Journal des débats 1998-nov-24 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Today, representatives of police departments from across Ontario have been visiting with members of the Legislature and sharing with them the many challenges facing police officers in various communities and some recommendations designed to enhance and improve police services to the public.

What is clear to any objective observer is that the level of service is directly related to the number of front-line officers available for duty and the quality of training that has been available to those officers. While announcements and reannouncements of funding for additional police officers are made rather easily, front-line police officers will believe them only when they see an additional complement of police in the field, with the emphasis on the word "additional."

The stress and strain of police work can take its toll on officers, particularly when they are too few in number to meet the expectations of the public and the responsibilities assigned to them as officers of the law. Few jobs in our society involve the potential for serious injury and death on a daily basis, yet that is exactly the reality which faces men and women of our police departments as they fight crime in our communities.

What we need in our society is a timely response to calls for help from citizens; a visible police presence in our communities; police concern for all crime, not just violent crime; and police who are available at all times of the day and night.

Police officers have served our communities well in the past. They can only do so in the future with our strong support.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I want to talk about the Ontario Northland bus service in the north. Saving Ontario Northland's bus service is an important issue for people who live in northern Ontario. I want to be direct with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and let him know that this issue will not go away, as much as he would like it to. My colleague Gilles Bisson and I will continue to fight to reverse the decision to axe bus service in my riding of Cochrane North.

Bus service is not just a fringe service that people can go without in northern Ontario. Over the past few weeks, I've received lots of letters from constituents which illustrate the impact and severity of these cuts: a grandmother visiting her family, students leaving Opasatika for the weekend, youths from the children's treatment centre going to visit their family in Hearst.

On November 14, on a frigid afternoon and evening, over 30 people in Kapuskasing came together to demonstrate their support for maintaining bus services in northern Ontario.

I understand the ONTC has assembled a passenger service review committee that will review all land passenger services early in the new year, but this simply does not make any sense. Why would you axe services and then say you're going to review the whole system? Wouldn't it make more sense to conduct a review and then consider what measures one can take in order to protect bus services?

On behalf of my constituents, I urge the minister and the ONTC to rescind this decision and wait till the review process is completed before proceeding with any action on cutting service.

HOWARD HARAMIS

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Today I pay tribute to Howard Haramis, the late mayor of Renfrew, who passed away on November 17. Howie, as he was known by all, was a solid municipal partner, a dynamic leader, a supporter of this government and a close friend. He is remembered as one of the hardest-working and most effective mayors in the Ottawa Valley.

His political career started early. He served as town councillor from 1962 to 1966 and was elected mayor in 1966, the youngest mayor in Canada. He was again elected in 1991 and 1994 and had completed one year of his latest term.

Over those years, Howie left his own unique touch, promoting the town of Renfrew wherever he went. He worked with all politicians of all stripes, so long as they shared his vision of prosperity and progress for the taxpayers of the town of Renfrew and surrounding areas.

He partnered with this government to fill empty industrial space and create jobs. He selflessly supported one-tier government and ardently believed in and acted upon the principle that the best way to help people was to help them help themselves.

The town of Renfrew and the province of Ontario have lost an exceptional leader. Our deepest sympathies to Howie's wife, Wayne, and to his family.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I see that you're here today, Mr Speaker, with a new haircut and a new riding, and all is well with you. I just wanted to congratulate you on your victory at your nomination meeting last night.

I know the Speaker would agree with me on the issue I'm about to talk about, school closures. In his riding, along with ridings right across the old Metro Toronto, which is now the city of Toronto, many schools are threatened with closure. Repeatedly we heard many people talk about the fact that these are community schools. They are the very heart of the community. For many people across this city, they represent the only place they can go and meet with their neighbours and have all kinds of recreational activities and programs that otherwise they would not have. Schools are more than just schools in Toronto.

I think the message is becoming loud and clear that this government has botched it completely. It rescinded its initiative, it has gone back, but no one is fooled by it. Make no mistake, no one believes that this is the end of the story. This stay of execution is just that, a stay of execution. You haven't fooled anyone, and I think at the end of the day the people of the city of Toronto will not forget that this government does not intend to make education a priority.

ST PETER'S HOSPITAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I also add my congratulations on your personal victory last evening.

I rise to again raise the plight of St Peter's Hospital in my riding, a hospital that has been jerked around, quite frankly, by this government from the day they took power.

Let's take a look. Back in July 1994, our NDP government approved a renovation project to the tune of $12 million to replace the south wing, a project that had been ongoing for years and years. In February 1996, the government said, "Yes, we agree with the NDP. We're going to allow that project to continue," and they funded half the cost of beginning the excavation. We now have a 20-foot hole in the ground, the size of a football field, behind St Peter's. Then, in January last year, you halted all the expansion, you halted all the construction, and the hole sat there. When I asked the minister on February 19, 1997, what he was going to do about it, he said, "We're going to wait till the health restructuring commission makes their report."

The health restructuring commission originally recommended that we close that hospital. Our community stood up and fought back and, united, we saved St Peter's Hospital. The commission in their following recommendation agreed with us and said there ought to be long-term beds that go in that facility. That was their recommendation. Then, when the minister finally had an opportunity to fulfill the future destiny of St Peter's, he stuck it to them. He didn't give them one single bed in that announcement. Speaker, the hitting against St Peter's has to stop.

1340

VETERANS

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Today I would like to talk about the real lessons of Canadian history that we can learn from people in our province. I'm speaking of people like Fred Smith, a resident of Carleton Lodge, from my riding of Nepean. Fred is a 98-year-old veteran whose recollections provide a historical lesson like no other. At the age of 14, Fred was separated from his father, John, who headed overseas to fight in World War I. Longing to see his father, young Fred lied about his age and enlisted in the armed forces. In 1916, he went overseas as part of the 198th Battalion. Fred met his father in 1917 on the battlefields of Passchendaele. The memories of this encounter are bittersweet for Fred, though. Not long after the brief reunion, Fred's father was tragically killed in battle.

The story of Passchendaele is an important part of Canadian history. It was up to Canadians to capture the elusive Passchendaele Ridge and, by so doing, salvage British respectability. In the end, Canadians overcame both the impassable landscape and the determined resistance to achieve a victory few thought possible. Each year fewer and fewer of our wartime veterans are with us. This sad reality reminds us that the wisdom and insight of our veteran neighbours, like Fred Smith, should be explored and celebrated each and every day.

I would also like to highlight the efforts of Brian McClean, project manager of the Access to History program, and Gord Davis of the Royal Canadian Legion. Brian and Gord are working very hard to help produce and distribute essential Canadian history books which can be used by Ontario students. I am thankful for the leadership Brian, Gord and others with the Royal Canadian Legion have shown with respect to recognizing our collective past.

The peace and security we have enjoyed for more than 80 years came at a very heavy price. Lest we forget.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Yesterday we heard with great fanfare the Minister of the Environment tell us that he's bringing in tough new legislation to go after individuals who don't pay fines or individuals convicted of environmental violations in this province. What the minister, who has overseen the greatest dismantlement of the ministry in the history of this province, failed to tell us is that he has no staff to enforce these regulations. These regulations have been eliminated. The auditors told us that this minister, who's now heckling across the floor and won't answer questions in the House, has failed miserably in updating regulations, has failed miserably in upgrading standards in this province and in protecting our environment.

Yesterday, Captain Environment came across as a tough guy, "I'm going to crack down," after a 40% staff reduction, after a 35% reduction in the budget. What he has failed to tell us is that this is nothing more than a chest-pounding exercise to make himself feel good and to make up for the sins of the past. The reality is that it is too late; he has no staff left. What he should do is follow the lead that was brought up yesterday by some police departments across this province - install a cut-out of Premier Harris - because there's no staff left outside -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Come to order, member for Hamilton East. You're done.

Member for Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Earlier this morning I hosted a press conference by the Environmental Bureau of Investigation and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. EBI has charged the Ontario government under the Environmental Protection Act for radioactive contamination of the natural environment west of the Deloro mine site. The Minister of Environment is more than familiar with this site. He has even called it "Ontario's most contaminated land." Well, he can talk the talk but he won't walk the walk.

EBI has already taken the ministry to court over water pollution charges at the site. They know that the ministry has carried out an investigation as a result of those charges. They know that a report exists. They've tried to obtain a copy but the ministry will not give it to them.

MOE and the Prince Edward and Hastings county health units are withholding information on the health impacts of the contamination from the Deloro mine site that the EBI has requested through the freedom of information act. The question is, what exactly do they know that they don't want the public and the province to find out about?

Meanwhile, we find out that the Ministry of the Environment investigation staff don't even have a Geiger counter so that they can measure radioactivity. If this government didn't think that their cuts to investigative and enforcement staff in the Ministry of Environment were leading to any problems, let this stand as a warning.

Minister, release those reports immediately.

CONTAINER SERVICES ARM

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize Container Services ARM, located in my riding of Northumberland. Tonight this small business will be receiving a pollution prevention achievement award at the energy and environment awards banquet.

Container Services ARM is indeed worthy of such an award. The company's primary business is the cleaning, reconditioning and recertification of intermediate bulk containers, often called "totes." So far this year, Container Services has reduced its use of sodium hydroxide, which is used in the tote cleaning process, by 11,000 tonnes. This was accomplished by the installation of a closed-loop recycling system.

In addition, plastic containers which are no longer suitable for transporting goods are shredded and granulated for recycling. This is a 100% diversion of plastic from the landfill sites and is a positive example of resource recovery.

The pollution prevention awards program, sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, is a way of recognizing businesses which find ways to reduce pollution and protect the environment.

Mr James Routh, principal of Container Services, will be attending tonight's awards ceremony and will be receiving an award from the small facilities category. Container Services of Colborne is an example of how small business can work to develop environmentally acceptable practices through innovation.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED ENGINEERING TECHNICIANS AND TECHNOLOGISTS ACT, 1998

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists.

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

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 37.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): She's apparently just outside. If you want to stand it down, you can go to your second question.

Mr McGuinty: No, I see she's here, Speaker.

Minister, you will know that a very important report was released today by the United Way. It's called Freedom from Violence: Helping Abused Women and their Children. It describes in some detail the pain and suffering being experienced by women who are abused and their children. Most importantly, it says that you and your government must assume responsibility for placing these women and these children at even greater risk. The United Way is saying that you and your government are making matters worse for abused women and children in Ontario. Will you now stand up, Minister, and admit that your policies are making a bad situation worse and commit to a complete turnaround, both in attitude and in policy?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I will admit no such thing because that is not the case. In response to his supplementary, I know my colleague the minister responsible for women's affairs can talk about the good things and the positive things we have been doing to help women who find themselves in difficult circumstances.

1350

Mr McGuinty: Let's listen to some of the stuff the United Way put out today. The United Way says: "The...reduction to welfare has made it more difficult for these women to escape violence. After the reduction in 1995, 66% of Ontario shelters reported women were returning to or remaining with abusive partners because they could no longer afford to leave." What's more, this report says: "Abused women and their children are staying longer in women's shelters due to the lack of affordable housing.... Because of this, there is a shortage of shelter beds for new arrivals."

Tell me, Minister, how is that you can find $47 million for your political advertising, but you can't find any money to help women in Ontario and their children who are the subjects of abuse?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'd like to refer this question to my colleague the minister responsible for women's issues.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Obviously some of us had not had the opportunity to read the report. Violence against women is everyone's -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We asked that we have a copy of this, which was Purolatored down early this afternoon. I haven't read the report. That may be a weakness on my part but it was just given to me. I will say that I have been busy and have been talking to the council of women who are here in the audience today. There have been other things happening today. The council of women for Ontario have been here speaking to us and they also are concerned about stopping the violence.

With regard to the United Way of Greater Toronto, we are absolutely so pleased to have them involved as one of the partners for communities across this province in solving problems to assist abused women and their children.

We know that in the last five years this government has a coordinated approach across nine ministries. We are spending over $100 million more than the previous two governments. We have extensive programs in response to a major report that was put out in 1995. We are doing our very best, but we have more work to do.

Mr McGuinty: This is an objective report from the most credible of authorities. This report says that you and your government are making matters worse for women in Ontario, who are being abused at the hands of men, and their children. That's what this report says. You should stand up today and say that you are ashamed of the fact that your government is contributing to a lack of safety and security for women and children in Ontario. I want you to stand up now and tell us why you have determined that it is a greater priority to spend money on a political advertising campaign than it is to protect the welfare and safety of women and children in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This government, the people of Ontario, are absolutely committed to stopping violence against women. It takes every single person in this province, throughout households, neighbourhoods and communities, to commit themselves to assist people who are in difficulty. This government has shown leadership, and will continue to do so, by providing programs for our young people in prevention and also in education. One of the most important pieces, I'm sure, that will come out here is that people must know what's out there, what's available to help them get through the system. The member from the third party who asked that question obviously should take a look at his own government's violence-against-women prevention programs, which are key to a program that will be adopted by governments across this country - every province and the territories - in putting out a framework to stop the violence against women.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Three and a half years ago to the day, in fact, Mike Harris promised one and a half million Ontarians with disabilities that he would introduce and pass in this Legislature a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Not only that, he promised to work with the ODA committee to draft and implement that act.

After two resolutions in this House and much foot-dragging, and given that there is an election on the horizon, you decided that you had to do something, that you had to do anything. So yesterday you introduced in this House an Ontarians with Disabilities Act that is gutless, toothless and worthless. Would you please stand up and tell us why it is that you and Mike Harris have broken your promise to introduce in this Legislature a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I say that we have introduced a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act and we have kept our promise. In fact, I am proud of the bill that we are introducing because it does what no other bill has done for the disabled in Ontario. You, Leader of the Opposition, could have done it in your term in office and you did not do it.

Mr McGuinty: Just so all members are clear on what we're talking about here, this bill consists of two pages. The first page is nothing more than the preamble. The second page provides that there's going to be recognition of existing legal obligations. There are no new rights created and no real new responsibilities created for anybody who has dealings with the disabled community in Ontario. Two pages. This is gutless. It is toothless. Please stand up and tell us why it is that you've let down the disabled community of Ontario, 1.5 million strong, who were specifically promised that your government would introduce a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Hon Ms Bassett: I would say to the honourable member, you of all people should say size doesn't matter because you yourself introduced a bill, the very first bill you introduced in September 1995, which was a measly three paragraphs long. It is Bill 2, 1995.

Our proposed act would mandate the systemic review of all legislation. It is a step forward. You say the act guarantees no rights. Read the preamble to the bill. The rights of the disabled are guaranteed in the Human Rights Code. As for timelines, each and every single year, every ministry will have to report in their public business plans their progress on preventing and removing barriers to the disabled. This is, I guarantee you, a systematic plan to move the agenda forward for the removal and prevention of barriers for the disabled.

1400

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you had the opportunity to consult in a meaningful way with the disabled community and you did not do that. Furthermore, there was a precedent set in this House. A resolution was introduced by one of my members, Dwight Duncan. It specifically provided for a number of provisions that ought to be incorporated in a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act. That resolution was supported unanimously. In fact, 25 Conservative members in this Legislature supported this resolution. The last provision in this resolution reads: "The Ontarians with Disabilities Act must be more than mere window dressing. It should contribute meaningfully to the improvement of the position of persons with disabilities in Ontario. It must have real force and effect."

Not only have you broken Mike Harris's promise, not only have you not lived up to the commitment made by the Conservative members who voted in favour of this resolution, but you have dishonoured the disabled community here in Ontario. Again, why have you broken your specific commitment? Why are you failing to honour that promise made by Mike Harris to support -

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

Hon Ms Bassett: We have honoured the promise made by our leader. We are moving the agenda forward by bringing in an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. When you bring up the resolution, I hope all members of this House would support the intent of a resolution to move forward on an agenda for removing and preventing barriers for the disabled.

We, on the other hand, did not want to bring in an expensive quota system, which is implied in the resolution. We did not want to set up another expensive review process. We already have the Ontario Human Rights Commission there. The resolution is pushing for that kind of thing.

All members of the House want to see the removal and prevention of barriers for the disabled and we certainly are doing that with this bill. I would remind the honourable member that the Liberals voted against employment equity, so to come on now for political reasons with something like that -

Interjections.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question for the Minister of Citizenship. It's about her cynical treatment of disabled people in Ontario.

Yesterday, you introduced this two-and-a-half page nothing and you tried to call it an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, an incredibly cynical move on your part, Minister. But what's even more cynical is that two months ago you boasted to my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine, and I quote, that you had sent your discussion paper to more than 7,000 interested parties, that you had consulted with 283 groups in eight communities and that you had received submissions from more than 240 individuals, and this sorry piece of cynical garbage is all that disabled people got.

Minister, admit what you're really up to. You got an order from the Premier's office, "Produce a bill, any bill at all," so that the Premier won't be embarrassed by his failure to live up to his promise. Admit it. That's the cynical strategy.

Hon Ms Bassett: The Premier is sticking to his promise and I am proud of the bill we are bringing forward.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You really are rich.

The Speaker: Hold on.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Shame on you, absolute shame. The audacity to stand there and say that.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa West.

Hon Ms Bassett: I would say that I'm proud of the ODA that we're bringing in. The proposed act is going to mandate that all government ministries systematically review all of their legislation, all of their programs, all of their policies, all of their practices and all of their services with an eye to accessibility. This means that literally thousands of pieces of government legislation and government activities that directly or indirectly affect the lives of the disabled will be reviewed on an annual basis. That is going to directly change what is happening with the disabled in this province.

It won't happen overnight. It will happen in time. This is a systematic plan that no one else has brought in, let alone your government when your very own member, who was disabled, did not bring it in.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Minister, that is not only shameful; your performance here is despicable in terms of what you are saying about people with disabilities and what they are demanding in this province. You are putting out a red herring that they are talking about quota laws. They have never asked you for a quota law. They have asked you for a law to remove barriers.

You know what they said about your Premier today? They said that this is a slap in the face to persons with disabilities, that the Premier has punched them in the stomach, that he has totally betrayed them. How can you stand here and say that you are proud of this? They don't want to deal with you any more. They want to deal with the man who is making the decisions.

Minister, will you facilitate a meeting between the persons with disabilities, the Ontarians With Disabilities Act Committee and the Premier so they can tell him face to face that this bill doesn't merit the name the Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Hon Ms Bassett: I would say to the honourable member that I am proud of the bill I have brought forward. ODAC has been helpful to us. I would expect them to be angry if they do not get everything that is on their agenda.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Bassett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank ODAC for their input. If I were looking for a lobbyist for any cause, I would hire David Lepofsky of ODAC. He's been absolutely admirable in pushing forward his agenda, and so he should be. But my role as a legislator is not the same as his. We, as the government, have to balance the interests of all sectors of our society, and that's what we have done.

