Journal des débats 1998-oct-06 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Today the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board announced the closure, potentially, of 15 Hamilton-area schools as a result of this government's funding formula. These decisions are not going to be made based on enrolment, as school boards traditionally have done in the past. These decisions are based on the bizarre formula of square footage that this government has imposed.

What you're now seeing is a situation where many inner-city schools, particularly downtown in my riding of Hamilton East, are going to be closed as a result of Mike Harris's and Dave Johnson's bizarre policies in regard to education that are hurting kids right across this province.

It's going to force the school board to close schools in the inner cities, in the heart of the communities, schools that are the soul of our communities, schools that have been there for 50, 60 and 70 years and have served those communities well, schools that still have many kids in there with wonderful programs. As a result of your cuts, as a result of your formula, these schools are now going to close.

I say very clearly to the Premier and to the Minister of Education: Every single school closure in the city of Hamilton as a result of your formula and your funding policy is going to be on your head and you will pay a price for it. It is irresponsible. It is disgraceful that you're forcing school boards to close schools in the inner cities, in the hearts of our communities in order to continue your absolutely bizarre and ridiculous education policy. You will pay a hell of a political price come election time.

BREAST CANCER

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's important for all of us to be aware that October is Breast Cancer Month. During this month there are many events that are planned across the province to look at the issue of breast cancer, at how we inform women about risk factors, at how we inform them about the breast screening program that's in place, at how we encourage them to face up to their own fear about the possibility of cancer and learn to act in a preventive way for themselves.

Breast cancer affects one out of nine women and that is an extremely important issue for us to keep in mind. Eighty per cent of women who are diagnosed with breast cancer are in fact able to be treated successfully and survive longer than the five-year survival period that tends to be the most common measure.

Very few of us have a situation where we have not had some connection with some loved one, some neighbour, some friend or ourselves who have been affected by breast cancer. It will be important for all of us in our ridings to ensure that we are seen to be supporting the efforts toward better research into breast cancer, better screening for breast cancer and better treatment for breast cancer.

It is a scourge for the women of this province and it is something we must all work together to try and prevent.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I rise in the House today to report that the first Ontario Agriculture Week is officially underway.

In my riding of Perth county, events kicked off on Sunday with a "breakfast in the country" at the home of Bob and Marilyn French. This was followed by harvest day tours which were arranged by Barb Quarry and the Stratford tourism department to offer people the opportunity to see what real farm operations are like.

Here at Queen's Park the Honourable Noble Villeneuve and members of the Legislature were joined by representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture, the Archives of Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Royal Bank to assist me in unveiling Ontario Agriculture Week displays.

I would like to thank Ian Wilson and the staff of the Archives of Ontario for their hard work in putting together the display in the rotunda and for providing the historical evidence of the central role of agriculture in the development of this province.

On a historical note, John Deere invented the first chiselled plow in 1837. It's appropriate, therefore, that we find a display of John Deere farm machinery, provided by Nobleton Farm Services, outside Queen's Park. This highly successful exhibition is offering the people of Toronto and visitors to the Legislature a unique opportunity to view the tools used by today's farmers.

It's important to acknowledge the ongoing contribution of Ontario farmers to the quality of life of all our citizens. I invite everyone to partake and to participate in the celebration of agriculture in Ontario.

HURRICANE GEORGES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Hurricane Georges has brought about one of the worst kinds of devastation in the areas it has visited. Millions of people were forced to flee their homes and take refuge in shelters. This hurricane had a phenomenal economic impact in the areas hit. The residents were forced to run for their lives leaving behind their lifetime savings and investment in property. The savage and brutal Georges has left massive destruction caused by the winds and heavy rains in many areas.

Dr Denzil Douglas, Prime Minister of St Kitts, told me that the islands were severely hit. Over 80% of homes were damaged and 20% of the homes experienced total destruction. The walls of schools and shops crumbled and roofs were blown off the main hospital. Many islands have no electricity at all.

The hurricane killed over 375 people as the storm ripped through the Caribbean. It was reported that over 210 people in the Dominican Republic and 147 people in Haiti died. Also Cuba, Puerto Rico, Antigua and St Kitts and Nevis and southern states have been badly affected, reporting loss of lives. The fatality rate may go up as hundreds of people are still unaccounted for.

The overall damage has been estimated in billions as Hurricane Georges continues to cause chaos and havoc. I appeal to this government and to the citizens of our great province to provide all possible assistance to the victims of this disaster by contacting the Red Cross Society which is coordinating help to the region.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise today to add my voice to those today who have raised the concern about school closings in the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

The front page of the Hamilton Spectator today says: "Schools Slated to Close" and "Up to 15 public schools will be declared surplus." Also this morning, Ray Mulholland, chair of the Hamilton-Wentworth school board, was on 900 CHML, the Roy Green show, talking about the impact on our broader community.

I want to speak about the specific difficulties and, quite frankly, personal disasters this will create in the inner city of Hamilton, the area I represent. The government should know that this is a part of the city that already has an awful lot of people who are facing many personal challenges. Many disabled individuals live there; people who are low-income; a lot of seniors live in this area.

The fact of the matter is that the closure of these inner-city schools affects the quality of life of the children in particular, but of the people who live in those immediate areas. This government's taking of $5 billion to $6 billion out of revenue is $5 billion or $6 billion that should have gone back in to be invested in our school system and our hospitals. Instead you're using that money to buy off your wealthy friends. It's disgusting.

JIM BISHOP

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Morley Kells, the MPP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and myself recently lost a friend and a constituent. It was an untimely death of a remarkable individual, Jim Bishop. Jim Bishop, also known as Mr Lacrosse, died on September 7 as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident north of Bowmanville.

Jim was the founder of the Oshawa Green Gaels, a Junior A lacrosse team. An instructional coach, he led his team to an unprecedented seven straight Minto Cup championships in the 1960s. He was elected as a member of the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame, owner of Lacrosse International, coach of two professional Canadian lacrosse teams and involved with the Whitby Warriors in 1997 for their championship.

Jim was also involved in professional hockey and served as vice-president of the Detroit Red Wings.

Jim Bishop leaves with us a legacy, not just in Durham but across Ontario and indeed Canada. Stan Cockerton, executive director of the Ontario Lacrosse Association, said, "I don't think there's been any person in the past 100 years who's had the kind of impact Jim's had on lacrosse."

Impressive as Jim Bishop's resumé may be as a coach, manager and executive member of many successful teams, Jim had a personal touch and has had many close friendships with his team players as well.

Jim Bishop, coach, teacher and mentor, will be missed. I would especially like to send my condolences to Jim's family: Jim, Colleen, Ann, Craig, Joe and Gael, as well as the grandchildren, Jacob and Jordan. The memory and the spirit of Jim Bishop will live on through all he has touched and all those he has touched in this province.

1340

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Speaker, as you're aware, the Harris health services destruction commission has closed one of our hospitals in Kingston. The Hotel Dieu has been serving Kingston and area residents for 153 years. Make no mistake, it's Mike Harris who told the sisters that their services were no longer required. Where are the patients served by the sisters to go?

To top it off, our community care access centre has now cut 2,000 patients from homemaking services because of lack of adequate funding. How are the elderly, the handicapped and the early discharged patients from hospitals to receive the home care assistance they need?

Last Thursday in this House we saw the Minister of Health and the entire Tory caucus vote against our private member's resolution that would ensure adequate funding for hospitals and ensure that adequate community resources are in place for those who need care in communities.

How does this government justify underfunding our community access centre and closing our hospitals at the same time? Some $52 million in health care has been taken out of our area and only $36 million reinvested, and no new dollars for home care services.

The residents of Kingston and area know the value of the services provided by the sisters. Over 60,000 people in Kingston have signed petitions to tell the Premier and his destruction commission to leave our hospitals alone. Here are over 60,000 signatures for the Minister of Health. Stop taking money away from health care in Kingston and Ontario.

BREAST CANCER

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): October is Breast Cancer Month. More and more women are now being diagnosed with breast cancer every year; in fact, it's now up to one out of nine. I expect every member in this House has had a friend, a sister, a mother, a wife, a cousin diagnosed with this terrible disease.

In my riding of Riverdale a self-help centre for women, called Willow, is an amazing organization which reaches out and helps women and their families across the province deal with this once the woman has been diagnosed. Volunteers, women who are survivors of breast cancer, come in to help out and talk to newly diagnosed women on the phone.

Today I want to urge the federal Minister of Health, Allan Rock, to reconsider his answer of no to Willow for funding. The federal Liberal government set aside millions of dollars for cancer research and cancer care and denied Willow, which is a wonderful centre - and I think everybody here knows about it.

I know, Mr Speaker, that you were part of a table sponsored at the Willow fundraising dinner. It's a wonderful centre that is becoming world-renowned, and the federal Liberal government said no to funding. I'm sure every member will join with me today in urging the federal government to reconsider.

PUMPKINFEST

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): It gives me great pleasure today to share with my colleagues an outstanding event which I attended in the riding of Bruce over the past weekend.

The 12th annual Pumpkinfest was held in the town of Port Elgin. This is a world championship event which involves a weigh-off competition for the heaviest pumpkin.

This year the prize-winning pumpkin weighed in at 1,092 pounds, a world record. It was grown by Gary Burke, of Simcoe, Ontario, who has taken home over $10,000 in prize money. Weighing in at a close second was a 1,010-pounder grown by Bob and Elaine MacKenzie, of Tiverton, Ontario.

Pumpkinfest is a community-wide event featuring activities for the whole family. These include an enormous antique car show, artists' village and craft show, farm machinery show, dances and concerts. Some of the more unique events are seed-spitting contests, underwater pumpkin carving and a giant vegetable weigh-off competition.

Port Elgin, a town of 7,000 people on the shores of Lake Huron, attracted over 50,000 people to Pumpkinfest.

Special recognition should be given to Cathy Mills, Pumpkinfest chairperson, and Jan Bonhomme, Pumpkinfest coordinator, as well as the hundreds of volunteers, for the outstanding contribution they have made to make this event possible. Many businesses and organizations also provided donations of time, equipment and money.

I congratulate the people of Port Elgin on an extremely successful 12th annual Pumpkinfest. It was a pleasure to attend and take part in a community festival which has grown to become one of the most popular in southwestern Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGAL AID SERVICES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE

Mr Harnick moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 68, An Act to incorporate Legal Aid Ontario and to create the framework for the provision of legal aid services in Ontario, to amend the Legal Aid Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 68, Loi constituant en personne morale Aide juridique Ontario, établissant le cadre de la prestation des services d'aide juridique en Ontario, modifiant la Loi sur l'aide juridique et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d'autres lois.

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

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The Legal Aid Services Act proposes a new organization, Legal Aid Ontario, to deliver legal aid services.

This organization will develop new and innovative ways to better provide legal aid services, will operate independently from government and will be clearly accountable for the use of public funds.

The act is our next step in building on Professor John McCamus's review of the province's legal aid system which set out the blueprint for the creation of a new model that would more effectively respond to the needs of Ontarians.

I'd like to thank Professor McCamus, who is in the gallery today, and his committee for their hard work, and I would also like to thank Nancy Austin of the Ministry of the Attorney General for her hard work and dedication in implementing this project.

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER AND LOBBYISTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 CONCERNANT LE COMMISSAIRE À L'INTÉGRITÉ ET LES LOBBYISTES

Mr Hodgson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 69, An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 and to enact the Lobbyist Registration Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur l'intégrité des députés et édictant la Loi de 1998 sur l'enregistrement des lobbyistes.

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

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): This government made a commitment to introduce legislation that would make lobbying activities more transparent and accountable to the public. We are moving forward on that promise today. We are introducing legislation that will require lobbyists to register their identity, the names of their clients and to declare their lobbying activities on a government registry. This registry will be accessible to the public. A Web site will be created to allow on-line registration by lobbyists and viewing by the public.

Not only are we the first Ontario government to take this initiative, we are the first provincial government in Canada to do so.

This legislation supports our commitment to ensure government activities are conducted openly, fairly and transparently while protecting the government from undue influence. Lobbying is part of the government process. This legislation assures the public interest -

The Speaker: I think you're into debate now. I think we've got a pretty good idea of what the bill is going to do.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask for unanimous consent to allow for a response to the minister's statement on this bill.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to have a response to the introduction of the bill? Agreed? No.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 95(g), requirement for notice be waived with respect to private member's ballot item number 27.

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

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I rise today to speak about an opportunity to create jobs, about an opportunity to help young people to get a job, an opportunity to allow our businesses to create more jobs and an opportunity to help our economy keep the jobs that we already enjoy.

Today I want to address a situation that I believe is detrimental to these opportunities for Ontario workers and for our small business owners in particular. For too long the federal Liberal government has been using employment insurance to siphon money away from Ontario workers and businesses and use it for purposes other than for which it was intended.

My colleagues and I have serious concerns about reports that the federal government is now considering legislation to expand and legalize this practice. Reportedly Prime Minister Chrétien, Finance Minister Paul Martin and the rest of the federal Liberal cabinet are considering ways to legalize the use of the employment insurance surplus, a surplus built solely from contributions made by hard-working women and men, and to use those funds for their own political purposes.

We've all heard about their grand plans. While we applaud Mr Chrétien and Mr Martin for finally agreeing with our government's fundamental belief that tax cuts are imperative to the continuing growth of our economy, we strongly object to any suggestion that the federal government use money which is not rightly theirs for any purpose other than providing benefits for workers, for the unemployed, for increasing those benefits or for increasing opportunities for work or training, or returning the money through employment insurance payroll tax cuts to the workers who made in the contributions in the first place. This is not only fair to the workers but it makes good economic sense. It will create new jobs and it will help keep the jobs that Ontarians already have. The surplus of employment insurance funds rightly belongs to the workers of this country who paid into it, far in excess of what was needed.

Ontarians annually contribute $4.5 billion more to the employment insurance account than is actually spent on employment insurance. In 1997, Ontarians paid a total of about $8 billion in premium taxes but got back less than $3.5 billion in benefits. In fact since 1994, Ontario workers and businesses have paid for about two thirds of the accumulated $19-billion surplus.

All premiers and territorial leaders agreed at their meeting this summer that EI premiums should be reduced for all workers and eliminated entirely for young Canadians. Liberal premiers, NDP premiers and Conservative premiers all agreed. This move could create as many as 200,000 new jobs across the country. A great many of these jobs would be created here in Ontario, the industrial heartland of this nation.

Ontario has consistently pushed for a reduction in premiums to $2.20 per $100 of insurable earnings from the current $2.70, back, I might add, to the level they were at before the federal Liberals massively hiked these premium taxes on our workers.

The most respected actuaries have told us that this would be quite enough to keep the fund solvent through the ups and downs of the employment cycle. In fact, according to recent reports, the employment insurance chief actuary's report dated September 10 indicates the employment insurance account will have a surplus of $7.1 billion for 1998 alone. This means that premium rates could have been set at $1.81 in 1998, one third lower than the actual level of $2.70, and the account would still run on a break-even basis this year. Even the employment insurance chief actuary has been quoted recently as saying that a steady premium rate between $1.90 and $2.10 would be sustainable even in the event of an economic downturn.

The provinces have moreover asked that the EI account be removed from Ottawa's budgetary books and externally managed in the same manner as the Canada pension plan. Today I understand all four opposition parties at the federal level endorse a similar plan. Think about that: the Reform Party united with the NDP and the other two parties nationally, calling on the government to do exactly this. Hopefully, we might be able to have the same three-party unanimity here.

The provinces have moreover asked - sorry, I said that. I was pretty excited about all four parties agreeing.

Clearly, such action would improve the fiscal integrity of the program. On September 25 my colleague the Minister of Finance, Ernie Eves, wrote Paul Martin to convey the province's most serious concern about the federal plan to take over the EI account. His request was simple: He urged Mr Martin to have any plan to change the administrative responsibility for the EI account on the agenda of the upcoming federal-provincial finance ministers' meeting on October 22 in Winnipeg. This must be done. On behalf of Ontario workers, I've also written to the Prime Minister today to make the same request.

Our provincial income tax cut was the single-largest job-creating stimulus by any government in the history of this country. Tax cuts create jobs. The Ontario economy has created over 300,000 jobs since 1995. On behalf of those still unemployed in Ontario and those worried about keeping their jobs, I urge the federal government to reduce employment insurance premiums, and eliminate them entirely for young Canadians.

