role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 11, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L260a - Thu 11 Dec 1997 / Jeu 11 Déc 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOM DAVIES

PRIVATIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

EDUCATION REFORM

COMMUNITY CARE

HAMILTON COUNCIL

HICKS, MORLEY LAW FIRM

MALDEN PARK CONTINUING CARE CENTRE

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

BLOOD DONATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

MUNICIPAL FINANCING

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

CASINOS

PRIVATIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

USE OF CROWN LAND

DEREGULATION OF MOVERS

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

CASINO NIAGARA

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

COMMUNITY CARE

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

BUSINESS INFORMATION

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

PRIVATIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

BEAR HUNTING

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

ABORTION

EDUCATION FINANCING

COURT DECISION

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

COURT DECISION

MALDEN PARK CONTINUING CARE CENTRE

CANADIAN VIETNAM VETERANS

PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS

COURT DECISION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HOUSE SITTINGS

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP, CULTURE AND RECREATION), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES CIVIQUES, DE LA CULTURE ET DES LOISIRS

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I move that in the opinion of this House, since in September 1995 the public was told that in the incident involving the first nations occupying Ipperwash Provincial Park the first nations' claim of a burial ground had no validity; the OPP handled the situation with no political involvement; the government handled the situation like any other first nation land claim dispute; the first nations were heavily armed and opened fire on the OPP; the Premier gave no direction to his staff representing him at high-level meetings before the shooting of Dudley George; and the police had to lay 52 charges against the first nations people;

Since subsequent to the September 1995 incident the facts have confirmed that the provincial government had written evidence dating to 1937 of a burial ground on the site; the Ontario government asked the police to "remove the occupiers - ASAP"; the headline in the Sarnia paper the day of the shooting death of Dudley George said: "Queen's Park to Take Hard Line with Occupiers"; a court trial proved that the first nations had no firearms; the Premier told his executive assistant prior to the high-level meeting the day of the shooting, "out of the park - nothing else"; and the crown dropped 43 charges because there was "no reasonable prospect of conviction"; seven were found innocent, two are awaiting trial and an OPP officer has been convicted of criminal negligence causing death in the shooting incident;

Therefore, the government of Ontario should commit to holding a public inquiry into the events leading up the shooting death of Dudley George at Ipperwash Provincial Park as soon as all legal impediments are cleared.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Phillips: I want to make very clear that what we are calling for here is for the government of Ontario, for Premier Harris, to make a commitment to hold a public inquiry into this tragic affair and to hold that inquiry as soon as legally possible, as soon as any legal impediment is cleared. We are not asking to jeopardize any legal proceedings at all, but what we want is a clear commitment by the Premier that an inquiry will be held.

I talk often with the first nations people and what they tell me is: "Mike Harris will never, ever hold an inquiry. He is going to stonewall this thing, hoping that the public will grow tired of it, that the first nations will no longer be able to mount a campaign to hold it, and he just simply will stonewall it until some time in the future and never call an inquiry."

What we need today is a commitment to hold that inquiry. Premier Harris has been asked many times to do it and all of us know his answer. He will never, ever make that commitment.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Shame.

Mr Phillips: It is a shame.

That's what the resolution calls for. I understand any debate around, "Well, we've got to wait until the court proceedings are all done before we start an inquiry," but you can make that commitment today.

Why should you make that commitment? Why should we make that commitment? I will just say that our first nations have been dealt a serious injustice here. Remember these things. They went into that park at the end of Labour Day in 1995, entered the park, and said, "We're going in there because there is a sacred native burial ground." Mike Harris has said all along, "There's no evidence of that, there's no burial ground there." We find there was evidence probably less than 200 yards from where we're sitting here, in the government files, clear evidence of a native burial ground there.

As a matter of fact, there was communication from the federal government to the provincial government. I'll quote from that communication. This is from 1937: "On the 13th of this month, a council of Kettle and Stoney Point bands passed a resolution requesting this department to bring the matter to your attention with a view to having this old Indian burial ground preserved intact and properly fenced." Dating back to 1937 the federal government, as the province was taking over responsibility for this, sent a communication saying the band leaders are concerned about the burial ground, requesting from the government fencing of the burial ground.

We were told there was no evidence of a burial ground. There was. As a matter of fact, the crown, the government, had to go into court and drop 43 charges they'd laid. Why? Because the communications confirmed that "the old Indian cemetery," that's their language, "which...is located within the territory now being developed as a park." "Further, it has been clearly indicated by the Provincial Division judges at pre-trials that this defence will succeed in all instances.... Accordingly, this `colour of right' defence is of sufficient significance that the crown concludes that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. The crown therefore must withdraw all forcible detainer charges."

What that says is the crown dropped those charges because it had in its own possession evidence of a burial ground. We were told that the reason for the shooting death was that the first nations opened fire on our OPP.

We subsequently find from the trial that the judge, in looking at the evidence where the police had said they had to return fire, the judge indicated, and this is directly from the trial, where initially what we had been told was that the first nations opened fire - that's what precipitated this - here's what the judge said: "I find that (Dudley) George did not have any firearms on his person when he was shot...[T]he story of the rifle and the muzzle flash was concocted ex post facto in an ill-fated attempt to disguise the fact that an unarmed man had been shot."

That's the second reason why we need an inquiry. The public had been told: "Well, we were facing an armed band of first nations who opened fire. What do you expect?" The judge, a respected judge, after a significant trial, reached the conclusion that the story of that was concocted ex post facto in an ill-fated attempt to disguise the fact that an unarmed man had been shot.

Premier Harris was asked, "Did you give any instructions to your executive assistant before she went to a high-level meeting to represent you?" This meeting was held the morning of the shooting. The morning of the shooting, again here at Queen's Park, a high-level meeting was held. The Premier's personal executive assistant was there. A senior OPP officer was at that meeting. The meeting took place in the morning. The senior OPP officer, we know from records, was in phone communication with the command post after that meeting. The Premier, when asked, "Did you give any directions to your executive assistant before she went to that meeting?" gave a one-word answer, "None."

We then find out from the minutes of that meeting, which we've been able to obtain under freedom of information - and these are them. The public probably can't see this, but remember the Premier said, "I gave no instructions to my executive assistant." These are the minutes from that meeting: "D. Hutton - Premier last night" - meaning she was talking to the Premier last night - "`out of the park - nothing else.'" We were told that the police were given no instructions, the fourth point.

We find that again in the minutes of that committee meeting, attended by, among others, I believe, one of the MPPs in the room. At that meeting the minutes said - yes, one of our Conservative MPPs was at that meeting, we see from the minutes. Remember again that the Premier said the police were given no instructions. This is what the minutes say: "Police have been asked to remove the occupiers from the park."

The previous minutes say, "The province will take steps to remove the occupiers - ASAP." Again, the Premier says there was absolutely no direction given to the police and we find evidence to the contrary. The commissioner said, "I took no tactical directions from the government. I do, however, obviously take strategic direction." It's clear to me that the government gave this strategic direction, and the minutes would confirm that.

The reason this is so important, I think, a test of a government is how it deals with its first nations. As I talk to the first nations, they tell me they have no trust in this government. They tell me Mike Harris will never commit to an inquiry, and "We will not be dealt justice."

As you go through the things that we were told and then the facts as they came out: We were told, no burial ground; there was a burial ground. We were told that the first nations opened fire; we found out that an unarmed, innocent man was shot. We were told that the government had no involvement in this; we find the minutes different than that. We were told the Premier said he gave no instructions to his executive assistant; we find that the minutes of that differ.

We were told that this was dealt with as any other first nations dispute, and the morning of the shooting, that morning the headline in the Sarnia paper: "Queen's Park to Take Hard Line with Occupiers." Surely this demands a commitment to a public inquiry.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to support the resolution, recognizing that my leader, Howard Hampton, introduced a resolution for debate in this House requesting a public inquiry previously and the government voted it down. I hope that the government members will rethink their position and recognize that in this resolution the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is suggesting that a commitment be made - a commitment - that an inquiry will be held when all legal impediments are removed.

The excuse that there are matters still before the courts should not play a role in how members vote on this resolution since it is not calling on the government to hold an inquiry prior to the courts' dealing with whatever charges have been laid and not yet dealt with.

I recognize that the killing of Dudley George is a blemish on the history of this province, a blemish on the history of Canada. It's an international disgrace. The stonewalling by the government to prevent the truth coming out - that's the only way it can be described - compounds that blemish and hurts the reputation of this province and Canada internationally. We've had the report of Amnesty International.

We've had calls for this whole thing to be inquired into to determine what the truth is and what led to the killing, for the first time in the history of Canada, or at least in the last century, of a member of a first nation over a land claim dispute, and that happened here in Ontario. It really says something about our reputation for human rights and for dealing with the rights of indigenous peoples, and it says something that I don't want to have said internationally.

The faith community, representing B'nai Brith, the Anglican Church, the Mennonites, the Christian Reformed churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutherans, the United Church of Canada, the Quakers, the Unitarian Church, together all called for an inquiry yesterday. These are responsible leaders in our community who are disturbed by the events at Ipperwash, who believe that the truth has not come out and must come out. I just remind the members of some of the things that the leaders of those faith groups said yesterday.

"It appears that the actions and reactions of the Ontario Provincial Police on that night were not in keeping with established government policy for negotiating a peaceful resolution to disputes involving first nations peoples' assertion of aboriginal and treaty rights. There is also evidence of a specific plan of operations for the OPP in this situation, calling for negotiation, that was then ignored or changed on short notice."

Further, they say: "The Ontario Provincial Police at the scene also potentially engaged in the criminal beating of another unarmed civilian. No charges have been laid and the investigation of these circumstances has been stymied by a lack of cooperation from officers on the scene and their superiors."