We listened to over 283 groups during our consultations in the summer and we heard certain key messages that we have answered, maybe not in the way that members of the opposition would want us to answer, but we share the same goal of moving the agenda forward for the people who are disabled. We are doing that and you are going to see improvement, and I can say that with a pure conscience to the people who are disabled.

Ms Lankin: Minister, it's not a question of not giving them everything they wanted. You didn't give them anything that they asked for, that they demanded and that they are entitled to in this province. It is a shameful day to hear you stand there and give that kind of patronizing answer to the persons with disabilities in this province and to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee.

1410

They spoke very clearly about the principles that needed to be achieved to remove barriers to access. Your bill doesn't even begin to accomplish that. Your parliamentary assistant, who went around this province, is shamefaced in terms of what you have come forward with.

Minister, I can't think of anything else to say to you but resign, get out of the way, and have the Premier meet with these people face to face and defend his lack of action and his complete betrayal of people with disabilities in this community.

Hon Ms Bassett: I would say that we are taking steps to remove barriers for the disabled. Our proposed legislation will mandate government to review all its legislation, practices, programs and services. In an orderly, systematic way each year, what has been proposed and what has been reviewed will be submitted to Management Board. It will be open to the public, and the public will see what is happening. The fact that it is mandatory is going to move the agenda forward.

This government is keeping its promise made to the people of Ontario to introduce legislation that is going to help prevent and remove barriers to the disabled, and you are going to see changes occur because of it.

ONTARIO TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Citizenship again: As you know, the Trillium Foundation has done excellent work in Ontario for 16 years, since 1982, on a very non-partisan basis. But now we find out that you're going to change all that. You're now going to appoint 400 political appointees to decide how the Trillium Foundation will work. It's not enough that there are 125 good community volunteers, it's not enough that there's a good, professional staff; you want to make 400 political appointments to the Trillium Foundation.

Minister, can you tell us why all of a sudden the Trillium Foundation has to have 400 political appointees to decide what community organizations get some of that grant money?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I would say that during our consultations we heard from local people that they wanted to have decisions made at a local level, and that is exactly what we are doing. The grant review team, when it is up and running, will be distributing millions of dollars. That money will be going to local areas, to local projects, and the people in charge of that will be people who are involved in the community.

Mr Hampton: The fallacy of this is that there are already 125 long-serving community volunteers across this province who have ensured that the Trillium Foundation and the way it operates is completely non-partisan and a community service. No one called out for 400 Conservative political hacks to be appointed to the Trillium Foundation to now decide how the money is going to be handed out.

So I ask you again, Minister: Why do you need 400 Conservative political appointments, 400 Conservative political hacks, to interfere with the good work of the Trillium Foundation?

Hon Ms Bassett: As we divide up the $100 million -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Just a minute. Let's get some order in here, please. Thank you. Minister.

Hon Ms Bassett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said earlier, local people make local decisions, and this is what the people in the areas, when we travelled across the province, told us they wanted to do. There is going to be $100 million given out, which is 10 times more than charities had before. I've written to key charities, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities, MPPs and community leaders, inviting them to recommend individuals for the grant review team. All members in the House have done that. Some of those people are being appointed to the grant review team. We feel this a fair and equitable process that is going to do the best possible for the people of Ontario. We are answering exactly what they said they wanted to see happen. That's what we're doing.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, member for Ottawa West.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Very few New Democrat MPPs in this Legislature received your October 30 letter, neither at their office at Queen's Park or at their constituency office. If that's not revealing enough, Minister, your letter gave a deadline of 20 days to receive applications for membership on the grant review team. By anyone's measure, that's hardly enough time to canvass the relevant community.

The people in Ontario have a right to know that the $100 million of their money is being granted on the basis of merit and not political connection. Minister, I ask you to stop this program of political appointments and let the Trillium Foundation carry on its work without political interference from your ministry.

Hon Ms Bassett: As you know, the Chair of Management Board announced that the Ontario Trillium Foundation and the province would consult with charities and not-for-profit organizations to develop the framework for distributing future casino revenue to charities. I'm taking you back over the process. Honestly, the honourable member doesn't seem to know what the process -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Bassett: We held consultations, and during those consultations in eight communities across Ontario charities were asked for their views and advice on the process this would take. We arrived at our conclusions based on what they said, and on November 2 all the letters were out.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week I received a response to a freedom of information request I had made to your ministry. According to this response, in 1995-96 there were 17,000 students in receipt of social assistance while attending full-time post-secondary studies. You will know that the next year you and Mike Harris decided to force these individuals off social assistance. Any individual who was on social assistance who wanted to go to college or university was cut off from the assistance that your ministry provides and was forced to go on to student assistance and into debt. In fact, according to this response, in 1996-97 your ministry transferred some $100 million to the Ministry of Education and Training to cover loans to these students. Those are the facts, according to your ministry response.

My question is, will you tell us exactly how much Andersen Consulting was paid for those 17,000 individuals who were forced off social assistance rolls and into debt?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I don't know why the honourable member needed to do a freedom of information inquiry to get that information. We had it in our press release the first fall that this information was out in terms of the change, because we think individuals who are in financial need for welfare should be getting that. Those who are going to school and need financial support get that through OSAP; in many cases it can be a more generous allowance than they can have from the welfare system. It meets their educational needs much better. I'd also like to state to the honourable member, who also I believe should know this, that Andersen Consulting had absolutely nothing to do with it.

1420

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary, member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): We know that Andersen Consulting is getting its money from you, $180 million to a private company, as the welfare rolls are reduced. We know that 17,000 students were reduced, not because Andersen did something so clever but because you changed the rules.

I'd like to send a copy of this memo over to you, which is your direction to people at local offices who collect the statistics on people who leave the welfare rolls. Very clearly in this memo you have told the local offices, when they collect data on why people leave the rolls, "Do not use self-initiated job finds." That tells us that the only thing they have left to select on their screen when they close a file is people who were on the workfare program, and that bolsters the workfare numbers - not because people found a job by themselves.

My question is, you found every manner to increase the number -

The Speaker: Question?

Mrs Pupatello: - that looks like you've managed to change the welfare rolls because you've done something well, or Andersen has, and you are directing them to change the way they collect their data.

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, I really wish she would be clear in what she's talking about, because yet again she has not understood what is happening. The policy changes in terms of the decisions we're making around Ontario Works, for example, are savings which accrue to the taxpayers. As she knows full well, Andersen is only paid from savings that result from the Andersen project. The project has to do with changes in the technology and how the program is delivered. There are $2.8 billion of savings to date that we have achieved for the taxpayers of Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Ecker: If she'd stop heckling, we could all hear ourselves think. I would like to remind the honourable member that when her government was in power they did not think the question of where people go when they leave the welfare system was very important. We think it is, and that's why we have done -

The Speaker: Thank you.

LIVENT INC

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Culture. The people of Ontario have been hearing a great deal about the multi-million dollar failure of Livent productions, and now it looks as if the CIBC, which has been making quite a lot of money - $1.5 billion this year - will push Livent into bankruptcy within the next 30 days. This is a situation that is going to affect over 1,000 musicians, actors, stagehands and theatre crews who will lose well-paying jobs; stable jobs, I might add. Jobs like these are few and far between, and these people are going to be left out in the cold because they are stuck in the middle of two big giants. It's going to leave a gaping hole in the economy of Toronto and I dare say Ontario.

If the Premier of Ontario is ready and willing to go down to New York and hobnob on behalf of Stratford, what are you going to do right now and right here to help these artists and the businesses that are affected by this and depend on them? What are you going to do to help them out?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I cannot, as you know, speak about Livent, since it's before the courts, but I can say that this theatre community in Toronto, with or without Livent, is absolutely booming. You only had to be at the Lieutenant Governor's awards the other night. I missed you, by the way; you should have been there, honourable member.

Interjections.

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

Hon Ms Bassett: To pick up where I left off, what I want to say is that theatre in this city is absolutely booming. I am proud that so many companies that were facing financial problems a few years ago are now increasing their audiences by the hundreds, they are in the black, they are moving forward and they are becoming more self-sustaining. We are coming into the forefront more and more in this country as the theatre capital.

Mr Marchese: I'm glad to hear the minister say that with respect to this particular problem she's got nothing to say, and with respect to the rest of the cultural world out there she's saying everything is fine, don't worry, even though they've cut millions and millions of dollars from the cultural sector. Perhaps to the next supplementary you might be a little more helpful, you and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations perhaps.

This morning, one of my staff people phoned Ticketmaster because Livent has already cancelled several of its shows at the Ford Centre in North York, and this is the recorded announcement we heard:

"To the best of our information, all Livent performances will be taking place as scheduled. We will update this message as additional information becomes available. For any information concerning Phantom of the Opera, shows at the Ford Centre or any other Livent productions, please call Livent directly."

So we did, and we were told they had no information and that the Ford Centre was still deciding what to do.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Marchese: Minister, the city of Toronto is considering a rescue package to help these people. What are you and the other minister going to do to cease their sale of tickets -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Ms Bassett: I will say that of course I support in any way I can theatre in this city, but the matter regarding the tickets at the Ford Centre is a matter for the board and the city of Toronto to decide. It's not something I can interfere in.

COMMUNITY POLICING

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. Constituents in my riding of Niagara South have consistently told me that they take the issue of community safety very seriously, with good reason. Under the NDP, the number of front-line police officers in the region declined significantly. I understand, Minister, that you and the Premier made an announcement today that's going to reverse that trend.

Earlier this year, the Crime Control Commission held a forum in Port Colborne, and the consistent suggestion from the people of Niagara South was that an increase in police visibility would help keep the community safe. Could you inform the House how today's announcement will address these concerns and promote public safety in the community of Niagara South and the Niagara region?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I want to thank the member for Niagara South for his question. I know he's long been a strong advocate of community policing, and like him, I've heard similar concerns across the province for many years.

I did have the pleasure this morning, with the Premier, to announce the results of the community policing partnership program, which will result in 1,000 new police officers on the front lines across this province - 1,000 new police officers, an unprecedented announcement.

I must say for the member from Niagara, the announcement today -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Ottawa West, come to order, please. Kingston and The Islands.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I know, but I can still hear you. You're out of order, and Kingston and The Islands as well, you're out of order. Minister.

Hon Mr Runciman: For Niagara, that will mean 55 new police officers on the front line.

We're hearing a lot of catcalls from the Liberal opposition. I want to say that if the federal Liberal government would get involved in this program - they're spending estimates of up to $1 billion on registration of long guns for law-abiding Canadians across this country. If they invested some of that money in front-line policing, we could see an additional 2,000 or 3,000 officers in Ontario, if the federal Liberal government would participate.

1430

Mr Hudak: Thank you, Minister. After years of decline under the NDP government, it is going to be well received in the Niagara region that 55 new police officers are coming to the region.

When this program was announced, the police officers I spoke to were thrilled at the prospect of new front-line officers. The one concern they brought forward was that they wanted to ensure that these were actually new front-line police officers. I would like the minister to inform the House exactly how this program works and how we ensure that these are in fact new additional police officers who are going to be front-line, on the beat.

Hon Mr Runciman: I can assure the member that this program was developed to increase the total number of police officers in Ontario's communities. Through this program, our government will match up to 50% of the salary, benefits and other payroll costs of newly hired officers over each of the next five years. Funding will only be provided for newly hired officers who represent additions to the strength of the police service. Hiring due to attrition will not be eligible for this program. Police services must increase the complement of new front-line officers above the number of sworn-in officers reported for June 15. Services are not eligible if the number of sworn-in officers falls below those June 15 numbers.

The bottom line is that this program will result in new additional police officers to the tune of 1,000 new officers on the streets of Ontario communities.

Once again, I will plead with the Liberal members across the floor to encourage their federal -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order. Member for Perth, it's your day off today.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday the Harris government introduced a new tax called the estate administration tax. That was designed because the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that you were acting illegally in collecting probate fees that -

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: Don't get mad at me; you can get mad at the Supreme Court, but that's what they ruled.

You have done the same thing with property taxes for education, which the courts ruled was illegal. Your Bill 160 says that you will set $5.5 billion of property taxes by regulation. In my opinion, the Supreme Court has ruled that illegal.

My question is this: Are you planning to introduce legislation to correct Bill 160 and make it legal for you to collect $5.5 billion of property taxes?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): There has been a court case with regard to Bill 160. Bill 160 was challenged. Five out of the six major provisions of Bill 160 were upheld by the courts. The sixth matter with regard to the right of the separate schools to tax is under appeal at the present time and it wouldn't be proper for me to comment on that. I will say that in terms of the ability to set taxes by regulation, other provinces have gone that same route and I am unaware of any court decision which invalidates that particular process.

Mr Phillips: The Supreme Court made this ruling on October 22. People in Ontario expect that you and your legal people would have reviewed that decision, would have looked at that matter. It's $5.5 billion. By the way, the public should know we never debate this. This is all set down the hall in the Premier's office by regulation - $5.5 billion. For my business friends, over half your property taxes are done by Mike Harris behind closed doors.

My question to you is this, very specifically: The Supreme Court ruled on October 22. Will you tell the public of Ontario, have you had that case reviewed in light of their decision and will you undertake to bring forward legislation to fix a significant problem that exists in Bill 160? Will you make that undertaking today?

Hon David Johnson: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has alluded to the situation with regard to the probate fees, of which, I might add, well over $100 million was collected by a Liberal government during its jurisdiction. In the case of the probate fees, there is a decision of the court. In terms of Bill 160 there is an appeal that's working its way through the system at the present time. With regard to the separate schools, ability to tax, that is before the courts at the present time. It would not be proper for me to comment on that. That is the only matter that's before the court at the present time.

The approach taken by this provincial government is the approach taken by other provincial governments and has stood the test of time.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Energy regarding an important project in my constituency. As the minister will know, in the early 1990s Ontario Hydro agreed to proceed with environmental studies and consultations around the possibility of completing the Patten Post hydro-electric generating station on the Mississagi River in Algoma district. The agreement at that time was that a decision would be made by 1999, and if Ontario Hydro decided not to proceed, they would pay funds to local communities for economic development instead.

I understand that Ontario Hydro asked the government to be relieved of this obligation in 1996, but as yet has not heard anything from the government on this matter. I'm informed that Ontario Hydro may be renewing that request for relief of the obligation. What is the government's response to Ontario Hydro's position?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I certainly appreciate the honourable member's question. As the honourable member will know, I and my deputy minister met with Mayor Farkouh of Elliot Lake just a few weeks ago on this particular matter. I would say to the honourable member that no decision has been made and that we're listening to his advice, representing his community. But I remind him that some $243 million worth of taxpayers' money, ratepayers' money, has gone into that community already, so much of the commitment made by your government has been fulfilled. We'll continue to gather facts on the dam issue.

The problem, and I want to be honest with the honourable member now, is that we do not want Ontario Hydro to ever again be used as a social agency to bail out communities and we do not want Ontario Hydro to incur any debt. Since this government came to office in 1995, we have not let Ontario Hydro borrow any extra money. It has incurred no new debt. In fact it has paid off $3 billion worth of debt, which I think is a record, over that period of time. So we don't want to incur any new debt or get into any projects that might incur new debt. However, we haven't ruled out fulfilling any obligation that may exist to your community.

1440

Mr Wildman: The minister will know that the agreement made in the early 1990s saved Ontario Hydro and the electricity consumers of Ontario a great deal of money because it was part of the agreement not to extend the very high-priced nuclear uranium contract. That was part of this. It saved the people of Ontario and electricity consumers a significant amount of money.

The minister knows there was a $250-million agreement. The agreement, as I understand it, is that if Ontario Hydro does not meet its obligation by 1999, it would pay $16 million. The question is, by what date in 1999 will we know whether Ontario Hydro is going to proceed, the beginning of 1999, June 1999 or the end of 1999? If the decision is not to proceed, then when will we know how much money, of the $16 million, Ontario Hydro will pay into economic development in the region?

Hon Mr Wilson: Of the $243 million that Ontario Hydro was forced to pay into the region because your government made them buy uranium at several times the world price from Elliot Lake - you forgot the beginning of the story - which they ended up into contract -

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): We are the ones who ended that. It was your government and the Liberals that did that.

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Wilson: I want to correct the record, Mr Speaker. It was the Liberals that made the irresponsible decision to buy uranium at several times world prices, using Ontario Hydro as a social agency. We went from the best energy prices in North America under the previous Conservative government to the third highest in North America under the Liberals and NDP because they consistently abused Ontario Hydro, used it as a social agency, as a social development tool, took it away from its original 90-year mandate, which was to supply power at cost to the people of Ontario.

Since we came in in 1995, there's been no new borrowing, no new debt, $3 billion paid off, superior management put in and now we're looking forward to competition in the year 2000 and all the jobs that will come with that and that have come with that as a result of the legislation.

I want to say to the honourable member, though, that we've made no final decision with respect to the particular matter at Elliot Lake and the dam in question. One of the options we're looking at is can we get other investors interested in the area. That's something I'm actively pursuing. I'll keep the member up to date -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. A week ago I had a meeting with the pork producers in my constituency office in Haldimand-Norfolk - in Brant-Haldimand, pardon me; it's newly Haldimand-Norfolk. There's a very real problem in the loss of the pork industry in Ontario.

The two largest contributors to the Ontario economy are the auto industry and the agrifood business. Both are vital to the economic wellbeing of our province, and the pork industry is a major part of the agrifood sector. This industry contributes 43,000 jobs and $4.5 billion in economic activity to the province.

As you are aware, the price for pork has fallen for reasons that are completely out of their hands. Minister, you showed tremendous leadership during the eastern Ontario ice storm and I'm confident that you will once again demonstrate that strong leadership in this issue. Can you inform the House what you are doing to help pork producers in my riding and throughout Ontario to get through this problem?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank the honourable member for Brant-Haldimand for that question. This government is painfully aware of what our hog producers are living right now: prices that were totally unexpected and absolutely not covering even close the actual cash cost of production.

We're working very closely with my colleague from the federal government, the Honourable Lyle Vanclief. We are working together so that upon his coming out with a policy we will be falling in very quickly. There is urgency in this matter and we certainly encourage participating farmers to draw on their NISA, their net farm income account, which is already funded by farmers and the federal and provincial governments.

