now is that you've got people fighting with one another. It's almost as though Mike Harris sits above the fray rubbing his hands, along with Guy Giorno and the other advisers, and says to the people, "Isn't this nice to see?" We have now the teachers fighting with the boards of education. We have some boards fighting with other boards. We have non-teaching staff fighting with teaching staff. Everybody is pointing the finger somewhere else. We all remember as children the game called pin the tail on the donkey, but if you want to pin the tail on the donkey, you have to find the donkey, and I know where the donkey is.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I see him.

Mr Bradley: You're right. You have a picture of the donkey in front of you right now, I say to my good friend from Perth county. Look right there; the blame lies at Queen's Park, in the Office of the Premier.

When they start fighting with one another, when I see them writing letters to the editor, one attacking the other, I say the problem lies in Toronto, with the Conservative government in Toronto, not with your local board of education. I feel very sad when I see the people in an area fighting with one another -

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): What about in Nickel Belt? What did they think about it?

Mr Bradley: - people who used to work together in Lambton county. My friend Marcel will remember when you had the local people working together for education. You didn't have one side trying to hammer the other side. You didn't have one side criticizing the other side. You had people working together for the best in education, and that's what I want to see it return to.

I want to enlist the support of all the people in education. People have cast aside the maintenance staff and the cleaning staff and the secretarial staff and so on, as though that's not important in our education system. Indeed it is. Or the secretarial staff; they'll say, "You've got to cut the secretarial staff because they're not in the classroom," yet they provide important services in the field of education. It's always been a team effort there. The secretaries, the custodians of the school, the maintenance staff who come in, the cleaning people who are there, the teaching assistants, the people who operate the technical equipment, all of these people are part of a team; and many of them after years of service have been fired out the door because of the funding formula this government has applied to the field of education.

That's unfortunate because we all benefit from a strong education system, every one of us. We all have that goal. I'm sure the three parties have that goal. They may have different ways of achieving it, but surely everyone in this province - teacher, student, parent, business person, labour person, everybody - wants to see a strong education system.

If there is one theme that would condemn what the Conservative government has done, it's the dividing of people in this province, the setting of one section against another. I know it plays well sometimes to bash people in the public service. I know that plays well with a certain crowd. I think it's important to avoid that easy opportunity to hit somebody over the head with a sledgehammer to the applause of others. It's easy to do, but the right thing to do is to try to bring people together and to try to get people to understand one another. The advertising campaign that's going on now will do anything but that, the policies will do anything but that, and the answers of the Minister of Education will not do that.

When I was Minister of the Environment and I used to deal with Dave Johnson - I'll use his name - the member for Don Mills, the Minister of Education, I found him to be a good person to deal with when he was mayor of the city. He was very fair, he was a very truthful person and I liked dealing with him. Today he's been given a new role; he's been given the role of giving the government line. I can't say it's misleading, nor should I be able to say it in the House, because of the rules of the House. I can't say that, but I'll tell you the information that he has been given by Guy Giorno and others to give to the people of this province is not what I would consider to be accurate information. That's the limit of what I can say in this House. I don't consider it to be accurate information, and that's most unfortunate.

What we need is an opportunity to bring people together, to build that consensus. You see, when you attacked teachers before, you forgot that they were the sons and daughters of people, you forgot that they were the brothers and sisters of people, the cousins, the next-door neighbours, the best friends of people. They were able to provide an answer to some of the propaganda that the government was putting out in the field of education. It's most unfortunate when that happens.

1620

What I want to see happen is a return to stability in the province. We've got significant instability and disruption now. I think you can do that if you ask people to work together, if you show them respect, if you don't attack them, if you're honest with them, if you ask them, the people in the front line of providing educational services, whether they be the people in the classroom, the administrators, the caretakers, the secretaries, the non-teaching assistants, if you ask all of those people how we can build a strong education system, how we can do it together, whether they happen to have a Conservative background, a Liberal background, a New Democratic Party background, or perhaps no particular affiliation.

That's what we need in this province, and that's what we're not seeing from this government. I lament that very much. There are days when I become angry when I hear the answers of the Minister of Education or when I read or see the advertisements, but I recognize that it is a government that is bent upon dividing people in the province instead of bringing them together.

When I see people out on the picket line - and knowing some of these people, they are very moderate people - the last place they want to be is on a picket line. The last thing they want to be doing is engaging in a work-to-rule campaign, because they are people who got into the business, got into the profession of education, because they wanted to work with students. They wanted to do the very best for students. They wanted to help our society.

To see you people dump on them the way the Premier did at the Ontario Chamber of Commerce meeting in Toronto, where he thought he had a crowd which would give him a standing ovation when he declared, unlike when he's overseas and says we have the best-educated group, that the education system is lousy and the students coming out were bad - I thought most unfortunate. When he made that particular point, he didn't get the standing ovation that he thought he was going to get.

Ultimately the public understands. Ultimately people of goodwill understand that you've got to bring people together, that you've got to build together a strong, vibrant, well-funded and, let's say, a consensus-building education system in which all can feel at home, an education system which will bring about the kind of equality of opportunity that we want to provide for people in this province. That's a challenge all of us have. That's a challenge all of us should try to meet. Certainly, as an elected member, that will be my role and responsibility, to bring people together, to work together to build what all of us in this province seek: the best education system possible.

This legislation will certainly not guarantee that. In fact, it will militate against that happening.

Ms Lankin: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. I'm going to speak briefly, because many of my colleagues also want to speak to this.

I had an opportunity last week to put some comments on the record with respect to the piece of legislation itself, Bill 63, and my concerns about the content of the legislation. Today what I would like to talk about are the concerns we have about what's happening in the education system and how this bill fails to meet any of those concerns.

I particularly am appreciative of the opportunity to speak today because of an event that I was at on the weekend. It was the 75th anniversary reunion of Bowmore Road Public School, which is in the riding of Beaches-Woodbine. It was a joyous occasion, as reunions are, many people seeing each other who hadn't seen each other for a long time. There were many smiles and hugs and gleeful cheers of: "Hello. How are you?" It sort of warmed the heart.

During the official proceedings, one of the past principals of the school rose to speak. He read from this document - I got a copy from him -entitled "On the Occasion of my 75th Birthday," by Bowmore Road Public School. This is a school speaking, and you'll see that the school on a couple of occasions refers to "that guy making the noise." That was the past principal, who was reading it and who shares the same age. He's 75 years old as well. I just wanted to put this dissertation on the record and make a couple of comments about it, because it speaks to the heart and soul of what our education is about, what we expect of our schools and the changes that are taking place.

"On the occasion of my 75th birthday.

"By Bowmore Road.

"Thank you for coming to my birthday party. Not every school can boast of such a celebration after 75 years, or see once more some of its youthful blood flow through it again - if only for one day. You know, if it were not for you, I wouldn't exist at all.

"And that fellow making noises now, why, he was born in the same year as I, 1923, but when he came here to work my bones, I was already 36 years old! Of course, I have had a few pieces added to my body since then; a few repairs here and there. But so has he - and there's a good chance that I shall last longer than he will.

"Of course, I have a big problem right now. It has nothing to do with my water works or my circulation, my joints or even the humans that ebb and flow through me each day. No, it has more to do with my purpose in life. When you built me 75 years ago, you called me a school, and everyone said they knew what that was. A place where you send young empty-headed idiots to be filled up with the facts. Of course, during the night I was just a pile of bricks and mortar, like all the other schools across the land. But during the day I became a garden of love and learning where my share of young Canadians spent most of their waking hours. I became rather proud of the fact that I was the only place in the community where people entered in the morning and left better at the end of the day. Like magicians, my teachers often performed the impossible, and did such things as only God could understand.

"Bricks and mortar. Wires and pipes. Furniture and computers. Books and gadgets. Tools for learning. But they are all inert, dead, with no soul and no purpose. They lie there in my body, waiting. Then they come alive in the presence of my people and something happens which I can't explain. I become more grand than a hospital, almost a holy place. But no one notices as they pass by out there. No one sees the heat and light that are generated here. Why even those who ignite the flame are often unaware of what they've done. And young Paula, whose eyes are glowing, may be unaware of the fact that she's on fire. But she will still be burning 50 years later - and Miss Smith will still be kindling flame. In a place of magic, really. A learning circus, built to tickle the fancy and train the mind to do great things.