I think the most important point the leaders of the faith communities make in their release from yesterday is: "The important underlying issues of negotiating a just resolution of outstanding land and treaty rights in this area will remain clouded in suspicion and fear until the clear light of an inquiry can be shone on the circumstances of this death."

The leaders of the faith community are issuing a challenge, a challenge to this government, a challenge to the people of Ontario, to find the truth, to shine the light of truth on the situation that led to the death of Dudley George at Ipperwash. The government of Ontario must meet that challenge if we are to be able to look our partners internationally in the eye and say that we, as people in a democracy, recognize the rights of indigenous peoples to assert their land rights and to make claims for restitution and compensation for wrongs in the past.

I believe we need an inquiry to shine the light of truth on this situation so we can look ourselves in the eye; so we can look in the mirror and say that we do not act towards indigenous peoples the way so many regimes around the world do; that we stand for the right of aboriginal people, of first nations people in this country to be able to assure themselves that their rights are protected and the wrongs of the past are corrected.

I believe that the death of Dudley George is a tragedy that did not have to happen, that would not have happened if other approaches had been taken. It is certainly a blemish on the reputation of this province and of this country, and that must be excised.

As the member for Scarborough-Agincourt said, the statements made by this government, by the Attorney General, by the Premier, ever since that fateful night on September 5, 1995, have been shown to be wrong, repeatedly. The Attorney General has said there's no claim, that there's no evidence of a claim. How can he say that when we have evidence from 1937, when the park was being established, and it's clear that the leaders of the first nations at that time contacted the federal Department of Indian Affairs and said: "Look, there's a sacred burial ground there. We want it protected. We want it properly fenced."

What is most disturbing about this situation is the change in approach apparently taken by the government in 1995 after the provincial election in June and another apparent change of approach by the police. In the past, when there have been land disputes involving first nations that led to confrontation, the approach taken by the government was that the government would not negotiate the substance of the claim as long as there was a blockade or an occupation; but the government would negotiate the peaceful end of the confrontation, leading to discussions and negotiations of the substantive questions subsequently.

The Attorney General has said that this government's actions were consistent with that, yet we have seen that they were anything but consistent with that approach.

The police approach, because of the government's previous approach, has always been to cool things out, to avoid confrontation that might lead to injuries, or worse, either for the police or the first nations peoples. That has been the government's approach and the police approach. Essentially the police took the position that if there were a blockade or an occupation by first nations peoples, they would just keep everybody away, cool it down and hopefully, from the police position, have the first nations peoples tire of the situation and just stop the occupation or the blockade. That was the approach.

As we all know, an emergency committee was always convened in these situations that involved the police liaison person, members of the various ministries - it was usually bureaucrats, not MPPs. In our experience as a government there were never MPPs involved. It was always bureaucrats from the various ministries and they would sit and determine: "What are issues? How do we deal with this? How do we approach things?" The police would describe the situation. The bureaucrats didn't give direction to the police in terms of tactics.

The police determined how to do that, but the police listened to the issues so that the liaison officer could report to the police on the scene about the issues involved so they would understand the situation.

That committee was convened because of the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park, keeping in mind that the Ministry of Natural Resources people had shown the occupiers how to operate the water system and had given them the keys, which again was consistent with the previous approach of governments in the past. As the faith communities indicated in their release, the police liaison officer made it clear to the committee that the police were just going to cool things out, keep everybody quiet and try to ensure there were no serious confrontations.

But after that meeting everything changed. Suddenly there were 250 officers on the scene. Suddenly the OPP was in contact with the Canadian Armed Forces and there was a liaison officer from the Canadian Armed Forces assigned to the Ipperwash situation. Suddenly the OPP was applying to the Canadian Armed Forces for armed personnel carriers. There were 250 officers on the scene to deal with at most 35 men, women and children in the aboriginal community and no evidence that they were armed, none whatever, which has been confirmed in court since.

What happened to lead to this change in approach? We now know from the minutes we've received that at that meeting it was made clear that the government's approach was simply to get the Indians out of the park as soon as possible, nothing else. That was the approach. We have the quote from Ms Hutton that the Premier's comments were: "Indians out of the park - nothing else."

I haven't had a great deal of experience in these areas, I've had some, but it seems to me that if a police officer hears that kind of direction from the Premier's office, that must have been what changed the approach of the OPP so that they would indeed take a hard line. We must find out if that's the case.

What led to the OPP, with such a massive force, to decide to enter the park at 11 o'clock, under the cover of darkness, when it was not going to be easy to see what was going on? What led the aboriginal people in the park to drive the bus through the gate towards the OPP? There have been allegations that there was a beating taking place, a beating of a member of the first nations by the OPP. No charges have been laid in that area.

We need to know what happened. What were the events that led to the killing of Dudley George? But more important, what decisions were made, what directions were given by the government in this regard? We need to know the truth, as the faith communities have indicated.

We're not suggesting that the inquiry should be held right now. We're just suggesting the government should make a commitment that there will be an inquiry when all legal impediments are out of the way. In my view, an inquiry must be held as soon as possible. We must shine the light of truth on the events at Ipperwash that led to the death of Dudley George, or, as the faith communities have said, the negotiations of just outstanding land and treaty rights will remain clouded in suspicion and fear.

We must shine a clear light of an inquiry on the circumstances that led to the death of Dudley George if we are to excise this blemish from the reputation of Ontario and Canada in the international community.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I rise this morning on behalf of the Attorney General and minister responsible for native affairs to address the motion before us. Let me begin by repeating what the minister has said previously in this House on this matter. "The incident that occurred in Ipperwash Provincial Park in September 1995 was a tragedy."

As members of this House know, a number of criminal charges were laid in connection with the event that occurred at Ipperwash at that time. Some of these criminal charges are still before the courts. There are also two appeals pending in regard to the Ontario Provincial Police officer convicted of criminal negligence causing death in the shooting incident. Furthermore, there are three ongoing civil actions arising from these events.

Under standing order 23(g), a member is cautioned against speaking in the Legislature about the substance of a matter that is before the courts. Because these matters are before the courts, extreme care must be taken in making any comment that might prejudice the trials that are ongoing or might prejudice the rights of the accused involved in these matters.

Mr Wildman: It would have been nicer if the Attorney General remembered that when -

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma, you had your turn, please.

Mr Parker: Our government's position on the matter of a public inquiry has been clear and it has been consistent. It is and it has always been based on respect for due process of the law. We have repeatedly stated that the government will only consider other options after matters currently before the courts have been completed. As such, this is not the appropriate time to be debating this question. It would be premature to make a decision or to comment further while these matters remain before the courts.

What should be the focus of our discussions, however, is Ontario's efforts to improve living conditions and build stronger economies for aboriginal people and to provide for a future that holds greater promise for the aboriginal people of this province. I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight the significant achievements in aboriginal affairs which our government has made during the past two years.

In March 1996, our government set out its approach to aboriginal affairs in the aboriginal policy framework. The goal of the framework is a future where aboriginal communities have stronger economies and a greater capacity to become more independent and self-reliant and to exercise greater responsibility for their own wellbeing.

Guided by the framework, our government is taking practical steps to encourage aboriginal self-sufficiency through economic and community development and to build stable, balanced relations between aboriginal people and their neighbours. This approach will enable us to address aboriginal issues in a consistent and effective manner that delivers real, tangible results, promotes economic growth and improves the quality of life in aboriginal communities.

Based on the goal and principles of the aboriginal policy framework, our government is working together with the aboriginal people on a provincial strategy to promote aboriginal economic and business development. Through the strategy, Ontario will encourage job creation, investment and economic growth as a key to building aboriginal self-reliance. It will also promote partnerships with the corporate sector that will benefit aboriginal people, businesses and communities.

We've already done considerable policy work on this strategy. We have spoken to more than 150 people from aboriginal communities, municipalities, businesses and financial institutions, to get their views on aboriginal economic development issues. Last November, the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat and a private sector partner, the Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers, co-hosted a forum on aboriginal business partnerships. More than 85 people attended from the aboriginal business community. Government and the private sector representatives were there as well.

They provided advice on business partnership development, relations between the corporate sector and aboriginal communities and the province's role in promoting aboriginal economic development.

In developing the strategy, we have consulted with first nation leaders, with representatives of Metis and off-reserve aboriginal organizations, with aboriginal business leaders and economic development groups and with the corporate sector. We hope to have one last round of consultations before the launching of the strategy in 1998.

Our government considers economic development to be the key to aboriginal self-reliance. The aboriginal economic development strategy will assist and encourage aboriginal economic development within the context of our government's overall commitment to restoring hope, jobs, growth and prosperity, and to improving the economic circumstances of all Ontarians.

An important tool for promoting aboriginal economic development is land claim settlements. Our government has signed agreements in principle on the Big Grassy, Sand Point and Assabaska land claims. Recently negotiators signed a draft agreement on the Whitefish River land claim. We are making significant progress on a number of other negotiations.

Settling land claims removes barriers between people, removes barriers to investment, and fosters a stable business climate and a stable community climate among local communities. This benefits aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike.

Our government has taken steps to increase public involvement in land claim negotiations. On a number of claims we have added local citizens to our negotiating teams, as members or observers, and have established citizens advisory committees to ensure that the negotiations address the interests and concerns of everyone who lives and works in the claim area, so that when a resolution is found, it's a resolution that involves all the people who are affected.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Why are you insulting these people?

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, please.

Mr Parker: We are also developing a policy statement on Ontario's approach to land claim negotiations. The policy statement will include input from aboriginal leaders, stakeholders and the general public.

Our government recognizes the need to hear the views of first nation leaders and be responsive to the concerns of aboriginal people in Ontario. On November 6, the Premier and the minister responsible for native affairs held a very positive and productive meeting with Ontario Regional Chief Tom Bressette and a delegation of grand chiefs and other first nation leaders.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma, the member for Kingston and The Islands, please.