We must always remember that the pork industry particularly is a very cyclical one, prices go up and down, but due to the Asian economic problems, we hit the bottom of the cycle at the same time as Asia hit the bottom of their economic cycle. They are major purchasers of pork from Canada, particularly from Ontario. That will return. However, there is major urgency, and we are working on a national disaster fund with the federal minister in order to face these very difficult economic times that our pork producers are indeed facing.

Mr Preston: The pork producers are only producing enough pork to feed Ontario, but with the squeals around here, maybe they're overproducing.

On December l, the pork producers are holding a rally at the doors of the Legislature. I will be part of that rally. We have to do something to help them, something that will not boomerang in trade problems from the States. What can be done to preserve the pork industry in Ontario?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I can assure all members of this House that I too fully support Ontario's pork producers. Indeed, I've had the opportunity of meeting quite a number of them recently, as I'm sure other members have. I know our pork producers, our growers of grains and oil seeds, basically all of our people in the red meat industry are going through some very difficult times. You know that we in this government, farm groups and the federal government are looking at the best ways to address this.

We must also remember that we cannot find ourselves in a position to be countervailed, and that's another area that we are very concerned about. The federal minister has been in regular contact with me, and on this issue and a number of other issues I expect he will likely be looking for support in the near future. I can assure all members of this House that he has the total and unadulterated support of this government and this minister.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. I was very disturbed to receive a copy of a letter that was sent to first- and second-year science students at Queen's University relating to the enrolment in their biochemistry specialization program. Let me tell you what this letter says. It says that due to budget constraints, the department will only be able to provide 48 laboratory spaces in the third-year core course program for this specialized program. Currently there are 148 registered first- and second-year students in this program. Minister, let me read to you the last line of the letter: "The government has made limiting the size of our program unavoidable."

What do you have to say to these students who after two years have had the expectation of being able to complete their program but now will be forced into a general science degree? Dr Clark, the head of the biochemistry department, is clear: You have cut back their money. What are you going to say to these students? They thought they'd be able to complete the program. They demand to know why you and Mike Harris have done this to them.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I would say to these students, as I would say to any students, that the operations of the universities come under the jurisdiction of the staff who run the universities. They are independent of the provincial government. We do give funding. I might say that the total funding to post-secondary institutions, to students, will total about $3.3 billion over this next year.

I would say that I share the concern of students who are attempting to get into courses that apparently the university administrations are limiting. That's why we introduced the access to opportunities program, a program which may not be involved with this particular program, but the access to opportunities program opens up about 17,000 new positions in various high-tech programs - sciences, engineering - for students who formerly were turned away from their first choice.

1450

Mr Caplan: I'm not sure you understood the question because now two thirds of the students in this program aren't going to be able to attend.

Minister, you always blame somebody else, you're never accountable, and I wonder why that is. Ontario has the worst funding record in Canada. We're 10th out of 10. We have the highest tuitions in the country. You've been making students pay. They've been in this program for two years and they face tuitions of 20% increase since they've begun their program, and now you say to them, "Sorry, we're going to underfund your program even more, and it doesn't even matter because you're not going to be able to complete it."

I know this was a hard decision for the university. In fact, the course calendar at Queen's University calls this program "The flagship of the biochemistry program." Now you've crippled it. Minister, I'm going to ask you again. Why have you done this? Why have you ensured that students who have good grades are no longer able to complete a program of their choice?

Hon David Johnson: My response to Mr Doom and Gloom opposite is, if you want to put your finger on who is responsible for cutting assistance to universities in Canada, who is it? The federal government. The federal Liberals have cut assistance to universities in Canada.

Notwithstanding the reduction of $2.4 billion to health and post-secondary education, according to the Maclean's list of best universities, we still have four of the top six universities in Canada right here in Ontario. In all categories we have the best universities right here in Ontario, and I say to the member opposite, let's be proud of that.

STATUS OF LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to raise a point of order under standing order 137(a) and (c) because I believe it is fundamentally wrong for legislation to stand in this House that is clearly and indisputably in violation of a Supreme Court decision that leaves us no room for interpretation.

The section I'm referring to is standing order 137: "The office of the legislative counsel shall:" - it is not permissive, it is a requirement of legislative counsel - "(a) Prepare and advise upon such legislation as may be required by the executive council or any member thereof and assist and advise members in all matters respecting the drafting of bills." I appreciate the fact that this is no longer in draft stage, but it goes on to say: "(c) Report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council any provisions in such bills deserving of special attention or that appear to prejudicially affect the public interest or that require amendment."

I am not sure that we have ever had a precedent in this House where there is legislation which clearly stands in opposition to a Supreme Court ruling - if I may just place my point of order before you seek a response, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'm trying to get to the bill that you're speaking about.

Mrs McLeod: It is Bill 160.

The Speaker: Bill 160 is no longer before the House.

Mrs McLeod: I understand that.

The Speaker: OK, I'll hear you.

Mrs McLeod: I don't think there is a precedent that we can refer to in terms of a bill which is already drafted and passed, but where you have a Supreme Court decision that clearly has a bearing on that bill. My question to you is whether under this section of the standing orders the legislative counsel can be requested to advise on whether or not the Supreme Court's ruling has a bearing on legislation which has been passed by this House.

The Speaker: I'm going to take it under advisement and report back.

Petitions. The member for Essex-Kent.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Essex-South, Mr Speaker.

My friends Rose Kulimowski and May Mussolum from Essex, and others, have put this petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and

"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents and students in the city of Toronto and many other communities across Ontario are calling on the government to stop closing so many of their schools;

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

"Demand that Mike Harris stop closing local schools."

In support of that, I sign my signature.

HOSPITAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition signed by 16,000 people in Ottawa-Carleton and eastern Ontario which was circulated by, among other people, Lowell Green of CFRA radio and Canada First. It reads as follows:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislative Assembly to the following:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission decreed and ordered in 1997 that hospitals serving the Ottawa-Carleton region be amalgamated to form the Ottawa Hospital; and

"Whereas the said restructuring commission did not order that the trustees of said Ottawa Hospital be elected democratically with accountability to the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton; and

"Whereas there was established a hospital corporation under the Corporations Act of Ontario with its head office in Ottawa; and

"Whereas the administration bylaw of February 1998 of said hospital provided for the government and management of said hospital corporation by a board of trustees; and

"Whereas said board of trustees was appointed by demonstrated flawed processes not acceptable in a modern democracy;

"Now, therefore, your petitioners publicly request the assembly to provide for local election to said board of trustees so that the people of Ottawa-Carleton shall acquire and have some inherent right of governing and regulating the internal affairs of said hospital corporation, and that it be stated and declared as a right of the people of the Ottawa-Carleton region that all said board trustees are trustees and servants of the people of Ottawa-Carleton, at all times accountable to them and to the government of Ontario.

"The undersigned, all taxpayers of the province of Ontario, protest the manner in which David Levine was appointed as CEO of the newly amalgamated Ottawa Hospital. Regardless of Mr Levine's technical qualifications, we do not believe that a man who has worked and continues to work to break Canada apart is a suitable person to run our hospital.

"Furthermore, we insist that the present appointed board of trustees be dismissed and a process immediately established to provide us taxpayers the right to vote for the board.

"We also protest the failure of the Quebec government to compensate Ontario hospitals in the manner specified by the Canada Health Act, to which Quebec is a signatory. Failure to pay the full Ontario rate has penalized Ontario hospitals tens of millions of dollars since 1984 and continues to cost the Ottawa Hospital between $15,000 and $20,000 per day."

It's signed by 16,000 people from all over Ottawa-Carleton and eastern Ontario and I'm pleased to submit it to you.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a petition on behalf of parents, children and the entire community of the George Anderson Public School and the Dennis Avenue Community School.

"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and

"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents and students in the city of Toronto and many other communities across Ontario are calling on the government to stop closing so many of their schools;

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

"Demand that Mike Harris stop closing local schools."

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I'm submitting this petition on behalf of my colleague the member for St George-St David. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it 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; and

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

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

"Whereas 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."

1500

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas there is no dialysis available in the Cornwall area; and

"Whereas this lack of medical treatment forces dialysis patients throughout Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and beyond to drive to Ottawa or Kingston several times each week, even during dangerous winter driving conditions, to receive the basic medical attention and, at the same time, incurring unnecessary stress, cost and inconvenience; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health promised on April 24, 1996, to rectify this medical shortfall by establishing a dialysis treatment facility in Cornwall; and

"Whereas the promise made by the Minister of Health has to date not been kept, resulting in local patients and their family and friends driving to Ottawa or Kingston for treatment several times per week, during the above-noted conditions;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the health minister follows through on the commitment made last April to set up this long-awaited and much-needed health service for Cornwall area residents."

That's signed by many constituents from SD&G.

APPRENTICESHIP LEGISLATION

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition that's signed by hundreds of people like Robert Byrne, Mark Delisle and Thomas Squire. It is in opposition to Bill 55 and it expresses the views of over 250 people who showed up to demonstrate against the government's reforms to the Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act. This is a petition against Bill 55 and I agree with the sentiments expressed in this petition. This is an undertaking that the government should scrap Bill 55 and go back to the drawing board and have meaningful consultation and come through with legislation -

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): This is petition time. Are you reading the petition?

Mr Lessard: - that will benefit those who are affected by apprenticeship -

The Acting Speaker: Petitions?

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I've received more petitions from a group called RATH, Residents Against Tax Hikes. It's entitled, "Freeze Taxes and Restructure Government."

"Whereas the Haldimand-Norfolk region has downloaded a 17% tax hike on residents, without attempting to cut its own costs; and

"Whereas for the past 25 years, there have been meetings, petitions, referenda, and studies calling for a restructuring of regional government; and

"Whereas 80% of the residents did not want regional government in the first place, and in recent referenda, 75% of the residents of the city of Nanticoke, and 60% of the residents of the town of Simcoe voted against retaining regional government; and

"Whereas residents in the region do not want and clearly cannot afford two levels of municipal government;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that provincial legislation be passed to freeze taxes and eliminate regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk, and institute a form of restructured local government in keeping with the wishes and the financial means of the local residents."

I sign these petitions.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition which has been entitled, "Say No to the Privatization of Health Care."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

I'm pleased to join a number of people in my riding on Felix Avenue, Sun Valley, Campbell, Redwood, Chapel and add my name to the petition.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have here a petition signed by residents of Nepean, Ottawa, Gloucester, Munster, Stittsville and Kanata. It has to do with their support for Bill 39, the Access to Adoption Information Statute Law Amendment Act. I will simply summarize the petition.

They are in support of legislation that would allow access to birth registration and adoption records for an adult adoptee's birth parents, adoptive parents and other relatives; implement a no-contact notice option; recommend optional counselling; offer access to other information and acknowledge open adoptions.

I sign my name to it.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Provincial government Bill 99:

"With regard to this Bill 99, we do not agree with the decision to remove compensation from volunteer workers. Living in the country, as most of us do, we are particularly concerned with the volunteer firefighters who give so much to their community. We understand them having to withdraw from the volunteer firefighters. We would most likely feel the same way if we knew that there was no protection for us if we were injured while providing a vital service to the community. We would like to think that the government will be able to come up with a solution which will be in everybody's best interests.

"The undersigned members of the Hawkstone Women's Institute will agree that there should be changes made to Bill 99 to enable these volunteer workers to continue to serve the community without worrying about the possible consequences of being injured."

I have signed that on behalf of those people.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature as I am in complete agreement.

GERMAN HERITAGE

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have yet another petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of German descent have been a part of Ontario's history since the days of pre-Confederation; and

"Whereas the German culture has always been an integral component of the cultural mosaic of Ontario; and

"Whereas we wish to demonstrate official recognition of the positive contribution of German heritage in the province of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass the bill entitled the German Pioneers Day Act and we respectfully petition the government of Ontario to designate the day following Thanksgiving Day as the date of the annual German Pioneers Day."

This is signed by over 100 people from Toronto and I affix my signature.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas heritage is vitally important to the social and economic health of Ontario communities and Ontario residents; and

"Whereas community museums, galleries and heritage organizations work hard to protect, promote, manage and develop our provincial heritage resources; and

"Whereas the provincial government has a responsibility to the people of Ontario to promote the value of heritage and heritage conservation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has abdicated their responsibility for heritage by cutting support to community museums, galleries and heritage organizations; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not implemented a new heritage act that would give communities the ability to provide better protection for heritage sites; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not undertaken meaningful consultation with Ontario's heritage community;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide stronger support to Ontario's heritage institutions and organizations and to work with the people of Ontario to establish a new heritage act."

This is signed by many people on Baby, Peter, Bouffard, Dugald and many other streets in my riding. I'd like to ask Brendan to come in here and get on the television so his mother can see him. He's going to bring this petition over to the Speaker's table.

1510

OPPOSITION DAY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I move that, in the opinion of this House, since Dalton McGuinty has been talking to children like Carlos who was afraid that his little sister was going to lose her daycare, and Amanda who is making bracelets to try to save her school, and Anne who asked why Mike Harris is being so mean and closing her school; and

Since Mike Harris has refused to consult with parents on the future of their neighbourhood school; and

Since Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

Since Mike Harris short-changed school boards by over $150 million, making it impossible to keep schools open; and

Since Mike Harris is now blaming school boards and using them as scapegoats for his government's disastrous and chaotic funding formula; and

Since Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely;

Therefore, the Mike Harris government should stop closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Mrs McLeod has moved opposition day number 4. Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: I'm pleased we're going to have some debate in this Legislature today around this absolutely disastrous school closure policy which has been foisted on the province as a result of this government's decision to take over 100% of the control of the funding of education.

I suspect that when the government members rise to speak today they will want to - I don't know if you can talk about trumpeting the sounding of the bugles of retreat, but I think they're certainly going to want to say: "Well, you know, we made some movement last week. We've changed some of the ground rules." I think it's important that we have this debate today to make it absolutely clear that the government did not do what it proudly announced about a week ago. It did not do what the Premier said it would do: ensure that no school in Ontario would close. I wish that were the case, I wish the government had taken those steps, but that is clearly not what took place when the government made some changes in its policy about a week ago.

What the government did was clearly to buy, or attempt to buy, some political peace until after the next provincial election. Parents know that. School trustees know that. Anybody who has been watching knows how rigidly the government stuck to its disastrous formula until they were forced by public pressure to at least take some step backwards, not because they were concerned about students, not because they heard the concerns of children like Carlos, Amanda or Anne, not because they recognized that their policy was a disaster, but simply because they got a bad poll result. They discovered that they weren't going to be able to simply bully this through, let the chips fall where they may, take their money and run, because when they ran in the next election, they would be defeated on this issue, so they decided they'd better take a modest step back in order to protect their political hides until after that election campaign could be fought.

But there was something interesting in what the Premier said when he made this announcement, when he in fact rushed back from Thunder Bay, where he was supposed to be making announcements about all the wonderful jobs the government has supposedly created, even though we know they're well short of the number of jobs they promised to create. He rushed back from Thunder Bay to make this announcement, and what was interesting about it was that the Premier of Ontario finally acknowledged that it is his government's funding formula that was indeed forcing about 600 schools across this province to close. It's the first time that he has been forced to acknowledge that it was the funding formula. You'll remember that in every question that has been asked in this Legislature, the minister and the Premier have been at pains to say: "We're not closing schools; it's school boards. Our formula has nothing to do with this." We all know that was so far from the truth that it was not to be believed by anybody, and finally the Premier himself acknowledged that they had created a mess which they then had to fix.

I think it's important that we remember the reality of what this government was doing. I still find it almost inconceivable, so to remind us of what they set out to do last spring seems almost to be unreal, but it's fact. They brought out a funding formula that basically dictated that hundreds and hundreds of schools across Ontario would have to shut down. They simply weren't going to be funded; the spaces weren't going to be funded. The government cut the maintenance budget so that the spaces weren't going to be funded.

That was, in and of itself, something of a shocker. But what was even more unbelievable was that this government wanted all of those so-called empty spaces to be shut down by last June 30. This was April. The boards didn't even know how much surplus space the government was going to tell them they had, but they wanted all the surplus space shut down by June 30. That was in the written statements that came out when the funding formula was released.

If anybody has ever been involved in the closure of a school, you know how much anguish that creates for parents and students. Every school board that has carried out a school closure - indeed, I think every school board has had to carry out some school closures because of declining enrolment or a shift in the population. They know how difficult it is. There is at least a year built into every process for the closure of a school - a year for every school. The way this government had set out the process, it looked as though there were going to be about three schools closing a day, with no opportunity for any kind of consultation with parents or students. Parents and students clearly said that they weren't going to stand for that, and we knew they wouldn't stand for that.

But let there be no doubt that what this government's formula was forcing was the closure of over 600 schools. It was all in theory, it was all bottom lines, but all you had to do was take the government's own bottom lines, their figures that showed how much surplus space each board had and divide it, and you knew how many schools were going to have to close. We said at the time that they couldn't close that many schools. Boards couldn't do it, the public would not stand for it, boards would not wreak that kind of havoc on their students and on their school system, so the boards would not do it. We saw board after board say: "We are going to defy what this government is requiring that we do. Even if it costs us, we're going to defy this government, because we will not shut down all of these schools in all these communities."

What this government wanted was to have every school 100% full, a child in every corner. It would have created an overcrowding situation which is beyond imagining. Not only did they want every single space filled, but they didn't want to allow any space for things like art rooms in either elementary or secondary schools, they didn't want to have computer studies rooms, they didn't want family studies rooms, they didn't want any science laboratories; they thought there should be at least 22 students in a science lab taking classes every moment of the day. They didn't want music rooms. Maybe that fits with what this government thinks is important in terms of a classroom education. Music rooms and art rooms and family studies rooms certainly weren't part of what was going to be allowed as space for students - not part of their definition of "classroom."

Then the government said: "No, community use doesn't count either. You can have some child care. Maybe we won't force you to close the spaces that small children are now in, in their daycare settings, but if you want to keep those daycare settings open, you're going to have to charge them full market rent, because we're not going to pay the boards anything to heat and light and clean the spaces where they have the child care." That effectively shuts child care down - still does. The government didn't make any changes in that last week. They didn't make any changes in whether they were prepared to provide extra maintenance costs so that there could be community use of schools of any kind. They've simply said no to community use of schools. In fact, there is some polling they're doing right now, because this government runs on polls, and one of the questions they're asking is, "Do you think it would be all right, if you want your school used for community purposes, to charge the municipality, to get the municipality to pay to keep your school open for community use?" That, mark my words, is this government's next step, but it won't come until after the next election. Let's hope they're not in a position to implement the next steps in this incredible agenda.