"My problem is that I now feel less like a garden and more like a football field where politicians play their games. My gardeners and their seedlings are twisted and turned and kicked to satisfy some new demand or to forsake some practice that appeared old-fashioned. I have become so unstable that my teachers fear for their sanity, and even I, solid as I am, now sit in the night and shudder to think what tomorrow will bring. Will I be a racetrack, a skills factory, a branch plant of international standards, an arena for arguments? I roll over but I can't sleep. What a shame that my people seem to have lost their vision, and seem so eager to prove that they are better than others, that they would forsake the nobility of learning in favour of uniform training for utilitarian purpose. I remember that `dump' that lay just to the west of the schoolyard. It was not a classroom - but more real learning took place in the experience of cleaning it up than in some of the lessons taught inside. Its chief gardener was Mr Harvey - and he knew what he was doing. Why, Miss Tock's class took an airplane and added to their knowledge by flying over Parry Sound, for heaven's sake! And almost 40 years ago two young seedlings appeared on television, helping to teach a lesson on Eskimo life. My people are doing great things every day. But does anybody care?

"It's all so simple, really. Here I am, 75 years old, and my real purpose remains the same. I am a garden, after all. The children who grow here are in great variety and require tender care, nourishment, individual attention and fertile soils of knowledge, understanding and creative thought. Their gardeners must have as their basic tools love and confidence, and the certain knowledge that theirs is a profound service celebrated by the owners of the farm. It was always so. Tests, standardization, competition, they come and go with the political climate. But real learning is above all that. May God inspire you to watch out for the perennial needs of my gardeners and their young seedlings. Storm without stability leads to ruin. I read that in the Farmer's Almanac. I think that it's called Common Sense.

1630

"I'm going to ring one of my bells now, and signal my old friend Dennis to stop. Again, thanks for coming, and please take special care of me, in these troubling times."

I mentioned that this was written by a past principal of Bowmore school. That principal was there in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but he went on to do some other remarkable things. I say other remarkable things because he left a remarkable legacy at that school, and I'll talk about that in just a moment. But he went on to do some other remarkable things in boards of education like Leeds-Grenville, and in the old Ontario Department of Education, where he was the secretary.

His name is Lloyd Dennis, and Lloyd Dennis went on, along with Justice Hall, to co-author a report that looked at the aims and objectives of education in the schools of Ontario, more commonly known as Living and Learning, and even more commonly known as the Hall-Dennis report: a chart for the future of education, a chart that was created in the times of a previous Tory government, a vision that was set out and, as you can hear from his remarks as he speaks on behalf of Bowmore Road Public School, a vision that he believes has been lost by those decision-makers of today, a loss that he laments. I think many of us share those views. I was honoured to meet him, to be in the presence of such a great visionary of our education system.

One of the heartening things I felt I was able to say to him is that the kind of vision and excellence that he brought to Bowmore is still alive in that school despite the chaos in the system, despite the instability, despite the storm that may lead to the ruin that he referred to.

About a week and a half or two weeks ago on CBC, I watched the in-depth coverage of the Mandela-and-the-children event at SkyDome. CBC followed a class of grade 5 and grade 6 students who prepared for the visit, and went to the SkyDome and talked to them afterwards. These were grades 5 and 6 students from Bowmore Road Public School in my riding, and they were the brightest, most articulate, compassionate, caring citizens I have seen brought together to talk about the issues and the social injustice of racism in a long time. These were grade 5 and 6 students.

I was able to say to Lloyd Dennis that obviously excellence is still alive in Bowmore Road Public School and, I believe, in many schools across this province. I was able to say to him, "When you look at those kids, you've got to say, `Someone's doing something right.'" It's about time more of the leaders of this province stood up and said that instead of denigrating the profession of education, instead of denigrating the products of our school system, our wonderful children, instead of creating the chaos out of which your fiscal reforms may emerge, but we must ask whether or not the ongoing quality of our education system will remain intact.

I hope, for the sake of the kids in Bowmore and in other schools, that it will. I hope, to pay tribute to the work of people like Lloyd Dennis and many other visionaries in the system, that it will. But I think it takes political courage and political leadership of a different sort than we're seeing with respect to education in Ontario today.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my privilege to rise and participate in the debate on the motion on Bill 63, the instruction time act. I'd like to begin my remarks today by saying that in Ontario we have some of the very best teachers in Canada. They work hard and they are very valuable to our province. I know that because I'm a product of the school system here in Ontario and I'm getting a second chance to revisit the school system as a parent and to see the fine job that teachers do in our schools today. The fact is that teachers in Ontario care about the students they teach and want them to excel. I strongly believe that, and I've always believed that.

Last year we set some very high standards for our education system when we debated the issue of instruction time. We discussed the meaning of "classroom instruction," but we did not at that time include a specific definition of the word "instruction" because it is a commonly understood term that it is time spent in the classroom teaching children.

In all of this, the union's role is to fight on behalf of teachers, and that is their constituency. It is natural, then, that we have a difference of opinion on the meaning of instruction time. I honestly believe that if the NDP were in power today or the Liberal Party were in power today, there would still be a difference of opinion with the teacher unions on the definition of instruction time.

There are many things that teachers do that are valuable within the school setting. One of them, for example, is cafeteria duty. It's very important, but it is not instructional time. Hall monitoring is also important, but that too is not instructional time. Instructional time is time spent in the classroom teaching our children.

Some will attempt to argue that this bill will make our schools unsafe and that without hall monitors our schools will not be safe. That's simply not accurate. As I'm sure you're aware, I've spent the last year consulting with parents, teachers, students, administrators and the police on questions of school safety and a safe schools policy. It was pointed out to me that in order to have a safe school, everyone, including the teachers, administrative personnel and students, must be committed to having a safe school, and that to maintain a safe school is a constant challenge in today's environment and we must always be vigilant. It is for that reason I introduced the Safe Schools Act. Safety is everyone's responsibility at all times.

The amendment that's being proposed in Bill 63 here today will clarify the issue of just what instructional time is. It will ensure a consistent, province-wide understanding and application as we move ahead to enhance the quality of education for our students in this province. The goal of all of our initiatives is to enhance the quality of education for our students in the classroom by setting high province-wide standards.

As parents and legislators we all have a personal stake in ensuring that the education our children receive in Ontario is the best it can possibly be. For that reason I have supported the reforms that the government has taken with respect to education. My constituents have demanded higher standards for education in this province. In fact, parents across this province have demanded higher standards, and I think that members opposite are aware of this fact, that the government has worked with parents to improve the standards in Ontario.

The agenda of this government is to put students first by focusing on the quality in the classroom. Some of our higher standards include a new, rigorous curriculum that Ontario elementary school students will receive, that they will receive increased instruction in history and geography. There's been a growing concern over the years that Ontario students were not learning enough history and geography in school, and this new, rigorous curriculum addresses this concern by spelling out clearly what students should learn in each grade. Students will learn about Canada, they'll learn about its history, its geography, civics and economics. They will also broaden their knowledge of world history, geography and economics by studying such countries as the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States.

The new social studies, history and geography curriculum for students in grades 1 to 8 completes the Ontario curriculum for elementary students that has been introduced over the last 12 months to boost students' achievement. Like the previously released curriculum documents, the new social studies, history and geography curriculum provides teachers, students and parents with clear expectations of the knowledge and skills that Ontario elementary students are expected to attain in each grade. These expectations are consistent across the province, so whether it's in Riverdale, Scarborough Centre, Espanola or anywhere else in Ontario, the language, science, technology and mathematics curriculum will be consistent across the province.

New textbooks and classroom learning materials are one of the best investments we can make in our children's learning.

The first phase of Ontario's $100-million investment in up-to-date textbooks has funded the purchase of 3.2 million textbooks, that's an average of 2.5 textbooks for every elementary student in this province, starting off the new school year with the benefit of textbooks that support the new, challenging provincial curriculums in mathematics, language, science and technology.