Mr Parker: The purpose of the meeting was to assist the Premier in preparing for the November 18 meeting of premiers, territorial leaders and national aboriginal leaders in Winnipeg. In Winnipeg, Ontario supported a recommendation that federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for aboriginal affairs and the national aboriginal leaders should -

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of order, Speaker: I want to bring to your attention standing rule 23(

b) with respect to the comments that are being made by the member, and that is that they should be directed towards the question we're debating this morning. This isn't directed -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That's not a point of order, I think the member will realize, and I hope you will come back to the issue. You've been preambling a bit too long, in my opinion, and I will pay close attention to what you say.

Mr Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would suggest that to understand the events at Ipperwash it's important to understand the context in which the incident there arose and to understand the steps this government is taking to address that context and to ensure that problems such as the problem that occurred at Ipperwash do not occur again.

In Winnipeg, Ontario supported a recommendation that federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for aboriginal affairs and the national aboriginal leaders should meet as soon as possible to address social issues related to aboriginal people, the needs of aboriginal youth and other issues.

The Acting Speaker: Order. You have to come back to the topic, please. Come back to the topic.

Mr Parker: Mr Speaker, my remarks are related directly to the circumstances that give rise to concerns among our native community, and to the steps that are the positive steps that are being taken to address those concerns and to ensure that when concerns arise and need to be addressed, they are addressed in a positive, constructive manner, and to ensure there will be a future in which the kind of concerns and the kind of unrest which has so tragically marked some of the relationships between our native community and their surrounding communities do not arise.

Our government is working with native leaders and with national leaders across the country to address those concerns underlying these difficulties. In that respect, Mr Speaker, I would suggest that my remarks this morning are directly -

The Acting Speaker: I am telling you again that if you err and go away from the topic, I will stand up again and remind you that you should not discuss any topic other than the topic on the issue of the moment, which is the incident at Ipperwash. Please just follow that issue and I will listen to you attentively.

Mr Parker: Mr Speaker, the resolution this morning calls upon the government to consider a broad context of matters. There are a number of recitals in the resolution and I'm addressing the subject matter of those recitals. I would suggest that my remarks this morning are directly in line with the subject matter that has been brought before the House this morning. I will continue.

Another example of our approach to fostering stable relations is our process for bringing together ministers and chiefs to discuss issues of concern. Meetings were held in October 1996 and June 1997. We have agreed to meet again early next year. These meetings demonstrate our government's commitment to resolving issues of common concern to first nations and Ontario and to enhancing our relationship through discussion and dialogue and to ensure that episodes and confrontation are not the way of choice in matters of difficulty.

As part of our approach to fostering stable relations, in contrast to the experience that has marked so many of the difficulties in the past, the province signed the Grand River notification agreement in October 1996. This is the first agreement of its kind in Canada. Many have praised it as a model for establishing relationships based on goodwill and cooperation. Other jurisdictions across the country would do very well to follow this example.

Our policies are making a difference in the everyday lives of Ontario's aboriginal peoples. Last year we extended the Canada-Ontario retrofit agreement with the federal government. This agreement will bring indoor plumbing, sewage and electrification services to a total of 35 remote northern first nation communities in Ontario by the year 2001.

If we are looking for the root cause of concern and difficulty in many of our native communities, we can look directly to the living conditions they have experienced to date and the need to address those living conditions so that we do not have the kind of frictions, the kind of frustrations, the kind of irritations and the kind of outrage that led to episodes such as at the episode at Ipperwash in September 1995.

Running water, sewers and electricity are the basics for building self-reliance in any community, and over the life of the agreement about 3,100 jobs will be created, most of them in first nations communities, another crying need in our native communities.

Those are some of the practical steps that our government has taken in aboriginal affairs during our mandate, and our approach will continue to focus on practical steps to improve living conditions, strengthen economic opportunities and build self-reliance in aboriginal communities and to bridge the gulf that has so tragically characterized many of the relationships that have existed in the past and has led to many of the episodes that have occurred in the past, some, as in the case of Ipperwash, with terribly, terribly tragic results.

Mr Ramsay: I congratulate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for bringing this resolution before the House. I have to say, Mr Speaker, that I certainly support you in your interventions during the previous speech, when the member for York East really gave a very weak polemic on the state of first nations policy, if there is any with the Harris government, instead of dealing with the issue. The issue is plain and simple: An innocent citizen of this province was shot dead in cold blood by our police force. That's what this is about and that is what we should be addressing.

I want to address that because something very wrong happened on that evening in Ipperwash park, something very different from and that goes contrary to the history of how the OPP handles incidents such as this. The OPP is probably one of the most highly trained, highly disciplined, best-equipped police forces in the world. It is an extremely great police force and we should be proud of them, but occasionally, human failure being what it is, incidents happen.

I remember back in the late 1980s when there was an incident with the tactical squad in southwestern Ontario and a very tragic accident happened. The government of the day, the Liberal government, decided to do a review on the tactical units in Ontario, of which there are about three copies in the legislative library, and I would encourage people to get a copy of that. What came out of that is very interesting. What came out of it sets the policy that this government today should have followed, and it's very different from what happened on that night in Ipperwash park.

The review says in a sort of

summary:

"We preface our support for the continuing use of police tactical units with that caveat. We believe that these units are necessary, but they must be unquestionably the best trained and most capable, and it must be clear what they are being used for: the non-violent resolution of high-risk incidents to safeguard human lives. The techniques of containment and de-escalation of the crisis are vital to the peaceful resolution of most dangerous incidents involving an armed person."

I believe that all evidence, being in, shows that in this case we weren't even dealing with armed persons.

The report continues: "It is our view that containment and de-escalation must be the priority in the training of all tactical officers in Ontario.

"Police tactical units must also have the confidence of the public and fellow police officers." In order to do that, the community has to be confident that the teams they are sending out are "rigorously trained not only in the use of special weapons, but also in the practice of patience and restraint under high-stress, life-threatening conditions...."

Something very different happened that night, because what we had here was not a hostage-taking. We just had people who came into the park to occupy some space because it was their very strong belief, which backed up by evidence this government has in its possession, that there is a burial ground in that area and that both the federal and provincial governments have not dealt with this issue for the better part of this century. That's what this was about.

We know that the tactical unit of the OPP has been trained to wait these situations out, to negotiate. There were no lives being threatened here on either side but something happened that night. That is the key question of why we want this public inquiry. Why did the police act in a manner contrary to their training and their techniques and their tactical strategies?

Something happened here and we suspect, from the evidence gathered through freedom of information, that my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt has been able to secure that this government directed the OPP to clear that park and to use whatever force was necessary. That is wrong. It is wrong and in this case we can see that it led to a tragic incident that cost the life of an innocent Ontario citizen. That's why we need this inquiry, and I'm here today to support my colleague in the request for that inquiry.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I too want to congratulate my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt on keeping this issue in front of both the Legislature and the public of Ontario. It is a tremendous tragedy that we have to have this discussion in the first instance.

A public inquiry is not only merited, it's demanded. Despite the patronizing polemic we heard from the government side around this issue, there are five compelling reasons why a public inquiry ought to be held.

First, the government of this province had evidence at the time the OPP got involved that the occupied land did have a first nation burial ground. The evidence dated back to 1937 and it said, "...the old Indian cemetery which is located within the territory now being developed as a park."

The second piece of troubling information that we are all aware of is that the first nation was unarmed. The occupiers did not bear arms. They did not bear a threat to the public nor to the police. These facts were borne out in trial. The judge at the trial said, "I find the accused knew that Dudley George did not have any firearms on his person when he shot him," that the story of the muzzle flash "was concocted ex post facto in an ill-fated attempt to disguise the fact that an unarmed man had been shot." An unarmed man had been shot, a man who could not defend himself, a man who took a stand and was part of a situation that quickly turned tragic.

We have heard time and again in this chamber from the Premier of this province that his government had no involvement. Yet subsequent investigation by various individuals, including my colleague from Scarborough, showed just the opposite. Notes from meetings quoting the Premier's executive assistant showed quite conclusively that in fact there was government involvement.

In this province, historically the OPP have had a policy of negotiation, not confrontation, with our first nations, recognizing the special sensitivities around those issues. Government after government pursued this type of policy. Yet, when this government took office, there was a dramatic shift.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've counted the numbers in here and I don't think we've got a quorum.

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

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr Duncan: The fourth point I was dealing with was the abandonment of this long-standing policy. We ought not to be surprised, because this is a government that has long shown intolerance to issues of this nature.

Finally, the government has indicated on a number of occasions that while there were 52 charges laid against first nations, all but two were dropped or found not guilty. Of the charges the crown dropped - 43 of them - seven of those charged have been found innocent, with two still in the trial process. The only conviction arising from the incident was an OPP officer found guilty of criminal negligence causing the death of Dudley George.

There is no compelling reason why the government cannot and should not call a public inquiry. This is a tragedy, in my view, of unparalleled proportion in the province of Ontario. A first nation citizen, unarmed, was gunned down. There is evidence that the government directed these operations in a general sense. Our religious community in this country, civil rights communities in this country, first nations communities here in this province and country and indeed the international community call on us, compel us as a Legislature to call a public inquiry so the truth can be brought to bear on this situation and to prevent any type of tragedy of this nature occurring ever again.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I want to thank the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for bringing forward this issue of fundamental justice and fairness. This is a story of heavy-handedness and bullying and hiding the truth and fabricating more of it, and in the end a story of an innocent man shot dead. The facts have been recited here this morning. Dudley George was killed on September 6, 1995. The judge in the first instance found that he was unarmed. Since then all the charges that have been laid by the crown have either been dropped or dismissed by the courts, with two civil suits pending.