The government extended from June 30 to December 31 their deadline for closure of all these schools, to have a plan in place and have the schools closed by next June. It's important to remember, though, that although they extended the time, they didn't extend the funding to keep them open. This is very much like what the government did to hospitals. Remember when they took the $800 million away from hospital budgets before they had done any restructuring in the hospital system? They were basically forcing hospitals to restructure because they had already taken their funds away, creating a crisis that necessitates a response, exactly what they were doing to school boards. As of September 1 this year, they took out all of the maintenance funding for these extra spaces, forcing the school boards into a position where, whether or not they thought it was good for their kids, they were going to have to close schools or run a deficit situation.

That did not change with this government's announcements last week. Boards are still not getting funding to maintain their school space. There's some flexibility built in: You don't have to have them 100% occupied now, only 80%, and that is a small step in the right direction. But you've still got to shut down the schools, because you're not getting any money to heat, light and clean what this government has decided is non-essential or extra space. There is no question that schools are still going to have to close.

This government would now like to believe that they've set up a situation where, because Mike Harris has said that no school will have to close, any school board that is forced to close a school by the funding formula will be at fault this time, because after all, Mike changed the disastrous rules they had in place at first and he said, "No school will have to close." Therefore, if a school closes, it must be the board's fault. Wrong. The funding formula is still going to drive school closures, because the maintenance money to keep the spaces open is not there, because there's no money for community use of schools unless they can find some community agency or Brownie group or Scout group that can actually pay market rent for the use of the school space.

1520

When Dalton McGuinty travelled across Toronto and other parts of the province visiting schools, he came back and said, "I didn't see a single space that wasn't full." It's not as though all of these spaces were empty. They had students in them. Sometimes they weren't as full as the government thinks they should be, but they had students using the space and they had community groups using the space. This government doesn't want to make any allowance for that. If it doesn't fit the formula, it's got to go.

This government has also created a situation in which they are pitting parents and students in one area against parents and students in another area, and that did not change with this government's so-called retreat from a disastrous policy. It is a simple fact that if a board has any space which the government considers is extra space, they've got to get rid of all of that space across all of the new amalgamated boards. They've got to get rid of all of that so-called extra space before this government will allow them to build a single new school or create a single new space for students in another community where there may be increasing enrolment. This is creating truly unfortunate situations.

If the government was really going to listen to the concerns of parents that have been voiced to an unbelievable level over the last week, surely they would have understood that what they had to do was uncouple the decisions about how much space they would pay for to keep clean and the need of school boards to create new spaces in communities where there is enrolment growth. In fact, this government's not prepared to flow a single cent of money to any board for the creation of any new spaces in any community where there's increasing student enrolment until all the schools have been shut down that this funding formula is going to force to close.

School closures are difficult at any time. They are an anguish. I personally have been involved in the closure of some 12 schools. There wasn't a single one that didn't create anguish for the parents, for the students and indeed for the school trustees involved. But at no point were those school closures being driven by an arbitrary, inflexible funding formula that was developed in Queen's Park and imposed on school boards across the province. We weren't dealing with huge amalgamated boards where it was quite clear that the needs in one area were going to be totally different from the needs in another area. This is a very different kind of school closure being driven by Queen's Park and no place else, totally unresponsive to the needs of a local community or the students in a particular school. It is being driven by a cost-cutting agenda pure and simple.

This government's agenda was, first of all, to cut money out of education. That's why they wanted control of the funding. When public pressure said: "We don't want any more cuts. What happened to your promise not to cut classroom education?" they said, "All right, we won't cut any more money. We'll keep the funding stable for three years, except that over the next three years there will be 85,000 more students being funded with that same amount of money, less money for every student."

What does the government do? They cut money out of maintenance because they consider it non-essential. I would like to say loudly and clearly today that having a heated, lit, clean, safe space in which to learn is an essential part of providing a classroom education to a student. You can't cut the kind of giant corners that this government wants to cut and claim you're providing a quality education.

The government may have hoped to buy political peace for a year, but I don't think it's going to work. That's why 300 people were out at Weston Memorial school last night to say they don't believe this government is really going to put in place a formula that allows their school to stay open. They don't trust this government. But at least there will be some deferrals. Boards were already doing that, deferring it in the hope that after the next election there will be a new government and a sane policy put in place. I'm glad there can be deferrals until after the next election campaign. I'm glad the government feels it's necessary to buy some political peace for at least a year, because at least it means that all those schools will not be shut down.

This government's agenda, we know, is to do as much damage as possible and to make it as irreversible as possible so no future government can undo what they have done. That has been said publicly and clearly. In this case, they were stopped by an aroused, concerned public - a small step for democracy. Let's hope that we can change the government so that we can have sane, responsive policies that really do show a concern for students' needs and for the need of a school in every community.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I rise today to join in this debate on this opposition day motion presented by Mrs McLeod on behalf of the Liberal caucus and to express my support and that of our caucus for the motion. Essentially the motion, while I would have liked it to go further than it does, indicates very clearly that the Mike Harris government should stop closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario. We certainly support that notion.

We have seen across the province, Speaker - I have seen it in my own west-end Toronto community and I know you have seen it in your part of the city of Toronto in the Riverdale area - the many schools that have been, and still are, under threat of closure directly because of the new funding formula that Mike Harris and his government have imposed upon school board after school board across this province. We have seen a situation, as I was saying, right across the province. In my own community, 22 public and Catholic schools that were going through the review were on the chopping block. I suspect a number of them will still be going through the review and under threat of closure, because although there has been a suspension of the immediate threat of those schools closing as a result of the steps the government was forced to take, at least on the Catholic side, the overall threat is still far from gone.

We know what Mike Harris was forced to do after they put out the initial formula, realizing and having to admit that it was going to cause the closure of many schools; 167 public and Catholic schools in the city of Toronto alone, 22 of those in my own west-end community, schools that have been functioning and continue to function to provide not only good education for our students and for our children but provide many more services. In fact, many of those schools act as the centre of the neighbourhoods. They provide child care centres, they provide services to seniors, they provide English-as-a-second-language classes for adults. They have become, in effect, the hub of the community. They are as valuable for the adults and the rest of the community as they are valuable for the children and the students who attend those schools on a day-to-day basis.

Over the last number of weeks, Speaker, I have been, as I know you and others have, to many meetings across our own areas and across the city in which group after group of parents was beginning to understand - not just beginning but is finally understanding - what the impact of the Harris funding formula means. Many of those people have not been dissuaded or persuaded by the second-line attempts that Mike Harris and his government have made to come in and seem like they're rescuing the situation from the decisions of the school boards. I think the school boards, both public and Catholic, certainly here in the city of Toronto, have acted very responsibly in telling people what would happen if the Harris funding formula remained as it was and what is going to happen if it still remains as it is.

While there has now been a suspension on the Catholic board side, saying, "We don't have to make decisions over this next year," even there, there hasn't been a clear decision taken by the board yet with respect to saying what will happen two years from now or a year and a half from now. Certainly on the public board side, we know there will be at least 30 schools that will still potentially be on the chopping block. People may say: "It used to be 127 and that's gone down to 30. Isn't that great?" Well, it's better, but when you have 30 schools in a city like Toronto that are still in danger of closing, I don't know what the government has to be proud of. In fact, 30 schools will mean that 30 neighbourhoods, 30 communities will lose a vital part of the services that we provide to our young people and, as I said, to the rest of the neighbourhood.

As parents across the city and in my own riding of Dovercourt have said, they don't want to see any of these schools close. I think the government has to understand that and they've got to find whatever way they want to find to continue to back off this incredibly stupid and harsh funding formula that takes money out of the classroom. It does exactly what the Harris government said they were not going to do: It takes money out of schools, money out of classrooms, and it forces school boards to have to close schools.

1530

We need to have this discussion be about services, be about children, be about students, be about the many other people who receive services from our schools. But at the end of the day, this discussion comes back to a discussion around money. We know that at the heart of what Harris and what his government are doing is the taking out of our system of education of hundreds of millions of dollars, just as they have done out of our health care system.

That money in large part is going to fund an income tax cut that makes no sense whatsoever if you are among average middle-income or working-income families. It makes a lot of sense, I suppose, if you're earning $100,000 or more. Then you're getting some benefit. But if you're like the rest of us, if you're like that vast majority, that 94% of people across the province who make less than $80,000, then what you are seeing as a result of the Mike Harris actions is cut after cut in some of our most vital services. Today we are addressing one of those: our school system and our schools and our children and our students.

It behooves all of us who stand here in this House and say that we abhor what Mike Harris and his government are doing with respect to education funding to also be clear about what our commitment is if we were the government. That's why I'm proud of the position that we as New Democrats have taken, which is not just to oppose what Mike Harris is doing. If you have any sense of what's going on in our system, how could you not oppose what Mike Harris is doing? That's almost the easy part, to stand up and say you disagree strongly with what Mike Harris is doing. The more difficult part is to talk about what you would do instead.

I want to say to my Liberal colleagues that when they, like us, talk about what they would do, I still need to hear very clearly where it is they would come first of all with respect to a clear commitment to provide the funding that needs to be made. Let's not be fooled. We are asking parents and others not to be fooled by the interim changes Harris has made, to say, "We're going to put in a bit more money now into the system." We have no guarantee that those additional funds they are putting back are not simply there as a way to patch them through to the next election, hoping they'll get re-elected and then can reintroduce those cuts. That's what many parents out there are fearing. It behooves those of us in the opposition who want to replace the Mike Harris government to say to people that not only is our commitment clear, sharp, simple, that we will put back into the education system the money that Mike Harris has taken out, but it's also incumbent on us to explain very clearly to people where that money is going to come from. It's not going to fall from the skies. It's not going to just magically materialize out of money that will come out of growth in the economy. Undoubtedly there will be some if the economy continues to grow, but who can guarantee today that that will be the case?

That's why I am proud of the position we have taken as New Democrats. Not only will we put the hundreds of millions of dollars back into the education system that Mike Harris and his government have taken out, but we would roll back that portion of the tax cut that goes to people making over $80,000, that 6% of taxpayers who get a billion and a half of the benefit of that tax cut. Twenty-five per cent of the value of the tax cut goes to that very small portion. We would put that money back into our education system, back into our health care system, because that's the way in which we are guaranteed that that money can be there and that the commitment we are making actually means something.

I want to say to my Liberal colleagues, it's great to hear them ranting against what Mike Harris is doing and it's great to hear them opposing what Mike Harris is doing. It's also time they come forward with ways in which they are going to put the money where their commitment is and explain to the people of Ontario how these commitments are going to be paid for.

We've done that. We're going to continue to do that and we're going to continue not only to oppose what Mike Harris is doing, but to talk very clearly and in clearer and clearer terms about what the alternatives are because the alternatives are there. We're proud and firm in our position in terms of how we would change not only what Mike Harris is doing, but in fact put the money back that has to be put back and put that back in a way that benefits all of us and not just simply the wealthiest citizens in our province.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to speak on behalf of the government with respect to this opposition day motion brought forth by the member from Thunder Bay. I'd just like to say that I'm proud of the job this government has done in education, and continues to do.

One of the focuses of this motion speaks about dollars for the education system, about the funding formula and classroom spending. It's obvious that this government is spending more money than it ever has with respect to the education system. The amount of money going into education is going to be close to $15 billion. I know the minister has been working very hard, and I think he has done an excellent job with respect to managing the ministry, in not only trying to make it responsive to the needs of the public but also trying to shape it in such a manner that what we're going to have is an education system that is not only accountable but also brings forth the provincial standards in education that I know, as a parent, I want for my children.

I know that people out there with school-age children want provincial standards. They want provincial involvement to make sure that the system is not only functioning in terms of their being heard but also that it's a very good education system in terms of what we're trying to accomplish. Those provincial standards, which I see no mention of in this opposition day motion - because quite frankly it's obvious that the Liberal Party and even the NDP accept the principle that there should be provincial standards in our education system - those provincial standards that we've brought forth are based on a standardized curriculum where your child can be in one part of the province and, if you have to leave to go to another part of the province for whatever reason, they're not going to be put behind the eight ball in terms of their learning capability.

That provincial standard with respect to a standardized curriculum, with respect to math and English, has been brought forth with respect to the elementary school system. I know that's a welcome change in terms of the chaotic, if you want to use the word "chaotic," approach that school boards have been using in how they teach English, how they teach math across the province. We have to have standards.

We also have standardized testing which allows us to get feedback not only on how we're doing from a parent-child point of view but also on how we're doing school board against school board across the province and how we're doing on a provincial basis against the rest of the country, and also on an international basis.

What is the problem with respect to having standardized testing, making sure that we have provincial standards to know where we're going with our education system? The bottom line is, no matter how much money you spend on education, you want to make sure that you're getting a valued product, you want to make sure that you're getting a good education for the people who are a part of that education system.

We also brought in a standardized report card, we brought in equal funding - that's a big area, equal funding per student across the province - and I also want to speak to special education funding.

The bottom line is, in a riding such as mine, Simcoe Centre, which is one of the fastest-growing areas across the province, it is critical that we get fair funding because we have the need in terms of increased student population and also the need to have more elementary and secondary schools. That's the big debate in my riding: Are we going to get a fair funding formula from the province to recognize the needs of this growing area? I believe this province has answered that need.

It's obvious that in terms of what our funding per student was before the change in the funding formula, we were far behind, for example, the Metropolitan Toronto school system. I'm talking thousands and thousands of dollars per year per student. Quite frankly, as a parent, I can't see why every student in this province isn't given the same opportunity in terms of monetary support for them to get an education.

This equal funding that we've brought forth is a tremendous equalizer across the province in providing a fair and equitable education system. That, coupled with our provincial standards, puts in place an education system that not only is fair but also is consistent across the board. I think in terms of education we have to have those criteria of provincial standards and also equal funding across the board.

1540

Also speaking in terms of the fairness of funding, now we see that the Catholic school system has equitable funding in comparison to the public school system. One thing that was brought in when Bill Davis was in government and now has been brought forth through this government, through Bill 160, is equal funding for the separate school system. That has certainly been welcome news. This government, through the Bill Davis years and through this present government, has always been fair to the separate school system. Obviously, I can't say the same for the other parties.

But I will say that the government's focus has been to put people first in terms of how we've gone about fixing government. With respect to education, what we have done is put students first. When they talk about classroom spending, what we have done is made sure that classroom spending goes into the classroom. You can't shift around in terms of saying, "We're going to move funds from this account into that account." What we have mandated is that there is spending that goes into classroom spending and non-classroom spending.

But also we've made sure in terms of the funding that we've provided for special education, which is $1.2 billion, that that funding cannot be taken away and put into administration. Because that's the big argument that we face and that we've heard from parents, saying: "You know, if you're going to put money into education we want it to be in the classroom, we want it to be in special education. We do not want to see it continuing to be put into administration."

It was very interesting when last week we had a big discussion in Simcoe Centre about the need for high schools. We have a tremendous need for high schools in the city of Barrie and the town of Innisfil. What we're trying to accomplish is, because of the tremendous growth through our funding formula, we're looking to fast-track the building of schools in areas that need them. As I said, we have a tremendous need, and I was very pleased to see last week that the public school board has approved the location of two new high schools, one in the city of Barrie in the Holly area and one in the town of Innisfil located in Alcona Beach. There is a tremendous need for that type of building, and I am going to do my best as the member for Simcoe Centre to make sure not only that those schools are built but that they're built in the most expeditious manner that they can be built.

The bottom line is that the tremendous growth that's being experienced outside of Metropolitan Toronto has to be given the same time in terms of the debate. We cannot continue to focus on Metropolitan Toronto in terms of their needs versus the needs of the rest of the province. From what I understand, in Metropolitan Toronto they have at the public board level 330,000 student spaces and the number of students who are actually in the system is roughly around 200,000, so obviously they have excess capacity. The challenge to the boards is to deal with that.

My challenge as the member for Simcoe Centre is that we don't have enough schools. We have excess number of students because, quite frankly, people are moving out of Toronto to come up and live in my area, and I don't blame them because it's a tremendous area to live in. But that's the reality which has been happening for the last 10 years.

I would say that what we're looking at is a fairness in terms of equity for all the regions. In terms of my area, in the last two weeks we've opened three new elementary schools, two in the separate system and one in the public system. Those schools are almost at capacity right now. So we can't look with tunnel vision in terms of, "What are Toronto's problems versus the rest of the province?"

Let's look outside of Toronto in terms of the problems in other areas. For too long, in my area we've been getting short-changed in terms of fairness in education dollars. That's why bringing in provincial standards in terms of the building of schools with respect to equal and fair funding by students, and not by the area you live in, is going to provide equal opportunity and fairness to the residents of Simcoe Centre.

Putting more money in the classroom, taking waste out of administration and focusing on clear, high standards for our children and our schools is exactly the kind of change Ontarians asked for in the election. I can remember running in 1995 and having meeting after meeting with parents, saying, "We have to fix our education system. We have to make sure we have the schools available when we need them. We have to make sure the parents have some input in their child's education." People wanted provincial standards. That's what we gave them.

I'd like to ask the Liberals once and for all to stop promoting misconceptions about this government's policies and stop trying to provoke the public. That's essentially what they're trying to do. They've been working very well with the trade unions in trying to accomplish this goal with the disruptions that have been occurring throughout not only York region, but Simcoe county and in Metropolitan Toronto.

This government has not closed one school. This government is spending more money on education than ever has been done in the history of this province. That is the Liberal Party that for the first time ever voted against back-to-school legislation. They say they are fighting for students, yet they voted against allowing them back to school, even though they've always supported such legislation in the past.

They put forth as one of their major platforms that they want to get rid of Bill 160. What does that mean? Are you going to make sure that the Catholic school system is not going to have fair and equitable funding? Are you going to take away parents' rights to be involved in parents' councils? We've enshrined that in legislation. Are you going to get rid of provincial standards in terms of making sure class sizes are at a certain level? Are you going to get rid of provincial standards in terms of having teachers spend more time in the classroom? What are they going to do? Are they going to basically break the framework of providing provincial standards in education that all people want?

We have to wait to see what they want. It's easy to say, "We're going to get rid of the bill," but when you have no platform to say what you're going to do to strengthen and improve education in this province, and what it's going to cost in terms of disruption to the system - I think it's up to the Liberal Party to explain what they're about.

Not too long ago, the Liberals were proclaiming that we were going to fire 10,000 teachers. Not only was this completely not true, but now schools can't seem to hire enough teachers. That's what I've heard throughout my riding: "We need more teachers." That's attributable somewhat to the tremendous growth that's happening in my riding, but it's also attributable to the fact that a number of teachers who were of retirement age took advantage of it. That was their right, to take advantage of early retirement. You can't blame them because the teachers' pension plan is obviously one of the richest in the province. Who wouldn't want to retire at age 55, making a significant amount of money in excess of $50,000 a year towards their pension? That's a good lifestyle.