1640

Two weeks ago I was invited by the principal of a school in my riding on a job shadowing day to find out a little bit more about what she did in her job as principal in a school in Toronto. I was pleased that Principal Diane Gillies of Robert Service Senior Public School invited me to spend the day with her to see first-hand what principals do and to go into the classrooms and see the activities that are happening there with the school.

What was most interesting was talking to teachers about new textbooks. One teacher in particular pointed out to me that on the day the new textbooks had arrived, it was the first time in at least 12 if not 15 years that he had new textbooks to work with in his class. It was very gratifying to hear that a government of this province is finally putting money into textbooks on behalf of the students.

We have also instituted a system of province-wide tests to ensure that our students, whether they live in Espanola or Riverdale or Scarborough or Windsor or Ottawa, are all receiving the education that is necessary to prepare them for the next millennium.

We have also ensured that students get the first-hand assistance they require by legislating board average class sizes of 25 and 22 students for elementary and secondary schools respectively. We have also ensured that teachers spend more time with students in the classroom.

We have protected funding for special education, and that was a concern of many of my constituents, and we have protected funding for early learning and junior kindergarten.

My constituents have told me that they want our classroom dollars to be focused on the students in the classroom. Year after year more money has been put into our education system. Parents and taxpayers want to know that they are getting the most value for their education dollar, yet it seems the leadership of the unions - and I didn't say "teachers"; I said the "leadership of the unions," the leaders of the teacher unions in Ontario - have exploited the differences in opinion with regard to the changes we are making to the education system.

We all have the same goal. We all want the education system in Ontario to be the best in Canada, indeed the best education in all the world. I suppose where we differ is how do we achieve that goal.

According to the Education Improvement Commission, high school teachers in Ontario spend an average of 3.75 hours of their total working day teaching students in the classroom. Compare this to the national average of 4.5 hours per day. As a result, secondary school teachers in Ontario spend less time in the classroom than teachers in the other provinces. Teachers in these other provinces still teach band, direct the school play, coach football or water polo and they still participate in extracurricular activities. They simply spend more of their day instructing students within the classroom.

As we have continually said, teachers being required to spend four hours and 10 minutes per day, an increase of 25 minutes, is still below the national average. In fact, even with the extra minutes the secondary teachers in Ontario will spend teaching students, this will actually be less than the total in seven other provinces.

We all realize that teachers work a full day. We know that they have other responsibilities within the school and we recognize that teachers need time to mark and to prepare for classes. We realize that so many teachers work late nights and weekends preparing for that. Teachers are dedicated to their students and this should not and will not ever change. Those who have gone the extra mile in the past will continue to do so in the future.

The debate today is not about telling teachers to work harder. It is not about questioning the commitment teachers have made to our children. The debate today is simply about clarifying what constitutes teaching time. We are setting the definition in writing to confirm what we already know, and that is that instruction time means time spent in the classroom teaching students.

This bill -

Mr Marchese: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think there's no quorum in the House. Would you check, please?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Clerk, if you could check and see if there is a quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Newman: As I was just mentioning, according to the Education Improvement Commission, high school teachers in Ontario spend an average of 3.75 hours of their total working day teaching students in the classroom. Compare this to the national average of 4.5 hours per day. As a result, secondary school teachers in Ontario spend less time in the classroom than teachers in other provinces. Teachers in these other provinces still teach band, direct the school play, coach football or water polo; they still participate in extracurricular activities. They simply spend more of their day instructing students in the classroom.

As we have continually said, teachers being required to spend four hours and 10 minutes per day, an increase of 25 minutes, is still below the national average. In fact, with the extra minutes the secondary teachers of Ontario will spend teaching students, it's still less than the average of seven other provinces in our country.

We all realize that teachers do indeed work full days and we know they have other responsibilities within the school. We recognize that teachers need time to mark and prepare for classes. We realize and I acknowledge that many teachers do work quite late at night and spend time on weekend doing those functions. Teachers are dedicated to their students, and I don't believe this should or will ever change. Those who have gone the extra mile in the past will continue to do so in the future.

The debate today is not about telling teachers to work harder. It is not about questioning the commitment that teachers have made to our children. The debate today is simply about clarifying what constitutes teaching time.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Just teach more students.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma, come to order. Member for Perth, come to order.

Mr Newman: We are setting the definition in writing to confirm what we already know: instruction time means time spent in the classroom teaching students. I'll repeat again for the members of the opposition, all three of them who are present here today, that instruction time means time spent in the classroom teaching students.

This bill only confirms the intent of the Education Quality Improvement Act, giving teachers more time to do what they do best, and that is teach.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address this bill. It's nice to have the chance at all. This is a time allocation motion we're debating, reflecting once again on this government's reluctance. They had to be forced at fingerpoint, in the midst of debate in question period, to have this discussion at all. There's a consistent theme with health care and education, and it's a government and a lot of members who don't want to be accountable for what their government is actually doing. So when the rubber really hits the road and we have the specifics in front of us, the very clear measures the government wants to take to change the lives of students and teachers, there's a reluctance that is almost extreme on the part of this government to actually lay out there on the table and in debate some reasonable discussion of what they're doing.

Make no mistake, this really is about the Conservative government trying to justify its Comic Book Revolution. It was a comic book that brought them into power and now they're trying to see if somehow, after the fact, they can make all those things work. Well, the smug faces we've seen in the House over the last number of days - they ought to be taking pictures and keeping them at hand, because the story of education in this province is going to be this government's public relations propaganda unravelling in the face of what has actually happened in the classroom, what they actually can't avoid taking responsibility for, what they can't get around being the result of their decisions. When they tell you, as they tried to tell us in the House earlier today and as some of the members repeated in their speeches today, that somehow no teacher being fired is the same thing as having the same number of teachers, that's not true. This government has fired more teachers than it has hired; there are fewer teachers in the classroom. The government's own figures show that. There's a backgrounder the government has put out, probably in error, because it happens to contain some of the truth. It says 6,000 new teachers are being hired and 9,500 have retired, leaving a gap of 3,500 fewer teachers, even though there are 5,000 more students in the classroom.

1650

Even the people opposite have to reckon with that. They have to reckon with what happens as a result of their policies. They've taken money out of the system. Much of the money that's there this year, available to schools, is just for the purpose of transition, getting teachers the heck out of the way. The same kind of thing, for people who care to look at some of the operating details, where this government's true nature is revealed: This year, this government is probably the only government in the western world that will face $260 million to retire nurses, to fire them, to get rid of them, to never see that money stand in benefit of patients across the province, at the very same time that each of these members opposite is grumbling they have emergency rooms that are backed up with people for two and a half to three to four, as many as seven days. In fact, the member for Etobicoke may wish to know that a 92-year-old woman spent seven days in the Queensway hospital. That's the direct result of a government that won't take responsibility for its actions.

We see that's the kind of image they want to portray, that somehow the new retirement package is something we should be dancing about. That retirement package was paid for by teachers, paid for out of their contributions. Instead this government should acknowledge that it's a sad testament to their policies that so many good teachers have chosen to get out of the profession this year that the new retirement policy was oversubscribed. This government is directly responsible for the active discouragement and putting down and demeaning and non-support of teachers, and it has to take responsibility for that result. That is precisely what they've been able to take advantage of for some of their propaganda, but the results are still clear and crisp, and unfortunately painful for the students who are going to be dealing with the outcomes in the next number of months. They will see that there are 3,500 fewer teachers providing real instruction.

We come back to the kinds of fairy tales this government wants to spin around its comic book. How does it try to make the comic book, 21 pages with pictures, actually work? They're saying: "We could take a billion dollars out of education. We haven't actually studied the matter, we don't actually have any proof for our proposition, but we'll take a billion dollars out of education and at the same time we'll deliver some better-quality education."

I agree that's not necessarily out of the realm of possibility, as the grumbling of one of the members would seem to suggest, but somehow this government would have us take it on face value that they've found some magic here, that with fewer teachers they've found some way to improve the quality of what they're going to do for students. Let's look, because the bill we have today allows us to see exactly what this government's talking about.