The latest criminal charge that was dropped was September 29, 1997. There has been outrage not only in the native community but in the broader sector. Ontarians have been shocked to hear that in this province we would behave in this fashion.

I'd like to ask three questions. One is, can an inquiry be called? It's pretty clear that it can. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Westray mining disaster, indicated the circumstances under which a public inquiry may be called. Time doesn't permit me to go into all the details, but I would suggest the Attorney General look into that.

Second, in the Krever blood inquiry clear guidelines were again set by the Supreme Court of Canada, where there are civil and/or criminal investigations. The ruling on Krever again could not be clearer and the Attorney General should have a look at that.

Third, I would say to the Attorney General that he himself has called for inquiries where there were civil cases pending. I would remind him that in the Bernardo case he ordered an inquiry and the cases coming out of the Bernardo case are still before the courts.

Why an inquiry? I think the answers to that are fairly evident. There is contradictory evidence before the public of Ontario, and justice demands a fair hearing. What would an inquiry be charged with doing? We need to know what directions were given to the OPP. Why did the OPP abandon its long-standing policy of negotiation and instead engage in confrontation? Why did the government seek an ex parte injunction? Why were the aboriginal people's claim of a burial ground ignored? Who authorized the OPP buildup at Ipperwash? Why was Dudley George characterized as armed when in fact he was not?

What was the role of the government in all this? That is the most troubling question of all. We have heard from Ontarians everywhere on this issue. The B'nai Brith, the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Mennonite community, the Lutheran church, many editorial boards across this province, individual citizens, and the aboriginal people themselves have decried the lack of action of this government in a situation which is critical, which is important.

The mark of a society is not how it treats its strongest and its best, but how it deals with its weakest and how it deals with its minorities. The aboriginal people have been dealt a heavy blow at Ipperwash. Their rights have been ignored. Dudley George's right to a fair hearing of his case has been ignored. It is appropriate in the circumstances for the Attorney General to call an inquiry. There is no legal impediment for him to do so. There is no moral reason why he should not do so. There is no public policy reason that could possibly justify not calling a public inquiry on this, the most important of issues, the rights of individuals vis-à-vis the state.

I want to congratulate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I would remind the House that yesterday we celebrated the 49th anniversary of the declaration of human rights. This government made pretty speeches about how important human rights are to a democratic society. Today we ask them to put their money where their mouth is. We ask them to remember that human rights means respecting the rights of individuals. Dudley George was an individual. The people who were involved at Ipperwash are very real and their rights are being trampled on.

Again, I congratulate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and I call upon the government to take action, to take responsibility and to call for a public inquiry.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, you have two minutes.

Mr Phillips: To me what happened is quite clear. The government had been elected for two months. They were going to deal with these things in a different way. It tragically blew up in their faces. The last thing Mike Harris wants is for a public inquiry on this. The reason is, in my opinion, that he will be deeply implicated in it and deeply damaged by it.

Surely we owe it to our first nations to commit to a public inquiry. If it was any other group anywhere else in the province, there would be no hesitation about it.

We were told there was no burial ground there; there was a burial ground. We were told they were armed and opened fire; court trials proved they weren't. We were told that they were there illegally and had to be charged; then the crown essentially dropped all the charges when they found that they were there legitimately because they had the belief and the understanding and the evidence of a burial ground. We were told that the government had no interference in it; then we find minutes of meetings showing that the government instructed the police to remove the occupiers from the park.

Believe me: This will not go away. This will continue to dog Mike Harris. I promise you that ultimately the truth will come out. I promise you that. I promise you that when the truth comes out, the truth about Mike Harris's role will become evident. I also promise that those of you who support the hiding of the truth, the stonewalling of this, will be held accountable. Those of you who support Mike Harris in trying to block the truth from coming out will be held accountable. This is a most serious matter for the province of Ontario, and I hope the resolution today passes.

BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160

Mr Hampton moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 168,

An Act to Protect our Children's Education and Defend Local Democracy / Projet de loi 168, Loi visant à protéger l'éducation de nos enfants et à défendre la démocratie locale.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i),the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): First of all, I want to begin my remarks by pointing out that what Bill 168 is about is continuing the discussion about education in this province. It's about continuing the discussion about what direction ought to be taken in this province with respect to our children's schools and education in general at the elementary and secondary level.

You could call Bill 168

An Act to repeal Bill 160, because that is what is implicit in this private member's bill. It seeks to repeal Bill 160 because fundamentally I believe and members of the New Democratic Party caucus believe that Bill 160 goes in entirely the wrong direction with respect to education.

Let me frame the issues this way and let me put it to parents across this province: Do parents believe that by taking $1.5 billion out of elementary and secondary education that our children's education will be improved? The Conservative government has already taken $800 million out of elementary and secondary education. It was disclosed in the performance contract of the deputy minister, which I was happy to show to the media about six weeks ago, that the government plans to take close to a further $700 million out of elementary and secondary classrooms over the next year.

Added together, it's a cut of $1.5 billion from elementary and secondary classrooms across this province. Parents need to ask themselves the question: Does anyone believe that our children's education can be improved by taking a further $1.5 billion out of our children's schools?

The second question that is implicit here is this: Do people believe that our children's education can be improved by establishing a centralized, top-down, command-style bureaucracy over education and schools in this province? Learning is a very dynamic and spontaneous activity. Learning must happen in specific classrooms and in specific environments across this province. To attempt to establish a top-down, command-style bureaucracy over such a spontaneous and dynamic activity in my view flies in the face of reason. But that is essentially what this government is trying to do.

I put to parents across this province that a top-down, centralized, command-style bureaucracy - in other words, trying to run the schools of this province from an office tower in downtown Toronto - cannot succeed.

Finally, do people believe that by laying off another 5,000 teachers, likely as many as 10,000 teachers, our schools can be improved, our classrooms can be improved? I hardly think so, but that is also implicit in what has been set out.

As I said just a few minutes ago, I want to put very clearly on the record that it is my firm belief and the firm belief of New Democrats across this province that this government's direction in terms of education, as expressed in Bill 160, is moving in fundamentally the wrong direction and cannot and will not improve education across this province. The three central tenets - (1) that you can improve education by laying off teachers, (2) that you can improve education by taking $1.5 billion out of the system, and (3) that you can improve education by establishing a centralized, top-down bureaucracy - also move in entirely the wrong direction.

We need to continue to have this debate about education in this province. We need to continue to have this debate about this government's direction on education in this province.

I am under no illusions. This government, the members of the government, the MPPs from the government side, will vote against this private member's bill. They will vote against Bill 168. However they may vote against it, that will not shut down the debate, and I want to outline at least six ways in which people across this province can continue to engage in this debate and can continue to hold the government's policy on education accountable.

The first flashpoint will occur very soon when the government is forced to announce funding for schools for the stub year. This announcement was supposed to have been made back in October. We are now into the middle of December and there is still no announcement about stub-year funding for schools for what is left of the school year, from January to June. This is incredible. We are now down to the point where these schools in two weeks have to operate with this budget, and they still don't know what the budget is.

What an incredible way to run our school system: to keep everyone in the dark as to what their funding formula is and how much they can apportion to teaching, how much they can apportion to school supplies, how much they can apportion to heating the schools, lighting the schools, transportation - to keep all of that under cover and keep it in the dark until the point where we are now two weeks away.

I suggest that the reason the government doesn't want to put that information out there is because it will involve a very substantial cut to classrooms, so the government wants to keep that information under wraps as long as possible. The people across this province should know that the issue of stub-year funding is going to be out there very soon, and people can use it as a test. People can use it as a test as to what the real direction of the government is. I submit that the education finance officials who have been writing to the Minister of Education are correct that it's a substantial cut, a cut of about $220 million a year.

The second part of this is that under the government's educational direction, the new boards of education are supposed to be up and running in January. How can they be up and running? They don't know their budgets yet. Many of them have not had a formal meeting yet. Speaker, I would suggest to you that people need to watch this ill-called setup of the new boards, because it is very likely to be a disaster. It will be chaotic, and that, I think, will also be a good indication of this government's true direction with respect to education.

The third part will occur some time towards the end of January, early February, when the Minister of Finance, behind closed doors, with no public debate, no public discussion, no opportunity for public accountability, will set the property tax rates with respect to education financing. Six billion dollars in taxation will be set behind closed doors, with no opportunity for public scrutiny or public input.

I would suggest to you that people should be concerned about the adequacy of this formula, the democracy of this formula and, most of all perhaps, the fairness of this formula as to how it sets those property tax rates, who wins, who loses and, most of all, how adequate it is for our students and our schools.

The fourth flashpoint which will occur will be some time in March, when the new boards of education will have to send out preliminary notice of layoff to teachers. It will have to happen that soon because the boards do not want to be caught in a situation where later on in the year they are laying off teachers and haven't given them some notice. So we'll get an indication right away, within the next four months, of how many teachers in this province are going to be laid off, and that will come in the preliminary notice of layoffs which will happen in about March.

Then in April the government will have to provide to the new boards of education some indication of what the overall funding formula will be for the school year which will begin in September 1998, and people will be able to see just how substantial the cuts are to elementary and secondary education.

Finally, in early May, the new boards will have to give teachers not a preliminary notice of layoff, but a real notice of layoff. That is when we will start to get a very clear picture of how many teachers are going to lose their jobs under Bill 160 and under this government's educational direction.

I invite people to continue in this debate.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this morning's debate, and in particular to speak in opposition to Bill 168. To vote for this bill, in my opinion, would be an indication of support, and that's not nearly enough in terms of the changes that need to be made with respect to education in this province.