Today I am asking all members of this House who want to see more jobs made available to Ontario workers to speak up. I'm asking them to tell the Liberal government and all 101 federal Liberal MPs in Ontario that they must resist this urge to take what is not theirs from the workers of this province. We must urge them in the strongest possible terms to follow the advice of the chief actuary and lower premiums. We must band together and demand that Ottawa make the employment insurance fund more accountable to the workers and the employers who pay into it. Let us demand premiums be realistically linked to the cost of providing benefits and training programs to Canadian workers, as they would be in a genuine insurance scheme.

On behalf of those who work in this province, all those who pay into the employment insurance program, together I believe we must ask this to be done.

1400

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Responses?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to respond to the Premier's -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Reset the clock. Member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to respond to the Premier's comments on employment. I think the people of Ontario appreciate the challenge we face on the employment front. I just received, September 21, from the Ministry of Finance the latest employment numbers. It says, Premier, as you know, that Ontario's employment declined in August; Ontario lost 19,900 full-time jobs in the month of August; Ontario since April has lost 22,000 jobs; the rest of Canada has gained 42,000 jobs.

While I would like to be more optimistic on the employment front, for the last four to five months Ontario's employment has been extremely weak. In fact, I remember well the Common Sense Revolution where Mike Harris said, and this was categorical, this was not -

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Does it have anything to do with EI premiums?

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: This plan - well, they want to talk about jobs but they don't want to hear the numbers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Hold on. Government members -

Hon Mr Eves: You agree the workers should be ripped off, do you?

The Speaker: Would the Minister of Finance come to order. Minister of Finance and members of the government, I think they were reasonably quiet while the Premier gave his speech. I'm asking the same from the government members as well.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I say to the member for York-Mackenzie, I don't tell you how to answer the questions; I'm not going to tell him how to ask them etc. So they can respond to whatever they choose to respond to.

Mr Phillips: We're talking about employment and it was you, Premier, who said in your own Common Sense Revolution, "This plan will create more than 725,000 new jobs over the next five years," and it's you who put out this document - this is from your own Minister of Finance - that says we have lost almost 20,000 jobs in the month of August. So I say we do have an employment problem in Ontario.

Your comments were about youth. It was you, Premier - and this is your own document. Your tax cut gave a tax break worth $500 million to people in this province who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year. The people in Ontario who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year got $500 million of tax break. I say to the young people who are watching you about jobs, why was that possible, how is it possible? You know you have been facing over the last three years a 60% increase in your tuition fees, so we're here today to talk about young people and jobs.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: What have you done? You have taken their tuition fees up 60%; in the month of August we have lost 19,900 jobs. You may not want to hear this, and I think the public will understand that the Conservatives are barracking, but what has happened -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: The thrust of the Premier's comments were around young people and employment for young people. I want to set the stage to say that, Premier, you now are I think 128,000 jobs short of your target. You have taken tuition fees up 60% for young people. You have given a tax break to people who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, which represents a $500-million tax break

Yes, put it on the agenda. Discuss this federally. Absolutely do that. That's great. But I would say we have a lot to do in these four walls. We have a lot to do to point out to the people of Ontario what is happening in employment and how you have been treating young people, the things you have 100% control over. You have taken tuition fees up 60%. You have given the people in Ontario making more than a quarter of a million dollars a tax break that is worth $500 million. You promised in the Common Sense Revolution, with your picture on the front - you never said, "We think that this plan will create a climate where 725,000 jobs are created." You said, "This plan will create 725,000 jobs."

I say to the people of Ontario that we now are seeing an enormous softness in job creation in the province, and so I understand the Premier now wanting to deflect the criticism.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Industry doesn't want to hear this either, but he's going to have to hear it, because the people of Ontario are seeing it. The Premier now wants to deflect the problem somewhere else. But, Premier, it is you who will be held accountable for employment in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'll warn the Minister of Finance to come to order as well. I'm not warning you again; if I do, I'll name you.

Member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: I repeat, in the Premier's statement we have absolutely no difficulty. Get it on the agenda and discuss it federally. But let's get on the agenda here in Ontario the other issues, your tuition fees that are costing our young people opportunity and a future, your tax break which is giving a $500-million tax break to those who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars, and the employment numbers that now show that in the last five months the rest of Canada has gained 42,000 jobs and Ontario has lost 22,000 jobs. Let's also have that debate here in this Legislature.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I'm pleased to be able to say a few words about this very important issue today. You'll know, Speaker, that we wanted to get unanimous consent so we could talk about this important issue last week. Certain members of the Legislature turned us down on that unanimous consent, to I'm pleased to be able to speak about it today.

This is an incredibly important issue for people in Ontario and for people across Canada. The reality is that there are some 800,000 people now in Canada who are unemployed, who are out of work, yet are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. They are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits because the current Liberal government in Ottawa changed the unemployment insurance legislation to take those benefits away from them. People who are vulnerable, people who are poor, people who have lost their jobs have had money taken out of their pockets through the employment insurance fund, and then the current Liberal government has said to them: "You're not eligible for income supplements to tide you over. You're not eligible for job relocation. You're not eligible for some of the training funds that are part of this."

This is a terrible situation, that so many people in this province and so many people in this country are unemployed and not only has the federal government abandoned them but they're going to take their money and use it to finance an income tax scheme that I am sure at the end of the day will benefit those at the top of the income ladder far more than anyone else. It is a terrible injustice.

I want to be very clear on what I believe needs to happen here. First of all, those people who have been unjustly deprived of unemployment insurance benefits must have those benefits restored. It is only just and it is only fair. Second of all, as I read a lot of the current economic commentary, the World Bank released a report just two days ago which says that the key to this economy, the key to people being able to take part in this economy, is education and training. They implore all countries in the world, all jurisdictions in the world, to invest more in education and training. Those UI funds must be used to re-equip workers so they can re-enter the workforce, not fund an income tax scheme that at the end of the day only puts more money in the pockets of people who already have a lot of money.

1410

I couldn't help but notice the spokesperson for the Liberal Party condemning the Harris income tax scheme. I want to be clear that I do not approve in any way of the Harris income tax scheme, because at the end of the day people in Ontario are losing health care, losing education opportunities and their property taxes are being forced up in order that the wealthiest people in this province can receive the benefits of an income tax scheme.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Just like they did under your government. Don't start with that. Remember the winter of 93, Howie? See what you did to our hospitals in 93.

Mr Hampton: Sorry, Speaker. Some of the Liberals appear to be upset here.

Mrs Pupatello: You're no better than they are.

The Speaker: Windsor-Sandwich, come to order. I'm not going to warn you.

Mr Hampton: The problem the Liberal Party has is that they want to condemn the Harris income tax scheme, but they admit when you push them that they would institutionalize and they would cement that income tax scheme, that they would continue to take money out of health care and education to finance that income tax scheme. Now we have the federal Liberal government saying that they want to do the same thing, only they want to take money out of the pockets of the unemployed to finance an income tax scheme.

What is evident here is that neither the Harris government in Ontario nor the federal Liberal government in Ottawa has an employment strategy. Neither government has a strategy to take unemployed workers and give them the training they need to put them back to work.

On a point of order, Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario formally opposes any move by the federal Liberal government to spend the employment insurance surplus, the vast majority of which comes from Ontario workers and employers, on federal income tax cuts.

I seek unanimous consent for that motion so we can send that motion to Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Speaker: Let me be clear so that the House understands: The leader of the third party is asking for unanimous consent to move that motion. Agreed? No.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Dominic Agostino said no.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): He's not in his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard a no. That's all that matters.

Mr Christopherson: Speaker, a point of order.

The Speaker: First I just want to tell the members that I heard a no. I don't necessarily even know where it came from, but I know for certain that it didn't come from the gallery.

Member for Hamilton Centre, now your point of order.

Mr Christopherson: Speaker, the no came from the member for Hamilton East, but he's not in his seat. I'd like to know whether you formally recognize that.

The Speaker: The fact is that it just doesn't matter. I heard a no.

It's now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I want to give you an opportunity today to explain your position to this House on gun control. We both know that the majority of Ontarians support gun control, and so do I. We favour the registration of all guns. If you live in Ontario and you own a gun, I want that gun registered and I want the police to know about it. The police think this is a good idea and so do the victim support groups, including CAVEAT, chaired by Priscilla de Villiers. What I want to know from you today is your position on the registration of guns by all Ontarians who happen to own one in this province, a move supported by the police.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Solicitor General has spoken out on behalf of our party and our caucus and I refer it to him.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Come on, Premier, answer the question.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Oakwood.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): This government does support gun control, real and meaningful and effective gun control. The federal government's legislation as it relates to registration of long guns in our view is in no way, shape or form an effective way of gun control. We've indicated and the Court of Appeal in Alberta has indicated clearly with a division that there are strong concerns with respect to the intervention of the federal government in provincial jurisdictions. That's one element of this.

The other concern from our perspective is the fact that we're dealing with a situation related to scarce resources in the public safety sector across this country. We believe you should be setting priorities and funding programs that are going to have the most impact on fighting crime in our country and getting guns off our streets and out of our neighbourhoods. If you use the example of the program this government has instituted, where we're spending $150 million over five years to put 1,000 new police officers on the streets of Ontario, that's what we're doing with taxpayers' dollars.

Mr McGuinty: I can understand why the Premier ducked the question and I can understand why the minister is trying to complicate a very straightforward issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Leader of the official opposition.

1420

Mr McGuinty: The issue here is very straightforward. Either you believe that if you own a gun in the province of Ontario it ought to be registered and the police put on notice of that fact, or you don't. The police happen to believe it's a good idea. They feel it's going to make our province safer. They feel it's important for them to know when they approach a certain house that there's a gun located inside that house. I think it's a good idea for guns in Ontario to be registered so our police are made aware of that fact. All I want to know from you is, do you think it's a good idea?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've indicated earlier that the idea of registration in and of itself may not necessarily be bad. There are two elements to this. This is a decision and a responsibility that should be left in the hands of provincial governments and territorial governments, not the federal government. It's an additional intrusion.

The other element is priorities and where you spend your money in a most effective way in terms of fighting crime across this country and getting weapons off our streets. We have a very serious problem with weapons being smuggled into this country. We have problems in terms of handguns, which are already required to be registered under the Criminal Code. This is not going to in any way have an impact on getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Criminals simply will not register their weapons; that's a proven fact.

The other reality in this is that the federal government has up to this point in time spent $134 million on this program and they have not registered one single gun.

Mr McGuinty: Let me tell you how out of sync you are with Ontarians on this issue. Not only do you not appreciate how important it is to them to have every, single gun in this province registered, but where do you come out with this crazy idea of deciding that it's in the interests of our children to give them the right to bear arms? It's one thing to give them computers, it's another thing to give them school books, and in many, many cases it would be very important that we put food into their hands, but where do you come up with this hare-brained scheme to put guns in the hands of 12-year-olds? Ontarians want to know that.

I've been to the 905 area of this province and they're very concerned about this plan on your part -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Can I have some order, please. I appreciate the fact that you all want to answer, but the Solicitor General will answer the question.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, quite simply tell me: Why is it in the interests of children in Ontario that they be given the right to carry a gun and to shoot it?

Hon Mr Runciman: A couple of things: You talk about being out of sync. This is a leader who would not even get up and stand today with respect to the employment insurance fund.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Runciman: The member raised C-68 and then talks about 12-year-olds. The reality is that this is a component of C-68, allowing 12-year-olds to discharge weapons. The Ontario government has responded in a very appropriate way by ensuring that they take the appropriate hunter safety courses. They have to pass those. They have to have an adult with them who has to be at arm's length and they share a long gun. Ontario is clearly doing what is appropriate to deal with the federal legislation, Bill C-68.

In respect to the other matter, the $134 million that has been spent so far, if we had that money in Ontario - as I indicated earlier, we're spending $150 million to put 1,000 new police officers on the streets of this province - we could double that. Ask the leader of the Liberal Party if Ontario residents would rather have another 2,000 police officers out on their streets versus registration which will have no impact whatsoever on crime in this country.

CHILD PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I want to talk to you today about seven-year-old Randal Dooley. Young Randal's body was found a little over a week ago, shortly after he died. An autopsy showed he died of head wounds and there were signs of extensive earlier injuries. It was obvious that he had been badly beaten and abused.

For quite some time now you've been promising tough legislation to help prevent this sort of thing from happening again. I've been asking you for that legislation for over a year now. Everyone in this House, I am convinced, would support that kind of legislation. When are we going to see that legislation, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I would like to remind the leader that we all share a great deal of sympathy and concern when incidents like this happen. Clearly what happened, while I can't talk to the individual case, I don't think is anything that would be within the legislation; it would be contra to the legislation. So passing new legislation that could be broken would not, in my view, have prevented this situation to which the member refers.

As far as taking steps to reinforce the children's aid societies, we have taken a lot of measures already. In addition, as you know, we are planning on new legislation to give them even more support in general terms, but we've had more funding for children's aid societies, we've had a standardized approach to risk assessment, we've provided more training for child care workers -

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

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I'm not sure if I understood you correctly. Do you understand that we have it within our means to provide at least some kind of help to children who are growing up at risk in Ontario? We can do that in this Legislature. Your minister has been talking about that kind of legislation for a long time now.

I put forward a plan. It's called First Steps. There are 41 substantive recommendations in here. It's based on coroner's inquests. It's based on the child mortality task force. Imagine. We had a task force in Ontario to look into why our kids were being killed. The ideas are here. We have the recommendations. The juries are in.

My question again is, when are we going to see the legislation?

Hon Mr Harris: If you're talking now about legislation in response to the inquests, that legislation has been committed to by the minister. We have been consulting, as you are probably very much aware. In fact, even though there are incidents which we all regret and wish would not have happened, this legislation, when it comes in I believe this fall, will be the first legislation brought in in 10 years. You did nothing for five years; the New Democratic Party did not bring in any strengthening in five years.

This government has made a commitment to bring in new legislation and has made a commitment to consult on it. The minister has been doing that, and as soon as that is completed and the legislation ready, we would expect it in this House this fall.

1430

Mr McGuinty: I have raised these kinds of issues and these kinds of horrific stories time and time again. Here are some of the names: Kasandra Shepherd, Shanay Johnson, Johnny James, Tiffani Colville, Paolo Trotta, Sarah Podniewicz, and now Randal Dooley, all dead children, all died in Ontario, all were the subject of abuse and/or neglect.

I'm going to put an offer on the table here. I will do whatever it takes to help facilitate the passage of legislation to protect our children in this province. I'm asking you to make sure we can pass it completely - first, second and third reading - prior to the end of this fall session. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the offer. If that stands with all members of the Legislature when the legislation is introduced this fall, there's no reason why it could not pass first, second and third reading. I appreciate your blind confidence in us, without having seen the legislation that you'll be 100% supportive, something that actually is the first good judgment I've ever heard come from you in your term as leader of the party. You should have confidence that this party that has massively -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Essex South, come to order.

Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: You have a right to have confidence in this party above any other party over the last 15 years in Ontario. This is the party that has given an additional $170 million in the last budget, thanks to the Minister of Finance, towards increasing the number of child protection staff, providing better training for front-line workers, revitalizing foster care. This is the party that committed to bring in new legislation and has been consulting on that. In addition to your offer today of first, second and third reading before Christmas, which I accept very much, I also want to ask you to consider and uphold your commitment in First Steps, the introductory letter -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to introduce the member-elect for the riding of Nickel Belt, Mr Blain Morin, who's here in the gallery today.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. After the first year of your government's cuts to hospitals, Ontario hospitals were left with deficits -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Sudbury, come to order.

Mr Hampton: After the first year of your government's cuts to hospitals, hospitals in this province were left with deficits of $150 million. As you've continued to cut hospital budgets, hospitals have been forced to borrow from the banks in order to provide a level of service for their communities. This means that health care dollars that are supposed to be used to hire nurses and keep emergency rooms open are being used to pay financing charges and interest charges to banks, are being used to finance your income tax scheme.

The exact number for this year's hospital debt will depend upon the funding you provide those hospitals. What's your answer? Are you going to provide hospitals with enough money so they don't have to go deeper into debt to finance your income tax scheme?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): First of all, we need to make it absolutely clear that there have been no reductions whatsoever to the hospital base funding allocations this year. In fact, we have not shifted any money to pay for any tax cuts from health. When you left office in 1995, the health budget stood at $17.4 billion. Today we are spending on health services for the people in this province at least $18.6 billion, and we are doing so in a way that we are strengthening the services that are available. We are providing a continuum of care. We are restructuring our system in order that we can respond to the changing needs of our population and provide the services as close to the homes of people as possible at every stage of their life.