Does it mean it's going to give our teachers the backup and support, and the confidence to our parents that the teachers will be there on a more frequent basis for each of the students? Is that what it means? Does that mean this government is going to hunker down and find ways to do that? Sadly, it doesn't. It means the opposite. It means this government is going to distribute the time and energy and attention and caring of our teachers across more students. That's what it has in mind. It's going to shove more students in per teacher and it's going to take away some of the time the teachers have for each of those students to deal with the overall quality of what they do. That's what this government has in mind. So what it means is -

Interjection.

Mr Kennedy: One of the members opposite mentioned something about classroom size. The government was too afraid to actually be accountable there. They talk about average classroom sizes. Every school in this province has people far above those average classroom sizes. Why? Because it was more propaganda on the part of this government. We have classrooms of 31 and 29 because this government didn't mean it.

In some parts of this province there are people who found the noise the government has made to be comforting, who find the simplistic answers something they can hold on to. They say things like, "There's a government tough enough, courageous enough to do something." It takes no courage, it takes no toughness to actually dilute a child's education, and that's what we're talking about. When we talk about splintering the attention of teachers, it's very important that we not just talk in the abstract here, that we talk about what happens to children. What we're talking about is what happens in the real world.

In Waterloo I met a science teacher who is already working 12-hour days. With his new calendar, he'll work even more. He spends the time setting up his labs, dealing with the experiments, putting a lot of joy and energy into his work. He has no idea how he can make this new calendar work and raise his own family. That's a detail that this government is not prepared to even contend with, because we find ourselves standing here in the middle of a time-allocated bill that does not permit the real world to come in and make these people accountable for what they want to do to that science teacher and to other people.

For example, I spoke to Carol, who has four advanced English classes. She has four classes at 75 minutes each. That's 30% more children to look after. Over a period of time this will become apparent to the students and parents of this province. The members opposite cannot persuade any of us that if you assign 30% more students to a teacher, somehow that's a better-quality education. She has four advanced English classes; she has 30% more students. That means she has 30% more papers to grade and to record. She has to provide student attention and individual advice, makeup tests, get tutoring, touch base with the students.

She has had to suspend her writers' club. She's going to keep it going on her own time and meet the students in the hallways, but she can't actually go any more to the evening meetings they've had since 1989 for promising writers in that school, because she simply doesn't have the time to do it.

This is the real world that the Harris government and the Harris chopping up and dilution of education won't come to terms with. They won't answer the teachers like Carol, who put their heart and soul into this system, and now they're asking them to put in something less, just like they have in the health system, just like they've taken away the possibility of excellence.

Why do we still have an exodus of doctors in this province? Not because of the pay. We have an exodus because doctors do not believe we have a government or a policy or an attitude on the part of the government that actually connotes respect for excellence in the system. This is a government that doesn't believe in excellence when it comes to public service, when it comes to the things we provide to people in our communities. The government, I'm sure, when it sat in Mike Harris's office - we have a lot of what the media call ambient sound in the background here from the members. They're good at ambient sound. What they're not good at is holding their Premier to account, because we know they made all this up in the Premier's office. We know that most of the members opposite weren't given a say. But they still are vigorous in their defence of the indefensible. Instead, when they did their calculation, they said -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mr Kennedy: "Look, in health care who's going to notice? Who's going to really notice the quiet sound of that patient who's not getting the care they deserve in the emergency room hallway? Who's really there to keep count? We'll just pretend that things were always like that. We'll make things worse and we'll essentially, eventually detract and pull away from people's investment of trust in that system. We'll basically put ourselves on a track where we no longer have public health care."

That's exactly the process they're trying to replicate here in terms of public education. The big brains in the Premier's office, who probably have disdain for their back-bench, as they do for the opposite side and the public as a whole, said: "We can take money out of that system. We'll just attack teachers. While people aren't looking, we'll take money out of the system. We'll do less for each individual student, and they'll not catch us because who's really going to be able to tell? These are just kids, after all. We'll throw them some textbooks."

The textbooks, from talking to some of the teachers, were done in such haste, provided in such haste, ordered in such haste, which this government's political propaganda calendar, derived most likely in the Premier's office, required them to do, to order them in a two-week period, to not even see sample copies, that some of those textbooks that have been delivered to some of the schools are now proving to be erasable because they're printed so badly. It's that kind of thing that this group of individuals in this House should feel themselves held accountable for, and they still don't. They still don't feel that they need to talk to Carol about how she is going to find the time to telephone parents for parents' meetings, to meet with guidance counsellors, social workers, special-ed teachers and librarians, to look and see whether students are meeting their Ontario school requirements, to do the photocopying, update the courses, to do the new computer procedures, to do the student discipline.

1700

If teachers were held to the same standard we were in this House, if the time we spent in this House was regarded as our classroom time, we would have our pay cut by 80%, if that's what this government was trying to do on a consistent basis.

This government is trying to pretend, it's trying to fool the public on a basic, fundamental principle of education. If we're indeed going to have a well-educated citizenry - and there's an effort on the government side to change the purpose of education from producing citizens into consumers or employees or employers and somehow discount what it can really contribute to society and how we should measure it - we're going to have to have motivated teachers who have adequate preparation time, who are able to pull together not just their day and their week but their entire year in order to make things happen for their students. We also have to have their confidence that there are people in this House, sitting in these chairs, voting on these bills, who are prepared to be accountable for the kind of things that we throw them: curriculum without textbooks and schedules without ability to make them happen.

When we look at what happens to this bill that is under time allocation and is about to go whizzing out the door like so many of the misadventures from this government, what it's intended to do is land like a hand grenade in the school boards and negotiating rooms around this province to make it still more difficult. It doesn't solve anything. We've got 600 schools being closed around the province; 180 schools confirmed for Toronto. It's going to be a hellish time for people genuinely concerned with public education. What we want to tell those people is not to give up, not to take this government as reflective of the province, because fundamentally, as it is in so many other things, this government is out of touch.

Mr Marchese: I've got to say it's never a great time to speak to a time allocation motion, because in effect what these bills do is to throttle debate on issues of importance to this House and to the people outside of this place. But it is before us, and we are forced to speak to it, obviously. I'm happy to be making comments with respect to this, because I am very connected to this issue and have a long history around it.

I feel for the viewers, because they are so beleaguered by this government that they don't quite understand often which side they're on. All I can say to those who are watching this program on a regular basis is to trust their instincts. If you trust those instincts, you will more or less know at the end of the day which side you're on. Choosing a side, in my view, is an important part of the political process. I do this on a regular basis; in fact, I did it 20 years ago. That's why I joined the New Democratic Party.

Today, listening to the Minister of Education when he was speaking about World Teachers' Day - we were celebrating World Teachers' Day today - and he spoke with such elegance and praise for those wonderful teachers in the system, I thought, "What a pitiful political display of posturing by this minister and this government." They are utterly shameless. While these teachers have been whacked by this government on a daily basis -

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'm just wondering if there's a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum?

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Speaker. I was waiting for them to come in, because the member for Algoma did want the members to listen to my speech; I have no doubt about that.

I was at the point where I was saying that this government has been whacking teachers on a daily basis and they continue to do it under the guise of: "We are doing more for those kids. We care about the kids. We care about quality." It's a wonderful thing that these people do, because for many people, the posturing works.

Here we are celebrating World Teachers' Day in the context of a couple of years of abuse and violence against teachers by this government, by the Premier and by the minister. I think people are following this debate, by and large. Some people will be confused, I have no doubt, but I marvel at the Minister of Education, who is a very smooth minister. You notice every day he's very smooth, never answers questions, sticks to the message. Every now and then he gets quoted in the paper where he says - he used this expression the other day - "I cannot discern." It's a beautiful word, "discern." It's abstract but it speaks to his qualities of observation, discernment.

He says, "I cannot discern for the life of me why teachers in this province wouldn't do the extracurricular activities." Imagine. He's been badgering teachers, abusing, whacking them over the head daily, and then he says, "I cannot discern for the life of me why these people can't just do the extracurricular activities." Can you believe that? I can't.