I'm quite surprised that the third party, the NDP, would advance this particular bill, because the essence of it is to repeal Bill 160. That fit would be more comfortable, from my perspective, with the Liberal Party in this province, because very clearly over the past month the Liberal Party has articulated and publicly acknowledged that it has no education policy for this province. They've very clearly indicated strong support for the status quo and a comfort level of keeping things the way they are today in education in this province. I would suggest that's neither appropriate nor acceptable to the people of Ontario.

I must reflect upon the dialogue that took place between the now member for Dovercourt, Mr Silipo, and Mr Cooke during the government agencies debate at the time that Mr Cooke was being appointed as co-chair of the Education Improvement Commission. I think it was an important dialogue. Here we have two former ministers of education of this province in dialogue, exchanging views. To hold the portfolio of Minister of Education and Training in this province is a duty that requires a great deal of skill and ability. Both of those gentlemen brought that to their portfolios.

The dialogue was important, because in asking the question, Mr Silipo received the response from Mr Cooke as follows:

"Some things that are being done here are close to what we were going to do. Even some of the decisions that the government has had to make, that it will be making, in terms of the new financing of school boards and how the dollars will be distributed, those are things that no matter who would have been elected, there would have had to be some decisions on."

Very clearly there was an understanding of Mr Cooke that changes had to occur within the education system. Mr Silipo I believe understood the same. In 1992, while Minister of Education, he indicated, "Education reform means significant improvements in what we teach and how we teach." I agree. That's why this government has moved to bring a new curriculum base, one that is based on student outcome, that has clear and defined expectations and rigour, to this province.

"It means reshaping our education system so we can meet the needs of all our young people and prepare them to meet the challenges of a diverse society...." Again I find myself in agreement with Mr Silipo. That is why this government, through Bill 160, has established the framework to introduce a new funding model for all students in this province.

"It means moving towards more cooperative and cost-effective approaches to the delivery of education programs and services." Once again I agree. This government has moved, through Bill 104 and Bill 160, to establish a streamlined, more accountable school board and administration system in this province.

Very clearly my surprise with the third party is, as I've said before, one of some shock because I thought they understood the need for change.

I heard the member for Rainy River, the leader of the third party, say that it's about continuing dialogue. I would suggest there has been substantial dialogue, not only through this process but through numerous reports and reviews that have been conducted since 1950 on the issue of education in this province. In fact, former ministers of the crown within his own caucus realized the need for education reform and were debating that issue in 1992.

To support Bill 168 this morning would simply be an indication of support for the status quo. Simply put, that is not acceptable. This government has clearly indicated its focus and desire to bring in a streamlined system that is clearly centred on student performance and kids in the classroom.

Some ask what our vision is for education in this province. I think that has been very clearly articulated since June 1995. It's a system that puts students first and student achievement first as well. It's a system that will redefine and renew the role of trustees in this province. It's a system that will realize a streamlined and more accountable school board system; a system that treats all students fairly through its focus on students themselves and the resources that teachers need in the classroom.

It's a system that brings about a renewed curriculum, as I indicated, one that redefines rigour and student expectation and outcome. It's a system that respects and encourages parental involvement in education in this province. It's a comprehensive package which will take the education system into the future in a constructive and well-managed fashion.

Bill 168 fails to provide that vision, fails to act on the numerous background studies and reviews that have been conducted, and is a bill that fails to realize the necessary changes that have to be made to the education system in this province.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm happy to be able to share a few moments of our time talking about Bill 168. I stand in support of Bill 168 because it continues the dialogue with the people of Ontario with regard to quality public education.

The member for Middlesex, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, says he's proud about the curriculum advances, the standardized report cards and the testing advances that Bill 160 puts in place. He should know quite clearly that 160 has nothing to do with curriculum, has nothing to do with standardized reporting to parents and has nothing to do with testing. I am very concerned when the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education doesn't know what the goals of 160 are, and that's why it is very important that the dialogue be continued.

Bill 160 allows the government to set class size averages. It does nothing to control or protect class sizes. I've said that on repeated occasions and that's why support for this bill is necessary. What the people of Ontario are going to see in the future if Bill 160 isn't changed by this government or the next, Liberal, government is that class sizes are going to continue to grow in Ontario. As a former teacher, I'm very concerned about what I see happening in the classrooms all over Ontario: classes of 32, 34, 36, 40, 41. That is unacceptable and that is the legacy of the Conservative vision of education.

Setting an average class size while reducing the amount of money in operating grants is only going to lead to fewer classes. Since the student population of Ontario is growing, if there are going to be fewer resources, if there are going to be fewer teachers, if there are going to be more students, that can only translate into larger class sizes, class sizes which will impede students' ability to learn in a properly funded public education system. That's what the Liberals are concerned about. We're concerned that Bill 160 does not enshrine a properly funded public education system; in fact, it destroys it.

That's why students, parents, teachers, every partner in education has told you that Bill 160 is wrong. I support Bill 168 because it brings to the forefront the importance of ensuring that the dialogue and the debate over 160 doesn't quit, isn't diminished and will constantly be put on the front burner as opposed to the back burner.

This government will try over the course of the next three months, with smoke and mirrors, to disguise what's really happening to public education. It's clear: Public education is being destroyed because of Bill 160. That has been proven. Every presenter has told you that public education will not be enhanced because of Bill 160. That's why we must continue the dialogue.

Bill 160 clearly puts our educational leaders in limbo. The amendment, based on a vindictive, punitive measure only, not based on any sound educational philosophy, to remove principals and vice-principals from their federations is putting your educational leaders in limbo. It's wrong. It's wrong for principals and vice-principals, but more important, it's wrong for the students in our educational system.

Come January 1, there will be chaos with some of the newly appointed principals and vice-principals; come April 1, there is going to be chaos with those already in leadership roles; and come September 1, we will have a system of education in place which is inferior to the one we had one year ago, five years ago, 10 years ago.

Because education is always, and must always, be focused on change, we have to ensure that change is productive and positive. Bill 160 is a negative change for education, cannot be supported, and we must support initiatives such as Bill 168.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I stand with pride to support Bill 168, presented by our leader of the New Democratic Party, and say immediately that what we're doing through this bill is to praise the teachers who stood up to defend themselves as teachers and stood up to defend classroom education. That is what Bill 168 stands for. It stands for a defence of teachers and teaching and it stands for a defence of parents, mostly women, I would add - at least at the meetings I go to most of the people who come are women - to defend what they see as an erosion of our public school system. That's what this bill does.

To listen to the member for Middlesex, who is still around here - look at the language and you will see what this fellow and this government are all about. These are the words they use: "status quo." He opposes these others as people who defend the status quo, making it appear as if what we've got isn't good, even though the Premier goes to Europe and says, "We've got the best education system in the world."

Interjection: That was there.

Mr Marchese: That was then; that was there. This is now, I guess.

The other language the member for Middlesex uses: "reshaping to meet the needs of our society; more cost-effective," says he from Middlesex; "streamlined" is the word; "centred on kids' education"; "redefine the role of trustees"; "a system that treats all kids fairly"; "a new curriculum"; "involves parents"; "changes need to be made."

Did you hear anything in there that had any substance, that speaks to what is going on in the classroom, with students, with parents, with principals? There is nothing of the sort. All we have is through the voice - la portavoce, the parliamentary assistant - of the Premier, M. Harris, and the Minister of Education and others engaged in a process of myth-making, a promotion of language that leads people to conclude they're doing something. But it's motionless motion. It's going nowhere. It is intended to deceive the public, to make them believe that something is happening in the educational system, but I argue that nothing is happening as a result of Bill 160.

Let me tell you quickly what Bill 160 is all about. They argue - our slick Minister of Education, David Johnson; he is slick; most of these folks are very slick in their presentation of the issues - there are three things in this bill that will improve education quality and he says it's going to make it more accountable. Do you know what it means when he says, "We're going to make it more accountable"? He's saying they're going to centralize education financing. That is what it's all about: taking control of the finances; taking it away from the boards of education, those closest to the students, to the teachers and to the parents, taking that control away and bringing it to Queen's Park.

This is the same M. Harris who said - and there's a woman here with a sign. It's a quote from M. Harris saying, "I shudder to think what would happen to education if control fell into the hands of the government."

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Who said that?

Mr Marchese: Mike Harris, the Premier. He used to have such views, but his views have changed now. Why have they changed? Because he says he wants to make the system more accountable. No. He wants to centralize education financing to reduce the level of finance that goes to the boards of education under the guise of making it fair to all. He doesn't say, "We're going to chop, we're going to whack the education system." He says, "We're going to make it fair to all."

He's taking it over to cut the money. He's going to harmonize down. He's going to take $500 million from the metropolitan system and shift it around, is what he says he wants to do. He's going to give educational grants that will be similar to every student in the province. which means some boards will come down from where they are. We're not bringing education financing up, we're bringing it down. He calls that fairness.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): It's a race to the bottom.

Mr Marchese: A race to the bottom indeed. That's what this centralization is about all.

I tell you, he needs the money. Why? Because of his income tax cut; that's why he needs the money. He's got to bring his deficit numbers down, and to do so, he's got to go like a gunslinger against the boards of education and take money out, from teachers, from boards, to finance the tax cut that's going to go to the bankers, the developers, those who own big real estate, corporate élites who have the big bucks with the big pockets. They're saying to Mike Harris: "Bring the money over, Mike. We're still in a recession. We need your money because we want to build jobs." In the meantime, they're going into those deep blue pockets. That's where the money is going.

He says there are two other things in this bill, and he speaks about class size, giving the illusion that he's going to reduce the class size. Do you know what it takes to reduce the class size by one? Millions, if not billions, of dollars to reduce class size by one. This guy is taking money out, not putting money back in. How can he reduce class size? I tell you, he can't. He just can't do it. There's no money.