Mr Hampton: The minister says she's not cutting hospital budgets this year. What she meant to say was that she didn't announce that she's cutting their budgets. In fact, you're cutting their budgets through the back door. You're forcing them to pay internally for increases in nurses' wages, increases that are long overdue. You're forcing them to absorb OHIP technical fees.

What it amounts to is this: You've cut hospital budgets by over $1 billion. To compensate, they're having to do a number of things: They're having to go to the bank and borrow money, which is wrong; they're having to push patients out the door quicker and sicker, which is wrong; they're having to cut services, which is wrong; and they're having to impose all kinds of user fees, which is wrong - all imposed by your government. For example, in Sault Ste Marie the two hospitals have been cut a total of $6.4 million over the first two years of your government. This year they'll have a deficit of $2.5 million because of other cuts they're absorbing.

Minister, are you going to continue to put our hospitals between a rock and a hard place while you finance your income tax scheme?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I can tell the leader of the third party what we're not prepared to do, and I read from the Ottawa Citizen of March 19, 1994 - I believe that's during the time you were in office - "As financially squeezed hospitals search for ways to slash costs, patients are being moved through faster. Seniors who undergo total hip replacements who once spent 10 days in hospital now go home in three. Heart patients are being discharged after five days instead of nine." This is in financially squeezed hospitals.

Then it goes on to say in the Toronto Star in 1991: "Toronto East General Hospital cut 70 beds" today, "including 19...children's...and 17 maternity...to help wipe out a projected $4.3-million deficit. As well" - look at this - "83 nurses will lose their jobs by fall."

I can assure the people in this province that what we are doing is ensuring that we have a health system of which we can all be proud -

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I want to remind you of a situation in Sault Ste Marie where a patient lost his right thumb. He wrote a letter to you about that. In his letter he points out that this man and his doctor believe that if it hadn't been for an eight-hour wait for the operating room, he would not have lost his right thumb.

What do you have to say about what is happening with these kinds of situations in Sault Ste Marie and in other hospitals across the province, where you continue to cut hospital budgets in order to finance your income tax scheme, where you continue to take money away from patients, away from nurses in order to finance your income tax scheme? You've taken $1 billion out of hospital budgets already. What do you say to this man in Sault Ste Marie? What do you say to those hospitals? Are you going to force them further into debt this year in order to finance your income tax scheme?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'm pleased to say that as a result of the income tax reduction, actually revenues are up in this province and we can provide more services to people. That's what has enabled us to continue to increase the spending on health care each year.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My second question is for the Minister of Education. I want to send over to the Minister of Education this map and a list of schools that he wants to close across the province.

The minister pretends that he's not doing this. He pretends that the boards of education have free choice. He conveniently confuses the fact, though, that boards of education will not get money to fund new accommodation unless they close schools that have any surplus space. It's your funding formula that is forcing these boards to close schools.

Minister, what you don't seem to realize is that you're cutting the heart out of a number of these communities. You are literally cutting the heart out of them because when the community school goes, the community starts to deteriorate as well.

This is the map that you've got, Minister, and it shows the number of locations across southern Ontario where schools are going to be forced to close because of your funding formula.

1440

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I guess the member opposite could show a map of the 106 schools that were closed by school boards when the NDP was in power between 1990 and 1995. These are decisions made by school boards. They were made by school boards when the Liberals were in power, made by school boards when the NDP was in power, made by school boards when we are in power. There are shifts in population, shifts in enrolment; schools are opened, schools are closed. In the month of September, 20 schools were opened in Ontario, and there'll be another five schools opened over the next month or two.

The funding formula that we have brought forward - some $800 million in school construction within the next year, $1.5 billion of school construction over the next three years - will result in almost 200 new schools in Ontario where they're needed, supporting some 120,000 students where those students need the support.

Mr Hampton: The minister conveniently tries to leave out two facts: First, the financing of the schools that you're now opening was approved under the Bob Rae government. You have not approved the financing of one new school in this province. Second, what you fail to point out is, yes, we have had school closures in this province before, but those schools have closed when the enrolment has dropped so low that a local decision has been made that we should not continue to have this school. What you're doing is taking so much money out of the school system that schools will be forced to close not because of enrolment but because you've taken the money.

Minister, these are just some of the schools across southern Ontario: 200 here in Toronto, a number in Kitchener and Waterloo, a number in Hamilton, a number in the Niagara Peninsula. The point is you are taking a vital community service out of the community. Don't you recognize this is wrong? Don't you recognize how destructive -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The leader of the third party doesn't have a very high degree of confidence in parents and school boards. Parents and school boards, the communities and the school boards, are making these decisions. Here in the city of Toronto there are about 80 schools which are no longer used for public purposes. Some of them are empty; some are used for administration; some are used for storage; some have been leased to third parties for other use.

The taxpayer might consider that a better use could be made of those 80 properties that are no longer used for public school purposes. These are the kinds of decisions that school boards, in conjunction with their communities, with their parents, are making across Ontario as they did when the NDP was in power, as they did when the Liberals were in power.

Mr Hampton: This is what's happening. This is creating such a crisis that, for example, here in the city of Toronto it is not just the board of education, it is also the city council that is looking at this issue. What they've done wisely over the years is they have put either adjacent to or into those schools swimming pools, athletic facilities, day care centres and a host of other community services which means that the school truly is the focal point of the community. In Kitchener the Courtland Avenue senior school is on the auction block. It is a downtown school that not only houses more than 300 students but is used seven days a week by a wide variety of community groups.

Minister, it's you and your government funding formula that is going to tear the heart out of these communities because those boards know that you're forcing them to close those schools. If they don't close those schools, you will not give them any of the monies they may need to build school accommodation elsewhere in their district. You're tearing the heart out of schools to finance your income tax scheme. Minister, will you reconsider this? Will you put the heart back into our community?

Hon Mr Johnson: Of course that's absolute nonsense. I encourage municipalities to be involved. If municipalities have community centres, if there are meeting rooms, if there is playground equipment or whatever, I encourage municipalities. Having come from the municipal scene, I know those kinds of activities and functions are important to municipalities, and municipalities should be involved and they should make decisions which reflect the needs of their citizens.

But I say to the leader of the third party that the Ministry of Education needs to focus the monies it has to educate the students in the classroom, and that's exactly what this government has done: more monies for teachers, more monies for textbooks, more monies for paraprofessionals and librarians and guidance teachers. That's what this government has put the priority on, priority on the classroom to improve the quality of education in Ontario.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. You are being completely irresponsible in trying to deny that it is your funding cuts that are forcing the closure of schools, and you are being irresponsible as a government in not recognizing and dealing with the impact those school closures will have on communities.

Minister, you cut the funding to maintain what you called extra space on September 1 of this year. The school boards wrote to you. They said, "Please maintain our funding until we can actually close the schools that you're insisting that we close," and you said no. So you cut their funding for maintaining what you called extra spaces on September 1 of this year. You cut $57 million out of the budget of the Toronto board, and now Toronto council is worried about the closure of as many as 200 schools. Up in Huron and Perth counties you cut at least $2 million out of their budget, and now the Avon Maitland board is facing the closure of as many as 14 schools. If you aren't forcing the closure of schools, why did you cut the maintenance budgets of those boards on September 1?

Hon David Johnson: There was an October Toronto Star article that has to do, actually, with the Timiskaming Board of Education. The Timiskaming board has had to close a high school and it blames the problem on lack of provincial funding from the education ministry. The Toronto Star article is dated October 14, 1988. It said they had no alternative but to close because the Ministry of Education didn't give enough money.

These are the kinds of decisions that boards have had to make down through the years. Boards have made these decisions under the Liberal government, boards have made these decisions under the NDP government. Take the Toronto Board of Education as an example. There will be more money spent in the Toronto Board of Education this year than last year in the Toronto Board of Education. Now, the responsibility is for the Toronto board to take that money and pay for the best possible education for the students in the Toronto system.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Minister, your one-size-fits-all approach to education is creating chaos that verges on an emergency in rural Ontario as well. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture understands that your funding formula is driving school closures and ripping the heart out of rural communities. They are deeply concerned. They are working on a rural school policy. Will you listen to the OFA? Will you listen to the parents and the students of rural Ontario who demand that you fix your flawed funding formula immediately?

Hon David Johnson: You bet we listen to the parents, and I'll tell you what the parents and the teachers and the students want in the education system in Ontario. They want a higher quality, they want more discipline in the education system, and we're providing that higher quality through a new curriculum, through province-wide testing, through a standardized report card, through a cap on the average class size, through more instructional days for students so our students have a fair comparison with students from other provinces. And, I might say, we have more than doubled the amount of operation and maintenance monies for small schools in Ontario; a $90-million commitment for remote and rural schools, more than double under the previous GLGs.

This is how we're focusing the monies, where they're needed, particularly into the classroom to improve the quality of education.

1450

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Premier. I want to raise with you a very important date: September 6, 1995. I think you should remember it well. It is the date upon which an innocent person was killed in this province. That's the day that Dudley George was shot and killed. He became the first aboriginal person this century to be killed in a land rights dispute in Canada.

Premier, we have a situation now where three years has gone by and your government has not called an inquiry into this event, despite our repeated calls.

The family of Dudley George and the community deserve to know what the events were that led to the death of this innocent man, how this could have been prevented. Premier, will you call this inquiry now?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Mr Speaker, I know the Attorney General -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Attorney General.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The government has been clear and consistent that it will not consider other options until all matters before the courts have been resolved. It would not be appropriate to launch a public inquiry while there are outstanding legal matters before the courts.

Mr Hampton: We've heard this excuse before, and these excuses are nothing but stonewalling.

I've got a report here from a very well respected law professor at the University of Toronto, Professor Patrick Macklem. He has looked at every single excuse, Premier, that you and your government have tried to use for not calling an inquiry, every single legal barrier you have tried to hide behind, and he says this: There is no legal barrier or logical reason why you cannot call a public inquiry.

Premier, you know that evidence has already been destroyed in the Ministry of the Solicitor General, evidence that would have been quite relevant to this inquiry.

I want to read further from this report. It says, "Given that both law and policy fully support the establishment of a public inquiry, the government of Ontario's continued refusal to hold an inquiry can only be explained in terms of politically motivated unwillingness."

The question is, why haven't you called an inquiry? There's no legal reason why. Call an inquiry today.

Hon Mr Harnick: As I indicated, there are currently two criminal appeals and three civil actions before the courts with respect to these matters. The government has been clear and consistent. It will only consider any options after all matters before the courts have been completed.

I've discussed this with senior officials. I've been advised it would be inappropriate to call a public inquiry at this time.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Last year this House focused considerable attention on the new city of Toronto. The government recognized that the overlap and duplication between Metropolitan Toronto and the area municipalities within it was increasingly not serving the taxpayers as effectively and efficiently as it could and should and that change was required and in fact was probably long overdue.

The new city of Toronto has now been in place for about nine months, and municipal government in Toronto is being streamlined, I think, better to serve all Torontonians. Minister, could you rise today and inform this House on the state of affairs of the new city of Toronto?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for High Park-Swansea for that very excellent question. I can tell the member that the new city is working very well. By the way, they're not my words; that's a quote from the member for Fort York, as a matter of fact, at our estimates session the other day. I would like to point out that the member for Fort York is not the only person to think the new city is working well, and I'd also like to quote Mayor Lastman who recently told some of his neighbouring municipalities:

"It works and it works well. The province kept saying this, but I wasn't listening. I just wanted to keep my little turf. And I was wrong. I was wrong because this is going to work and it's going to work better and we're going to be able to offer better services as well."

We said that the Metro Toronto seven local governments becoming a single unified city would provide better services at lower cost to the taxpayers of the city of Toronto, and it has.

Mr Shea: I must say I am delighted -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Supplementary.

Mr Shea: I am delighted that the member for St Catharines is awake and is so exercised with my question. Let me continue because I want to go on to some more subtle nuances of that theme.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Shea: The unification of the city of Toronto is a large undertaking which requires time and energy. I think all of us acknowledge that blending seven departments into one is not easy, whether it's public works, purchasing or planning. It's essential that appropriate consideration and time be given to make that plan work, but while restructuring ultimately results in more efficient and cost-effective government, I think you'll agree that there are some short-term costs associated with making the necessary changes.

Minister, will you rise in the House today and tell us what the government has done to recognize the transition challenges and what support it has given to the implementation of the new city of Toronto?

Hon Mr Leach: Again I thank the member for High Park-Swansea for that very excellent question. We indicated at the time we introduced the legislation to form the new unified city of Toronto that there should be savings in the order of perhaps $300 million a year by getting rid of the overlap and duplication that existed in having seven governments operate in this one single area.

We also recognize that there are some costs incurred to get rid of overlap and duplication in the short term. As a result of that we agreed to fund the new unified city of Toronto with a $50-million, one-time, upfront start-up cost to get rid of a lot of that duplication. They've done that. The budget chief of the city of Toronto has agreed that the $300 million we said would be there in savings as a result of getting rid of the overlap and duplication is indeed there and is being found. They have found and identified the vast majority of that money already, and within three years -

The Speaker: New question.

1500

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Health. Our health critic, Gerard Kennedy, has repeatedly proven how your reduction in hospital funding is negatively affecting patient care in Ontario. In fact, in Sudbury alone in the last month, you have slashed 30 beds and you have closed the emergency ward at the Sudbury Memorial Hospital. You promised, though, that this closure would enhance emergency care.

Let me talk to you for a moment about Mrs Brenda Rantala-Sykes. Last Saturday Mrs Rantala-Sykes spent 14 hours in the emergency ward at the St Joseph's Health Centre. She didn't see a doctor for six and a half hours and was confined to an emergency cubicle which was more than 80 degrees in temperature. After 12 hours of waiting and near total exhaustion, she passed out on the hospital floor unattended. She sustained injuries to her neck, face, jaw and her right eye required six stitches to close the cut she received from the fall. Minister, my question is, is Mrs Rantala-Sykes's experience your idea of enhanced emergency care?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We know of course that in Sudbury, as elsewhere throughout Ontario, we have been increasing the spending when it comes to health care dollars. We know that in the Sudbury-Manitoulin area we have spent at least $114.8 million beyond what you had indicated and we hope that everything is being done in order to ensure that the services required for patients are there for the patients.

Mr Bartolucci: Mrs Rantala-Sykes wants answers. The people of Sudbury want answers. Why did Mrs Rantala-Sykes have to spend 14 hours in an emergency ward? Why did she sustain injuries while she was there? Why did she leave the hospital sicker and more injured than when she went into the hospital? Why does Mrs Rantala-Sykes require the use and the services of a chiropractor? Why does Mrs Rantala-Sykes require the services of a plastic surgeon after her visit to the emergency ward? Why has Mrs Rantala-Sykes missed a week of work? Why can't Mrs Rantala-Sykes operate as a normal mother and parent? Because of dizziness, because of spells she is now suffering because of her visit to the emergency ward.

Minister, will you now admit that your health care reform in Sudbury is dangerous to the health of Sudburians and will you and your government pay for the medical services Mrs Rantala-Sykes requires now?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's very important to remember that people throughout Ontario are working extremely hard in order to ensure that all patients have the services required. On my very recent visit to the Sudbury community, in meeting with the individuals who provide the health care, there was every indication that they were moving forward. Articles in the media indicated that all of the investments that we have made to date were resulting in enhanced and improved services for people in your community.

If we take a look at what we have invested in priority programs, we know that there is $12 million more. There is $2.5 million more in long-term-care services. There is half a million more in mental health services. There is $1 million more -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - and the list goes on and on. I know that people are doing all they can in Sudbury. They are trying to ensure that patients -

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

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Attorney General. I am challenging the information that the Attorney General gave to the people of Ontario yesterday. The Attorney General will remember that there was a coroner's inquest into the murder of Arlene May and that coroner's inquest said, "The government of Ontario should establish a committee including equal numbers of government and community-based members to oversee the implementation and coordination of the recommendations made as a result of this inquest."