Why has the Liberal Party taken the stand it has with respect to the education reforms? We put in place limits on average class size, and as a result boards need to hire more teachers. Then they claimed that 600 schools were going to close - a number picked out of thin air - and again the Liberal Party was wrong. In fact, funding is being provided for up to 200 new schools in the next three years. This is not a number picked out of thin air; it is based on grants the Ministry of Education is providing to boards and the ability for this money to be leveraged so that schools can be built when they are needed.

1550

Yes, there are challenges when you move from one formula to a new one, especially when it has decayed since the last update to our education finance system. I know the Liberals would have done nothing. It's easy to put off the tough decisions, but that would have made the problem worse, so the Premier announced some changes to make the funding formula more flexible, to allow it to take into consideration the specific circumstances of rural Ontario and of old schools with special design features, and to give boards some more time to implement the changes properly.

The funding formula is based on the idea that every student deserves an equal chance at life. I think this is a noble idea. To me, it's common sense.

Based on this principle, we have developed a funding formula in which funding follows the children, not the buildings or the staff. That's equal funding for each student. We believe that having funding follow the student is the right thing to do. It's a very straightforward, simplistic way to deal with it. It gets away from the politics of it. Obviously, the members from Metropolitan Toronto would love to make sure they keep all the funding in Metropolitan Toronto, to the detriment of my constituents in Simcoe Centre. Why? Because they've always had it that way. But things have changed, and the bottom line is that people are moving out of Metropolitan Toronto to live somewhere else. If that's the case, let's even the playing field and allow the locations where people are now living to get fair funding for their education system. As I said, we believe that having funding follow the student is the right thing to do.

Within this formula, we have recognized the special circumstances of small and rural schools. Grants for remote and rural schools have more than doubled to $90.1 million this year, and $56.2 million has been allocated for small schools in cases of sparse population.

The Premier's changes confirm that no school will need to close as a result of the provincial funding formula. Various boards across the province made suggestions on how to improve the formula and make it more flexible. I know the boards from my riding were involved. It would have been nicer if the boards had worked with us in the first place. We tried to work with them to make sure we addressed their concerns. They are the ones who know the system on the ground level. But some school boards didn't want to work with us. Instead, they just fought the changes. Now that some suggestions have come forward, we have responded with long-term solutions to ensure that no school will need to close as a result of provincial funding changes.

We have brought in a 20% funding top-up for school maintenance budgets. This recognizes the difficulty of keeping all schools at perfect capacity. When funding follows the student, schools which are slightly below capacity would get slightly below funding to maintain the school. The 20% top-up solution removes this concern and will allow many schools, particularly rural schools, to remain open. For example, a school at 89% capacity will get 100% funding for maintenance. A school at 76% capacity will get 96% funding for maintenance.

We also have recognized that some older schools have unique design features, such as larger hallways, which contribute to extra maintenance costs. The funding formula has been changed to accommodate these features.

These are permanent solutions which will benefit boards every year.

Another permanent solution is the removal of the December 31 date to submit school use plans. Boards can now submit plans every year in order to become eligible for funding to build new classrooms. This recognizes the difficulty some boards were having when trying to plan for future years while also managing the transition to the new funding formula. This gives them the time to do their planning properly.

With these permanent solutions, we've addressed key concerns while maintaining our goal of fair funding for every student. Of course, all boards have in the past and will continue to open and close schools as they see appropriate, given enrolment and demographic shifts. People move but buildings don't, but no provincial action will force any additional schools to close.

The same can be said with respect to boundary changes. That's always been something the boards have handled in terms of their policy, and it has to do with the demographics and the necessities of the boards in terms of how they provide their education. The province hadn't been involved in that and the boards have always seemed to manage in terms of dealing with their boundary changes.

In addition to these changes, we've ensured that all boards will have an additional year to find the necessary administrative savings. Boards that were to have phased-in reductions beginning next year will now receive no less than they did this year. Boards that were to receive increases will still receive them. The province is willing to provide outside expert advice to assist in finding administrative savings to boards that request it. The Toronto District School Board requested such assistance and the province is fulfilling this request.

As the Premier often stated in the past, we are invariably committed to our goals, but we are willing to discuss how we will achieve these goals. We have listened to concerns that the school boards have raised and have improved the funding model to make it easier to make them implement the changes. Already boards are indicating that they will not be closing any schools. The Toronto Catholic board was considering 29 and now has indicated that no schools will close. The Toronto District School Board, of course, was waving around their list of 138 schools, but that list has been withdrawn. Even before the Premier's announcement, boards were deciding not to close schools. The Thames Valley board and the Avon Maitland board took their schools off the list.

We continue to be committed to the principle of fair funding for every student in the province, and I know the members of Metropolitan Toronto may find that a hard principle to accept because in the past they basically have been a self-funded board; they haven't needed any assistance from the province and they basically have been able to do what they wish. But in the new era where we have a system where there should be provincial standards, where every student in this province should get the same amount of money for their education, and because the province has decided to take a role to ensure that every student in this province has fair and equitable funding, I guess Metropolitan Toronto is going to have to go along. I would say, as the member for Simcoe Centre, that that's something they should accept the reality of and get down to the business of providing a quality education in this city.

We continue to be committed to the principle of fair funding for every student in the province. I'm proud of the accomplishments of this government. I want an education system where my children can get the best possible education, and the efforts of this government will go a long way to putting Ontario students back in the lead.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate. The member for -

1600

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Essex South. Gee, it's not my day. The other Speaker had me in Essex-Kent. But after the next election I hope it's in Essex.

I'm pleased to stand today to speak for a few minutes on this resolution. The crux of the resolution is, "The Mike Harris government should stop closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario." The member for Wentworth North just asked a few minutes ago that we help clear up the issue of what this government is doing, and I'd be pleased to do that. This government goes around saying, "It's not us." It's like hospitals. It's like when they sent out the hospital restructuring commission: "It's not us closing hospitals, it's somebody else." They like to put the blame on somebody else. We don't have to clear up an awful lot for people, because they know that it's this government's flawed funding formula, the original one. I hope it's not like the tax bills, where we'll have seven funding formulas before we even get close to getting it right. The public knows that it's Mike Harris whose hand is on the door, that pulls the school door closed. He may not take responsibility for it, but it's his fingerprints that are on the doorknobs of those schools that are going to close.

Several months ago our leader, Dalton McGuinty, came to Harrow, a rural school, a community of just a couple of thousand people. At that time, the government was standing up and saying they finally had the guts to do what nobody else would do: establish a funding formula that was fair across the province. We know that today they're standing up and saying: "We saw the light. We now have a new funding formula that's fair for everybody across the province." I don't think they have it right yet.

I want to speak for just a couple of minutes on behalf of Harrow secondary school and Western Secondary School, two rural secondary schools which were under the threat of being closed just several weeks ago. There was also W.D. Lowe Secondary School, John L. Forster, Walkerville and Century in Windsor - different communities, different schools, different reasons for being there and different reasons why they should stay where they are. But since Harrow and Western are in my riding, I'd like to specifically talk about them.

For the government to come along and say: "OK, we've seen the light now. You in the Liberal Party have been telling us for months that the funding formula that we developed, that was fair for everybody in Ontario, was wrong" - I ask the member for Wentworth North if this will help clarify it. The government now says, "Yes, you were right and we were wrong." Is the member for Wentworth North saying then that's not the opposition's job, to point out when something we feel is wrong is genuinely wrong? We did that. Now the government is standing up and making apologies for it.

The problem is that Harrow secondary school and Western Secondary School are still under that threat, because I suggest that in stepping back from that line that they so boldly stepped up to in the first place and told all of us, "We're right," Mike Harris is saying, "Elect me this year and I'll close them next year." It's the same mind that's in Mike Harris's head. It's the same heart that he has, and sometimes I think it's a pretty cold one. It's the same ideology and philosophy that are there. But they're saying, "Just wait a year and then we'll close your schools." I think that's all this dance is about. I still think they're going to be back there next year with the same ideas, the same philosophy, the same bottom line, and they're going to forget about rural schools and continue along this line that they started on to take the guts out of some of our communities. That's why I'm supporting this resolution today.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I'm pleased to join this debate on this opposition day motion and the be-it-resolved section that says here, "The Mike Harris government should stop closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario." Indeed, this is the heritage of Bill 160, the very controversial piece of legislation that the government went forward with to centralize all decision-making with respect to education across Ontario. Not only are tax levies being dictated through the back halls of the government offices here without debate before the Legislature affecting property tax across Ontario, but class size, whether schools stay open, how schools should be managed, right down to the tiniest detail are coming out of Toronto: One size fits all. Somehow, the people who work in the backrooms here and the government party itself seem to believe that this piece of legislation that allows them to set the accommodation formula - in other words, that says a school must operate at 100% capacity, that every school in the province must operate at 100% capacity before any money will be let go for new communities that require new facilities to accommodate them. That's what this government is saying, "You cannot build a new school unless that school board has exhausted every complete single space."

As a matter of fact, the announcement that was made last week only extended the timeline for this process but did not address the meat of the unreasonableness and unrealistic character, quality of the government's accommodation formula. That's why we have this debate here, in the hope that the government will hear not only from the parents who have spoken out against this, the community associations that have spoken out against this, municipalities now speaking out against this, but also from their elected representatives here in the Ontario Legislature.

Let me give you the example of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic District School Board and the French-language school boards, the new boards that were created by this government's initiative. Here we are dealing with school boards that represent 11 municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton. These are urban, suburban, rural municipalities encompassing over 700,000 people.

In Ottawa-Carleton the urban core is separated from the suburban and rural core by the greenbelt. So we have some 300 schools, some 11 municipalities inside the greenbelt, which is totally built out, and outside the greenbelt, which continues to grow, and the government is saying: "For those new schools outside the greenbelt, miles and miles away from the urban core, in order to get that, if you happen to have one or two or three classrooms that are empty in your school that might be used as a withdrawal room for kids with special needs or might be used for some community activity" - it may be a school that was built in 1950 for 500 kids and you've got 450 kids there - "you're going to have to close some of that space. Of course, you can't close down the classroom, oh no. You're going to have to close schools to ensure that there's no vacant space to deal with that school that's outside the greenbelt that has 40 portables."

Forty per cent of the pupils in schools in the suburban and rural communities outside the greenbelt in Ottawa-Carleton are in portables. That is shameful. Their needs should be addressed independent of the whole notion of dealing with the amalgamation, independent of this whole notion of trying to find more efficient use of space. These kids in portables outside the greenbelt should have their needs addressed today. They should not be held hostage to the fact that there may or may not be some kind of space available inside the urban core.

Let's talk about the space that's supposedly available inside the urban core. I've been a trustee in the Ottawa Board of Education. We've gone through declining enrolment and have made school closure decisions based on programs. We have a history, and it's very clear to us that the community values tremendously having their school in their community, and so they should, because it's more than just a place to educate children, certainly more than that. It's an opportunity for the community to gather, it's an opportunity for the community to use all the facilities, whether it's the gym inside or the baseball diamond outside or what have you.

We're dealing with a change in policy. Up to now, the ministry policy for capacity was about 85%. If your school was at 85% full it was deemed, "OK, you're doing well." That made sense, because communities change. We have communities that grow, we have communities that age. You cannot budget for a one-to-one relationship between capacity and student population. It just doesn't work that way; it's totally unreasonable.

When we look at the application of this government policy of 100% capacity, in Ottawa-Carleton, out of our 300 or so schools, we're going to see something in the order of 40 to 50 schools being closed, not because of programs, not because they're too small, but because that's what's needed to ensure that there is no excess capacity in the system in order to put into place the 10 to 12 new schools that are required today outside the greenbelt. The Ottawa-Carleton Catholic District School Board says it could open five schools tomorrow and have them filled outside the greenbelt, and it's the same story from the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. They could fill them tomorrow.

As a matter of fact, if you were to go out to Barrhaven or to Longfields or to Stittsville or Goulbourn and build a school in anticipation of future growth, because that is where the growth is going to be in Ottawa-Carleton, and you oversize, you cannot build another school again, whether it's in Gloucester or in Manotick or any other part of Ottawa-Carleton. You cannot, because you've created this excess capacity. It is truly unreasonable, absolutely unreasonable.

Let's look at the whole notion of the definition of classrooms. Here you have classrooms that are defined at 23 students in high school, 25 students at the elementary level and nine students for special education. But there go the withdrawal rooms, if you're in a French immersion school, for English education, or, if you're in an English education school, for French immersion. There go the withdrawal rooms for special education. Yes, you have nine for the special education class, but if you have to take a child or two or three children out to deal with their special needs, that's counted as 23 or 25; that's not counted in the system. If you have a computer lab that takes up 18 to 25 of those student spots, that's a classroom. Well, I'm sorry, that's not how the world works.

1610

The educators are telling us that it's unreasonable and unmanageable. The parents are telling us that it is a cruel death stroke to that part of the community fabric that is so important to them, to be able to walk their kids to school. The municipalities are telling us that it confounds all their plans for reviving the urban core and for dealing with growth outside the greenbelt. What the community is telling us, and this government with this announcement - quite frankly, it is so cynical what has happened here. The pressure was on, the communities were going up in flames over the government policy, the accommodation formula, and the government said: "Well, all right, we won't make you decide by the end of December this year. We'll give you more time." But the unreasonableness, the basic, fundamental flaw in this policy still remains, and it has got to change.

So I say to the government members opposite, you may think you're trying to get a more efficient school system, but you are ruining communities. The communities, the taxpayers who support this, don't want this. You're going to have to go back to the drawing board and think twice about what you want to achieve. I have to tell you that the community is wise to this notion that these vacant schools or these schools that will be closed will be transferred over to the Ontario Realty Corp. What's going to happen there? Are these schools going to remain within the community purview as resources to be accessible to the community? Not at all. They'll be flipped at their highest use towards development, and the community will lose that community resource forever. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.

I am very pleased to stand in support of this. I know my caucus will be voting in favour of this. There is a message to send across to the government, and that is: Rethink your policy about school accommodation.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity today to speak on this particular opposition motion, one that I'm just a little bit confused over, why they'd be putting it forward in this particular position. Certainly this government puts students first. Students are indeed number one. There is no question that with the way we have developed our funding formula and the standards we've put out, students are certainly very, very important to this government. We've developed a lot of standards.

Part of what has brought about this debate on closing of schools relates to the funding formula. I've heard some criticism today of that funding formula, and I'm going to talk a lot about it in a few minutes, but that funding formula is such a breath of fresh air to the people of Ontario, to boards of education and certainly for the government of Ontario.

But first I'd like to speak a bit about the Toronto District School Board and some of the games they've been playing recently on school closings. They came out with the Nyberg list of schools to be closed, some 138 schools they suggested should be closed. I understood something like 100,000 students placements out there were empty, weren't being used, and something like 80 schools were already empty and being used for other purposes. I don't think the people of Ontario should have to be paying for that kind of space that's empty and not being used.

I served for two terms on the Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education - that was the name it had back in the 1970s - and in the area that I represented we closed two schools, one on the edge of Trenton and one in Carrying Place. I can tell you that it takes a lot to stand up to the public pressures and the concerns when you close schools.

I see the Liberals and the NDP here today, and as soon as there's a bit of noise out there in the community, concern about "You might be going to close our school," they fold and they're all ready to spend the kind of money that they spent during the lost decade we went through here in Ontario. But we've had enough fearmongering from boards such as the Toronto District School Board and some of the other boards in the province. They were playing similar games. That's certainly not satisfactory either.

We've also gone through an interesting exercise about teacher employment. A year ago there was a lot of kerfuffle about all these teachers going to be laid off. As a matter of fact, Ms Nyberg said there would be some 10,000 teachers laid off across Ontario because of Bill 160. That was pretty absurd at that time, a ridiculous comment indeed. We were hearing it from other boards and from the teachers' union. We were hearing all this rhetoric.

I think a quote from the Toronto Sun is interesting:

"College chairman Donna Kennedy and college executive Margaret Wilson said the union- and school-board-driven crisis around teacher layoffs is history....

"`I think...the period of teacher redundancies is largely over,' Wilson said. `We have school boards phoning the college every day saying they can't find supply teachers. There is a great opportunity.'"

This is the kind of rhetoric we've been through with the unions. This is the kind of rhetoric we've heard from school boards. But we now know that teachers really are in great demand. There are not going to be a lot of teachers out there without work.

The students are not buying this rhetoric either. They are quite fed up with this kind of thing. Right in Cobourg, in my riding, 150 students from Cobourg East walked out in a protest last week. They are fed up with this work to rule and they want something done about it.

Just a couple of quotes from the Cobourg Star of Friday, November 20:

"`It's good, but I expected a lot more. There's no spirit left in our school,' said Michelle Flay, a student from the East...."

Another quote from another student:

"`I'm having a hard enough time staying in as it is. I've dropped out twice,' said Mitch Parkinson, an 18-year-old grade 13 student.

"`They're closing down the options us and that's not right.'"

In our board a petition has been taken up. They have some 700 students' signatures on it asking that the board and the union simply sit down and work out the agreement and get on with life, rather than work to rule.

A couple of weeks ago they had graduations in two of the high schools in my riding on a Saturday night. One in particular was rather interesting. In neither school would the teachers assist. It was purely the principals and vice-principals.

In the East Northumberland Secondary School in Brighton the parents joined in and did just an excellent job. My congratulations to the parents for picking up the slack and coming forward at a time when they were needed. I think the unions should pay attention to this. If the parents can move in and do this kind of thing to assist in the schools, there are many other things, if they're empowered, they can certainly do very well. I think the unions might be wise to pay attention to this very fact.

There's no question that our government has looked at this is as a very democratic process. We've listened to stakeholders. I've mentioned here before the number of hours that we put into consultation, the number of hours and hearings, far greater than either the NDP or the Liberals when they were in government. We certainly have had a lot more consultation than the other two parties ever dreamed of having when they were in government.

Having listened - I'm side-tracking a bit - we have the flexibility. The Minister of Education announced that this funding formula, as it relates to school spaces, was extended for another year until boards get a little more organized. It looks at the 80% occupancy rather than the 100% as it originally started out.

It's obvious that the Toronto District School Board was unable to manage these kinds of savings on their own. As the minister announced, we're going to send in some assistance to identify some of the savings. It's obvious that the separate board in the same area is able to educate students a heck of a lot cheaper than the Toronto board. Similarly, if other boards are having problems, maybe we could offer to send in assistance to identify savings in those boards. What most of the boards have been doing is generously using money for administration, extra salaries, generous salaries, generous quarters for them to work out of. Our board spent something like $4.2 million on a new headquarters. Quite generous, all in all.