He was quoted the other day as saying something to the effect of: "I really don't see any reason why in Ontario they can't teach any extra time. It's not a big deal to teach an extra period, surely. All we're asking them to do is just teach a little bit longer."

It goes well with the general public, who say: "That's right. Those teachers are hardly working. I work longer hours than they do, and they shouldn't be paid what they are being paid." It plays right into the hands of Tories and Reform. They're good, close cousins. It plays into that ideology.

I remind you, the North American free trade agreement was all about prosperity and jobs, and what are we getting? People are working harder, longer, for less. The bank mergers are intended, banks say, to create more jobs. The strategy of Tories everywhere, and the federal Liberals, is to get people to work longer and harder for less. The MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment, which is a charter for corporations -

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Didn't they put that on the slow track?

Mr Marchese: The member from Windsor - what was that?

Interjection: Windsor-Riverside.

Mr Marchese: I love it when the member for Windsor-Riverside is here because he gets me going and I want his participation. Make sure I hear you well because I want your participation.

The multilateral agreement on investment: a charter of rights for corporations. We have no corresponding charter of rights for workers, but we have a charter of rights for corporations. Why? In order to get people to work harder, longer, for less.

You, the viewers out there, relate to that because it's exactly what all of you are experiencing - working harder, working longer, working for less, with insecurities that abound, with unemployment that abounds. You have a good understanding, it seems to me, about what the nature of this fight is all about. That is why I ask you to relate to this fight that this government has waged against teachers, as they say in their guise, "We are here working for children, trying to make education a little better for them and trying to help teachers out." The member for Scarborough Centre said they're fighting for teachers. No, member for Scarborough Centre, everyone knows you're fighting against them, based on everything that you have done, not working for them.

1710

Those of you who are watching understand or ought to understand the nature of this battle, because this Tory government and their Liberal cousins at the federal level are making us work harder, longer, for less. That's what's happening.

Bill 160 is not about giving more money to the educational system. Why would any government want to centralize education finance if it were not to take money away? Why?

Mr Bert Johnson: I have the answer.

Mr Marchese: The strategy, M. Bert, is to control it to take money away from the educational system under the guise of giving more for those poor little kids and those poor struggling teachers who are working on this difficult system that they are fixing. You have M. Harris and M. Johnson saying, "It's not about attacking teachers, it's about" -

The Acting Speaker: Member for Fort York, may I remind you that you should refer to the members by their ridings.

Mr Marchese: I was talking about the Premier, I was talking about the Minister of Education, to whom I applied names because it's good for the public to know them by their names and their titles.

Bill 160 is intended to centralize education finance in order to take money away from public education. That's what it's about.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Wrong.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Wrong.

Mr Marchese: You have the whiners on the other side, the apologists saying, "No, no." But people know.

Mr Duncan: How much did you cut out of education when you were in office?

Mr Marchese: Windsor - where are you from again? Somewhere from Windsor. Here we go, from Windsor-Walkerville. I love them Liberals. God, you've got to love them. In terms of what they're going to tell you about education, you're going to have to very seriously consider those opinions because they're going to tell you everything you need to know and hear. They're going to repeal Bill 160 -

Interjection: Are you?

Mr Marchese: We're on the books as stating we're going to repeal it. In fact, we argue that 10% of education finance should be paid for locally, locally based and controlled.

Mr Duncan: Unlike public auto insurance.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, come to order.

Mr Marchese: You have these fine Liberals. They will never make such a claim. We believe there should be local control and that's why we say 10% should be controlled by local boards of education.

This party on the right of me says that they are going to put more in education and in fact they're going to put more into health. You know how they're going to do that? Not by making sure that we take billions away from that income tax scheme that they have proposed where the wealthy Ontarians benefit. They're not going to take money away from that, because they said, "Oh, we can't get elected if we do that." So where are they going to find the money? They say, "From a growing economy." Oh? We are almost in the depth of a recession worldwide. Half of the world is in a recession, and these guys, including you folks, are hoping the economy is going to continue so they can continue to put more in education and health.

How are they going to do it if the money is not there? How are they going to find the $5 billion the Tories are spending to give away to the wealthy when the recession is around the corner? Where are you going to find the money? And you still want cuts in programs and you still want to give away charity to the rich because, "Those poor people, they need it."

You've got to give more money to the rich because the income gap is just not enough. We've got to make it bigger. We've got to make the gap between the rich and the poor bigger because the gap is not big enough. Charity for the rich is what this government is all about. God, if we pursue this strategy, unemployment should diminish by the millions.

We have a serious problem on our hands in this province and in this country. The objective of this government is not children; it's not teachers. When they talk about teachers teaching extra time, the member for Algoma reminds you and the audience in particular that we're talking about an extra period.

To give you an example, because you've got concretize the situation, think of an English teacher -

Mr Duncan: What was that?

Mr Marchese: For those members on the right of me, to make concrete, concretize, more or less.

Think of an English teacher. You know that in the educational system at the high school level we've been trying to introduce English across the curriculum. You know that. I think Tories know that, at least one or two of them out of the whole bunch. If you want students to learn to write, what do you think a teacher has to do? You've got to give assignments. Some assignments are two pages long; some assignments are five pages long. Imagine having 150 students and even an extra period.

Mr Wildman: That's 25 more students.

Mr Marchese: That's 25 more students, because that's what we're talking about. If you give those students yet another assignment, and you, the teacher, have to mark those papers, because if you don't mark them with suggestions on how to improve that paper, those students won't learn, imagine the enormity of the task. The more you give an English teacher, a history or geography teacher and the like things of this sort to do where you require of them to give more assignments in order for the students to learn to write, how does a teacher find the time to do that?

Mr Froese: How do they?

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: The poor Tories are whining. The poor Tories are saying, "Those poor teachers are whining." I'm assuming that was the whine. Is that correct?

Teachers are put into a very difficult position to do the right thing in their classrooms if we expect our students to learn better, to have a better command of more subjects such as English. They cannot do it, and so teachers resort to giving fewer assignments, which means students do not learn. Even the kids of these Tories will not learn very well. That's really what it means.

They are assaulting teachers on the basis that the public out there says teachers are greedy, teachers earn too much money and teachers have too much time off.

Mr Froese: I never said that.

Mr Marchese: The Tories don't say those things; they just hope that parents believe those things on the inferences made by Minister Johnson. So when Minister Johnson says, "I don't quite discern why it is that they're upset," he hopes the public out there believes him and shares the view on the basis of common understanding that teachers earn too much for the time they put in and that they should take less and should work more to adjust to the ideology of this government.

We've got a morale problem in the teaching profession unlike any we have ever seen before. Morale is at its lowest, and we cannot improve that morale for a long, long time. Certainly this government won't be able to patch that up, I can tell you that, and no matter what they say or do, it will not patch this up.

Mr Bert Johnson: A few dollars will do it.

Mr Marchese: Yes, throw a little money at them, I suppose, eh, Tories. That will do it.

Education is a great equalizer or has the potential to be a great equalizer, so that poor people have an equal chance to make it in this society. What this government does by underfunding it, by throttling it, by undermining teachers and fighting them on a regular basis, is it undermines the ability of teachers to deliver the quality that so many of us desire for our kids. So many young people enter the education system with unequal conditions, and unless we have the best system possible, that is funded well, where teachers are respected, those students who come from poor working-class homes will not get the equalization they hope for. It means that we will perpetuate a class system, as we have always done, and that equalization will not come.

That's what's happening to our system, and I worry about that. I worry about the potential to destroy our educational system and to destroy whatever little good there was that we were trying to build up.

1720

All I urge teachers to do is to continue to be vigilant and to continue to fight this government, and urge those who are watching to continue to support a public system so as not to allow this government to continue to privatize it in a way that will create a two-tier system, one for the poor and one for the wealthy. That's all I can urge those who are watching to do. If they want to get involved with us, they should call us. They'll find us in the telephone book. It's a good fight to fight and it's something that I think many of us believe in.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to have the opportunity to join this debate, although it is again one of those debates that I wish we did not have to have.

I was listening to my friend and colleague from Fort York as he was outlining point after point what this Tory government is doing to education, and the attack on teachers. As he mentioned and others have mentioned, today of course is World Teachers' Day.