You were asked yesterday about that committee and you said: "I can tell the member that we have moved on setting up that committee. The committee is in fact being set up and is operating." Leaving aside the internal contradiction of your answer, we talked to two of the groups that had standing at that coroner's inquest, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses and the Metro Toronto Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children. Neither of those groups has heard from your government at all with respect to this committee. Would you care to clarify your answer, Mr Attorney General?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The member will be aware that in addition to the May-Iles issue there is also the Kaufman commission that's being set up. Many of the recommendations overlap in terms of recommendations made to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

As I said yesterday, we are working on establishing a joint community-government committee for the recommendations that have been made. That is in the course of being done, as I said yesterday, and certainly we are moving on the implementation of the jury recommendations. As I said yesterday, we've doubled the number of witness assistance program sites, we've created domestic violence courts and we've expanded the use of domestic assault review teams. Crowns are receiving ongoing training on domestic violence and sexual assault. There has been increased funding for specialized services for abused women which were not previously covered by legal aid, such as protection orders, custody and support orders. There has also been enhanced funding of $300,000 from the Ontario Women's Directorate to the legal aid plan which has doubled the hours for performing -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, the question was, is what you said yesterday accurate? I believe, from the answer that you just gave, it isn't. You should clarify that to the people of Ontario.

You indicated yesterday that you had set up, and in fact it was operating, this particular committee which came from the over 200 recommendations from this jury. That's what you said yesterday. We're asking you about these two organizations that had standing at the inquest, gave expert testimony and attended every one of the 51 days of the inquest. They have not been contacted by you or by the minister responsible for women's issues over the entire three months since those recommendations came out. These are the women who are dealing on the front lines day after day and see the human tragedy of what happens when women and children have to flee their homes after they've been battered and abused.

The Speaker: Question?

Ms Churley: Will you take responsibility today and stand on your feet and say that you will set up this committee, contact these women's groups and get it started immediately?

Hon Mr Harnick: We have taken responsibility and we are taking a look at all of the recommendations. We are taking a look at how to implement all of the recommendations. We are in the course of doing that. As I indicated, we are in the course of setting up this working group to deal with many of these recommendations. Many are not involved with the committee, but we have made the public commitment and the ministry is working at dealing with a number of these recommendations now. We are moving on that, as we are moving on the Kaufman commission recommendations. Certainly, as I've indicated: training and education - eight recommendations all now being worked on; enhanced capacity, more services, better procedures, 76 recommendations - we are now working on them; about 15% of the recommendations have been implemented to date.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): My question is to the minister responsible for children. Minister, in the most recent speech from the throne, the Honourable Hilary Weston, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, announced that our government commissioned an early learning study which will be co-chaired by the Honourable Margaret McCain and Dr Fraser Mustard. It is my understanding that this study will make recommendations to the government on how best to prepare young and pre-school children for a lifetime of learning and that this is the first such study of its kind.

Minister, can you tell me what areas the co-chairs will look at before making their recommendations?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I'd like to thank the member for Etobicoke-Humber for his question. This early-years study will provide options and recommendations to the government on the best ways of preparing all Ontario's children for success at school, in their careers and as members of society.

The development of the whole child is of great importance. It is the first time that a government in this province has taken the initiative to commission a study of this kind for children.

The study will also look at the roles and responsibilities of the community, voluntary, private and public sectors in the early years of a child's life. It will make recommendations to the government based on the best examples of programs that are helping children develop to their full potential.

1510

Mr Ford: It's clear that the co-chairs and their advisers have a very important job to do. I believe it is important to really understand what we are doing for children, both here and in other areas, before we can truly see the improvements that might be made. Is the study taking this approach and will the study be completed?

Hon Mrs Marland: We must have a true understanding of how programs are serving children and families before we will know how to improve these supports for Ontario's families. This study will do just that. It will take a comprehensive look at the programs that are currently available and pinpoint those that are most effective for our children. In addition, the study will be looking at the leading research on early learning and what programs are available in other jurisdictions. The study will look at what we in Ontario can do to help promote a lifetime of positive learning experiences for our children. I am eager to see the study recommendations, which should be complete in December 1998.

This government is committed to early learning and we will continue to support initiatives, such as our preschool speech and language program, which help children get off to their best start.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Mr Leach. Recently municipalities sent out their final tax bill. With it they sent out a shock wave to the business and residential communities in Ontario: increases that will double and triple property taxes, increases that will force thousands of small business owners to close their doors, increases that will see bankruptcies skyrocket. Municipalities are forced to borrow to meet their basic needs.

I'm asking you today, Minister, will you come out of hibernation and announce in the House today what assistance you will propose, you will give, you will offer municipalities so they won't have to force homeowners to abandon their homes or business communities to abandon their businesses?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for the question. The city of Toronto has worked with the new assessment system probably better than any other municipality in Ontario. As the member is aware, the province provided a number of tools to municipalities to ease the shift in taxes as a result of the new assessment system. I think everybody will recognize that the assessment system we had in Ontario was badly, badly broken and had to be fixed.

Toronto took advantage of the phase-in period and is phasing in residential taxes over five years. Toronto also recognized that there was some short-term assistance required for small businesses, so they accepted the tool that allowed a 2.5% cap to be put in place. Toronto has actually done a fine job and should be congratulated. Some of the decisions they had to make were extremely difficult and they did a very good job of making those very difficult decisions.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary, the member for Prescott and Russell.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I find it strange when only 10% of municipalities have benefited from the tool you're talking about.

Last Friday, I met with two business entrepreneurs. They were furious about their municipal tax increase. I told them that they should point the finger at your government. Businesses in my area such as Plantagenet Printing, Bungee Banner of Plantagenet and St-Amour of Apple Hill are hit with municipal tax increases as high as 554%.

Minister, all of these tax increases are caused by your government's unplanned downloading. How does your government plan to help these small businesses which are the heart of the Ontario economy?

Hon Mr Leach: I believe the member opposite is talking about the new current value assessment system that has been put in place. That system was put in place to ensure there is fairness and equity right across Ontario. Whether it applies to Thunder Bay or whether it applies to the city of Toronto or whether it applies to Ottawa, there's a need in this province for fairness and equity. We gave the municipalities tools and the ability to phase in the different aspects of the new assessment system. Whether it was the residential portion, with a phase-in of up to eight years for residential properties, or small businesses, where they could have tiered the increase, they could have capped the increase, they had all the tools necessary to ensure that the new, very fair and equitable tax system was phased in with little or no effect on the taxpayer.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Leach: The municipalities had the wherewithal to do that. Many municipalities did that. Some chose not to do that. Those that chose not to do that have to answer to -

The Speaker: Petitions.

PETITIONS

FATHERS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition that reads:

"Whereas children need the unfettered presence, care, and love of their fathers, and fathers want to have, care for and nurture their children after marriage breakdown as well as before; and

"Whereas marital separation is the end of the conjugal and financial relationship between a father and mother; and

"Whereas fathers experience misandry in the family courts of Ontario and other institutions which is depriving them of their children and subjugating them financially; and

"Whereas statutory recognition of these facts will reduce the burden of legal costs on families and the government, eliminate fatherlessness, cut down on self-destructive behaviour by separated fathers, reduce violence, and produce healthier and happier children with a greater sense of belonging and commitment to society;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass legislation:

"To ensure that no father is deprived against his will of the opportunity to fully and completely parent his children regardless of the father's marital status (unless the father has put the children's welfare at risk and all available alternatives have been exhausted); and furthermore,

"To ensure that no father who is willing to care for his child is required to pay for the cost of child care provided by his child's mother when the child is under her care and not his care (unless the father has put the child's welfare at risk and all available alternatives have been exhausted), in particular for the cost of food, clothing and shelter.

"To provide an apology to fathers and children separated by the misandry of the family law system."

This is signed by over 300 constituents from ridings in eastern Ontario. I also affix my name to the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris funding cuts 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 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 continue to support the people of my community by adding my name to this petition.

1520

RAILWAY TRACKS

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I have a petition from residents of Mississauga East to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Canadian Railway tracks located north of Dundas Street East and lying between Cawthra Road and Hurontario Street in the city of Mississauga cause undue noise, vibration and air pollution caused by the use of this track as a railway shunting yard;

"Whereas the operation of this track occurs any time between the hours of 8 pm to 3 am to facilitate a steel-loading facility;

"Whereas the steel-loading facility was erected in the area without an environmental study;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to recognize that the hours of operation of this railway should be confined to normal working hours or that the work performed at this railway be located in the industrial area east of Cawthra Road where it would pose less of a disturbance."

I will sign this petition.

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 the 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'm pleased to join the members of the Erie Street Business Improvement Association in signing this petition.

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 continue to support my petitioners by adding my name to this one.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition which reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"Whereas the hospital restructuring commission established by the Mike Harris government is deliberating in secret about the future of hospitals in the Niagara region and is expected to report in the autumn of this year;

"Whereas the St Catharines General Hospital, the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the Shaver Hospital, along with the Niagara rehabilitation centre, have in the past provided excellent medical care for the people of St Catharines;

"Whereas the Niagara-on-the-Lake hospital, the Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie, the Port Colborne hospital and the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby have been key centres of health care in the Niagara Peninsula;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to maintain existing medical services provided at these hospitals, restore the proposed $43-million cut from operating funds for the Niagara hospitals; and

"That the Ontario Ministry of Health provide additional funding to expand health care services available in the Niagara region for residents in the Niagara Peninsula."

I affix my name to this petition as I'm in complete agreement with its content.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to save the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital.

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

"We, the undersigned citizens of Hamilton and the surrounding communities, beg leave to petition the government of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has announced the closure of Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario, through the Health Services Restructuring Commission, is divesting its responsibility for mental health care without hearing from the community first; and

"Whereas community-based mental health care providers will bear the brunt of this ill-fated decision by being forced to meet what is sure to be an increased demand for their services; and

"Whereas the community pays the price for cuts to mental health care;

"Therefore we, the citizens of Hamilton and area, who care about quality, accessibility and publicly accountable mental health care for all Ontarians, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately set aside all recommendations to divest and/or close Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital and the programs and services it provides; and

"Further, to call for full hearings to seek community solutions to community issues and to democratically decide the future of mental health care for the citizens of Hamilton and its surrounding area."

I add my name to this petition also.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral;

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

This petition is signed by 250 -

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

HEALTH CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition submitted to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"Do not privatize our health care services in Ontario."

I concur with the petitioners and I will affix my signature.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton 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 continue to support these petitions by adding my name.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 63, An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time / Projet de loi 63, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les heures d'enseignement.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 5, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Johnson has moved second reading of Bill 63. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1533 to 1538.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 64; the nays are 35.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 5, Bill 63 is ordered for third reading, to be considered immediately.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I move third reading of Bill 63, An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask unanimous consent from all members of the House to divide the time equally among the three caucuses.

The Speaker: Agreed? No.

We're into debate now and the leadoff debate is Mr Smith for the government.

Mr Smith: I'll be sharing my time this afternoon with my colleague from Sarnia, Mr Boushy. I'll be making some brief comments with respect to third reading of this bill -

The Speaker: Can you stop the clock just for a minute. Member for Middlesex, if you could do me a favour when you get up again: Could you tell me who you're sharing your time with? I wasn't certain about it.

Mr Smith: Mr Speaker, just to indicate to you that I'll be sharing my time this afternoon with my colleague from Sarnia, Mr Boushy, and will be making some brief comments with respect to Bill 63. He'll obviously carry the remaining portion of that.

It's my pleasure to rise and speak in support of third reading of Bill 63. As I've indicated on a previous occasion, this bill is necessary and appropriate to bring clarification to the meaning of instructional time as it applies to our teachers in this province. In that context it's important to emphasize that this particular bill is one part of a larger, comprehensive plan that the government of Ontario has advanced with respect to reforming education in this province, a comprehensive plan that is based on a vision and the sole motive of bringing and re-establishing a quality education system in this province.

It's in that context that since 1995 the government has pursued a comprehensive proposal whereby we're seeing more resources directed to the classroom, where we're seeing the tools that are necessary to deliver a quality education in this province being realized, whether it's in the form of financial assistance to school boards through transitional measures or whether it's in actual materials that students need in terms of their classroom experience in the form of textbooks.

We've talked a great deal about the need for and the introduction of province-wide testing and the role teachers have played in that context to evaluate and bring about a new standard and an opportunity to establish new benchmarks in terms of what we want to do with province-wide testing and how it relates to future curriculum documents, how it relates to new opportunities in the future with respect to teacher development and professional development for those teachers who are currently in the system.

I briefly want to reacquaint us with why the bill is before the Legislature. On a number of occasions the minister has spoken about this issue in terms of instructional time. In fact, we've brought this bill forward in legislation to ensure that there's a consistent province-wide understanding and application of instructional time while still allowing local flexibility with respect to its application.

The legislation confirms what constitutes instruction for the purposes of complying with section 170.2. Section 170.2, with respect to instructional time for teachers, sets minimum teaching time for elementary teachers as an average of at least 1,300 minutes over a five-day period, and for secondary teachers an average of at least 1,250 minutes over a five-day period.

In addition, the proposed legislation confirms that secondary school teachers are providing instruction when as part of their regular timetable they are supervising examinations or providing instruction in areas of course or program that are obviously eligible for credit, a special education program, a remedial class to assist pupils in completing a credit course or program required for graduation, an ESL program, an apprenticeship program, a co-operative education program or any other course or program that is specified in regulation.

It's in that context where there was genuine concern that some within the education community were pursuing a broader definition of what instructional time in fact meant. It was that confusion and broader application that necessitated the need for this particular bill and why the bill has been introduced by the Minister of Education and Training.

I think it's important to highlight as well that notwithstanding the debate that has occurred and the issues that continue to arise with respect to hours of teaching time, the standard that is being established in this province is still exceeded by the provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick and Manitoba. So we're not by any means charting a new course here in terms of a standard that is outrageous by comparison to other provincial jurisdictions in this country. The standard certainly is in the middle of the road with respect to comparative hours of teaching time per day as it applies to other provinces. In fact, Ontario's new standard would still exceed only those numbers provided by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Quebec.

The point I wish to make here is that from my perspective, from the minister's perspective and from my caucus colleagues' perspective, the request that is being made of teachers in this province very much parallels, and in some cases is obviously exceeded by, the standards that have been established in some seven other provinces in this country. It's significant in terms of the instructional time that this clarification be clearly understood. It's important in the context of the quality initiatives this government has brought forward. It's imperative in the context of the new standards that are being established for education in this province and what it means for the young people who are currently studying either at the elementary or secondary level in Ontario. That is why this bill was necessitated.

As I indicated yesterday in debate, albeit there has been no real demand or necessity for clarification of this definition in the past, obviously there was a need to bring conclusion to that particular issue and why this particular bill is now before us, and should the bill receive final approval, an important step in the next phase of successful and meaningful implementation and management of education reforms in this province.

1550

In that context Bill 63 is important, a very important part, one that can't be dismissed, but a smaller part in comparison to the bigger issues that this government has pursued on behalf of the students of this province. It's an issue that requires clarification, and I'm confident that at the end of the day, should this legislation be passed by the Legislature, there should be no confusion as to what is determined by "instructional time."

On that point I wish to conclude my remarks by simply saying that this bill is necessary and appropriate. It makes sense and certainly is necessary, as I indicated previously, as we move into the next phase of education reform for Ontario.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): We are certainly going through a period of transition in our education system, and I believe it's up to all of us - students, teachers, parents and government - to work together in creating a quality education system that will provide Ontario's children the opportunity to achieve everything we know they are able to do.

We're all aware of the many studies, reports and royal commissions that have recommended major changes to the education system for many, many years, changes like clear province-wide standards, report cards that parents can understand, consistent up-to-date curriculum requirements and more accountable spending rules so we know where education dollars are going and can make accurate comparisons.

In this regard, I just want to mention to this House the feedback I had over the weekend. I made a point of speaking to two elementary schoolteachers in my riding. The elementary schools in my riding have settled, with contracts. One teacher said certainly they are working harder and the load is greater than they ever had before, but she said to me, "We knew those changes had to come, and we're working hard to make them work."

Another teacher said to me: "I'm not too sure what the high school teachers are hollering about, because they are just catching up with us. We believe that the system is good and these reforms had to come."

Our government responded to these calls for a significant improvement with a variety of measures, all aimed at refocusing the system to put the emphasis back on fundamentals while still offering children opportunities to become well-rounded individuals. A larger portion of the education budget has been redirected into the classroom, as you're all aware. Average class sizes have been capped, and we have set clear and higher standards for grade-by-grade achievement so that students and their parents will know exactly what the expectations are every step of the way. We have invested, as you are aware, $100 million in new textbooks and other materials such as software and science equipment. This fall there are 3.2 million new textbooks in our children's classrooms.