Certainly it was very important to overhaul the education system. There was no question. The public has been pleading for it for over 20 years, since I was on school board in the 1970s. They've been pleading for a change in education, a different style of education, curriculum, report cards that they could understand. But also, they were complaining bitterly about the property tax bill that was being laid on them. There's no question that our plans have been very thoughtfully laid out and presented. They've been very student-centred.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Like property taxation.

Mr Galt: I can tell the NDP member opposite doesn't agree with having it student-centred. It's unfortunate that they too wouldn't want to have a student-centred funding formula, because they are the ones it is all about. It isn't about salaries and staff; It's about the students who are in the system; it's about standards. I can tell you, the public has been pleading for standards in the education system for a very long time - standards in report cards, standards in the curriculum and standards about how education is funded in the province of Ontario.

1620

If we look for a few minutes at something like curriculum, as part of what we've been doing with our funding formula, we've brought out new curriculum written by teachers, for teachers, to assist teachers to educate students in our system. It has been extremely well received. I've only had one or two complaints about how it's just a little too advanced. Most of the calls I've received have been very favourable. I've had a lot of teachers tell me themselves what a good curriculum this is. We look forward to curriculum for the secondary panel as well in the not too distant future.

They appreciate the clarity it brings to what is expected of students at certain points in their education as they move through the various grades. As we have developed the curriculum, what fits in very well with it is a standardized report card, a report card designed by teachers, tested by several of the school boards and teachers prior to being implemented across the province. Parents really appreciate being able to see that their son or daughter has accomplished this level and they know where it's at. They're measuring it to a standard.

What is really unfortunate when it comes to some of these standards is we still have some boards that really resist putting out some of these marks. My board is one. They will not put out what the average was for grade 3 in a certain school. That's happening in the Toronto boards and in many other boards. It gives parents an understanding of where their school is at and what they should expect of their child in that particular school, but our board is resisting it tooth and nail and I find that very unfortunate.

The funding formula is all about putting students first. Who else should we be addressing this to other than students? It's very important that we put our students first. The funding formula is recognizing that there will be equal funding for students, no matter where they live in Ontario, and that there will be equal recognition for school boards.

It's going to limit the dollars that can be moved around in that package. They won't be able to move dollars from the classroom and move them into administration, for salaries and for fancy offices that they have had in the past.

I don't think it should be necessary that we have to go out and hold the hands of some of these school boards to show them where there are some savings. I think back to a year ago now, when Bill 160 was a big issue. The chair of the board in my area made the statement, "If Bill 160 goes through, we won't even be allowed to buy a toothbrush." That's a quote.

It's unfortunate they make those kinds of comments because they turned around and spent $4.2 million on their headquarters, but yet she made the statement that with Bill 160 they'd never be able to allowed to buy a toothbrush.

I've spoken out quite a bit about this new headquarters for our board, but I recognize also, yes, they did go ahead with that but they are spending the 65% on the classroom, so we're told. I believe what they're saying. I take them at their word and hope that's what we see in the audited statements down the road. I certainly commend them for taking that kind of a commitment, that they will be spending the 65% on the students and on the classroom. I've had some people phone me and obviously they're not keeping to the maximum average cap of 25 students elementary and 22 students in the secondary, but they are indicating that 65% of their budget is going to the students.

Since the Liberals brought up this particular motion, I'm sure they must have a position on education. We've been waiting for Dalton McGuinty to have a position on education. He doesn't have one on health care, and we've been waiting for one on health care as well. I thought that with this motion we would hear a very well-defined, very crisp, very clear position that Dalton McGuinty, leader of the Liberal Party, has on education.

We are very committed to standards. We're committed to student progress. We're committed to the report cards. We're on record and we've come out with the commitment for the funding formula. But we understand Dalton McGuinty doesn't agree with any of these positions, any of these changes we've made. It seems that Dalton McGuinty is against higher standards in education. I guess he's against a cap to class size. It would appear that he's against report cards.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Madam Chair: It's quite in order for the member to say a lot of the things he's saying - that's politics - but I don't think it's accurate for him to start saying that the Liberal Party or the Liberal leader are against high standards. I think the member knows that. The rest I accept.

The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines, that is not a point of order. Member for Northumberland, go ahead.

Mr Galt: I re-emphasize that the leader of the Liberal Party does not have a position on education. He does not say anything about class size, so I guess he's opposed to our cap on class sizes: 25 students for an elementary class and 22 for the secondary average, board-wide, that is. I guess he's opposed to an understandable report card. I guess he's opposed to the new funding formula that we brought in that provides equal funding for every student in the province of Ontario. It would appear that the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of the status quo, and the people of Ontario are not satisfied with the status quo of education in this province.

It's interesting to read Christina Blizzard's column this morning, although I have to disagree with her about "Forget About That Spring Election." It could come almost any time once we get near the fourth year. I think it's interesting what she says in here about the leader of the Liberal Party. She says:

"At a recent meeting of the Ontario Hospital Association McGuinty said he would `review' hospital closures. Well, that's a fine weasel word for a politician. Say that after he's elected, he `reviews' all the Tory closures and decides, surprise, surprise, they were a tough thing to do, but necessary.

"This, clearly, he could have learned at the knee of his federal kissing cousin, Jean Chrétien, who won an election by saying he'd end free trade, scrap the GST and save money by killing a helicopter deal. Once in power, he decided we needed free trade, the GST - and the helicopters too.

"Much as we don't like to close hospitals, all parties know it is sound, long-range policy."

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean and for St Catharines, come to order. I can't hear the member.

Mr Galt: To complete the quote: "McGuinty is basing his promises on a budget surplus. So who managed the province's economy in such a way that it created a surplus?"

I know these statements are rather disturbing to the opposition. It's unfortunate that they get so upset over some of the good things that the Tory party has been doing, but that's how government has been going over the last while.

There may or may not be a surplus when we get to the end of our term; it depends on how our tax cuts have stimulated the economy. But I'm certainly proud it's one of the accomplishments of our government - the accomplishments of our welfare reform and our restructuring of health and education in he province of Ontario.

Just a quote from songwriter Bob Dylan: "Those who are not busy being born are busy dying."

Our government has put considerable effort into reinventing the public service and it is now working very well. The opposition would prefer to see it dying instead.

In closing, I'd like to give a quote, quite simply, "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are busy doing it."

The people of Ontario generally support the direction of this government. I believe in the next election they want us to have and they will give us the mandate to finish the job that we have started.

1630

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): It will give me an opportunity in the few minutes that I have to emphasize the vicious manner in which the Conservative government has dropped the hatchets on eight schools in my constituency and sentenced them to death: Lynwood Heights junior public school, Agincourt junior public school, Anson Taylor junior public school, Henry Kelsey senior public school, Dr Marion Hilliard senior public school, St Ignatius of Loyola Catholic school, Our Lady of Good Counsel Catholic school and St Gabriel Lalemant Catholic school.

When they heard the news, the death sentence of killing their schools, they were in panic, they were in shock, they couldn't believe it. They gathered around and they felt that the government was putting the boots to trustees or to teachers. What they didn't realize is that a community, which is what schools are all about, would come up in arms and make a strong commitment. They will make sure that this government does not close their schools.

When they heard the news, when they heard the type of strategies that were put forward by these schools, I could hear the bugle sound of retreat. It was a sweet sound when I heard them retreating and they were shouting, "Listen, we really didn't mean it right now. We'll put $200 million in to hold it back for one year," a reprieve, they said. They thought again that the people would be fooled by that. "If they would just give us one more year," the government was saying, "for the $200 million, we won't close it for another year." But people knew that they were buying time because they knew that an election is coming forth, and the government blows the bugle of retreat so well.

The people are saying to me tonight - just tonight I am going to a school, St Ignatius of Loyola, and they are still adamant in telling this government to take its hands off their community, because a school is a community not only for students but for the entire community. This government comes in here to destroy a community and that will not be done. They are making sure.

I gather that some colleagues in the Conservative Party talk about the government being committed to education. Is that the way you are committed to education, when you slash over $1 billion out of education? Is that the way you are committed to education, when you attack adult education in the manner that you've done, depriving people of their education? Is that a commitment, what you are speaking about? Is that a commitment, to drive chaos into the system and then say to yourselves: "We believe in education. Students come first"?

But people know now that this government is the type of government that is confrontational and that it has demonstrated in many ways that it has no concern for certain areas of this province. Many of the people are saying: "They're coming for you. They came for us at night and they'll come for you in the morning." They know that they will completely only be concerned about certain constituencies, and this is not so. "We want a government," the people are saying, "that is concerned about all people."

The only way I could put this well is that a grade 6 student said to me when I was visiting their school: "Why is this government closing schools? I understand, Mr Curling, that the schools are being closed because they have no money." The student said to me -

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we do not have a quorum. Can you check for a quorum?

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Scarborough North.

Mr Curling: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me again emphasize that a grade 6 student said to me, having learned that the government was devastating their education and closing their school, "All that money, Mr Curling, that is being spent in advertising and promoting Mike Harris, couldn't they use that money to save our school?"

I told the student that it depends on the priority of the government. It seems the government had no interest in education at the time but in a profile of how they would look in using government money to promote themselves, while in the meantime closing schools. The student was extremely concerned and worried about that. This is a grade 6 student who's asking about their school being closed. The community also felt very upset at the fact that their housing market was going to go down dramatically because of the fact that they were going to dig a big hole in their community by closing their school.

This government is one that will be accountable at the time when the election comes. They continue to behave like they're the big Titanic. That glistening thing in front of them is not an iceberg; it's people who are ready for them in the next election, to make sure that this insensitive, this callous, this morbid type of attitude of this government will see the day that they will no longer be running this province and we have the more compassionate Dalton McGuinty as the Premier of this province, who will be the Premier in the near future. I urge you to call the election. Let us now go forward and have a good Liberal government in place.

Mr Pouliot: I'm delighted that some members of the government have expressed courage - I'm particularly delighted when I see in front of my very eyes the former teacher, a person who has spent more than a decade improving the education system in Ontario. I would like at some opportunity in the near future to ask that person, on a one-on-one basis, what went wrong. Why do you to this day, after three and a half years of exposure in this House, believe everything the Premier's office tells you? You're a teacher, you've been there, you've heard your leader and successive ministers of education declaring war on teachers, declaring war on education ever since you took office on June 8, 1995.

1640

I say to my distinguished colleague and former teacher opposite, you could have said, "No, I will not adhere to this policy." In lieu, you choose to be what you refer to as a team player - well, as a bit of a doormat, with respect. In the context of education, you did not stand up for the people you represent, for the people who are footing the bill, for the people paying your wages and your parliamentary assistant's stipend. You didn't give them a hand; you gave them the back of your hand. One more time, you cannot improve the education system by putting teachers last. It doesn't work this way.

Now, on the eve of an election - this is incompetence at its worst - we've had the property taxation exercise not five, not six, but seven times. The time of this House, of the members, has been occupied and they have been preoccupied with fixing the mistakes before. They simply cannot get it right. But the revolution goes on.

First they take $1 billion out of education. That's $1 billion that the Progressive Conservatives, the government of the day, took out of education, depriving people of an essential service. Then they create confusion. For the first time in the history of Ontario - and the Minister of Education is right here. I'm happy that he is here paying us the compliment of his visit. He is the architect. Come here. Be on camera with me.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): If you could only get it right, I'd be happy to listen to you.

Mr Pouliot: This is the person. We are on opposite sides. I am with you. Mr Johnson has chosen a different course. One billion dollars taken out of the system, taken out from books, from classrooms, from school boards to give a chance for people to integrate, to participate fully in the future of the province and the country.

We will be supporting the Liberals' motion because, simply put, it's opposition day and we share the same disdain for the government, except that as we seek the same destination, at this fork we take on different routes. We say, as New Democrats, that if you make the commendable salary per annum, the yearly salary, of $80,000 - still a lot of money nowadays - what we will do is take the money, the Tory tax cut, and put it back into education and health.

Beware, Speaker. If anyone else tells you that they will improve education with more funding, simply ask them, "Where will the money come from?" Our friends - not our friends opposite; our friends beside us, the Liberals - ask for nothing. They don't have a formula. They don't have a program. They receive nothing. When I look at the Conservatives and the Liberals, it's the perfect marriage indeed.

One billion dollars taken out. But you see, what this government does perhaps better than anyone else is blame, blame, blame. Economically, if we have a recovery, if people benefit, they take the credit. If we have a recession, a slowdown, they blame Asia, they blame the opposition. You see, when you take the credit for good times, you must also take the credit for bad times. One would expect a lot more from this government.

People will attest - and I'm talking about not politicians but parliamentarians, political pundits who study these things, who study politics. They will tell you that since Confederation in the annals of the province of Ontario they have never seen such incompetence. One would expect better from the Progressive Conservative Party.

There's an assumption out there that they can manage the books. Let me convey to them that it takes an awful lot more than a pinstriped suit, a silk tie and a club membership card in your pocket and the exclusivity of the country club to manage an economy like Ontario's. After three and a half years, they still spend tens of thousands of dollars more each and every hour of the day than they take in. Is this competence? Go to the top of the CN Tower on a clear day and you will see 40% of the gross domestic product in front of your very eyes, yet we in Ontario, rich Ontario, the breadbasket of the country, will be the last jurisdiction to balance the books. If this is not incompetence - they had some choices. They've cut taxes mostly for the wealthy. For people who make astronomical salaries, for the well-to-do, they've cut taxes by $5 billion.

The school of thought to which I adhere, my philosophy when it comes to debit and credit is a simple one: One has to live within one's means. While other people go on a cruise, I go for a walk. If I cannot afford it, I have a mindset that I might not want it, it is not beneficial, and you look long term. Why doesn't this government conduct their affairs the way I conduct my humble affairs? Alas, it's more complex. C'est plus compliqué. Ce n'est jamais si facile. But these people will have the province in the poorhouse if they continue their ill-fated attitude towards economics. They had the opportunity.

Pay your debt first, I say to the Minister of Education. That's good economics. Once you're debt-free, then you can throw a party. That gives you more latitude. You don't have to pay those divvies, those coupons. This is an obligation.

At present this government - and I want the hard-working people in Ontario to be aware of it - each and every year is paying upwards of $9.5 billion just to pay the interest on the debt. This is more than what is being spent on primary and secondary education. Isn't this awkward? Yet they would have us believe that if they're given another chance - two weeks ago they were to close community schools in each special part of Ontario: the north; the southeast; the southwest; central Ontario; Metropolitan Toronto, 138 schools. Then literally all hell broke loose. What you have is une situation extraordinaire. It's taken on extraordinary proportions.

The soul of the community has been taken away. A school is more than a school; it's the vibrancy. It's almost the air that you breathe. It defines your community. It's not a factory; it has a human dimension. It deals with the future, our future. They, for the mere sake of a buck, of a tax cut, have to find the money someplace. So what they do is take the school and tear the heart out. They take the school out of the community and then they turn around and pay it up in a tax break for mainly the most fortunate.

All hell breaks loose. So now they're telling you on the eve of the election, six months, four months before: "We've made another mistake, so give us your trust. We've declared war on education, on teachers, people have been decimated, hope has been taken away, but don't leave us now. We've beaten you up for three and a half years, but you either had it coming, you deserved it or it was for your own good."

1650

Now they want to make peace. They say: "Electorate, please do not leave me. I didn't mean to. I will love you, and I will put the money back, because I want to win the next election."

Two or three months after the next election, say it won't happen but should they be re-elected, they will whack you good. These people will knock you good. You see, they're just buying a little time. That's all they're doing, no more, no less; a policy of appeasement so that we might forget. They give you a few dollars more. They love you. They numb your feelings. Hopefully you will forget.

The people will not forget this government's policies on education. They have a record which is unmatched, a punitive record, not encouragement but deterrence. This is what the government has said.

We have dozens of people in the gallery this evening and they're here believing that the system will get better. They're here to see, as a last resort, if some of the government members will have the backbone - maybe Mr Ford will have the fortitude - to come forward and say that what is being proposed today, although it's being proposed by the Liberals, I must say, is not all bad. At least it voices opposition. There is no alternative, but they can start working on some alternatives. We will join with our friends from the official opposition in telling the government that there is a better way, there are better alternatives. What you've done is wrong. It could have been avoided. With goodwill, things will only get better in the future.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's a pleasure to join my colleagues today from Northumberland and Simcoe Centre in presenting some comments in opposition to the motion that's before us in the House today, and to share the government's perspective with respect to the issues at hand and certainly the education reforms the Minister of Education and Training in our government has pursued to date.

My colleague the member for Lake Nipigon made reference to extraordinary circumstances. What's truly extraordinary about the circumstances today, as we reflect upon where we've been over the past three years and where we need to go into the future, is that really no substantive changes were considered with respect to education reforms in this province for the past 10 years. That's significant in the context of the very important reforms this government has pursued on behalf of the students and teachers of this province to ensure that there's a redirection and refocusing on the very important things that are important to them as individuals, not only to succeed in their academic careers but as well to ensure that we're pursuing all measures possible to provide the necessary tools for the talented teachers in this province to excel at their craft. What is extraordinary is that there has been foot-dragging, a lack of desire and willingness in previous governments to take the next important step in terms of reforming the education system, not only for today but into the future.

It's in that context that the government has presented a long-term vision, another term that my colleague beside me referred to. The reforms this government has placed and pursued over the course of the past three years not only address the circumstances of today, in terms of the transitional issues that school boards and others realize is part of the reform process, but also provide a foundation or an opportunity for us to continue to build on student achievement and the achievement of others within the education community well into the future.

By doing that, we've heard a lot about the amount that's spent on education in this province. As my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre indicated, clearly we'll be spending in excess of $15 billion. As I have the opportunity to travel around and meet with students, parents and others who have interests in education in this province on behalf of the minister in various locations in this province, clearly there is a desire and a recognition that change has to occur. Clearly people want to see where monies are being spent within the education system in this province.

I thought just for a brief moment, because I know the minister wishes to speak today as well, I would give those here an idea of the commitments this government has made, where the monies are being directed in the context of that $15 billion. As I said previously, as part of recognizing the change process we're going through, the government has allocated some $306 million to assist school boards in terms of their restructuring and transition processes. We've allocated an additional $50 million to assist in covering debentures outstanding held in the name of school boards in this province, in an effort to provide the fair and equitable basis that we want to achieve with respect to our school board system. We've covered some $46 million in teacher retirement gratuities.