Mr Hampton: He won't.

Mr Marchese: Not that he won't, he can't. So it is wrong to suggest in the myth-making that class size is going to go down. The average class size is meaningless, but it's couched in language that makes it appears the class size is going to go down.

Those are two things this guy and the member for Middlesex are saying is going to bring about greater equality for our educational system, and he's shocked at this Bill 168. It comes as a great surprise to him that we would be opposed. He's shocked.

He's got one more thing, our slick Minister of Education, who says: "Preparation time is a big problem. We're going to cut it and that's going to create more contact time with students." But people have said to him: "If you reduce preparation time for teachers, taking time away that they use to help students on a number of curriculum issues - curriculum-related stuff, sports-related stuff that students want - if you reduce that time, please make sure that time that's taken away is put back into the system. Take it away from some, okay, but if you're going to do that, put it back." But he's not doing that.

There's no claim from the minister or the Premier that he's going to do that, after repeated questions from our caucus.

What does it tell you? It tells you there is no more contact time. Time is taken away and teachers are gone. That's what that means. This is the slick Minister of Education and my good friend here from Middlesex, who says he's shocked at this bill that would attempt to repeal the devastation caused by this bill that does nothing for anyone except to take money away from us.

If you want to help the kids, make sure you put the principals back into the classroom. Principals are principal teachers; that's the genesis of the term. You can't take those people out of the classroom. They're not corporate élites, they're teachers, and they are there to assist the curriculum, to assist teachers in improving the quality of education. If you take them out, like these corporate Tories would want to do, you disconnect an essential unity that exists between teachers and principals. If you want to improve the educational system -

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for HaltonCentre.

Mr Marchese: There's more. These guys talk about parental involvement. We have already done that; previous governments have done that. There are parent councils in the school system.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Halton Centre, the member for Fort York has the floor.

Mr Marchese: He'll get his chance.

If you want to involve parents in a greater, more connected way, involve the 95% of the parents who are not involved in the education system. That's quality education. Find a way to involve that 95% of the parents who are not involved. There are reasons for that.

Bill 160 doesn't speak to that. There is nothing of the sort. It doesn't deal with curriculum leadership. That's what effective schools are all about; the research is clear on this. Research says that when principals are good curriculum leaders and work well with teachers, the educational system changes. There's nothing in there for this, except to take money out of the educational system. I worry, because two billion bucks come from funds raised by local boards and the province has no responsibility for those two billion bucks' worth of programs. Programs will disappear and jobs will disappear as a result. I guarantee that.

That is why we support the repeal of that bill through Bill 168, and we urge people to join our petition-for-a-referendum campaign, to fight these Tories in a way that is sustained enough until they call that election, and sufficiently so to get these guys out.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to rise in the debate on Bill 168 today. This is an interesting debate, and some interesting politics will occur in the chamber today, to see how the opposition parties will vote on the bill to repeal Bill 160, and I guess to go back to the old way of doing things in education.

I fully expect the NDP to vote as a team for this bill. It is their leader's bill, after all, I think a leader very well respected in his party; I don't sense the same dissent that I do in the other opposition party over the leadership of the party.

They'll vote for this not only because they respect their leader, but also because they fully believe that the more influence and power unions have to set things like class sizes or to raise tax rates - I guess the NDP believes that the more powerful unions are and the more money that is brought into the system, the more money there is to spend, the higher taxes are, that's a good thing for Ontario. I strongly disagree with their philosophy, but at least I respect that their philosophy is consistent and they've been very clear about it. They have policies and have ideas.

I don't agree with the ideas, necessarily, but at least they have ideas.

The Liberal Party, on the other hand, has said very clearly, and their leader in fact boasted on television, "We have no education policy," which is curious. I guess that's the old Liberal way of doing things: trying to be a blank slate and say, "Whatever you believe in, yes, that's what we believe in too," and they'll try to pull the wool over the eyes of Ontarians.

Interestingly, we're seeing something develop. Twice in the last couple of weeks they have come out with policy ideas. They voted last week against Bill 161, the bill to help parents pay for day care costs and such which were imposed upon them by the illegal teachers' strike. The Liberal Party voted against that idea - they didn't think the money should go to the parents - while the NDP abstained from that vote. It's curious that the Liberals were against helping out parents with their day care costs from the strike.

Second, the leader of the Liberal Party said that if he becomes Premier of Ontario, he will repeal Bill 160, which is very interesting. I think that might be more consistent with the NDP's philosophy. I'm not sure why the Liberals are being so strong in saying: "We want to go back to the old ways of doing things. We want to go back to where the unions had a much greater influence in setting tax rates." I'm not sure whether the Liberals are against all of the bill or parts of it. That's one thing they're still hiding, to an extent.

I'm just very curious about why the Liberal leader wants to go back to allowing the steep increase in property tax rates that we've seen over the past 10 or 15 years from education property taxes. I would expect that the so-called business Liberals would like to see property taxes for education lowered, or frozen at least, but they are saying now that they in fact would like to see those raised. Maybe that's what the Liberal leader wants to do, to raise education property taxes. Maybe that's what he doesn't like about Bill 160.

Maybe the Liberal leader, Mr McGuinty, wants unions to be able to choose to increase class sizes as they've done in the past, and certainly we oppose that. We think very, very strongly that they should be set in legislation so that they will not increase. However, the Liberals seem to want to go back to the old days and turn back the clock and to say, "If the union leaders think it's a good idea to increase class size, we're all for that."

Perhaps the Liberals want to put principals and vice-principals into the union. Maybe that's one of their ideas, and that will be a policy that they are coming forward with.

Finally, maybe they don't believe in making parent councils legislated or mandatory. I certainly believe that parent councils can play an important role in the education system to help develop policy and to help implement decisions in the system, but the Liberal Party perhaps will come out with a policy saying that they are not in favour of parent councils. Maybe that's what they don't like about Bill 160.

I'm interested to see if they will vote on this and how they'll vote because I think it will be a telling moment to determine whether the Liberal Party wants to proceed with education reform or if they want to go back to the bad old days of higher taxes and larger class sizes. We'll see which way they vote on this legislation, and I'll leave the rest of my time to the wisdom of my neighbour the member for Niagara Falls.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): The government's Bill 160 has absolutely nothing to do with better education. You are cutting teachers from our classrooms. You are cutting money from kids. You are raising property taxes. You are doing nothing to improve our standardized scores. You are undermining quality education in this province and are doing nothing at all to make our schools and our kids more competitive for the next century. So yes, we will support this bill and we will repeal Bill 160 when we form a government in a year and a half.

Your propaganda aside, you learned the hardest lesson of your political careers last month. The people of this province said to you unequivocally that education reform involves spending more in the classroom, not less -

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Bring back the clock.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Halton Centre.

Mr Duncan: Education in this province ought to see more teachers in classrooms, not less. Principals and vice-principals are educators not administrators, and they ought to stay in that kind of capacity.

Don't tell us about lack of policy and lack of vision. Your party, your government broke every one of its commitments on education. You said you wouldn't cut from the classroom and then you defined "heat" outside of the class.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): No, we didn't. We did not.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Peterborough.

Mr Duncan: You have centralized power. You have taken local decision making away and you've moved it to the Mowat Block. You've moved it to Toronto. So in Peterborough, your citizens won't have a say in education. They're going to have to answer to bureaucrats at Queen's Park -

Mr Stewart: They certainly will.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Peterborough.

Mr Duncan: You are interested in only taking money out of Halton region and putting it into Queen's Park. Your schools in Halton region threw the member off their property; and thank goodness. Thank goodness for that because they understood the false propaganda of this government around education.

If this government spent as much time declaring war on illiteracy as it does on declaring war on teachers and kids, this province would be a much better place to live in. It would be a province where our education system would in fact move forward and not backward. It would be a province where we could once again say that we're prepared to invest in our kids.

This government wants to cut money out of our classrooms to give a tax cut to their rich friends and then they are going to raise property taxes. They're going to raise property taxes in Halton region. They're going to raise property taxes right across the 905. They're going to raise property taxes in virtually every municipality in this province.

They started out in January with their megaweek announcements and every one of them has had to be amended, changed or simply removed. The final insult: We hear the members opposite talk about setting a common tax rate. What they forget to tell you, what they don't tell you in the propaganda pieces is that it's going to be done by regulation, that is, no votes, no accountability, no local input - regulation. The government has no vision on education, it has no policy. Its policy is to take money out of classrooms. Its policy is to lay off teachers.

Its policy is to raise property taxes so that it can make ill-advised commitments that most people in this province saw through right from the very beginning.

I join my colleagues in voting for this bill, but I would be remiss if I didn't comment on some of the things that the co-chair of the Education Improvement Commission has said, both in this House -

Interjection: Who's that?

Mr Duncan: Dave Cooke, the former education minister.

Mr Cooke said: "Some things that are being done here are close to what we were going to do. Even some of the decisions that the government has had to make, that it will be making, in terms of the new financing of school boards and how the dollars will be distributed...."

Then, on province-wide television, Mr Cooke said, "A lot of the reforms that we're working on, a reduction in the number of school boards, is something that we, the NDP, announced, that I, the Minister of Education, announced when we were in government.

Interjection: Dave Cooke?

Mr Duncan: Dave Cooke said that. Dave Cooke and Mike Harris working on education together.

What else did he say? Mr Marchese spoke of decentralization versus centralization. Here's what Dave Cooke had to say, "We have had in our province through the 1970s and 1980s the most decentralized education system probably in the western world, where nobody was responsible for anything, where we basically had 168 ministries of education."

I want to conclude with the last thing that Mr Cooke had to say to our teachers' federations, our partners in education:

"I think that they are, but I also think that the leadership of the teachers' federations have got to understand their

part in the role is to provide leadership for change, and for the last 10 years they have virtually opposed every reform that's not selling with the public."