Mr Wildman: How ironic.

Mr Silipo: It's very ironic, I agree with my colleague from Algoma. I was reflecting on what happened earlier today. You will remember, Speaker, when you were sitting over here as one of our members and our colleague from Algoma asked for unanimous consent for us to wear these simple buttons that commemorate today, World Teachers' Day. We didn't get agreement from some of the Tory members for us to wear these buttons in the House today because under the rules we can't wear even a simple button like this without there being unanimous agreement by members of the Legislative Assembly.

As I've been thinking about this on and off this afternoon and looking now at the button, I wonder, what is it that gives members opposite a big problem with this button? I look at it and it says on it "World Teachers' Day" across the top, and along the bottom is the same in French, «Journée mondiale des enseignants», so that can't be what's offensive to members across. The middle of it is essentially a big green apple, which has always been symbolic of teachers and teaching. Imposed on that green apple is a map of the world, and at the bottom of that green apple, again imposed on it, is a picture or a diagram of two children, I gather, climbing what looks like a stylized staircase. On that stylized staircase it says, "Public Education Works." Maybe that's what bothers them. They don't like the fact that it's actually working.

Mr Wildman: They say it's broken.

Mr Silipo: They say that it's broken, it doesn't fit into their theory of the crisis, so maybe it has something to do with that. But I think it's even simpler than that. I think it actually has to do with the fact that had they agreed to this, they actually would have agreed to something they couldn't quite, in that instant, control. We know how hung up this particular government is on having to control everything to its umpteenth detail.

That's what this bill is about. The bill in front of us that they're time-allocating ironically enough is about putting more and more control into the hands of the minister to define what is instruction. Again it's taking the approach that this government has taken so far, as they have begun and as they have proceeded to dismantle our education system piece by piece now to the point where they are so narrowly defining what will be instruction and what will not be instruction to complement their in-classroom versus out-of-classroom funding formula, to the point that things will be defined so narrowly that many services we have taken for granted and have quite frankly expected of our teachers will not fit within this definition.

Look at one very simple example: the role that is played by teachers in terms of guidance counselling in our secondary schools, a service which, whatever we may think - does it work perfectly? Can it be improved? Of course it can be improved, just like many other aspects of our education system, but a very important educational service provided by our teachers is that they help our young people determine what they're going to do when they leave high school, as they begin to plan what they're going to do when they leave high school. Well, that will no longer be covered within the definition of instruction.

It's fine for the Tories to say that instruction is what happens within the four walls of the classroom. I can remember, and I know it still happens today, that a good amount of guidance in fact takes place within the four walls of the classroom, but a good enough amount of it also takes place in other parts of the school building.

To say that something like that should not fit as part of the instructional day or as part of the definition of instruction is a classic example of the kind of narrow-mindedness that is driving this Minister of Education and the Harris government as they are continuing to take away, piece by piece, the very foundation of our school system. It's the sense of wanting to control every little piece at every step of the way that is driving this government to the point where they know that if people out there begin to understand what's going on - as they are beginning to - they have to jump in and counter that with advertisement after advertisement on the TV screens, on the radio, in the newspapers and in the flyers they send home, because quite frankly they're afraid that if they don't do that and if they don't try to portray their vision of the world and what they're doing to our school system, the people will actually understand what is going on.

We had the Minister of Education today in a scrum, as well as in this House, try to justify the cuts to the system and the crazy timelines they've imposed and then try to explain, in his view, how the changes will mean more time between students and teachers. It's again the doubletalk. If what this government wanted was more time between teachers and students, if what they wanted was for our teachers to spend more time with the students they now are teaching, they would have taken up the offer that federation after federation and teacher after teacher have made to look at solutions like extending the length of the periods, to actually lengthen the amount of time that teachers teach each child, each student, because then you are ensuring that the teachers are spending more time with each student.

But that of course is not the objective. The objective here is to have fewer teachers in the system do more, and doing more means having more children, more young people, more students to teach. You cannot have a situation, in our high schools particularly, where you expect teachers to teach more students - as our colleague Mr Wildman says, 25 more students on average; one additional class - and expect the quality of that teaching to be as good as the current teaching. It can be done - there is no doubt that it fits in the schedule; there are problems, but it will fit - but you cannot tell me and you cannot convince anybody out there that the result is going to be better education.

Better education comes when teachers, yes, have clear expectations set of them, and we should do that, but better education comes when teachers have the support of those who run the system, from the Minister of Education right on through, and are supported on a day-to-day basis to improve the quality of what they do. If there is an area where quality rather than quantity matters, surely it's in our school system. Surely what we want to see in our school system is not simply to be able to add up the numbers at the end of the day or at the end of the year and say: "Here we are. Aren't we great? We're actually able to have fewer teachers teach more kids." Somehow that's more efficient, but is it better? I don't think so.

What is better is when our teachers are supported - as I say, on the basis of very clear expectations, but are supported - and prepared and assisted in providing the kind of quality education we want for our kids today and that they will need to be able to survive and deal with the complex and ever-changing world they will live in and have to work in tomorrow.

That's what it's about, and you don't do it by taking around a billion dollars out of our school system, as this government is doing. You don't do that by simply expecting teachers to teach more students. You do that by saying: "Let's see how we can focus our attention. Let's see how we can focus our efforts. Let's see how we can support teachers to do what they are doing better, not simply to do more at a lower level of quality."

1730

That's what's happening out there in our schools. That's why we have with this new funding formula situations in which school after school, whether it's here in Toronto or throughout the province, is going to be going through the potential of closing.

In my own community in west-end Toronto, a Catholic school like St Josaphat, where parents will be gathering tonight to discuss the possibility of that school closing, is one of the 29 on the list the Catholic board here in Toronto has had to look at and is looking at; schools like St Rita's, R.W. Scott, St Raymond's, schools that are now providing a good service to their community, providing good education. St Peter's, St Lucy's and many others in west-end Toronto are being looked at only because that school board, the Catholic school board, which before thought it was actually going to get more money out of this funding formula, is now discovering the truth. The truth is that it means less money for them in the Catholic system as well as less money in the public school system on the other side.

What's happening? There's less money in our system because of the actions of the Mike Harris government. Teachers are being asked to teach more students and the quality of our education system is continuing to go down directly because of the actions of this government. That's why we stand opposed to what this government is doing through this specific bill, because it narrows down education in a way we believe should not be done. That's why we will continue to fight and we will continue to put forward alternatives to what this government is doing, not only in terms of being willing to roll back the provisions of Bill 160 and all the changes that those entail, but also being prepared to put money back into the education system and to propose a way in which we would actually do that by taking back portions of the tax cut for those top 6% of taxpayers who get most of the benefit of the tax cut, or a large chunk of it.

We believe fundamentally that those changes need to be made. We'll certainly have more and more opportunities to talk about that. But I just want again to emphasize what I see is a paranoia that's setting in in this government in terms of how they feel they have to control every little thing they do. The public out there quite frankly is well beyond beginning to understand what is going on. They can continue to spend money on advertising, they can continue to try to control and legislate all the minutiae of what goes on in the classroom, but at the end of the day people will remember that what this government did, what the Harris government did was to begin to dismantle the system of education that we have built up over years, which, yes, needs to be improved, can be improved, but will not be improved one iota by the actions of the Harris government.

Mr Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate wearing two hats - I guess, three - (1) as the House leader for our caucus here in this Legislature; (2) as the education critic for our caucus and (3) as a parent of a child in the education system in Ontario.

First, in my role as House leader I want to say at the outset how much I regret the irony of a time allocation motion on this bill as it relates to teacher instructional time on World Teachers' Day. I regret it for a number of reasons.

When we were debating Bill 63, we had gotten to the point under these new rules where there was only 10 minutes per speaker left. Even if all the members of the opposition who had not yet participated in the debate were to speak, it would not have taken very long for the bill to have gotten through second reading. There was absolutely no need to introduce a time allocation motion except, I guess, for two reasons. The first reason was that the member for Durham East was speaking, and not even his own members could taken any more of that. That led them to introduce a time allocation motion.