I would like to just take you back to after we got elected in 1995. The first group of teachers came to see me in my office. They suggested they wanted a cap on class sizes, and I said to them, "We'll do that in regulations." They said: "No, we don't trust you. We want it in Bill 160."

Mr Wildman: You proved you couldn't be trusted.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please, member for Algoma.

Mr Boushy: We did put it in Bill 160. I'm not too sure what they're hollering about now. I understand the teachers wanted the cap lifted. They can't have it both ways.

Mr Wildman: No, they want maximum class sizes.

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

Mr Boushy: Province-wide testing and standardized report cards are now fully in place in Ontario schools, because our children deserve to have an equal opportunity for a quality education. No matter where they live in the province, when school is let out in June, all students in the same grade will have been taught the same fundamentals and skills to reach the same enhanced learning goals.

It's also important to recognize the right and responsibility of parents to have a say when decisions about their children's education are being made. That's why we have established a parent council at each and every school in the province. The curriculum, report cards and testing reforms will put the information parents need to participate in those decisions right in their hands.

But I think we all agree on the truth that the teacher in the classroom is the most important factor in the success of our education system. I find the current job actions still occurring in some boards very regrettable. When teachers' unions use parents and children as pawns in a protest that has nothing to do with the quality of education but rather with the working conditions, it harms the trust between all of us that's necessary if we are to truly have the best education system in the world.

Happily, we have strong indications that agreements can and are being reached by boards and unions that agree that students' needs come first, before any disagreement on working contracts. I want to tell you that I am very proud that the Lambton Kent board, the Sarnia, Lambton and Kent board, and its elementary school teachers led by example. They settled in direct bargaining, well before the school year began. There was no instruction time lost. There was no concern for parents. Students and teachers all knew that come September school would be in session, not only with business as usual but with new and higher standards in place. I'm very proud of that fact. All elementary schools in my riding, in both systems, are in school and working.

Let me give you another example. Ontario college teachers went without contracts for two years, but they kept teaching and they kept negotiating at the same time, until they secured a contract and a raise as well. That's what I would say is a responsible attitude to take. The professionalism shown by these teachers is why they are so respected in my community, because I have in my community a college called Lambton College, and I am very proud of our teachers. They have priorities straight, and they exemplify what's best in our education system.

Unfortunately, may I add, not all boards and unions have followed their shining example. Every day for the last month I have read stories or listened to complaints about activities being boycotted by teachers. I have to wonder why and, more directly, how teachers can do this.

Last week I heard about a school in the Hamilton area where the teachers refused to participate in a graduation ceremony for the students. Can you imagine? I am truly saddened and troubled that this could happen. What purpose could possibly have been achieved, what point could possibly have been made by those teachers not being there for the students on one of the most important nights in their life?

In my community there are students who are losing out on playing football after school, playing in the school band or acting in after-school plays. Again, I fail to understand why students must be harmed because some teachers' unions disagree with the time they're expected to spend in the classrooms.

Mr Wildman: It's not about time, it's about 25 more students.

Mr Boushy: The main complaint of the secondary teachers' union, as we all know, is the amount of time teachers are expected to spend in the classroom. Any high school teacher will tell you that.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Who writes this stuff?

Mr Wildman: It is not about time. That is where you are.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Members for Algoma and St Catharines, come to order.

Mr Boushy: Bill 160 requires high school teachers to teach on average an extra 25 minutes a day, for a total of four hours and 10 minutes per day. This is still less than teachers in other provinces and less than elementary school teachers are required to teach. They are doing it in my riding, and they're happy. The elementary school teachers are happy doing it.

Mr Wildman: The secondary school teachers offered to teach that and your government said no.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma, order.

Mr Boushy: It's notable that all of these other teachers still find time to enrich students' lives with after-school activities. Not only do the students benefit from these activities by becoming more well-rounded individuals, but the teachers also benefit from getting to know their students better and working with them to organize events that are fun and exciting for everyone involved. It's tragic that both teachers and students are losing out because of detrimental pressure tactics foolishly promoted by teacher unions.

1600

We think everyone shares our commitment to quality. We simply disagree on how to achieve it. Those disagreements are political and they should be kept in that arena for the next election, which probably will be called within a year.

What quality education is about is building and developing a partnership among students, parents, teachers and government to successfully implement education reforms. We can all agree that all children have the opportunity to be the best they can be, no matter where they live or what their abilities or special needs may be.

I sincerely hope that all teachers across our province will quickly rethink the strategy of withholding their participation. For the sake of our students we need to strengthen our level of co-operation and commitment to doing what's best for our children.

Since I have time, I would like to take a minute or so because I heard opposition from the Liberal benches and the NDP benches. I am very pleased to have this extra time to make one or two additional comments.

I wish someone could clarify what exactly the Liberal Party stance on education is. I would love to know.

First, we have the member for Ottawa South introducing a private bill to take away from teachers the right to strike after October. Then, when he is Leader of the Opposition, we see him supporting an illegal strike and walking with the strikers. Then, during the last union action, he says he won't support back-to-work legislation unless the Education Relations Commission says the school year is threatened. What does he do when he realizes parents want students back in school no matter what the ERC has or hasn't said? In the grand Liberal tradition, he decided to still vote against the bill but to say no quickly, a very sudden reversal from the Liberal education critic who vowed to stall the legislation.

What exactly do the Liberals think? I don't understand what he's thinking. One day he's for a strike; another day he's against a strike.

Mr Bradley: Did you want it to go all week?

The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines.

Mr Boushy: While I might disagree with the NDP policy, at least I know where they come from. They're focused. They are for unions.

Mr Bradley: It's in the script.

The Acting Speaker: Come on. Order.

Mr Boushy: They're for teachers.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Bradley: It's quite obvious that it's in the script. Every Tory member has been given the script. They're supposed to say, "Well, you know, we disagree with the NDP but at least we know where the NDP stands," and the Liberals of course are the enemy. They've got to build up the NDP. Not that the NDP wants this, because they are totally opposed to the policies of the Conservative government, but it's a strategy they have of trying to prop up a third party.

I'm surprised the member for Sarnia would simply read the script from Guy Giorno, the 30-something whiz kid who makes all the decisions for this government. I'm shocked the member for Sarnia would do that. What the member should know -

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): What about the EI?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Bradley: I say to the member for Etobicoke-Humber that I understand Chris Stockwell has now sold 5,000 memberships for Etobicoke Centre. But I digress.

I want to tell you what is happening out there is that at no time in the history of the province has the morale of those who deliver the front-line education services been at a lower ebb. Many of these people in years gone by have supported the Conservative Party. They've supported, in fact, all three parties according to what their philosophy happens to be. But you people have gone on the attack. What you want to do is set the entire population against a segment of the population of this province. That is why the morale is so low. I've never seen it that way. It's extremely serious.

You laugh on the other side. You guffaw because Tom Long and the other gurus say: "Hey, this is smart politics. Why don't you set everybody in the province against the teachers? That's really smart. That'll get us re-elected." But ultimately it is the responsibility of government to bring people together, to enlist the support of everyone so that you have co-operation when you're trying to implement change in education or anywhere else.

Mr Wildman: I listened to the member for Sarnia, and a couple of times during his remarks he said he didn't understand why the teachers are upset. He also said he didn't understand why they weren't participating in extracurricular activities. So I'll try to explain it to him.

The reason the teachers are upset is that the government is not really talking about instructional time. The teachers' federations, or the unions, as the member calls them, offered to extend the periods so that the teachers could in fact teach the amount of minutes that the minister wants. But the government said no because the government doesn't want teachers to teach more time; they don't want them to teach the same number of students they now have for more minutes. They want them to teach more students.

By saying, "No, we don't we want you to extend the periods," they were saying to the teachers, "We want you to teach an additional period," meaning more students, because it means they have an additional class. So they are to teach not 1,250 minutes to the same number of students; they are to teach a total of 1,250 minutes by teaching an additional class. That means not 25 more minutes but 25 more students. That's what the issue is about. Teachers who are now being told that they have to teach more students and do an additional preparation for an extra class and not have the time they had before to do remedial work, to have more contact with individual students, to give extra help and to be involved in extracurricular activities are saying, "We don't have the time we had before."

So the issue is not, "Twenty-five minutes more: Is that too much to ask?" as the Tory ads say. The issue is that the government refused to agree to more time for the students they are now teaching and is requiring teachers to teach more students.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I too would like to help the member for Sarnia, because he said there was something he didn't understand about the Liberal position. I suggest to you that what I'm going to tell you now, you get Hansard tomorrow and you carry it around with you.

What we oppose is this: total centralized control over education at Queen's Park; trying to sell average class size as class size reductions; cuts to JK; cuts to textbooks and supplies; cuts to adult education; cuts to special education. Charter schools we oppose. The voucher system we oppose. Privatization of our education system we oppose. We oppose the ability of the Minister of Finance to set a $6-billion education property tax bill behind closed doors. We oppose constant attacks on teachers and the public education system.

Here is what we support.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Crozier: I want everybody quietly to listen to this, yes.

Accessible, quality, publicly funded education; local flexibility to set local education priorities; standardized curriculum developed with the help of Ontario's educators; standardized report cards that show parents and students in a way that's fair and understandable when progress is needed and where it's being made; meaningful class sizes; junior kindergarten; principals and vice-principals who are educational leaders, not business managers separated from their teaching colleagues; advisory parent councils; funding for textbooks, special education and adult education; access to psychologists, social workers and speech pathologists for students who need this help; teacher education and training that supports our teachers in their efforts to give our children the best learning.

I have a couple more, but I'll save them for later.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the remarks of the member for Sarnia. As my colleague from Algoma has pointed out, the key issue is not one of time at the end of the day, although the government, through its ads, would like people who have been beat up by this government to sit back and say, "I've been beat up so badly in terms of my job and my wages, and family members have lost their jobs, why shouldn't somebody have to work a few more minutes?" Once again, they're trying to play to the worst fears, having put people in a psychological frame of mind, through what they've done to them, such that they're receptive to that. That's the issue. It's not 25 minutes of more work; it's the fact that there are 25 more students, and that means less care and attention to all our children from the teachers who are left.

1610

As to the Libs, the reality there is that they can make all the promises they want and they can talk about all the things they oppose, but what they don't oppose is the tax cut. They like the tax cut. That suits their friends in their party just fine. So when they stand up and make promises about education and they're going to spend more money on teachers and they're going to spend more money on textbooks and they're going to spend more money on this, that and the other, the reality is that there's not a dime in the kind of budget they've put together to pay for it, because they're going to leave the tax cut in place.

We know that they were originally planning to spend the Tory surplus through this. But of course, with the North American economy going into the ditch, there won't be a surplus. The only place to find that money is to say to wealthy Ontarians, who benefited the most from the Tory tax cut, "You have an obligation" - the 6% of the top income earners - "to put money back in the education system and the health care system." The NDP will do that. The Liberals will leave that tax cut there.

The Acting Speaker: Two minutes to sum up, the member for Middlesex.

Mr Smith: I am pleased to summarize the comments my colleague for Sarnia made, and I certainly appreciate the comments from the members for St Catharines, Algoma, Essex South and Hamilton Centre.

I want to say at the outset that the member for Sarnia was not speaking from a script; he was speaking from his personal perspective, his experiences in Sarnia, what he is hearing from his constituents in that community. That's the same level of detail he's bringing to me and to the minister as he represents them, appropriately so, on education issues.

On the issue of teacher support, the Liberals continue to address the issue of teacher morale. I'll be the first to admit it's a difficult time whenever you're going through a change process. The changes to the education system that this government is proposing are necessary and very necessary in terms of the future of the education system and as well the education experience of its students. Yes, there are some challenges there. Yes, teachers have been involved. We've solicited their input where their involvement is most meaningful, and that's in the academics and delivery of education, be it in province-wide testing, be it in the development of elementary or secondary school curriculum materials.

I am always, as I said yesterday in debate, fascinated by the comments the Liberal members continue to propose. We have a leader of the Ontario Liberal Party who championed the cause to eliminate the ability of teachers to strike in this province; a leader who then was on the stage with union leaders across this province during an illegal walkout, supporting them at the same time the Minister of Education and Training, on a different stage, was charting a new future for students in this province, one that is far more meaningful.

The member for Essex South talked about the proposals they are making. I hear a lot of similarity there in terms of standardized curriculums and testing. Those are initiatives the Conservative government of this province has pursued.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Crozier: I said we agree with it. In any event, I guess it's a privilege - it certainly is a privilege; I don't know whether I'm pleased - to be standing here and speaking to Bill 63, because it's another case of us being here today because the government has to clarify something that they didn't put in a previous bill. If they'd made these clarifications in Bill 160, we simply wouldn't have to be here debating this bill today.

The irony of all that is that it's not going to solve the problem. I believe it's not going to solve the problem for this reason: On September 4 the government wrote a letter to school boards clarifying this definition we're debating today, which led negotiations in a certain direction because of that clarification. At the same time, the back-to-work legislation, which was passed on September 28, was clear pressure on those negotiations - excuse me, five days later. I'm sorry. This was September 9. Five days later, in an acknowledgement that this made it impossible for some boards to reach an agreement, the government then said they would allow contracts that didn't comply with this definition. Now we're back putting the definition into the legislation. If that isn't confusing and if that isn't going to require some more fixing, I don't know what will.

This legislation, for example, appears to be inconsistent with other changes the government has announced. The contracts have to be two-year deals. The government is planning a whole series of changes, apparently, at the secondary level, including the introduction of a teacher adviser or mentoring type of component. Since it's mandated by the government and clearly instructional, we think the teacher advisers should be part of the instructional time and part of this legislation. The problem is there's no way to change those contracts between now and September 1999 when the change is supposed to be implemented, yet some contracts will go into the year 2000. So I still think we're a long way from settling the problem with the definition of "teaching time."

I think back to when I was in school, and I'll give them an opportunity to laugh, because that obviously was a few years ago, but I can still remember when I was in school. I can remember Miss Coyle, Mrs Montgomery, Miss Bennie, who for many years was a principal - a school in Leamington was named after her - Miss Tirnan, Mr Hume - Mr Hume was one of the greatest principals that a secondary school could ever want or have. One of my teachers, Mr Cobbledick, who still lives in Leamington - he and his wife I hope enjoy good health - was at Leamington District Secondary School when Mr Hume was the principal.

I think Mr Hume would roll over - no, maybe he'd stand up in heaven, where he is today, and be appalled at what's happening to the education system in Ontario. Mr Hume didn't need the Minister of Education to call the shots. Mr Hume wasn't concerned whether the Minister of Finance had control over $6 billion in property tax behind closed doors, because we had a local school board at that time that provided adequate financing for teachers, books, extracurricular activities.

I was in the school pipe band and there was no concern that that program was going to be cancelled because of a funding formula that was devised by some bureaucrats and politicians in the city of Toronto. There was no concern about that kind of thing in those days. I think we got a reasonable education in those days, and present company excluded, there were a lot of bright students that graduated from high schools all across this province. It wasn't in the absolute chaos that it's in today.

1620

Mr Hume was one of the toughest principals going. He didn't need regulations written by somebody behind closed doors in Toronto at Queen's Park. Mr Hume had his own regulations. Some of them we didn't agree with at that time. Some of them if you didn't abide by as regulations you found yourself in a whole pot of trouble. Not only did you find yourself in a whole pot of trouble at school, you found yourself in a whole pot of trouble at home, because the parents of the school system we had when I went to school supported the principal, the vice-principal, the teachers, because they were all working together for a better education for their children.

If I got into a little bit of trouble with Mr Hume and went crying home to my parents - not literally, mind you, because boys weren't supposed to cry in those days. When I went home to my parents and tried to complain that Mr Hume had been too tough on us or that a teacher that Mr Hume supported had been too tough on us, I was told to get back to school the next day and get back to learning.

We had a team then, and I think that teamwork has gone on in our school system over the years, from the time I was in the system until just recently. A few years ago, that teamwork started to fall apart. Morale started to fall. Now we're in a position today where there's strife throughout the educational system. I don't think school boards like it; I don't think parents like it; I don't think students like it. The common denominator is the government of the day.