With respect to the classroom, we've seen an investment of some $20 million in Internet for the classrooms, a tool no matter what grade or class you're in, in any school in this province. The very obvious observation that can be recognized through that process is the significant role that the Internet is playing and the interchange it's allowing for students in their classrooms across this province.

We've seen an additional $11 million for science and technology and the opportunity for school boards to pursue tutors in the classroom. We've seen an additional $40 million for special education for students in high-risk positions who need extra attention to ensure that their special needs are being met and their education opportunities are being maximized. We've seen $30 million spent in addressing the seven-and-a-half credit weighting to ensure that we are meeting our average class-size expectation.

Significant allocations of money have been made, both for ensuring the change process works and as well for providing the foundation of tools that students and teachers will need into the future. While that is occurring we see as well, notwithstanding the issue of school closure and the position I find and certainly disagree with that the opposition has taken, examples of new schools opening in various communities across this province, 25 opening between now and the end of this year and over the course of the next three years an additional 200 schools. Very clearly, the Minister of Education and Training is recognizing the need to rejuvenate, renew and in some cases rebuild the facilities that house our students to ensure they have appropriate learning environments so they can excel.

A lot has been said about rural schools, but I want to make it very clear today that in designing the pupil accommodation grant, the ministry understood, as did the minister, the importance of recognizing the circumstances that exist with respect to small schools in this province. In fact, we've seen a doubling of the amount of money allocated for small schools, from nearly $27 million to nearly $56 million, an increase of $29 million. For those areas of Ontario that are classified as rural and remote, we've attempted through the formula to recognize those geographic factors that are significant and relevant to those communities in terms of location and the distances between schools in our province in remote areas. We have seen there recognition and a doubling of funds to ensure that those specific characteristics and needs are being addressed. We've seen, through the allocation, an addition of some $49 million to address the remote and rural school scenario as well as the small school issue in this province.

There has been significant consideration given. The decision the minister made, as well as the Premier, with respect to capacity is again an example of how this government is prepared to respond in a positive way to specific issues, issues of flexibility, to ensure that the funding formula that has been proposed and implemented effectively in September of this year is meeting the needs of our communities across this province.

The objective of that formula is not to see any school closures in this province. Notwithstanding the formula, there will be local decisions that have to be made in recognition of demographic and population shifts that occur within our various communities across the province. That is why historically we have seen, as has been indicated here previously, the closure of some 136 schools under the Liberal regime and some 105 schools under the New Democratic Party's government administration. It's in that context that there is some historical relevance to school closures. Typically, and as they will be in the future, those decisions have been locally based, in response to the demands and circumstances of that individual school board.

1700

The reality is, though, that there will always be educational partners or partners in the system that don't at this point in time share the government's agenda for quality in education. I understand that and respect the position. I obviously don't agree with it, but very clearly it's real. More noticeably, though, I think more and more, those people who are involved in education, those either in the direct delivery of education or in the administration of it, understand that the quality element is important and continue to work with our government in terms of ensuring that those issues are being addressed in a timely and appropriate way. That's why we have listened in the context of the issues they've asked for with respect to providing flexibility, with respect to recognizing the differences in capacities that exist within our school system and providing the appropriate policy response.

I would say simply, in conclusion, for those in opposition who suggest that when we don't act we're not listening, very clearly the decision of the Premier and the Minister of Education in this regard is not partisan, as has been suggested, but an indication of our willingness to respond to the requests of those who were dramatically affected by those decisions.

I can only say from my own perspective with respect to my local school board that although there was an initial knee-jerk reaction to this issue, the members of the board of the Thames Valley District School Board have taken a more progressive role in terms of their understanding of where we need to go with respect to school facilities in the future and have embarked upon what I think is the logical process that the ministry, the minister and myself anticipated would be pursued in good faith. It's in that context that I see in my own community the desire on the part of those individuals involved in school administration to seek a more progressive approach, one that's meaningful not only to them as administrators but also meaningful to parents and students in their communities, to ensure that their issues of concern, their hopes for tomorrow, are being addressed.

In conclusion, I want to congratulate my local board officials. I know it has been difficult, but I wish to recognize that they do realize there is an agenda here for a longer-term vision, one that will contribute to the betterment of education for all students in this province.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I am pleased to join in the debate this afternoon on the motion standing in the name of my colleague Mrs McLeod, the member for Fort William. I want to address my remarks to two or three aspects of this educational debate that have arisen on previous occasions and are of particular concern to my constituents in rural, small-town eastern Ontario.

Let me say at the outset that I think there is a broad base of consensus in this Legislature and in this community called Ontario that certain changes in education are timely and ought to be supported. I have said before and I repeat now that in my estimation there is a consensus that a number of the initiatives in terms of reform of the curriculum, increased accountability, more involvement for parents, to name but three areas, are areas where the three major parties in this Legislature and in the province are increasingly at one. This current government, it seems to me, on substantive policy matters is moving forward with a number of the initiatives that were developed by the royal commission on education launched by the previous government, and I'm bold enough to say that some of the initiatives I saw in the Bégin-Caplan report of two or three years ago builds on a number of the programs that were launched in the 1980s.

The concern I have, quite frankly, is that we have had in recent times a major change in the way in which educational policy is organized and delivered in this province, and that takes us back to the famous Bill 160. My fundamental objection to the legislation was the massive centralization it brought about. Even if one wanted that kind of power at the centre, I would argue, as someone who was once Minister of Education in the province, that it is not reasonable to expect that any one official or any one group of officials at the department of education in downtown Toronto, or quite frankly in downtown Quebec City or in downtown Winnipeg, is going to be able to direct that kind of detailed program administration across the province.

In Ontario we have some 5,000 schools to which two million students go on a daily basis. Bill 160, in my view, is seriously flawed because it is such a massive centralization of power to the centre. The irony and the paradox is that Mike Harris said, "Elect me and I will give power to the people." Well, in educational reform what he has done with his legislation, Bill 160, is in fact taken power from the people, from communities, from neighbourhoods, whether they be in rural Renfrew or in downtown Ottawa or in downtown Toronto, and given that power increasingly to the education minister and the education bureaucrats in the department here at the corner of Bay and Wellesley in the heart of this provincial capital.

You heard earlier today my colleague the finance critic for the Liberal Party, Mr Phillips, say that under Bill 160 the Minister of Education now sets on his own, privately, $5.5 billion worth of education tax policy that has an enormous impact on the people and the businesses of Ontario. That's done by regulation by the minister and by his officials, a dramatic change from the way in which we had developed those programs in the past.

The other concern I have is the rigidity of the various formulae that have been developed by Messrs Johnson and Harris under Bill 160. We are here today to discuss a couple of specific examples. Those of us who've been around the education debate wondered how long it would be before the gunpowder detonated and blew the poor minister into a very unhappy situation with respect to the school closure and the school space policy that was also part of the famous Bill 160.

It didn't take very long, and I'm sure my friend from Mississauga South was quietly advising her colleagues at council that this was bound to happen. Because again we had a group of political operatives determined to centralize all of the real authority in the hands of the minister, in the hands of the cabinet here in Toronto, and they developed formulae that were extremely rigid and, for many purposes, altogether impractical.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): Speak up, Sean.

Mr Conway: Well, I say again, I was making these comments four or five weeks ago and I was stunned to find out that the capitulation occurred as quickly as it did. I was driving to a football game a couple of weeks ago and I heard the bugles of retreat. Mr Johnson did what he had to do. No one, not even someone as doughty and as resilient as our friend from Leaside, could take the kind of punishment and pain that that rigid formula was going to cause for him, and it is not over yet.

I want to turn now to a specific matter, and I'm delighted to see Mr Johnson, the Minister of Education, in the House this afternoon, because if there ever was a perfectly good example of how outrageously rigid and impractical is this current formula of educational finance in Ontario today, it is the following. We have a new formula, thanks to Mr Johnson and his friend Mr Harris, and one of the factors in the educational funding formula is a factor for rural and remote school boards. It has been recalibrated, changed from an earlier edition.

Now, it will come as a very real surprise, I say to my friends in the House - and I see I'm now joined by my colleague and neighbour Mr Jordan, the member for Lanark-Renfrew, because Renfrew county is the largest county in the province of Ontario. It is 3,000 square miles. It runs almost 200 kilometres northward from the town of Arnprior to the Nipissing line just southeast of Mattawa. It runs over 140 kilometres from the hamlet of La Passe on the Ottawa River, within sight of the church at Fort-Coulonge, Quebec, out to west of Combermere. It contains large communities like Pembroke, small farm villages like Cobden and Beachburg and a lot of rural townships like Griffith and Matawatchan, Westmeath and many others. A more rural Ontario or Canadian community you could not find.

1710

You can imagine then how stunned and how upset people in my county are, particularly if they're public school ratepayers, to find out that under the new Mike Harris-Dave Johnson formula for educational funding, the public school board in Renfrew county, the largest rural county in the province, gets nothing - not a cent - on the rural and remote grant factor. Not only does the Renfrew county public school board get not a cent under that rural and remote factor, but that indignity is exacerbated by the fact that public school boards in Kingston, Lindsay, Belleville, to name three, get monies.

In the case of the Kingston public school board, they get $1.35 million on the rural and remote granting factor. The Lindsay-Victoria public school board, according to the ministry data, gets $2.1 million on the rural and remote factor. The Hastings-Prince Edward public school board gets $1.9 million. Our neighbours to the near north in Parry Sound and North Bay get over $2 million, as I recall.

We don't begrudge them that. But you can imagine being a farmer in Admaston township or a small business person in Petawawa or Killaloe or Barry's Bay and saying, "How is it possible that we've got bright men and women in the government of Ontario who've developed in the interests of fairness and equity a new funding formula that has as one of its ingredients a rural and remote factor that gives to the Kingston public school board approximately $1.4 million, gives to the Hastings-Belleville-Prince Edward public school board $1.9 million of rural and remote money and gives to Renfrew county public school board not a cent?" Not a cent. It's just incredible and it is indefensible.

I'm pleased my friend Mr Jordan is here. To his credit, he, like myself, has fought the battle, and we continue to fight on behalf of the public school ratepayers in our county because fairness and equity clearly dictate that the people of Renfrew county should, under the rural and remote grant factor, get at least as much as people living in Kingston and Belleville and North Bay and Lindsay, all of whose public school boards get between $1 million and $2.5 million.

It's just an example - one very specific, one very real and one very current example - of the problem that we've got as a result, however well intended the policy was, of a new education funding formula that is evidently too rigid, too inflexible because quite frankly it is too centralized.

I say, before I take my seat, on behalf of the thousands of students who are educated, and educated well, on a daily basis by the public school board in Renfrew county, please, Minister, listen to the common sense of a compelling argument. Change this formula and give the Renfrew county public school board what it deserves, which is surely at least as much money under the rural and remote granting factor as you are now giving to the public school boards in the very rural communities of Kingston, Belleville and Lindsay, which are doing quite well under your new formula. We expect equal treatment, equal justice, and the time for a change to make this possible is now.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I'm pleased to speak to this motion today. First of all, I would say to the member for Northumberland, you guys are the government. It's up to you to govern. Though you may not recognize it, there's no campaign yet. When the election is called, you can count on it that you'll see our policies very clearly.

I believe Essex-Kent has the only school in Ontario that has already been closed because of the disastrous Mike Harris funding formula. In fact, parents from Romney Central School staged a dramatic protest on the lawn of the Legislature in July to tell Mike Harris that he is creating chaos for children in rural Ontario. They even held a funeral for rural schools. They were joined by two representatives from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and parents from H.A. Tanser, Orford public and many Toronto parent councils.

I also held a meeting in St Thomas in October to protest rural and community school closures. We heard from 15 different parent groups from across southwestern Ontario and even a few from Toronto. After the meeting, the London Free Press carried a front-page story with colour photos. The Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail and Maclean's, the national magazine, carried stories about parents who are uniting to fight back. This issue has caught fire and Mike Harris needs to put the fire out before the next election.

Those parents can be proud, and I am proud of them, that they helped force this dramatic about-face by the government. Mike Harris and the Tory backbenchers have consistently blamed school boards, even, incredibly, frugal boards like Lambton-Kent, for the closures. But parent outrage has finally made Mike Harris admit that the flaws are in his funding formula.

The battle is not over. The government's one-size-fits-all Band-Aid is no better than the once-size-fits-all funding formula. It misses the hurt in rural Ontario and achieves very little for rural schools. In Lambton-Kent, only 26 of 63 schools are operating at 80% capacity or better. Ten schools in my community are still on the chopping block in the current review. The unique needs of rural communities are not recognized by this Band-Aid solution.

Increased time on buses is still a threat for thousands of rural students. In my community of Merlin, parents are already up in arms about the length of time students must wait to get on buses in the evening. They are being monitored by their parents. This is not a reasonable solution. I've written to the minister about this issue. What will happen when even more students are forced on to more buses for longer rides?

Premier, your Band-Aid solution doesn't work, least of all in rural Ontario. Romney is the litmus test. Romney has become a symbol for all Ontario. Will Romney public school be reopened and returned to the parents and students of that community?

Mike Harris is making a blatant political attempt at damage control. Now Tory backbenchers are saying that school boards need more flexibility. What hypocrisy. What a flip-flop. After blaming boards for the past six months, make no mistake, the agenda of Mike Harris includes abolishing school boards and introducing charter and voucher schools. Supporters of publicly funded education must beware. Mike Harris once said, "I shudder to think what would happen to public education if control falls into the hands of government." We all know what happens. Let us all beware.

1720

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): What I think we're seeing today and what we've seen over the course of the last several months is that this government has completed its plan for crises in education. This is the final straw. But this is going to be the straw that will break the camel's back because the people of Ontario, the people in the small communities, will not allow their schools to be broken by the Harris government.

I only have to go as far as Sudbury, Ontario, and talk about the French schools that are on the chopping block with regard to the French Catholic separate school board: Saint-Pierre, Léon XIII and Saint-Mathieu. They're not going to go down without a fight and they are going to be requesting from this government that it indeed be held accountable, that the monies that are owed to these school boards are given to these school boards so that these schools can stay open. Let it be clearly understood that we as politicians will rally behind those people to ensure that their schools are protected, that their communities continue to be viable educational components.

Hon David Johnson: In my three minutes and 21 seconds remaining, I just wish to remind all the members of the House of the objectives of the funding formula, the new way of assisting school boards across the province.

Number one, it's to improve the quality of education.

Number two, it's to ensure a fairness and an equity in terms of each and every child, to treat each and every child across Ontario equally and fairly. We know that over the course of the last any number of years children have not had the benefit of the same resources across the province. A child living in rural Ontario in a poor district would not have the same access to resources as a child living in a wealthy area in a large urban centre, and yet we tolerated this, governments tolerated that, tolerated the lack of opportunities for our youngsters in various parts of particularly rural Ontario. This government has said we can no longer tolerate that. A child is a child is a child across the province of Ontario, and they all should be treated equally.

Finally, accountability is important in our system, and that's why we wish to get the parents involved.

The Liberal Party, I must say, unfortunately repeats the same incorrect facts over and over again, thinking you can fool all the people all the time: cuts in education. Well, if you don't believe me, and I understand the Liberal Party will never believe me, how about the Windsor Star? The Windsor Star of Saturday, November 14, says that in education "Total spending is up." It says that "the bottom line shows that this year $15 billion will be spent on elementary and secondary education. Last year, total spending was $14.4 billion." That is $600 million more spent on education. It goes on to say that in 1994-95, there was $14 billion. So we are dedicating more monies to our children, to our classes, to textbooks, to pay for teachers, to the important things in the classroom.

Nevertheless, the funding formula, as with any funding formula, isn't perfect and wasn't perfect. After listening to the people - listening to the people of rural Ontario, listening to the people of urban Ontario - it became clear that they were under the threat of some school boards, and I won't say all school boards but just certain school boards in certain areas, closing community schools. We could not tolerate this; the Premier could not tolerate this. So we made adjustments. Recognizing that some community schools will not have a full enrolment, recognizing that some schools have special features, we added over $200 million to the budget to ensure that our community schools, which are so important to parents and to students, will remain open.

That's what we've done and I'm very confident that with that investment, those community schools will remain open in the future.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Let me just say to the Minister of Education that that's just a load of garbage. The fact of the matter is that you moved off the dime because public opinion was turning against you in such numbers, at a time when you're ramping up to the next election, that you couldn't withstand the political storm. That's the reality. You've done nothing as a government to show that you've ever listened to anyone on a whole host of issues, and I've listed them in virtually every speech I've ever made about what you've done to labour legislation and the lack of democracy.

This government has been run through with antidemocratic procedures that ram through legislation without listening to anyone. You're just kidding yourselves or feeding fish to the backbenchers when you think that anybody believes for a minute that you moved for any other reason than the real politics of what happened when you declared that you were going to stick to your absolutely unfair, unreasonable funding formula that was causing closures all across the province. In fact that fight, that backlash, had already started in rural communities, certainly it had happened in Hamilton-Wentworth and it had happened in a number of other communities, but it was the critical mass of the provincial media centred here in Toronto reacting to the Toronto numbers that caused you folks to reel and say, "We've got to do something here." That's why you moved.

Please don't insult the public of Ontario by suggesting it had anything to do with listening. You've never listened to anyone except yourselves and your close corporate buddies. That's it. No one else matters in Mike Harris's Ontario and in Dave Johnson's education system. Oh, but it's your system, isn't it? Isn't it ironic that the party that talked - even today we heard the citizenship minister saying that local decisions are best, yet when it came to education, you pulled everything away from the local community and vested all the power in yourselves. You know what would have happened if we had done that? You would have been screaming, "Stalinists, central planning," all the red-baiting that one could possibly imagine. Every one of your government members would have been flying that message.

The reality is that you're the ones who centralized it. Why did that happen? It's important that we take the context of all this. It happened in part because local school boards like mine in Hamilton said to you, when you first started making the cuts, and you eliminated the fact that junior kindergarten was mandatory - you removed that. You went back to your choice thing, "They have the choice to keep it or not," after you'd cut funding and you had every hope that they would eliminate it because you never did support it.

I remember standing in my place in this Legislature in the current political environment of "God forbid that anyone should raise taxes or defend the fact that public money needs to be spent on the public good"; I remember standing in my place supporting the school board for a very modest increase in the school tax portion of the property tax bill so that we could keep junior kindergarten in Hamilton. I still maintain that our school board, to their credit, made the right decision for the children of our community: They kept JK.