The other reason is that it has become routine for this government. It's automatic that on any important bill there will be a time allocation motion, despite the fact that under these new rules any government would be able to get any controversial matter through very quickly.

As the critic for our caucus on education matters, I want to refer to the three groups that are the most important in the education system: the students, the teachers and the parents. I'd like to refer to some e-mails I've received from each of these groups. The first is from a parent. Her name is Sally Clarke, from Ottawa. She says:

"I regret that teachers have been alienated by the way these measures were introduced. For example, a curriculum to take effect in September was released in August. That is one example of gross lack of consideration for the teachers we employ. I think it is shameful to treat any worker this way. There seems to be almost an attitude of `We have a majority and that gives us the right to do exactly what we want so get with the program or too bad.' This is a sorry example of leadership. It is especially unfortunate because I think the majority of people, including teachers, support" a lot of the changes that have been proposed. That's debatable, but this is what Ms Clarke sees.

"I should not need to point out that teachers, like any other worker, work best when they feel valued and they have the support they need. Teachers are in the best position to know the support they need in their particular school. Schools should have the latitude to work with their teachers to decide these things and not be subject to centralized authority that cannot possibly know best. I feel the teachers' unions have done a great deal of work" - and it's hard to read here - "concerning the needed reforms, protecting teachers and promoting" - I can't read this. It's a very poor copy. I'm sorry. But you get the point that she puts forward.

The next one I'd like to read is from a student. This is a student from Carleton Place, in eastern Ontario. Her name is Amy Nadeau. She says:

"I am a grade 11 student from Notre Dame Catholic High School in Carleton Place Ontario. In the past three weeks I have been listening carefully to what has been going on with the education system....

"The situation that the teachers are in is awful and I truly believe that they are entitled to fight for what they believe is right. It is sad to see that it has come to them going on strike. If this can be helped the process should be started now."

The last one is from a teacher. This is from Carol Neuman in Scarborough. She says:

"I am experiencing the chaos of the mean-spirited Tory changes, changes driven by a bottom line engine seeking to demoralize and reduce teaching staff.

"I have been assigned four out of four classes to teach:" - because of the instructional time - "100 students in a full-time English timetable. I have four advanced English classes (75 min each) and I work all day except for lunch, all day every day. And this semester there are 25 more students who wish to talk to me; make up missed tests; get tutoring; and touch base. I'm happy to be available to them, but I am also seeing my previous students who require letters of recommendation for part-time jobs, for university, for co-op, or who want to discuss next year's option selections or graduation choices. I have ex-students now in university who return for reunion.

"I have no time this semester to meet with guidance counsellors, social workers, special ed teachers, librarians, or the ESL teachers about students. I have no time to scan OSR files for information about my students' schooling in Ontario, or to verify that all prerequisites have been taken. I have no time to read ministry documents, or to order audiovisual materials. Photocopying, updating course outlines, and learning new computer procedures are distant notions of a bygone era.

"Student contact, as you well know, also involves discipline in the hallways - no fighting or yelling or eating or swearing or graffiti. New this semester is attendance monitoring and discipline matters dealt with in `a just-in-time' philosophy of deliverance; triage-style damage control. Telephoning homes about upcoming parent night is impossible. My `extracurricular' writers' club, which used to meet every Thursday to workshop creative writing, and which ran, unbroken, since 1989 has been suspended. Those writers are still sharing their works-in-progress with me, in crowded hallways, where they try to get encouragement for their efforts." This is the situation that this government has produced. This is what your changes have done for this teacher and her students in Scarborough. That's what this has done. No one can claim it has improved the quality of education for this teacher's students. It's not just the working conditions for this teacher; the quality of education for this English teacher's students has been harmed.

1740

The government members don't want to hear this. They don't want to understand what is really happening in the system. When they hear that a teacher is teaching four out of four, all day, with no break except for a lunch period, no time to do preparation during the day, no time to talk to other teachers and guidance counsellors about students, no time to give extra help, no time for extracurricular activities, they just shake their heads and say, "What a lazy teacher."

They don't want to understand what their changes have done. They don't want to understand what taking all these millions of dollars out of the education system and cutting the total number of teachers in secondary schools in Ontario has done for the quality of education for students. This is what it has done. It's not me saying it; I didn't solicit this e-mail. It just came from a teacher who is discouraged and unhappy about the fact that she can't meet the needs of her students because of the changes this government has wrought.

There's a basic question that hasn't been answered in this debate, and because the debate is being cut off it won't be answered. In requiring teachers to teach an extra period and in defining the instructional time the way the government has, the government hasn't made clear what happens to teachers like guidance counsellors and librarians. There is no mention of guidance counsellors and librarians in this bill. There is no indication of what happens to a full-time teacher who is doing guidance or a full-time teacher who is responsible for a library. What happens? Must they teach 1,250 minutes? Must they teach seven classes out of eight? Because if they do, that is the end of guidance as we know it in the system, and it is the end of library resource centres as we know them. There is no mention here. These are the kinds of things we should be debating, we should be understanding. The government members say, "All this does is set out what instructional time is, when we already know it." We don't know it for these teachers and we don't know what the effect is going to be for students.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure to conclude debate on this particular issue today. At the outset I want to congratulate both my colleagues from Wentworth North and Scarborough Centre, because I thought that during the course of their comments they focused directly on the issue at hand in terms of the instructional time. In that context they brought a localized perspective to the issues that are important to them in their constituencies. More importantly, they brought perspective to this debate about particular school environments in their communities. It's in that context that I'm confident they have a sound understanding of the issues, a sound understanding of the implications and the necessity of the reforms that this government is advancing with respect to education in this province.

I have to say to my friend and colleague from Algoma, who made comment about our colleague from Durham East, who I can appreciate we all know has a very animated approach to debate in this House - I can say without hesitation that the member for Durham East has participated in education caucus committees each and every week since the government was formed 1995. It's that level of dedication -

Mr Wildman: He said there's been an inordinate number of changes in education.

Mr Smith: It's an indication of that particular member's strong commitment to education and the perspective he brings that he would attend those meetings on a weekly basis.

Very clearly, the issue at hand is the need to provide a very simple definition to put into context the meaning of "instructional time." Bill 63 does that. I have to say, having participated in a number of debates and consultations over the past year and a half, some of which involved my colleagues the education critics from Algoma and Fort William, that I don't recall specifics coming forward where there was a need to define instructional time in the context in which we're having to do that today. I don't recall that. I'm sure if that happened, they will take time to correct me at a later date, but very clearly that meaning in the past has been commonly understood and it simply meant time spent in the classroom teaching children.

I was pleased today when I sat here and listened to the member for Dovercourt, who all members know was a previous Minister of Education, and who is always articulate and constructive in his comments, though I obviously do not necessarily embrace the perspective he brings to the debate. I think it's important to look back at Hansard in April 1992, where we see then Minister Silipo indicating:

"A new approach to school funding is a critical component of change in the education sector. The current system, designed in the late 1960s, is losing its ability to meet the education needs of learners and to support the kinds of education programs and services we need in the fast-changing world of the 1990s. We need a new system that is fair to local taxpayers and to students."

While I don't expect the member for Dovercourt to embrace our method of implementation, I think what underlies that particular statement by the former minister is the need and recognition by all members that education reform is necessary in this province. Certainly the issue of reform is not new to any extent and is one that has been studied considerably over the course of the past two decades. The difference is that this government is prepared to act and move ahead.

From that context, we have to move to a perspective whereby the old system wasn't meeting the needs of students and teachers. The system was simply causing drag on teachers and students in the system. It's not about bad teachers, it's not about bad students; it's about a system that has become outdated and one that needs renewal and redefinition.

I listened to the Liberal member for York South with some fascination, I must say - I don't say that from an admiration perspective by any means - to the perspective and the ability that individual brings to try to formulate a policy perspective when a policy doesn't exist for their party. He consistently grasped at some sense of what the Liberal position might be. I simply say to him, I'd rather be looking ahead to the future, as this government is, than looking over my shoulder at the past, which is where the Liberal Party of Ontario is presently with respect to education reform.