They try to spin to the parents and to the public, those of us who don't have children, young people, in school any more, "We're going to cap class sizes." No, they're not. They're average class sizes. You go back to your ridings and ask parents out there today, "Do you have only 22 children in your elementary class and 25 students in your high school class?" I don't think you'll find that all of them do. Frankly, I don't know how many do or don't, but we're talking about average class sizes. So there are still classes out there that number above 25, and 22 elementary size. There are still classes out there that have 30 or more in them.

They want the teachers to teach more time. Fine. As has been suggested, and I'll remind everyone here, the teachers offered to teach more time; they offered to spend more time that's recorded - because they spend an awful lot of time that isn't recorded - with those students, another 25 minutes. What did the government say? "No. We want them to teach an extra class. We want our teachers to teach more kids in less time."

We all agree that we want a higher quality. We all agree with quality. I agree with many of the improvements that have been made in the educational system over the years and we have to keep on improving it and keep trying to be better. But you don't do it by spending less time with students. Not all students require the direct attention of a teacher, but certainly some require and indeed should be able to receive additional time with a teacher, because some kids need some extra time and in the end they're all going to be better for our society.

Some of the members in this Legislature who share the number of years of experience that I do don't have children in school, but as we get older, we're going to benefit from the education our kids get today. All society benefits from it. Anybody who doesn't have any children in school any more and says, "I think there's too much time spent with kids. It costs us too much money to teach kids," has forgotten that there was somebody who preceded them who made sacrifices for their children. For those in the Legislature, and I envy them, who are younger and have yet to have a family, educators are trying to pave the way.

What does the government do? They simply divide everybody. They get everybody at each other's throats. They don't, in my view, try to get back to the teamwork that we used to have in our schools, that I spoke of, where administrators, principals and vice-principals worked with teachers and teachers, vice-principals and principals worked with kids.

We get into these debates and we get into this disruption in the education system we have and everybody says it's for the kids. I think for the most part everybody is trying to do what is best for the kids. But you don't do it by helter-skelter tearing things apart. You don't do it by ramming things down everybody's throat. You don't do it by putting out a funding formula that treats urban schools like it treats rural schools.

I can think of two schools, Teacher -Speaker. You are a teacher as well in the way you keep us in order here. I think of two schools in my riding.

One is Western Secondary School. Western Secondary School is a school for special kids. There are others within the greater Essex county public school board that are threatened, and I think each one of these institutions has to be looked at in view of the value that it gives to our community and to our society. I know others will speak of other schools within the system. But within my riding it's Western Secondary School. Special-education, special-needs students go there, and they do remarkably well. They're great. They are learning the way they need to learn. They are learning what they need to learn. That's a rural high school. You take that away and what do we have?

We've got Harrow high school. It's in a community of about 2,600 people surrounded by perhaps another 3,000 or 4,000. Harrow is a small, agriculturally based community in southwestern Ontario. You take the high school out of that community and you're taking the gymnasium out of that community, you're taking facilities that can be used by community groups out of that community, and what you're doing is saying no to people who want to move into a small rural community because we don't have a high school for your kids.

In the wisdom of those who have gone before, maybe Harrow high school and Western school in the county - and by the way, Western school is absolutely full, so it isn't a question of space. It's a question of a funding formula that's going to make for some very difficult decisions by the greater Windsor-Essex county public school board. But you take Harrow high school out of that community and you take part of the guts out of that community; you take part of the spirit out of that community. When we start to take the guts and the spirit out of rural Ontario, that's the time we have to change a government that fights with everybody and get one that wants to work together.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm delighted to join in this debate. Actually, we are debating two things today. One is of course what is in front of us, the instructional time as it has been presented by the government. The other is the curtail motion that the government introduces as a time allocation motion or, in words so the people out there can understand what we are talking about, a motion to cut the debate on Bill 63, which was introduced by the government a few days ago following the vote in the House here with respect to the back-to-work legislation.

We said, "Sure, go ahead, but let us debate it," and lo and behold, they came after one day and said: "That's enough. We've decided that enough has been said and we have listened to everybody. There is no more debate necessary, and therefore we are going to introduce a time allocation to end further debate," which is most unfortunate, because I would say, with all due respect to the honourable members of the government side, that they understand the importance of the argument, the subject here, if you will. We are talking instructional time.

1630

It's not the five minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes or even 20 minutes of extra time; it is the quality of education we give our kids in the classroom. I would say that kids, after the introduction and passing of the legislation of this government, will be getting less time. What I understand as instructional time is whatever time is allocated to students by the teachers, wherever they are, in whatever class, in whatever subject, whether it's physics, gym, whether it's sports, whether it's morale, anything.

I was particularly interested to hear the member for York Mills the other day say in the House - I could almost quote verbatim what he said. He said that we owe it to the children - I assume he meant the children of our province - to give them a better education system. I don't think we can argue with that. I don't think any member in this House would argue with that. Then he went on to say that our colleges and universities are not producing enough good students, but he didn't say why.

The funny thing is that maybe he stopped at that particular spot because they know that now we are seeing - the students are seeing, the parents and the teachers are seeing - the consequences of the now infamous Bill 160. This is part of the family, if you will, of Bill 160. Now, whether it's Bill 160 or Bill 63 or whatever else they may introduce in the future, slowly they are coming home to this chamber to roost. Now we are seeing the consequences of the legislation which they imposed on us and the people of Ontario: the teachers, the parents and the students.

We can't have it both ways. We can't have the Premier, the Minister of Education, a few members of the cabinet, the hierarchy there, the advisers, saying, "This is what you have to do to accomplish your tax cuts" at the expense of - we'll leave that for another time, because it would take me about an hour and I only have 15 minutes.

You cannot have that decided behind closed doors. Now they've got the power. They can come into the chamber here and pretend, so godly, to the public out there that "Now we have eliminated the fund; we have taken it over." Oh, sure, oh, yes indeed they have taken over that particular power. But we have no more control. Parents have no control. We don't have a say. Teachers, parents, students don't have a say. Behind closed doors they retain the power for themselves to decide when, how and how much, and then how they are going to disburse it.

Then they come into the chamber here and say, "We are improving the education system," when instead they've been cutting more than $1 billion. I don't think it takes a mathematician or a genius or whatever else you want to call it - confront the students and teachers and say: "You know what? We are really for reform." This is what they're saying in the House. "We are here really for education reform." Of course there is always some room for improvement, but you cannot decide behind closed doors that you're going to cut $1 billion and then come into this chamber and say to us and say to the public that you want to provide the best education system for our kids, say, "We are going to provide a better education system." I don't think so.

You cannot come into this chamber after you have decided in the back room to cut teachers and say, "We are going to provide a better education system." You cannot decide behind closed doors that you're going to be cutting $1 billion and then make the people believe that you're going to provide a better education system. You cannot make the kids of our province believe it, when you've cut $1 billion in funding, when you continue to increase tuition fees by some 60%, when you have fewer teachers, and then come into this House and say, "We are improving the education system." Are we saying that closing schools improves our education system? I don't think so. Parents don't think so.

We had the Premier in here today saying to us: "We are doing well. We are listening to the parents." Which parents are the minister and the Premier listening to? Who are they listening to? I have yet to find a parent telling me, "We agree with the government, with the funding formula, with the closing of schools, with the per pupil space allocation." I have yet to find one parent.

Last week, I believe it was Monday night, I attended one big meeting with I have no idea how many hundreds of people. The meeting was about the committee in charge of reviewing school closures and stuff like that. We were there to review the possible closure of 129 schools in Metro Toronto. I fail to understand it. I hope the Premier and the minister are listening to what the parents and the teachers are saying out there. The parents are saying: "We bought our home in this area because of the school and now you are going to close the school. This is what you call service?"

This is double-talk, this particular piece of material here, total political garbage, and I'll tell you why. This comes from the now government, from the Minister of Education, from the Premier of our province. This is what it says, among many other things: "We want parental involvement. Call your child's school to get involved in your parent council." Parents are saying to me: "We won't have a school to get involved in any more, so what the heck are you telling us? We may have to look for another place, because we don't want our kids to be bused, God knows how many miles." If that school closes, there is no other school close by for how many kilometres that will take the extra kids.

On early learning, it says here, "All schools can offer early learning programs to ensure your child gets a successful start in school." You are taking the very possibility to provide basic education at the most important time and you are closing schools in the local communities. You tell me, when you have to bus kids 10 kilometres away, how they're going to get the best education possible. I really don't think so. This is another case where the Premier and the government are saying, "We've got to do more with less." It's worth repeating.

This is something I got in my door just two or three weeks ago. Perhaps I shouldn't show it that much. It comes from one of the most respected agencies in our province, in Canada, I would say, or perhaps internationally. This is addressed to teachers, parents, students and whoever wants to avail themselves of these particular programs.

This is what it says: "Will your child or grandchild be financially equipped to attend a post-secondary institution?" It's worth reading. It does not come from any member of the government side and it does not come from any member of the opposition side. This is what the public, what professional people out there in the field, are saying about the education system and this government, and it's worth reading.

"The province has capped student loans at $7,000 a year. But student debt isn't limited - only the amounts governments are willing to cover. Students will have to earn, beg or borrow....

A first-year medical student starting this fall will see a 67% rise in tuition to $7,844. In September 1999, new medical students will pay $11,000 a year in fees.

First-year dentistry students are also going to see the price of their education skyrocket - to $12,000 plus another $5,000 in instrument fees. Add living expenses, books and food and dental students are looking at spending $25,000 a year."

1640

This doesn't come from the parents, the students, the members of this House; this comes from the president of this well-known, well-respected international agency located here in Toronto. These are the professional people who are polling the figures for the government, for us and for the parents and teachers as well. That is my point. How can we provide better education and have more students. Like the member for York Mills was saying, we have to get more students with better education. This is why we are going to get fewer students with less education, because they won't be able to -

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would you check and see if there's a quorum.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Yorkview.

Mr Sergio: I will continue for the next minute or so and try to wrap it up. The main points here for consideration really do not change. Yes, reform in some areas is needed, some changes are needed, but everybody has been telling the Premier and the Minister of Education that this is not the way to provide better education. The funding formula was another major problem, and they haven't been listening. That is one of the cornerstones.

As I said in the House the other day, since the beginning schools, together with churches, have always been a cornerstone of every community. Schools have been functioning as the get-together, the community centre, the learning centre, and that's where parents would go in support of the system, in support of the students, in support of running programs for the kids and stuff like that.

What we see here is a total dismantling of the education system as we used to know it, and it's causing such a huge effect that it will be impossible for this government to fix it. Not only can't they fix it; they don't know how to fix it. They are making too many mistakes. I hope they will reconsider prior to finalizing this particular piece of legislation.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 63. I'd like to remind members of the House and those listening that Bill 63 is an attempt once again to try to fix mistakes that were made in a piece of government legislation, and that legislation specifically was Bill 160.

The government is fond of trying to confuse Bill 160 with a number of other issues. The government would have people believe that Bill 160 has to do with standardized testing, with standardized report cards, and it doesn't. The government would have the public believe that Bill 160 has to do with classrooms, and it does indirectly because what it does is it cuts classroom funding, period, full stop, and there's no in between on that issue. It cuts classroom funding in a variety of ways. It tries to define issues like instructional time, and in the original bill they missed the boat.

What it does at its core - it doesn't talk about how well our kids do in math, how good our kids' reading standards are. It doesn't talk about how well our teachers teach. It deals with how our school boards are funded, it deals with who funds what, it deals with issues that really have an indirect impact on the classroom, but a very important indirect impact.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about the shortcomings of this particular bill, and this particular bill being Bill 160. Bill 63, again, is here to try and correct or clarify sections of Bill 160.

The government's funding formula is having a direct impact on communities right across this province. In my hometown, in my community, four schools are actively being looked at for closure. Two of those are in my riding: Walkerville and W.D. Lowe. I'd like to say just a couple of words about what this means. This means, in the particular cases of Walkerville and Lowe, that if one or both of those schools were to be closed, there would be no high school left in downtown Windsor. There would be no high school left to serve those inner-city neighbourhoods. There would be schools on the periphery that are excellent schools, that are outstanding schools, but it would mean unequivocally that there would be no downtown school.

Walkerville Collegiate offers what is in the view of most people, including experts in education, one of the most outstanding centres for creative arts, the Windsor Centre for Creative Arts. Our local school board a number of years ago, in trying to find cost savings, began putting programs like that into schools to protect their enrolment, to help ensure that they would maintain an enrolment base that would allow them to continue to operate. W.D. Lowe has a great history and tradition in our community in terms of technical programs especially and, more recently, in English as a second language. I believe there are close to 30 language groups represented in that particular school.

I have attended with the community group representing Lowe before the school board. I have heard from parents at Walkerville. I have heard from parents at Western. Make no mistake, this government has a planned, deliberate policy to take teachers out of classrooms and to close schools.

The government likes to talk about, "What do you stand for?" The government would say, "What would you do?" Let me tell you, whatever we do, we won't try to hide it and we won't try to conceal it, which is exactly what this government's doing. I took the analysis from our school boards about how they're coming up with these decisions and how the formula works and, quite frankly, you'd have to be a Philadelphia lawyer or a Toronto lawyer to really understand it. This is a deliberate attempt by the government to take the focus of this debate away from the Legislature and put it on our local school boards. In fact, when you go through these numbers carefully, there's one handprint that comes through loud and clear: It's the handprint of the Harris government; it's the fingers of the Minister of Education.

1650

You've got a situation in our area where the funding formula yields actual costs of less than half for things like principals. It is an absolute joke - an absolute joke. What are we left with? We're left with a government that through this bill is acknowledging a major flaw in its own legislation. We are left with a government that won't accept responsibility for what it's doing; a government that would pit one school against another; a government that would have you believe these are local decisions. You know what? When our policy is defined, when we take steps, we won't be afraid to say what the policy is and we won't take steps to hide it. That's what you've done. You're not assuming responsibility; you're passing the buck.

The group of parents at one of our schools at Walkerville - I'd like to just take a moment to review a few I thought very good words about what they have recommended on how to deal with this. These parents want to make sure, as we in the opposition do, that we make the best use of our education dollars. Unlike the Harris government, they want to be sure that dollars go into classrooms. The government has given us a funding formula that doesn't do that.

Let me read to you the words they've submitted to the board so that you'll understand where they're coming from.

"We urge the board to undertake an extensive and fundamental review of its physical plant capacity, the cost of making renovations to permit rental of excess space to businesses and organizations, the reallocation or transfer of specific programs to create centres of excellence and the relocation of overcrowded elementary schools."

What they're saying and what they've said to me directly is, "There's a better way of doing it that will allow us to keep our schools open."

When the government opens debate on Bill 160 again to clarify what it means by instructional time, it reminds us in the opposition of all the flaws in the bill and it reminds us in the opposition that, no matter where you stand, you ought to be prepared to stand truthfully behind it and in an open fashion.

This government does stand for something. It stands for closed schools. It stands for worse education, not better education. It stands for picking on teachers as an easy political target. That's no way to conduct educational policy, and I would submit to the government if you were intent on really making our schools better, you'd own up to this instead of pitting one community against another; instead of closing rural schools in communities where they don't have them; instead of closing urban schools in decaying downtown cores where those schools are needed to attract new residents; in terms of reflecting what is needed across a system of education. There are ways of doing that, a lot of ways. One of our proposals is centres of excellence in schools. These parents at Walkerville are saying precisely that.

I say to the government, Bill 63 attempts to correct a problem in your own legislation, Bill 160, a piece of legislation that is rife with mistakes but that at its core undermines the quality of education we can offer our kids, does so in a manner that jeopardizes certain parts of this province over others and creates division and misunderstanding, and it's something that ought to be repealed. It's something that ought not to be allowed to go forward.

Let's work together to make sure we have better schools, better instruction. Teachers want that. Parents want that. Kids want that. The official opposition wants that. We'll change it next year when we get the chance to do so.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I would like to join my colleagues in the Liberal caucus today in trying to shed some light on the weaknesses of this bill and what I believe the public, parents and students need to know. I would like to focus on two areas.

What is the definition that the government uses in terms of instructional time? In its simplistic manner, in its ads that are paid for by the people of Ontario, to try and simplify a complex issue it says, "All we're asking is for teachers to spend 25 more minutes in the classroom." In fact, all the teachers agreed. They have no problem with that. They said, "We're prepared to spend 25 more minutes in the classroom," and there were some discussions.