There were enough boards like mine in Hamilton that had the courage to stand up to you and say, "We're going to keep in place what's right for our kids no matter what the political cost." That was the position they took. There were enough doing it that you got so upset that anyone would dare defy the great Mike Harris government when they had sent down their edict from on high. What did you do with the result? You took all the power that used to be down in the local communities and you said: "We're taking all this away. No more power to you people since you won't follow what the great god Mike Harris has said. We're going to take away all that power and we're going to bring it back here into the secrecy of the cabinet room." That's what Bill 160 is all about and that's why we're in this mess.

Let's not forget, Minister, that it was your colleague who sits only a couple of seats over from you who said that he had to create the phony crisis - my words; I'm paraphrasing - in order to justify the actions you were going to take. In that, you've been singularly successful, because there is crisis. In this situation, where you've now started to exercise the powers you've given yourself, I say to the education czar, and you've created a funding formula that was going to force over 40 school closures in our region, what did our new board, the Hamilton-Wentworth public school board, do? They told you to shove it. They said: "We're not going to do this. We're not going to arbitrarily, unilaterally, without public consultation close all those schools in our community. We're not going to do it." I was at that meeting and I can remember standing and giving them a standing ovation and applauding them with all my heart and soul, and so did every other parent and teacher and child in that room. And you know what? It was a unanimous decision. There were people who are, if not members, certainly followers and supporters of your government who stood on that motion to make sure that it was unanimous.

1730

What the government was asking as a result of the rules they were laying down and their changed funding formula was that we would have gone from an 18-month consultation, an 18-month public process whenever there was a need to consider whether or not a school would remain open or closed based on, by the way, student enrolment and not funding. The government likes to stand up and say: "This has happened before. X number of schools closed under this government and X number under that government." The reality is, there's never been a school closure in Ontario, before you and your government, that was based on dollars or lack thereof; it was based on student enrolment, and in those cases in our community the policy is they would take 18 months.

Given the fact that our board officials did not get the final details of your funding formula until close to the end of September of this year, by the time that information was assimilated and analyzed and the options drawn up, that would have meant two weeks of public input in the city of Hamilton, in the Hamilton-Wentworth public school board. Shameful.

The Hamilton Spectator, by and large editorially big-time supporters of this government, had an incredibly cutting editorial saying that you were wrong, that you had to pull back, and in fact congratulating our local school board, like I am today, for standing up to your undemocratic, unfair changes.

In those two weeks our board was expected to make decisions on closing anywhere between 20 and 45 schools, depending on what numbers you want to use. That is the range of schools that would had had to close, and even then we wouldn't have met all the formula. It's absolutely disgraceful that you would put forward a policy and changes and try to ram that down the throats of local school boards.

Our board, as I have said, unanimously stood up and said, "No way." That was a risky move. There were financial penalties to our local school board to the tune of multi-millions of dollars, which we need just as much as any other board in the province. But our board, under the leadership of Chair Ray Mulholland, believed that this was so important and so crucial to the provision of the kind of education system our kids deserve that they said no. They were going to take the time necessary to make sure there was democratic input, regardless of what you did or didn't do. I cannot ever say enough about the courage and vision and commitment of our school board trustees in Hamilton-Wentworth when it comes to the needs of our kids and putting them first. We're very fortunate in our community to have trustees of the calibre and integrity that we do.

It wasn't just them. You will recall that I brought to your attention in the House the fact that the beekeepers were immediately mounting a public campaign to save Allenby school. I think this would have been the fourth go-round where the parents in that community around Locke Street were prepared to fight to save their school. Mike Johnson, who's the chair of the Allenby school parent council, led that charge. You know what? Ray Mulholland was there. I give him so much credit. Before the board had decided where they were going to go, he was there supporting that school, supporting the parents, saying it's unfair, and recognizing the unfairness of what you were trying to ram down the throat of our community.

What else did Bill 160 do? First of all, you killed every collective agreement that teachers had in Ontario effective the day before most children were to go back to school. You wanted that confrontation. You wanted the problems that resulted, and we're still seeing them with rotating strikes and other kinds of problems all across Ontario. You caused that. You wanted it. You want that pitched "us and them" polarization in Ontario when it comes to teachers.

What else have we got now? We've got teachers who don't have adequate prep time. You ran ads then, as you are doing now, saying: "This is about 25 minutes of school. That's all this is. Shouldn't teachers give 25 minutes of extra work like everybody else has had to give a little?" That was the premise you were putting forward in those ads. The reality is, it wasn't about working 25 more minutes. The teachers offered you that. You didn't want that. What you wanted was for them to take on 25 more students because you had to cover off the $1 billion that you'd cut from the education system. That's what that was all about. And now they don't have adequate time.

We know what's going to happen now. As time unfolds, you're going to say, "Look at how much the numbers are up in terms of the ratio of teacher-student time." You're going to say: "See how good we've done? There's more teacher time. Just look at the stats." But the reality is, it's more students; it's not more instruction. I have a six-year-old daughter who is in the school system and I'm sure there are other members here who have children or grandchildren in the system. There's not more time for them; there's more of them with fewer teachers. That's what's happened under Bill 160.

Then, of course, we know that there's your little shell game in terms of classroom spending. Anybody who is watching this, please pay particular attention. Every time the Minister of Education or the Premier talks about increased spending, they always say "increased classroom spending." They have to say those words. Why? Because they redefined what is spending in the classroom. As long as they can increase funding to those few items, they can make that declaration. They can stand up and say that and technically it's true.

What they don't tell you by virtue of standing on those words and that technicality is that the schools are a lot dirtier because cleaning doesn't come under classroom spending. Heating and lighting don't come under classroom spending. Maintenance on the computers is not classroom spending. That's why they use that terminology. They say, "We've increased classroom spending." The fact of the matter is that overall spending per pupil is lower, which is what really matters when we take into account the increase in enrolment. Per pupil spending is lower. That's what matters.

I think the teachers make an excellent point when they say that the teachers' work environment is our children's learning environment. I think that is so crucial to all of this debate about school closures, the future of education and how much money is being spent in the system. That's why I don't believe, as much as you would like, that people should separate the teachers' working conditions from the overall impact of what's happening in our schools.

After everything you've done to teachers, everything you've said about them, the insults you've hurled at them and the insults to their professionalism, you still stand up and say, "I think it's shameful that they're not doing all the extracurricular activities they were doing before," never mentioning the fact that that's not part of their contract. They don't have to be coaches on those football teams. They don't have to be out there with the debating societies. They don't have to be there with the computer clubs and the chess clubs and the art clubs and all the other things that make up a wholesome, fully rounded school experience. None of those things are in their contract. They do them because they see it as part of their professional commitment to our kids.

1740

After what you've done to them in Bill 160, you still have the audacity to stand up in your place in the Legislature and condemn them because they are prepared to go through these hoops of fire and offer up themselves as your sacrificial lambs to make the system work. Wouldn't you just love that: that everybody goes the extra mile, eliminates their whole personal life, forgets everything you've done to them to make the system work so that you don't have a political problem? Because you do have a huge political problem with this.

Yes, a little bit of the pressure is off because you've put it off for a year, but people aren't conned. When I'm walking through my community, I talk to parents. They know that this thing has only been delayed, and if there aren't fundamental changes to the funding formula, we're still going to have the same number of schools closing. They're just not going to close as quickly, but close they will nonetheless unless there's a change. Obviously that change is only going to happen during the election. That's why you're trying to create as much peace as you can. I come back to my opening remark that it's got nothing to do with your listening. You don't listen to anyone.

My colleagues earlier talked about, where is the money going to come from? It's interesting to look at the political dynamic that's created right now that you find yourselves in. You're in desperate need. You've lowballed a lot of your financial projections to ensure that you can have this surprise, good-news announcement in the new year, just prior to the election, that you've either got a balanced budget, or what you'd really like is a surplus so you can announce new spending and tell everybody in the province that everything is fine, that you're on top of it. That's what you would like to do. That's why you're lowballing a lot of these projections.

What's interesting about the political juxtaposition that's created is that by providing your surplus you give the Liberals, the official opposition, the one thing they need desperately, which is to explain where they're going to get the money to honour the commitments they're making in terms of health care and education in particular. There you are, stuck with this problem of wanting to have a surplus for your own nefarious purposes, probably a tax cut, which is the last bloody thing that people in this province need as we see our health system and our education system dissolving around us. By solving your problem, you help solve the Liberal problem, so you've got a bigger problem.

At the end of the day, the only difference between you and the Liberals is that you say you like what you're doing and are going to continue to do it; the Liberals say they don't like it and they're going to continue what you're doing. That's the defence; that's what's going on here. There's no difference between the two of them, absolutely none.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Speaker. I knew that whatever minor supportive applause was coming from over here, because they like the attack part, was going to disappear when I started to talk about the open nerve in terms of the funding of all this. That's what it is. It's an open nerve for them. In my opinion there are an awful lot of them who wish they had gone down the road we're going down that said that we will identify -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Windsor - thank you.

Mr Christopherson: There are an awful lot of them who in their heart of hearts wished they had taken a position that said, "We will show some integrity here," because by opposing the 30% tax cut that's only benefited the very wealthy in this province to any degree - I'm already knocking on doors in my new riding and I can't find anyone who says, "Oh yeah, my life is better because of the tax cut." They're not there in my riding but, boy, they've got a lot to say about the health care system that you're demolishing in Hamilton and the education system that you're damaging in Hamilton.

The opposition Liberals wish they had shown the same kind of integrity and said, "You know, if we're going to oppose that tax cut, then we'd better at some point say that we're going to reverse some part of it." That's what we in the New Democratic Party have done. We have said that if you have a single taxable income of over $80,000, then you're in the top 6% of the population who got 25% of the $5 billion to $6 billion of that tax cut. You can afford to go back to the 1995 taxation level. You've done very well by Mike Harris, thank you very much. You can afford to go back to 1995. That will generate over $1.5 billion of real money that we can put into our hospital system and we can put into our education system and we can rehire nurses and we can funnel money into the emergency wards and we can make sure that schools stay open in Ontario rather than closing to meet your deficit cutting.

They wish they had done that. I know it. I don't expect them to admit it, but I know there some of them must be saying, "We should have done something like that because we really are vulnerable, although we talk a different story than the Tories." Just like going from Mulroney with Kim Campbell in there, which was really just a ruse, but just like going from Mulroney to Chrétien changed nothing in terms of national policy, going from Mike Harris to the Liberals is going to mean exactly the same thing: no change.

It all stays the same, because when it comes to the tough decision about saying, "Where's the money going to come from?" it's only the New Democrats that are prepared to say, "Here's where $1.5 billion are going to come from." That's where we're going to get it and we're going to put it back into education and back into health care, and we will improve things, unlike the Liberals, who will just wring their hands and say, "Oh, we wish we could, we wish we could, but we're going to have to stay with the Mike Harris system," and that would be the reality.

I want to remind people, it's going to be a fascinating election. There are a number of possible outcomes. When we look at the last two provincial elections and compare the poll numbers that people like to talk to about where we are now, it suggests that things may not end up the way that some folks in this House might think they would. When we look at the by-election, where my colleague right here beside me wasn't even supposed to be here, Blain Morin is here because when we went out with our message, people supported our message of investing in health care and investing in education. They rejected the Liberals, they rejected the Tories, and that's what's going to happen in the next election, majority or minority.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I want to put this in context. We've had a lot of rhetoric here today, but what this is really about is the children. I'd like to focus on a particular riding, my riding, and tell you what's happening in my riding. We have a number of schools that have been scheduled for closure, schools that have a history in the riding, that are very important to the riding. Interestingly enough, they're all along the corridor on Wilson Avenue, a corridor that houses Downsview public school, Ancaster public school, Calico public school, Highview public school, Elia Middle school and Pierre Laporte Middle school. Some 2,000 children go to these schools. Interestingly enough, as these schools are preparing to fight the closure order against them, there is a proposed development coming into the heart of Downsview, on the Downsview air force base, that will see some 400 housing units that will come in there.

The hardships on my riding will be very difficult to bear, so the whole community has banded together. I want the Minister of Education to know that the community is united against the closure of any of these schools, which provide a very important service to the diversity that is Downsview, to people of all cultures and backgrounds who come to these schools and who need the schools in their midst and don't want their children bused to incredible lengths in order to get a proper education.

We will fight this. The community has met. We've had public meetings. We will continue to have working groups. I can tell you that there is no way that this Minister of Education is going to close any of our schools and hurt any of our kids.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to rise on this bill. It's particularly poignant in my community because, as I speak right now, the students from W.D. Lowe are gathering at their school to take a bus trip to the local school board office because tonight the local school board is voting on whether or not to close W.D. Lowe high in Windsor.

Our school board does not have a choice. It doesn't have an option because the funding formula is such that it prejudices older buildings, it prejudices buildings that are in centres of old communities. The school board trustees - do you know who they're led by? They're led by Jim Cooke.

1750

Mr Bartolucci: Who's Jim Cooke?

Mr Duncan: Jim Cooke is the brother of Dave Cooke. You remember Dave Cooke. Dave Cooke was the education minister under the NDP, and until a year ago he was their education critic. What is Dave Cooke doing today? He's working for Mike Harris - after they closed 100 schools while they were in government - and it's Jim Cooke, his brother, who made the motion to close this school, who hasn't spoken up against this government's plans, who is leading that charge in Windsor.

I close by saying to the students at W.D. Lowe - I joined them last Friday at their candlelight vigil and their rally - I was proud to walk with them. That school should not be closed. It has a unique history, a unique contribution. I regret that it's come to the fact that tonight they're voting to close it because of that government's funding formula and because of the indifference of certain trustees in the school board who aren't willing to fight this government, who aren't willing to stand up for their community: Jim Cooke and his brother Dave Cooke.

Mr Bradley: I was going to concentrate entirely on the government and all the problems with the government. Then somebody handed me my copy of Labour of Love by Buzz Hargrove. Labour of Love, just as Giving Away a Miracle, by George Ehring and Wayne Roberts; The Three Questions, by Bob Rae; and Tom Walkom's book, Rae Days, all talk about the social contract. I don't want to get into the details of the social contract, because that's not what this resolution is about. But all of them talk about the social contract because the one thing -

Mr Cullen: Why don't you talk about things that affect the public?

Mr Bradley: I hear Benedict Arnold from the back row.

I want to say that in all of these, one thing they said that you could always count on with the NDP was that they would support the sanctity of the collective agreement. As Buzz Hargrove says, they were willing to cave in on that. Even though they had received the money and the support from the trade union movement, from the brothers and sisters, when it came down to the crunch, Buzz says, they were prepared to make that compromise. That's why when I hear my good friend from Hamilton Centre launch an attack about what they would do and what they wouldn't do, I worry because I remember how important the collective agreement was.

Let me get to the resolution. We have seen now the implementation of a policy which we could all see coming. Those of us who spoke on Bill 160 recognized that one of the consequences of Bill 160, some of the fallout, would be a massive closing of schools in the province. Indeed, up to two weeks ago we were going to see hundreds of schools closing not only all around Ontario but even in the greater Toronto area.

Mike Harris and his advisers were watching daily, seeing the bad publicity they were getting, everywhere from Killaloe to Kapuskasing and Etobicoke to St Catharines -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Only one member has the floor.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calming the crowd.

They could all see it coming. We could see when Bill 160 passed, despite the fact that the parson stood in the House, the Minister of Education, and assured everyone that we wouldn't see any school closings, we could see massive school closings.

What did they do? Tom Long phoned up and said: "You can't allow this to happen. You're being battered daily on television, in the newspapers. We've got to do something about it." The man who always stands firm sounded the bugle of retreat. You could hear the "beep, beep, beep" as the truck was backing up. The white flag was going. They were totally capitulating and I was happy to see it. I complimented the government on totally capitulating as soon as the pressure came on them over the closing of schools, because we could see that they were destroying communities by closing these schools. They thought that all that happened in schools in places such as Hastings and Etobicoke was that there was some formal education taking place. They found out that our school buildings are used for far more than that. The Girl Guides and the Boy Scouts have their activities there. The seniors come in to use these buildings. There's a square dance class that's there. There are all kinds of public activity within these buildings. And people wanted their kids, particularly in the elementary schools, to go to the local school. We have day care and nursery now taking place and we all know what Fraser Mustard has had to say as to how important junior kindergarten is, early access to education for these young children.

They finally recognized, after everybody was out there - the children were out there, the parents were out there, everybody associated with education and sympathetic to education was out there - with a sign saying, "Don't close our schools."

Mike Harris, the big tough guy, saw that he had a fight he couldn't win, so he figured he would throw the money at it for a year at least, calm it down. Then the Tories could go out, the Tories who are the apologists, and say: "Oh, see, it's all solved. Don't worry. The schools aren't going to close." But we know that with the specific funding formula for schools, a very odd funding formula, I might add, a totally unrealistic funding formula as it related to school and school space, we saw -

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Arbitrary.

Mr Bradley: Arbitrary, as my friend from Yorkview says. It is simply going to result in schools closing unnecessarily.

This doesn't say that somewhere in Ontario there isn't going to be a school closed some time, but it was because of the specific funding formula of Mike Harris - I see Mike Harris. Mike Harris's funding formula did this.

I know the Premier. He did a reversal on this. He headed backwards on this and those tanks that were in battle were backed up. He understood not that his policy was wrong, but he understood that this might affect his chance for re-election.

Just as we recognize that within the school system there would be, as the Minister of Education said in the hallway one day, 7,500 positions that would disappear - notice I'm saying "positions" which would disappear within the school system. Even though there are new people coming in and they talk about a shortage now of teachers, that number of positions, said the Minister of Education in the hallway in the Whitney Block, would disappear.

What we have out there is disruption, what we have out there is disunity, what we have out there is instability in the education system. We have fights that are being precipitated between teachers and boards and elementary and secondary and some people in post-secondary and so on. The real problem is here at Queen's Park.

As a child, you will remember very well the game of pin the tail on the donkey. I'm going to tell you where the donkey is. I'm not saying this in an unkind way but in a symbolic way. If you want to pin the tail on the donkey, you have to come to this building. It's in the office of the Premier, in this case. I'm not saying the Premier is. I'm saying that's where you have to pin the tail on the government - I'll say on the government - of Mike Harris, rather than one individual. I don't want to insult any individual. That's what this resolution is about.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Fort William, Mrs McLeod, has moved opposition day number 4. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I didn't hear any no. I'm going to ask the question again.

The member for Fort William, Mrs McLeod, has moved opposition day number 4. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1800 to 1805.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Blain K.

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wood, Len

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 35; the nays are 50.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

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

The House adjourned at 1808.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

24 novembre 1998