At least I'll say this for Mr Cooke: He has been consistent over the last five years, unlike his party, and don't think the people of this province will forget that.

Mr Lessard: I want to speak in support of Bill 168, a bill to repeal Bill 160, in support of our NDP leader, Howard Hampton. I think he reflects the views of hundreds of thousands of people in the province who recognize that Bill 160 is all about centralization of power. It's all about withdrawing hundreds of millions of dollars from our education system and has nothing to do with improving the quality of education in Ontario.

When the Premier spoke on third reading of Bill 160, he said that this was going to be an historic occasion in Ontario. One wonders, if it's so historic, why the NDP didn't even get a chance to participate in third reading debate. A mere two minutes, that's all that we were allowed to speak on it.

This is a government that has been acting in a dictatorial and undemocratic fashion for the past two years, and that's why members like myself and other members of the NDP didn't even get a chance to participate in debate on Bill 160, so I'm pleased to be able to finally have that opportunity today. But this demonstrates that this is a government that really isn't interested in listening.

Mike Harris wanted to pick a fight with teachers because he thought that was a fight that he was going to be able to win. He thought he was going to be able to get the support of parents who were going to be upset during a teachers' political protest in having to make alternative child care arrangements. That's why he introduced Bill 161, as a bribe to parents for that inconvenience.

But parents started to ask themselves, why would mild-mannered, middle-income, predominantly women teachers leave their classrooms, leave the students that they have dedicated their lives to, risk being found to be taking

part in an illegal action and give up $2,000 in pay? Parents began to ask themselves, "Why would they do that?" That was when they realized that Bill 160 was nothing more than an attempt by this government to provoke, to antagonize, to intimidate and to inflame teachers. It was a smokescreen to permit them to pull out hundreds of millions of dollars from the education system. Parents realized that this didn't have anything to do with the improvement of the quality of education. That was when the plan of Mike Harris began to unravel.

People began to recognize that what this government is trying to do is facilitate a move towards charter schools in Ontario. That's the way we see this leading. The government won't admit that. If you ask them, "Do you agree?" on charter schools, they won't give you an answer. They'll skate all over on that issue. But we know that parents faced with a school system that is being deprived of resources are going to start to look for other alternatives.

We've seen what that leads to in Detroit, right across the river from the area I represent in Windsor. We've seen inner-city public schools deprived of resources deteriorating to the point where the quality of education is really unacceptable and people are moving out to the suburbs where they have charter schools. It's the privatization of education that we're concerned about, and that's what we see Bill 160 heading us towards. We need to stop that.

Clearly, with Bill 160 we can see that the gig is up for the right-wing zealots who have led the revolutionaries to the edge of the cliff. The NDP will be more than happy to push them over the edge. We'll be doing that in the coming years.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I have a lot of things I want to get to and I won't have the time to do it, but I had to rise and defend the third party a little bit from the member from the opposition party who said they were inconsistent. Everyone in this House knows there are two parties in here that are consistent: the government party and the third party. They're very socialist and they're not afraid to say that. That's their position and you have to give them credit for being consistent.

The member from the Liberal Party accused them of being inconsistent. They may be, on this issue, a little bit. He pointed out why that's so. But let's talk about the Liberal Party inconsistencies. The Liberal leader in 1993 put forward a private member's bill that would have limited the teachers' right to strike. In a speech in 1993 Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the Liberal Party, argued that teachers' strikes often alienate children from the school system.

I'll quote from Mr McGuinty, the leader of the Liberal Party: "Apart from the days lost in school, I think it's important to understand that - I've been informed by a number of principals - some students simply do not return to school after a strike." He walked a picket line for two weeks, and Mr McGuinty said, "Stay out longer." Was he thinking about his own political fortunes at that point in time, or was he thinking about the kids? I'll let people at home decide that.

Let's also talk about consistency. Where are the Liberals on this? In all debates on 160 and 161, they've never said where they stood on 95% of the issues with regard to Bill 160. Why haven't they said? I'll tell you. On a TV interview, Mr McGuinty, the leader of the Liberal Party opposite - we want you to know him, by the way - said, "We don't have any specific policies right now." No wonder they won't give us a position; they don't have any policies.

After my defence of the third party, I want to say that there has been a ton of myths created around Bill 160. Many of those myths are still propagated today. The first person to come out and try to really dispel some of those myths, a third-party person, was in fact Dave Cooke the former NDP education minister. The member from the Liberal Party read several of his quotes. One of those was:

"It's not centralization; it's a definition of who's going to do what. There's going to be stronger school councils. There's going to be some decentralization to the school level. There's a clearer role of what school boards are going to do and there's a clearer role of what the Ministry of Education does, along with the College of Teachers and the accountability agency" - an independent agency set up by this government.

I think that's extremely relevant. The member opposite read the quote that the teachers' unions have opposed virtually every change in this system. One of their own, Herman van der Veen of Oshawa, a long-time member of the Canadian Auto Workers' Union, now retired, said that the protesters reminded him of both his union and the NDP. "It's always their way or the highway. I'm tired of these people telling me how to think."

So are a lot of other people out there. In fact, the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association, also concerned about all the myths around Bill 160, put out their own paper to dispel some these myths, all kinds of myths.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Sudbury.

Mr Maves: Let me quote from the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association: "The discussion around Bill 160 is accompanied by much misunderstanding or misrepresentation of its content and meaning."

It really needs to be told. Many other people in the press have caught on to these myths. Here was one

article that came out: "Myths and legends of Bill 160." Another one subsequent to that: "The truth about education reform. Exploding more of the myths and legends surrounding Ontario's Bill 160."

The Toronto Star even comes out with a December 3 story and says: "Myths still surround Bill 160."

We have to stop this misrepresentation.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am going to try to bring some statesman-like qualities to this debate. I have listened to all these partisan rants from everybody in the House. I want to indicate that I think there are a lot of people out there who, regardless of what their political affiliation happens to be, have a very strong interest in education.

I'd like to characterize what has happened as not the way the government characterizes it. The government, or the spokespersons for the government, would characterize it as a fight between the teachers of Ontario and the government of Ontario. In reality it is a fight between those who believe in a strong, vibrant, high-quality, publicly financed education system and those who do not.

I am sure there are people of all political affiliations who have a feeling that our education system requires the kind of solid support that the government of the day can provide on any occasion.

What happened was this government wanted to use Bill 160 to take money out of the education system. Already having removed $553 million from the education system, the government wasn't content. It's unfortunate because I know some of my friends on the government side had to go to public meetings where they were told to say. "This has nothing to do about money."

Then the Premier conceded, after the document revealing the terms of the deputy minister's contract was put out that said she had to remove $667 million more dollars from the education system - the government then shifted focus and said, "Yes, it is about taking money out of the system."

While a lot of people would like to see all of that money restored to the system, what they were particularly concerned about was that even more money was being taken out beyond what the government had already taken out of the system. They were looking for any savings that came from amalgamation or administrative cuts in terms of reduction of costs to be put back into the classroom in education. Unfortunately, the government saw it as an effort to remove more teachers from the system. You see, that's how you get the $667 million out of it.

The minister admitted himself that at least 7,500 teaching positions would be removed permanently from the education system. I know some of the members think you're going to bring more young people into the system. These are permanent positions leaving. My friend from Lanark will remember the press conference Mr Johnson had in the hallway the last day of the amendments, when the media asked him how many positions will be leaving the education system. He said 7,500 on that occasion. He said that publicly to members of the press gallery.

My concern is that we're seeing a drastic reduction in the number of front-line employees, those who deliver education services, in this province, and that we're having boards of education reduced to simply rubber stamps in the province when in fact I think local people have wanted to have the kind of impact and the kind of control that comes at the local level. I know that some of the members are embarrassed by this because traditionally the Conservative Party has believed in that kind of local control, which I think has been beneficial to education over the years.

The Acting Speaker: The leader of the third party, you have two minutes.

Mr Hampton: In response to some of the comments that have been made, it's interesting that the government tries to cast the debate as either you're for Bill 160 and you're for the government's agenda or you're in favour of the status quo. In other words, the government tries to say you're either in favour of taking $1.5 billion out of the system or you're not, you're either in favour of laying off between 5,000 and 10,000 teachers or you're not, or you're in favour of a centralized system or you're not, that there are no other options.

One of the reasons I brought forward this bill is to be able to emphasize that there are other options. It was a very good royal commission that produced this report, For the Love of Learning. They outline a number of other options that are unfortunately not part of Bill 160, not part of this government's direction. They outline the need for a greater investment in early childhood education and for junior kindergarten. Instead, what has this government done? It has eliminated early childhood education and has cut junior kindergarten.

It is a report that talks about the need to form a new partnership between parents and teachers. What has this government done? It has attacked teachers and it has ignored parents. It's a report that outlines the need to make new investments in adult education, outlines the need to equip us better. What has this government done? It has cut adult education.

That is why I brought this bill to the Legislature: to outline that Bill 160 must be repealed. There is a better alternative for education in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 3, standing in the name of Mr Phillips.

Mr Phillips has moved private member's resolution number 84. 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.

BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 2, standing in the name of Mr Hampton.

Mr Hampton has moved second reading of Bill 168,

An Act to Protect our Children's Education and Defend Local Democracy.

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.

The division bells rang from 1204 to 1209.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Phillips has moved private member's notice of motion number 84. All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Boushy, Dave

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 32; the nays are 52.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Hampton has moved second reading of Bill 168. All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Boushy, Dave

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 32; the nays are 54.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1216 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOM DAVIES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): It is with a great deal of sadness that I inform the House today that Ontario's longest-serving regional council chair, Tom Davies from the region of Sudbury, passed away this morning after a very courageous battle with cancer.