If the government was so sincere in simply finding another 25 minutes of instructional time for teachers, the teachers would have agreed. Why not add an extra five minutes to the courses they already teach, or another seven minutes or whatever it is? But no, because that would not solve the underlying reason why this legislation is here in the first place.

It really is all about the government trying to cut costs. How do they cut costs? Of course, they cut teachers. While the minister goes on to say that we have hundreds of teachers, thousands of teachers who are being hired by boards, he must know that these are replacement positions of people who have retired or who were discouraged and got out of teaching - what a shame - and that there is a net deficit. In other words, we have fewer teachers now teaching in Ontario, with an enrolment which increases every year. Does that lead to quality? I say no, I don't believe it does.

What people need to know as well is that in some provinces teachers don't fill in for absent co-workers as they do in Ontario, or supervise halls and cafeterias as our teachers do. Ontario refuses to count guidance as part of legitimate instruction with a student. You can quibble with words, you can quibble with concepts, but I will tell you, if it were not for the fine work of our guidance counsellors, there would be many students, including perhaps some of our members in this House, who would probably not have completed their high school at that particular time or completed school, period.

Library duty as teaching: What do we have now? The school where my wife teaches: no librarian, no gym teacher, no vice-principal. All of those extra supports gone. Not recognized as legitimate parts of the relationship that teachers have with the students.

Gail Nyberg, the chair of the Toronto District School Board, said, "The government's analysis of the situation is misleading and leads to a debate that doesn't mean anything. Anybody who thinks a teacher is only working when they're standing in front of the classroom hasn't been in the classroom for very long," she says. "It's like saying that a lawyer is only working when the lawyer is in court, or it's like saying that an MPP or an MP is only working when they're in the House. That's ridiculous. How many people in doing their job need to prepare? Most people do." That's not appreciated, it's not recognized.

It's not just 25 minutes we're talking about. We're talking perhaps another 75 minutes plus the added marking, plus the added preparation, plus the added research with the new curriculum etc, which is not recognized. I think we will pay for this. When you demoralize a whole profession, we will pay for this. Most of the teachers out there are excellent teachers, have given their time freely, and now you push them to the wall. Do you expect that they're going to want to give the best of themselves? In spite of this government's efforts, I think most of them will, but I think the people of Ontario should know the truth. The truth is that the bottom line is that the government is looking for money and one way to do that is to cut teachers and one way to do that is to ask a smaller number of them to take on more time.

1700

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I am pleased to follow on the comments made by the member for Ottawa Centre, who I think has been bang on with his description of what this piece of legislation is actually trying to do.

Bill 63 is, as we all know, an outcome of Bill 160. It purports to simply add more instructional time. If members were following what the honourable member for Ottawa Centre was speaking of, they would have discovered that those ads the government has placed that show a clock just ticking 25 minutes more are totally misleading as to what's actually happening in the classroom, in the school. Who here truly believes that a teacher only teaches for four hours and 10 minutes? Nobody believes that. But that's instruction time.

So what does the teacher do with the balance of the time? Besides preparing for lessons, which is very important, there is marking and grading the students. Because we're dealing with three or sometimes even four classes, that's four sets of individual children that have to be monitored, that have to have individual lesson plans that the teacher has to worry about.

There's Johnny, who's going a little bit slower, or Jane, who's reaching ahead. "How am I going to keep Jane occupied and make sure she stays focused on the lesson plan?" And all the other things. There's Mohammed, who's having some difficulty grasping concepts, and Tibor, who's way ahead if he only could understand what he was talking about - all these differences. We are dealing with a situation in our classes that is quite a challenge. We don't have a homogeneous society; we have a multicultural, multilingual society, people coming from many different socio-economic backgrounds. The teachers are there with new curriculum. They have to devise lesson plans almost on the fly as this government, day by day, is changing its mind about what should happen in the classroom.

You have to be a parent. I'm a parent of three children, and I want to talk about Woodroffe High School, because I was a parent of a son who went through Woodroffe High School as an Ontario scholar. I was a member of the school advisory committee, and I had the added benefit of having served on the school board for some six years.

Woodroffe High School has about 900 students. It's at about 80% capacity. It has a child care centre that is sponsored in part by Variety Club. Young mothers wanting to go back to school can leave their children there and go in and get caught up on their education so they can contribute to society and not become a drain on our community. Of course, with this extra space, I'll talk about space requirements in a moment.

But what has happened to this high school as a result of this government's funding formula, this government's education policies? When this government came into power in 1995, what was the first thing it did? It announced that it was going to change the whole secondary school system. Everyone said, "OK, about time." Everyone, believe it or not, is an expert on education. But only 70% of taxpayers actually have children in school. What did the government do? They made permanent the $425-million cut under the social contract that the NDP brought in when they formed the government. All those positions, all those support personnel, all that comes out in terms of positions, because 80% of any school board's expenditure is on people. People provide the service for our kids.

Then they took out another $533 million from the system, across all of Ontario. Then they came in with Bill 160, with its new funding formula, and what happened in Ottawa-Carleton? If you were a taxpayer in Ottawa and were sending your child to Woodroffe High School, you would find fewer teachers, fewer speech pathologists, fewer librarians, fewer custodial staff to clean up the mess after some kid has been sick in the day or what have you, less secretarial help to take the message from the mother who wants to make sure her daughter is taking her medication, because she left it at home. No gym teacher. They've lost a vice-principal. The principal has to spend all her time out patrolling the halls because, even though it is Ottawa West, this is an inner-city school with all the inner-city tensions you have.

As a result, the principal is not able to give enough leadership time, the teachers are swamped right off their feet trying to deal with all these changes and the new curriculum, and you're telling them that they have to provide more instructional time. Well, they would do that, but do you know that not one student is going to benefit in terms of being taught more as a result of this bill? Their learning time does not increase by 25 minutes, not at all. What happens is that their teacher is going to come in less prepared, less able to deal with their problems because that teacher now has more kids to look after and less time to do a good job. That is what happens.

For the taxpayer who does not have children in the school, what happens to them? They're paying more property tax. Can you believe it? The government takes the education portion of property tax and then downloads on to the municipalities, the regional government puts in a tax freeze, the city government puts in a tax freeze, yet the city of Ottawa ratepayer ends up paying more property tax. Why? Because when the province levies its property tax, it's levying the province-wide average. In Ottawa-Carleton, it was a local board taking advantage of local assessment to provide local programs that dealt with their inner-city schools, our special-education needs, our French immersion needs, English as a second language. We are a cosmopolitan community in Ottawa-Carleton, the fourth-largest in Canada.

So, what happens is that the Minister of Finance now puts down this province-wide levy for the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton and they're paying more. They're getting less service and paying more money. It is astounding, and it's actually going to come home to roost, because throughout all of Ottawa-Carleton, with all the smokescreen of property reassessment and downloading and Bill 160 and the new funding formula, the whole bit, 60% of residential taxpayers are seeing their taxes go up. They're seeing less service: less service at the municipality, less service at their hospitals and now less service at their schools. And we haven't even finished.

From 1982 to 1988 I served as a school board trustee, and I'm proud to say it. I was elected by my community and I was given a mandate to provide good quality education at a reasonable cost, and we tried to do that. But the government of the day, whether it be Conservative, Liberal or later on NDP, kept on cutting and cutting funding. First it was Bill 82, which obligated school boards to provide special services for students in need. That's fine, but there were no additional resources. We had to go back to the taxpayer. Then there was the extension of separate school funding and the loss of a tax base. We just had to cope with that, and we had to go back to the taxpayer. Then there was the foundation of the French-language school board.

This was all well and good, but there was no transitional funding, no help. Go back to the taxpayers. Obviously, and the government has cashed in on this big time, the government said, "Look, you're going to have to go back to the taxpayer." We did and we had higher-than-average tax increases. Then this government turns around and says, "Those irresponsible school boards." Here we are providing as much service as we can to community standards, yet we had to go back to the taxpayer. As a mater of fact, the Ottawa Board of Education, which I served on, was 100% free of provincial funding. We were totally based on the tax base and we knew it and acted accordingly.

But now the government comes in and takes control of all that. What happens now? Do you call your trustee and say: "My son needs help. The teachers say he's got attention deficit disorder. Can you now provide him a teacher's aide?" The trustee says: "The funding formula only gives me so many, and I've got all those kids plus more, because we've had enrolment growth. I can't provide as many as I did before. My hands are tied. We've had to lay off speech pathologists because the government won't give us the money to meet the community need. We've had to lay off social workers because the government won't give us the money to meet the community need. English as a second language? We don't have that money any more. We can't do this."

So what happens? The teachers, whom you want to give more responsibility, already have their hands full, with less support coming from the board, less support coming from the taxpayer, who is willing to pay for it in Ottawa-Carleton, and now having to deal with new curriculum. All of this, and you're saying that more has to be done. I'm sorry, there are limits to all of this.

Then there's the wholly bogus notion that class size is capped. One thing I understand - having served six years on a collective bargaining committee, where we did settle at the table, and we tried to make sure we knew what was going on in the rest of the province but we also knew how deep the pockets were in Ottawa-Carleton - is what class size, average class size, school average class size, system-wide average class size, what all that means. For many parents, having bought into this expensive propaganda campaign the government has put over radio and television and in the newspapers, the reality is not matching the government's rhetoric. If there was ever a need for truth in advertising, it's here, it's with this government, because this government is giving less service at higher cost.

1710

Are class sizes capped? Not at all. As a matter of fact, this government's class size that is put into Bill 160 is higher than the class size average that the Ottawa board, the Carleton board, now the Ottawa-Carleton district board, had in place. But your funding is cut to what you said is supposed to be there in Bill 160. What does that mean? That means that we lose teachers. That means that class size actually rises in Ottawa-Carleton. What was that again? Less service, more cost?

Do you think the taxpayers in Ottawa-Carleton are going to appreciate the fact that they're paying more and getting less? Do you think the parents, who after all heard the government say, "We will not touch classroom spending" - why are there fewer teachers' aides for special-needs kids? Why are there fewer speech pathologists? Why did the principal of Woodroffe High School break her wrist because they couldn't get the floor cleaned because there's not enough custodial staff? On and on it goes. I'm sorry, the rhetoric does not meet reality whatsoever.

To add insult to injury, here is this very expensive $2-million advertising campaign with that clock, saying: "All we're asking for is 25 minutes more. Is that a lot to ask for?" Just think. That working day is a fixed day. That teacher is there all that day, from morning to late afternoon, often early into the evening. If they're teaching more of that time - and, remember, students aren't getting 25 minutes more; it's that teacher providing that effort - what is being given up? It's not lunch, it's not coffee break. What was the teacher doing? It wasn't the football program after school or the drama class after school or the school concert. What was that teacher doing? What do you think happens to poor Johnny or poor Jane or poor Mohammed or poor Tibor when they need that help and that teacher does not have sufficient time to meet these kids' needs? We thought in the school system that quality of education meant that we were able to meet the individual needs of kids because kids are not the same. They learn differently, they come from different backgrounds.

Two weeks ago I was at the opening of the national breakfast program. It was school program breakfast week across Canada. We always think of this as an elementary school thing. I have to tell you that indeed there are high schools where kids come hungry, and when kids come to school hungry they don't concentrate, they can't do their work properly, they fall behind, they end up becoming dropouts, the whole bit. Who picks up the slack on these things? When someone comes in in minus 15 degree weather and they've only come with a sweater and sweat pants and that's it, who picks up the slack?

When they don't have their books - oh, my Lord, they don't have their books. Do you realize there's a new tax in our system? Do you know if you go to the separate school system now you're expected to pony up 100 bucks, 120 bucks at the beginning of the year right away as an activity fee because the school board, because of this government's funding formula, can't provide all these books and all the materials and supplies they need? That's a user fee, and what does Mike Harris describe a user fee as? Another tax.

I am appalled by the $2 million that's spent on these ads. I'm appalled by the fact that this government has spent over $6 million since the fall of last year: Putting Students First, which was an electronic and print media campaign, $1 million; the response to teacher ads during Bill 160, $1.3 million; the funding formula ads in this spring of $800,000; the propaganda of $700,000; the growth chart, all of these things. You know, $5 million would build another high school out in Trinity, out in Stittsville, out in Goulbourn, out in south Nepean. You know what? The one that's being built in Stittsville was put in place by Liberals. They are the ones who put that in place.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Wildman: I was just looking through this document, and I listened to my friends from the Liberal caucus make their presentations. They listed a number of the problems that we're facing in education today as a result of the changes this government has wrought. I know that all of us understand that the reason for the serious turmoil and dislocation in students' education in Ontario today is the fact that this government, the Conservative government, has taken millions of dollars out of the education system.

The government made it very clear that they were going to take money out. They claim they were only going to take money out of administration. They redefined the classroom so it doesn't include things like junior kindergarten, adult education, heat and light, cleaning. It doesn't include anything that everyone understands is part of classroom education. Then they say, "OK, now we've increased the funding to classroom education." Of course they don't pay for the heat and the light and they don't pay for the cleaning and so on. But they say they've increased it.

It's obvious that if we are going to reverse the damage this government has done to education, we're going to have to not just redefine what classroom education is, we're going to have to reinvest in education; we're going to have to put money back that this government has taken out.

The reason I was looking in this document was to find out how the Liberals intend to get the money to reinvest in the education system. The government has taken about a billion dollars out of the education of our students in Ontario. They've got fewer teachers, fewer programs and we need to find the money. We think that means you have to do something about that tax cut this government has given to the rich.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'd like to commend my colleague the member for Essex South. At the outset he certainly made some thoughtful remarks on these issues and on the education issues affecting his constituency. I did want to spend more time, though, dealing with the remarks of the member for Windsor-Walkerville and the member for Yorkview.

The member for Yorkview asked where were the parents we're listening to. He couldn't find one single parent who was supporting the education reforms. I did a constituency survey and I happen to have a few here so that I could perhaps go back:

"Bill 160 is right on. Do not get into the teachers' union," from someone on Forestview Crescent who wrote in.

Another individual, "I believe the Harris government is on the right track in addressing education." That one is from Banner Road in Nepean.

"Carry on the good work," from Townsend Drive.

"Keep on the same track. Don't let the unions and the media distract you from your good work," from someone from Hadley Circle.

"Keep up the great work," from Bellman Drive.

These folks are obviously writing in to support the government's agenda.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville, when he made his remarks, said that the Liberal Party would not be afraid to state what its policy is. I want to go on record as being completely in agreement with the member for Windsor-Walkerville. The Liberal Party doesn't mind stating what its policies were. Just last week I read about all three policies they had on education. The story from the Toronto Sun said, "Grits don't know where they stand."

We had Lyn McLeod first give her statement on education and then Joe Cordiano, another member, completely contradicted everything that Lyn McLeod said on education. Then Gerry Phillips had to step in as the new deputy leader - he replaced Joe Cordiano - completely contradicting what his other two colleagues had said. But the good news: Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty wasn't available for comment.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): First of all, I want to congratulate the members for Essex South, Yorkview, Windsor-Walkerville, Ottawa Centre and Ottawa West for their speeches.

Mes collègues vous ont livré les inquiétudes de nos enseignants et enseignantes, de nos étudiants et étudiantes, de nos conseils d'école, de nos conseils scolaires, et de la majorité des parents et même des grands-parents qui sont inquiets de les leurs. Le gouvernement a procédé encore une fois avec des changements majeurs en éducation sans analyser l'impact qu'il y aura dans notre système scolaire, dans nos communautés, surtout celles du secteur rural.

Avec les coupures budgétaires que nous connaissons surtout dans le système d'éducation, nous allons voir disparaître nos bibliothécaires - les bibliothécaires en partie, certainement - nos enseignants et enseignantes en éducation physique, dans le secteur de la musique, dans l'éducation spécialisée. Souvent, nous allons perdre du personnel qui était en place pour faire la surveillance le midi. Maintenant, ils devront préparer leurs prochaines études afin de pouvoir consacrer leur temps dans l'éducation physique et aussi dans les sports.

Les coupures ont déjà frappé très dur dans ma circonscription. Tout récemment, la directrice de l'école secondaire de Vankleek Hill a été informée que, à compter du 1^er octobre, mercredi dernier, les frais d'utilisateur étaient en force. Avec cette nouvelle directive, nous avons immédiatement perdu un organisme qui était en place depuis 99 ans.