We've heard a lot about the lack of vision and a comprehensive approach to education. I want to re-emphasize, because it's important, and restate what I believe is a very obvious position with respect to this government, and that's a position this government brought forward in opposition and brought forward once it became government: a comprehensive plan to fundamentally reform the education system in this province.

There should be no surprises over the government's intent to proceed with reforms in three fundamental areas: finance, governance and curriculum. I think there's not much criticism - there will be some criticism, I suppose, but there's genuine consensus on the merit and value and the significant improvement this government has made through its curriculum reforms in this province. We're seeing, on a day-to-day basis, constructive feedback coming into the ministry, whereby teachers are congratulating the government in terms of the important changes they've made.

In fact, when you talk to front-line teachers in this province, there are always two issues they raise, notwithstanding some of the philosophical ones; that is, the need to address the size of administration in the school system in this province and to provide them with some very straightforward and clear and concise guidelines with respect to curriculum. The government has listened to teachers on both those accounts by addressing the size of governance, by addressing the size of administration and the dollars that were being drawn away from the classroom by the administration within the system of education.

We've also heard from them the need to redefine and bring clarity to the curriculum. Again, I think there's a strong, strong success story in this province, one that has been provided by the leadership of the Minister of Education and Training in this province, leadership that has brought about a new and redesigned curriculum designed for the students of the future.

Equally important in that context is to continue to listen to teachers, as this government has done. My Liberal colleague from York South once again said we have shut teachers out of the process. That's simply not the case. In my capacity as parliamentary assistant, I have seen opportunities where teachers have participated in every corner of the reform process. That's where their input is required: when there's a need for professional academic input into curriculum standards, when they can participate in professional development, when they can participate in meaningful opportunities such as province-wide testing. In exit interviews, while completing their testing experience, we're seeing teachers describe that experience as one of the most constructive professional development experiences in their teaching profession.

There are some very positive things that are happening in this province with respect to the inclusion of teachers in the process. We're asking for their professional advice where they know most, and that's in terms of the delivery of education in the classroom.

1750

I believe my colleague from Fort York said that the objective of government is not about students, not about teachers. That is why we as a government went about fundamentally redesigning the way education was financed in this province, by making a departure from the old way whereby school boards lost their sense of priorities, moving to a system where we're financing students and front-line teachers by providing a stable funding environment so they understand, through a difficult transition period, where they will be over the next three-year period.

That is the type of information this government has placed before the education community. It has not been done in secret. Certainly the process of redesigning the system is not easy. It's challenging, and that's why we've spent some $385 million on transitional funding for school boards in this province, on the understanding that the process they were proceeding through was significant and warranted the financial assistance of the provincial government.

As I said at the outset, the need to define instructional time through Bill 63 was necessary. I think there are those individuals who have broadened their understanding of the definition of instructional time. That is why the need for this bill was pursued. It's in that context that the government felt the spirit of the law that had been passed under Bill 160 was compromised and that clarity and redefinition of that instructional issue was required.

As my colleagues have indicated and I think it's important to re-emphasize, cafeteria supervision is not instructional time. Neither is hall monitoring. Instructional time is time in the classroom teaching students.

It's in that context that we've brought forward this particular motion. The motion is not for the purpose of stifling debate. There has been considerable debate over the past year and a half on educational issues, and quite frankly I continue to hear the same arguments from the opposition parties, which I expect. That argument has been heard and in some cases accepted through amendment, or rejected.

It's in that context that we have to move to the next level. Critically important, the next level is about managing the implementation. I believe that's what parents and students alike want to be satisfied about in this province. They want to know that their child is going to be picked up at their home safely; that they're going to be transported safely if they require busing services; that they're going to arrive at their destination on time; that their learning environment is clean and appropriate, well maintained and conducive to a good learning experience. That's what parents wanted to know and that's what they wanted to be satisfied about with respect to education in this province.

The key to this issue is about putting more money in the classroom and investing in those students and those front-line teachers. Much has been said and some suggestions made that this government doesn't care about teachers. Quite the contrary. It's not about not caring about teachers. We are asking teachers to do more, yes, we are asking them to do more and there is nothing wrong for that perspective. As someone who previously worked in the municipal public sector, we were consistently asked, quite frankly through the social contract - I happened to be a participant in that, through the NDP -

Mr Wildman: So it was your fault.

Mr Smith: No. It was not a decision. I was in fact a recipient of and a participant in your policy decision. That was a decision you made, perhaps a necessary decision in your day, but one that we have to take to the next step, because simply stalling things and stopping things really isn't bringing remedy to the issues at hand. That's fundamentally what is needed in the education system: Fundamental reform that is meaningful and is leading to the broadening and strengthening of the education system in this province.

Through that context, my colleagues or my caucus colleagues have worked diligently to participate locally in educational experience. I speak to them on a regular basis in terms of the experiences they are witnessing in classrooms across this province. Government members are consulting with teachers locally in the community, with school board officials. At the end of the day we may not always agree with what may have to occur, but the perspective that each and every one of them is bringing to the debate within caucus and outside certainly strengthens the policy decisions that are having to be made by this government.

As we look back to where we have been, it's important to realize and revisit some of the things of this government. There's a substantial list of things this government has done to improve the education system in this province. The most successful, as I suggested earlier and one we continue to build upon, is the experience we witnessed in the elementary panel, and now we go forward as we continue to work and develop a new and strengthened secondary school curriculum in this province, a process where teachers were involved. They brought their academic and professional experiences to documents that are important for the future. We've seen the introduction of province-wide testing and the importance of that so that we are able to provide benchmarks of where we are at in this province with respect to student achievement.

Of equal important to that issue of province-wide testing and benchmarks is how we use that information to continue to better the curriculum materials, to continue to better the professional development that teachers will experience over the course of the next few years.

We've brought about easy-to-understand report cards so that when students take report cards to their homes to discuss with their parents, they're understood and they can be transported from board to board or area to area. So whether you're studying in Sudbury, London or Toronto, there's a common understanding of what a percentage grade or a letter grade means in this province, something that most parents had no understanding of but clearly had asked to support.

We've heard a lot about average class sizes. This government is the first to address the class size issue. The opposition parties may not like what we're doing with respect to class size but it wasn't the NDP and it wasn't the Liberals that put into statute the need to address class sizes. As well, in making that broader policy decision we provided the financial tools that are necessary to implement that average class size decision in the form of some $1.2 billion which, as the minister indicated this afternoon during question period, alone equates to some 3,000 teaching positions in this province.

We've brought more resources to the classroom, more software. Certainly we've doubled the opportunities for tutors in the classroom. We've protected funding for special education and created an envelope of over $1 billion for special education students in this province. We continue to work on a new high school system, one that's relevant and prepares secondary school students both for the workplace and for their post-secondary education. We started education planning in grade 7 so that the process is built upon as they move from the elementary system into the secondary system. It's in that context that we will continue to see our facilities renewed and the need for this type of motion to proceed so that we can get to the next stage of effective management of the education system.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: If you notice the clock, we have gone past the adjournment time. It's 6:02.

The Acting Speaker: We end the debate at 6 o'clock, it's my understanding. Please continue.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: To the members for Algoma and Dovercourt, I was watching my clock to the side here, which said 6 o'clock, and my watch, which said 6 o'clock. My ruling is that the debate ended at 6 o'clock, so we'll now put the question.

I see that clock.

Mr Bradley: The one we go by.

The Acting Speaker: No.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: If that clock is not the official clock, which is the official clock?

The Acting Speaker: The official clock is the clock which I go by, which is the clock on my desk. I believe that this -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I think that it's a fair point that sometimes this clock is not accurate. We have noticed that before, but I can guarantee and assure the member that according to the official clock, which is on my desk here, it was 6 o'clock. That is an issue that we need to perhaps take up, but by this clock, it was exactly 6 o'clock.

Now I will put the question. Mr Sterling has moved government motion number 29. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1802 to 1807.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Ross, Lillian

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Sterling, Norman W.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.

Nays

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Duncan, Dwight

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

McLeod, Lyn

Pouliot, Gilles

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57; the nays are 17.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

The House adjourned at 1809.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

5 octobre 1998