1720

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have been in my office listening to this debate and it's quite clear, from the number of Liberals who were so urgently wanting to speak to this bill in third reading, that they share the concern of constituents across the province about this bill. I can tell you that many of our members would like to have been able to speak this afternoon too but unfortunately were refused permission to have equal time in the debate. We certainly need to be very clear that this is a matter that is of urgent concern to us as well.

It is very clear that the Liberals are stating all their concerns and their complaints about what the government is doing. It is not as clear to me what they suggest as a positive alternative, nor is it clear to me how they're going to restore the kinds of concerns that people are listing. I think the people of Ontario want to know, first of all, positive suggestions from us all and also some clarity around how we would pay for an alternative way of doing things.

Our party has been very open and very clear about what we see as the alternatives. We believe that the government has taken so much money out of the system that we must reinvest more dollars. The leader of the Liberal Party made it very clear in a speech not long ago that, given the worsening financial situation, the best he could promise to the people of Ontario was that he would put walls around the funding that already exists for education and health care. That's just not going to be good enough for most of the people of Ontario who know that more money needs to be invested.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Yorkview has two minutes to respond.

Mr Sergio: Just to wrap it up on behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank the members for London Centre, Prescott and Russell, Nepean and Algoma as well.

First of all I want to correct the member for Nepean: I didn't speak with respect to various forms of the reform of education; I said I couldn't find one parent who came to me and said, "I am in favour of closing schools." To this day I can't find one parent who is in agreement with the government when it comes to school closings.

I think the aura in the House is permeated with politics. There must be an election coming up. Our position when it comes to education, health care and taxes is crystal-clear. You can twist it, you can turn it any way you want, but we have exposed our views in this House and they will not change. We will not change because of political reasons from the other parties.

What we are saying is that if you really mean it, Minister and Premier, and you want to provide the best education possible for our kids, then don't make any cuts. You cannot provide the best education with fewer teachers. You cannot provide better education with less funding, fewer teachers and more kids in the classroom. These are not just our views. We have said many times in this House, "Stop the funding cuts." I can still remember the Premier, when he was showing on TV: "Here is the envelope. No cuts to education." What did we have? A billion: fewer teachers, less support, less education. That is not our way.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: I will be speaking briefly. I'm going to split with our leader the time that is available to our caucus prior to the designated time according to the time allocation motion for the vote on third reading.

I said in the debate yesterday how much I regretted that the government chose to time-allocate Bill 63, because at the time they brought forward the time allocation motion we had reached that point, according to the rules, where members could only speak for 10 minutes. Even if all the opposition members who had not yet spoken on the second reading of Bill 63 had spoken, they would only have had 10 minutes each and it wouldn't have taken us very long to exhaust the time required, and there was no need for a time allocation motion.

But as I said in the debate yesterday, unfortunately for this government, even with those new rules it has become routine to time-allocate on important bills, to cut off debate and to ensure that the matter goes through complete second reading quickly and goes to third reading for a very short debate without going to committee, so it's impossible for there to be amendments. It's as if this government believes that any bill they draft is beyond improvement, that there is no need to have any amendments put forward in a committee, no need for clause-by-clause debate on a bill. It's regrettable.

Members will recall that it was my leader who got up in the House when we first came back into session and the government introduced the so-called back-to-school or back-to-work legislation for the eight boards where there were disruptions, lockouts and strikes, and suggested that the bill be severed, that the portion of the bill that did not deal specifically with those disputes but dealt with issues around instructional time and definition of "instruction" be taken out of the bill and introduced as a separate piece of legislation. That would then make it possible for the back-to-work legislation to be debated and voted on expeditiously, even though we opposed it, and then we would have a longer time to debate the issues around instructional time, the definitions that this government brought in.

The government agreed to do that. They immediately introduced the severed bill on instructional time and immediately proceeded with debate, which was fine. But not the reasoned debate that we had hoped for; rather a rushed, time-allocated debate, a truncated debate that doesn't make it possible for us all to participate in a way that is required if we're going to properly represent our constituents - the parents, the students, the teachers, the boards, the ratepayers, the taxpayers of Ontario - on this very important issue around instructional time that has caused so much dispute and controversy in Ontario.

In the short time I have for this third reading debate, I want to put on the record an issue that has not been canvassed in our debate on this bill. That is a particular one as it relates to the new district francophone boards, the French-language boards in Ontario. I have a letter that I will read in translation into the record from the president of the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, the AEFO, Diane Chénier, who represents the francophone teachers of Ontario.

1730

Just to put it in context before I read it into the record, members will know that, as a result of the reforms in the education field, new district French-language boards were established in Ontario, enormous boards covering very large territories. These boards did not exist until the beginning of September. They were just getting organized at the beginning of September. They were hiring their administrative staff, their principals, vice-principals. They were in disputes and discussions with the existing boards over the division of assets and liabilities. There were all these matters of reorganization and getting set up. It was impossible for the AEFO, representing the French-language teachers of Ontario, to negotiate with the new francophone boards before the beginning of September - they didn't exist - so those negotiations just started.

Interestingly enough, the minister, in intervening in collective bargaining, said that if new district boards and teachers' organizations could reach collective agreements that dealt with instructional time, they could stay in place and they would not be legislated against by this government. That put the francophones at a disadvantage. Unlike the other English Catholic and English public boards that had been negotiating through the summer, they hadn't been involved in those negotiations.

Those other negotiations were difficult as it was, and most of those boards and teacher organizations were not able to reach agreements, but the French-language boards and their teachers had no chance to do that and so they were put at a disadvantage because now we have this legislation before the House, which is going to legislate the instructional time issue before any of these boards - and they've agreed to negotiate together across the province - can reach any kind of agreement. They're not likely to reach agreements until the end of this calendar year, I would think.

So I want to put this letter on the record. This is written to the Minister of Education and Training:

"Dear Minister:

"AEFO is disappointed to note how rapidly your government reintroduced Bill 63.

"I will not talk about the outrageous augmentation of the workload, or of the unfortunate intervention of your government in collective bargaining, but only of the impact of your bill on the negotiations in French-language schools.

"Negotiations with French-language school boards could not begin before September 1998, after the boards were effectively in place. What's more, several of these boards didn't have any administrative staff on duty and that postponed negotiations. When in some places we have to integrate up to 12 different collective agreements, it goes without saying that the process takes longer in our boards than in the English-language boards.

"AEFO, like the school boards, finally decided to put in place a centralized bargaining structure, to ensure stability in French-language schools for the fall 1998 session as well as a clear and innovative process to deal with disagreements.

"Your Bill 63 puts this process at risk and discriminates towards francophones. If you cannot cancel Bill 63 to remove discriminatory elements towards francophones, at least postpone royal assent to September 1999. We then would have the time to adjust.

"Respectfully yours,

"The President,

"Diane Chénier."

I ask the government to respond to this even at this late hour.

This government has rushed through an issue of time of instruction, a definition of what instructional time is. It hasn't given anyone, francophone or anglophone, in this province an opportunity to deal properly with the issue. The issue is not 25 more minutes - "Is that all we have to ask?" as the Tory ads say - the issue is requiring teachers to teach an additional class, 25 more students, with less time to prepare, less time with individual students, less time to give remedial assistance, less time for extracurricular activities and less possibility of a good quality of education for our students in Ontario.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I want to add my comments to what is going on here as well. First of all, let me say that this is one more turn of the vice that this government has used to grip Ontario's education system. It is one more piece in the centralization of all control of our children's education. It is another attempt to tie the hands of local school boards and locally elected trustees. The real purpose is to make it impossible for boards to have any flexibility in their negotiations with secondary school teachers.

This has to be placed in the context of what this government has done already. This is a government that said they were going to create a crisis in education. They said that three years ago. This is a government that has already taken $1 billion out of our elementary and secondary schools. This is a government, frankly, that destroyed all of the existing collective agreements as of August 31 of this year, put school boards in a situation where they would literally be facing chaos in terms of having teachers in the schools, in the classrooms, having support staff in the schools, without having any contracts governing the working relationships. A government would only create that scenario if it were absolutely intent, absolutely committed to creating chaos, as this government has.

Now this government that has created chaos in the classroom, that has created chaos in our schools, is going to go about the province closing hundreds of schools, wants to have yet further power over the classroom, wants to have further power to make centralized decisions about our children's educational prospects and our children's educational experience. It is really quite an incredible scenario that is shaping up here. What is perhaps one of the most dynamic of activities in terms of an individual life, an activity which requires all sorts of inputs on the spot, all sorts of recognition of an individual's capacity, an individual's needs, this government further seeks to centralize control over.

What's going to be the outcome of this? Further chaos in the schools; further chaos in the educational experience of our children. At a time when education is more important to our individual prospects, to our social prospects, more important in terms of the social success of this province and the economic success of this province, we have a government that is intent upon creating yet more chaos in our children's classrooms.

I don't have to say that we're fundamentally opposed to what the government is trying to do here. On the face of it, any rational person would be fundamentally opposed to what the government is trying to do. But it goes further than that, because if you actually sit down and read the definitions that the government is trying to put in place here, if you actually look at the interpretation that the government is trying to put in place, it leaves out all sorts of scenarios, and frankly it's going to create, as I say, yet more confusion out there.

The definition doesn't even deal with all of the mandated programs. For example, we have libraries in our schools. Those libraries have to be supervised. Teachers have to be involved in that supervision. That's not covered. So I have to ask the question, if a teacher takes a class to the school library for the purpose of selecting books and for the purpose of reading some of those books and for the purpose of doing research in some of those books, is that not counted as instructional time? I thought that there was some importance placed around the reading of books, the selection of books, doing research from books, doing research in a library setting, but apparently that's not instructional time in Ontario.

1740

Guidance programs: Everyone knows that children, students, especially adolescent students in a high school setting, face more and more difficult choices and more and more difficult challenges in terms of course selection and in terms of making thoughtful judgments about where they want to go, what courses they want to take and what their interests may be.

Mr Wildman: Life choices.

Mr Hampton: Life choices. So guidance is a very important part of the school life of adolescents in our high schools. One would have thought that guidance, time taken for guidance, time taken to counsel young students about their choices, about their options, about where these options and choices will lead, would be included as instructional time. But lo and behold, there is no mention of guidance, so it would appear, in the Conservative vision of Ontario, that guidance time, the time taken to sit down and talk to students about their choices, about their options, isn't important. That's not instructional time.

Then there's the issue of supervision, supervision in the hallway. Let us take supervision of students when they're leaving school, they're getting on school buses; supervision of students when they come into the school in the morning. One would have thought that the supervision of students in the school, the supervision of students between classes, would also have taken some part in instructional time or would have been considered important enough. But lo and behold, that is not part of this either.

Then there's the issue of what happens if a teacher picks up another class for another teacher. It's not unusual in the dynamic world of school and education that some teachers may not be available to teach a class for which they have been scheduled. It may be a family emergency, it may be a medical issue, it may be some other issue. Another teacher will come in and pick up that time for them. I would have thought that that would have been counted as instructional time, but apparently, in the Conservative vision of Ontario, taking another class for another teacher is not going to be counted as instructional time.

If these aren't important issues, if these kinds of things aren't important issues, then what really lies at the heart of this bill? What is at the heart of this bill? I can say it's obvious that what really counts here is the government is putting together a template which will result in taking more teachers out of the schools. This is nothing more than a template to create a scenario whereby fewer teachers deal with more students in a compressed time frame. That's what it's all about.

The maths may go right over the heads of the wisenheimers over here in the Conservative benches but the reality is, if you have fewer teachers dealing with more students in a compressed time zone, it means less time for each student. It means students won't be getting a quality education. Students will be, in effect, getting less quality time, less time with teachers, less mentoring time.

This is all about treating students as if they're widgets. You force as many as you can into a classroom. You take out as many teachers as you can and then you say, "Presto, this is education." Well, this is not education, this is warehousing. This is not creating quality learning opportunities, this is treating students as if they are some sort of a manufacturing process. This is not going to result in quality education in any shape, any form, any way.

What it will do is allow this government to get rid of literally thousands of teachers across the province. It will allow this government to then take that money and use it to finance what is their real priority in this province: to take that money and finance their income tax scheme, an income tax scheme that at the end of the day only benefits the wealthiest people in this province.

The new equation runs like this: Students get less. Students get less quality time, students have less access to teachers, students get fewer extracurricular activities, schools have less money, classrooms have less money so that the Conservative government can finance their income tax scheme to benefit the 5% or 6% at the top of the wealth and income ladder in this province. That's the real priority of this government. When you cut through it all, that's what is really involved here.

This is not a case of going a little too fast, a little too far. This is a case of a government that has the wrong priorities. At a time when education is more important for individual success and for our success as a province, this is a government that is making the wrong decision, a government that has the wrong priorities, a government that's going in the wrong direction.

I want to be very clear with this government, and I especially want to be clear with the people of Ontario. New Democrats are absolutely committed to the rolling back of this income tax scheme as it pertains to the 6% at the top and taking the $2 billion that you get when you roll back that income tax scheme and putting that $2 billion back in the classroom where it will do the most good for the most people in our society. I just want to point out -

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: Some of the Liberals are upset at that statement because they want people to believe that they can reinvest in education and they can cement the Harris income tax scheme in place at the same time. I say to my colleagues in the Liberal Party, stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. It didn't work in Nickel Belt; it won't work anywhere else.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: The Liberal Party is really upset now.

I'd like to get back to the issue of education. In British Columbia -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Hampton: I gather some of the Liberals want to say something about their endorsement of the Harris income tax scheme.

Interjections.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Do you want a bumper sticker that says you change your policy every day?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Rainy River has the floor. I'd like to hear him and you should.

Mr Hampton: The Liberal Party must really have a problem here. I'm trying to point out what the Harris government is really doing. They're taking money out of the classroom to finance an income tax scheme. Somehow the Liberal Party has a problem with that and I wonder what that problem could be.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: If members of the Liberal Party want to get up and advocate on behalf of the Harris government's income tax scheme that is taking $1 billion a year out of our classrooms and is taking $1 billion a year out of health care, then at some point they should get up and do that because the public wants to hear clearly from the Liberal Party.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Sudbury, come to order.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Did I hear the words "social contract" from the leader of the NDP?

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Hampton: Frankly, I think the public wants to know where the priorities are. It's very clear where the Conservative priorities are: The Conservatives favour taking money out of schools, out of classrooms, to finance their income tax scheme.

I believe it's absolutely essential that people in Ontario understand clearly what this debate is about and where everyone stands in this debate. I make it very clear that we will roll back this income tax scheme, in particular for the 6% at the top who are the only people who benefit. That money ought to go back into education.

As for the Liberal Party, they will continue to try to have it both ways. They want to cement the Harris income tax scheme but they want to try to talk about educational reinvestment. Have you ever heard of the Grand Canyon? Have you ever heard about the English Channel? That's the position the Liberal Party of Ontario is now in.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Windsor-Walkerville, come to order.

Mr Hampton: Since I have reached the end of my time and more and more members of the Liberal Party are having a conniption, I will wrap up by saying this: The reality we face today is that education is the priority investment for this province. It is absolutely the investment we must make if we are going to be part of the 21st-century economy. Conservatives will not make that investment. In fact, they believe in de-investment in education. They believe in taking money out of education.

It's becoming very clear from the clatter we're hearing here in the background that Liberals will not make that investment either. They simply want to say to people, "Don't worry, we'll cement in place the cuts to education that Conservatives have already made."

It's absolutely clear that we must make these investments. These investments will better our position in terms of this knowledge economy. They will give our students the quality education they need if they're going to take part in this knowledge economy. It's a priority for New Democrats. It is a priority we accept, that we have to take money back out of this income tax scheme and we have to put it in the classroom. We have to make these investments and we will make these investments.

The centralization of control over education, centralization of control over the classroom is an experiment that is doomed to failure. These experiments have been tried elsewhere in the world. I believe everyone knows that this massive centralization doesn't work, never has worked and is going to create the chaos in our education system that this government made their commitment to early on in their career. They have done nothing but further that crisis with every move they've taken in education since then.

This bill is wrong, wrong-headed, wrong direction, wrong result. We will change that.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 5, 1998, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Smith has moved third reading of Bill 63. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1755 to 1800.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(h), the chief government whip has requested that the vote on Bill 63, instructional time, be deferred until Wednesday, October 7, 1998. So be it.

It being nearly 6 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 o'clock this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1755.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

6 octobre 1998