The people of our region mourn with Tom's wife, Sally, and their children, Craig, Ward, Gordie, Susie and Scott. Their grief is our grief. Their loss is our loss.

Tom dedicated his political life, which spanned over 30 years, to improving the viability of our region. His main thrusts were our region's survival and its growth. Tom's ability to remain focused and to keep his priorities in tune with the common man is part of the reason that Tom continually was reappointed as our regional chair.

One of Tom's priorities was the youth of our region. He believed that our youth should be able to come home, to return to meaningful jobs, and he devoted his energies to ensuring that happened.

We in the Sudbury region owe much to Tom Davies for his focus, his dedication, his energy and his commitment. Tom considered our region to be his family. As a family, today we mourn his passing.

PRIVATIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This government's orgy of privatization of valued public services is leading not only to chaos in communities across this province but, in the instance of its unmitigated commitment to the privatization of correctional services, is putting communities at risk. It proposes to privatize jails and correctional institutions across this province so that its corporate friends can make huge profits and so that the prospect of corrections and rehabilitation can be abandoned in the meantime.

I'm calling upon people across this province to write and call their MPPs with this message: "Don't jeopardize public safety for private profit. Warehousing hundreds of inmates in poorly staffed, privately run mega-jails threatens community safety." In this government's first experience of privatization, Camp Getaway up in Barrie, they left the keys in the van so the young offenders could drive away instead of having to jump a fence.

We know, as a result of the American experience, that private jails are no cheaper to operate. We also know that persons working in privatized jails and inmates serving time in privatized jails are at risk because of the laxer standards that privatized jails, motivated by profit, undergo. We say no to privatization of jails in Ontario.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): The last few weeks have seen the piles of rhetoric over our government's education reforms, Bill 160, growing higher by the day.

Critics of our reforms don't want the public to know that our reforms will mean teachers will spend more time with their secondary students, the same as the average time teachers across the country spend in their classrooms.

Much is made by the special interests about sweeping powers that Bill 160 allegedly gives to the Minister of Education. In reality, the education reform bill transfers existing powers from the Municipal Act and places them in the Education Act. These are powers that former education ministers have always had.

Perhaps this is the reason former Liberal education minister John Sweeney recognized these powers are nothing new. Perhaps it's because Bill 160 is the result of the recommendations of the Education Improvement Commission, chaired by former NDP Education Minister David Cooke.

Whatever the reason, members of the opposition must begin to be honest with the public. Education reforms have been needed in Ontario for years, as the leader of the Liberal opposition acknowledged when he introduced his bill to ban teacher strikes.

Those on the opposition benches must be straightforward about what's really in Bill 160, since there is perhaps only one thing Ontarians want more than reforms, and that's honesty.

COMMUNITY CARE

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health that more and more people are suffering because of cuts to hospital funding and to home care services.

I would like to quote from a letter I received yesterday from Angela Clark of Orléans, whose parents are 75 and 80 years of age. She wrote:

"My understanding was that this government was to do all possible to keep older persons cared for in their own home. Prior to my dad being admitted and released from hospital, my parents were receiving four hours of home care services a week."

On Tuesday, December 9, Mrs Clark was informed that as of December 22, three days before Christmas, her parents will be receiving only an hour and a half of home care per week: all this because of budget cuts. What a Christmas gift.

This government is cutting hospital funding, closing hospitals and sending people to be cared for at home at the same time Mike Harris is cutting funding for home care services. The Minister of Health should do what she said she would do: reinvest the savings from hospital closures in services such as home care. This situation must be addressed immediately in order to ensure that people like Angela's parents are cared for and families can get support from home care services as promised by your government.

HAMILTON COUNCIL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise to bring attention to a major

article in the Hamilton Spectator today which talks about and profiles the new members of our Hamilton city council. I want to add my congratulations to Dennis Haining in ward 3, Bill Kelly in ward 7, Duke O'Sullivan in ward 8, Ron Corsini in ward 2 and Andrea Horwath in ward 2. We've elected what I think is one of the best regional councils and city councils in recent history, and under the leadership of Mayor Bob Morrow and regional chairman Terry Cooke, I think we have a team that is ready to take on whatever this Tory government decides to throw at us.

Make no mistake about it: What you are doing to our communities is significant. Your downloading, for example, is going to put major pressure on property taxes and public services at a time when our constituents and citizens need them more than ever.

I would say to this government that this team of aldermen and regional councillors, along with myself and my colleague from Hamilton East, will continue to do everything we can to fight your mean-spirited, anti-community agenda at the same time as we point out the role of the apologists, in the name of Trevor Pettit and Lillian Ross, who just gave an example of that kind of apologist mentality in defending Bill 160, another piece of legislation that's going to hurt our community.

This is a team locally that's ready for whatever you decide to throw at them. No matter what you do to our community, we are going to survive and thrive, because Hamilton matters.

HICKS, MORLEY LAW FIRM

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): On Tuesday, the member for Sault Ste Marie, hiding behind parliamentary immunity, stood in his place and made allegations against a number of people who lack a voice in this chamber and therefore are unable to defend themselves.

Referring to the law firm Hicks, Morley, he said, "...under the Peterson and Rae governments, the firm was left out in the cold."

In fact, according to public accounts, Hicks, Morley has provided legal services to governments of all affiliations. Check the public accounts for Management Board Secretariat. In 1989-90 under the Liberals, $267,000 went to Hicks, Morley; in 1990-91, $252,000; in 1991-92, the first full fiscal year of the new NDP government, $420,000; in 1992-93, $158,000; in 1993-94, $264,000; in 1994-95, $76,000. That's an average of $230,000 per year under the NDP. The 1995-96 public accounts tabled by this government show a figure of $216,000, 6% lower than the NDP average.

But those figures just apply to Management Board. Under the NDP, other ministries used Hicks, Morley, even the Ministry of Education, where the member for Sault Ste Marie spent five years as parliamentary assistant. In 1990-91 it spent $55,000; in 1991-92 it spent $49,000. Even a current member of the Premier's office did work for the Ministry of the Solicitor General under the NDP.

I do not just suggest the member for Sault Ste Marie should do better research before speaking in this House; I think he should stand in his place, withdraw his remarks and apologize for casting groundless aspersions on people who are unable to defend themselves.

MALDEN PARK CONTINUING CARE CENTRE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Lately we have been asking the Minister of Health if the minister would consider rectifying the situation in Malden Park Continuing Care Centre where we have chronic care patients who require, and who continue to require, chronic care levels because that is the condition these people are in. The minister has so far refused.

We would like the minister to answer a very simple question. The government must fund $208 per bed for chronic care beds in Windsor. They will be funding these beds in Windsor, whether the bed is sitting in Malden Park centre or in a refurbished old wing of a hospital, at an additional cost of $25 million. If the minister is insistent on not answering that very simple question - why would you spend $25 million to refurbish for chronic care beds when you currently have a chronic care centre with chronic care patients and where you need to fund $208 per chronic care bed anyway?

Why would this government use that kind of logic to overspend capital, let alone the amount of money we are going to have to fund-raise to refurbish another unit for a chronic care centre? I would like that answered by the minister.

I would also like the minister to take all of this into consideration so that she will rescind this decision, because it's simply the right thing to do.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I want to inform the House today that this morning a provincial court justice of the peace fined the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources $1,200 for violating the Environmental Assessment Act in the Temagami area. It is my understanding that this is the first time in Ontario's history that an Ontario ministry has been fined for contravening environmental laws. On September 11 of this year, MNR pleaded guilty to violating

section 16 of the Environmental Assessment Act.

In October 1996, MNR permitted the construction of an access road to Cross Lake, a contravention of the Temagami comprehensive land use plan which the Tory cabinet approved in June 1996. Cross Lake forms an eastern extension of Lake Temagami and is home to a sensitive lake trout fishery that is threatened by motorized access created by the construction of the road.

This is yet another example of the Harris government running roughshod over the environment and taking the law into its own hands. It is a complete embarrassment, or it should be, that one government ministry has to charge another.

I am happy to see that the judge rejected the MOEE and MNR joint submission that MNR should not be punished for breaking the law. It's about time that this government stopped breaking the law and started protecting the environment instead of helping to destroy it.

BLOOD DONATION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Canada has a strong tradition of giving and helping those in need. One method whereby Canadians can continue to assist others is through blood donor clinics. Despite the current questions surrounding the Canadian blood supply, it is a vital part of our health care system.

During the winter's treacherous driving conditions, especially in my area of the province, Simcoe Centre, a well-stocked blood supply is an important aspect of community health.

Donating blood can become part of this season of giving. In Barrie there will be a number of clinics, including one on December 19, from 10 am to 2 pm, at the Army, Navy and Air Force Club on George Street. Members of my staff have volunteered to promote the clinic and assist in providing the restorative snacks and beverages.

A few minutes of your time can help ensure that this holiday season can be celebrated by everyone, even those unfortunate enough to need emergency transfusions.

I know that other members of my caucus have helped volunteer at blood donor clinics in their communities. I would like to urge all members of this Legislature and of the community at large to remember to donate the gift of life during this holiday season.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister of Finance going to be here? Does anyone know?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): House leader? Here is the House leader.

Mr Phillips: I'll stand down my question for a moment.

The Speaker: That's fine. Stand it down and we'll go to the second question.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Three days ago, Minister, I asked you a question about the career employment preparation program. You didn't seem to know a lot about it at that time, so I'd like to go over some of the facts again with you today.

In April, your government cancelled the Futures program and replaced it with your CEPP program. On October 10, earlier this year, you reduced the placement targets by 40%, from 94,000 placements to 50,000. You've cut the budget 17.5%, a total of $42 million.

I've heard from many of the youth employment agencies, who've told me that this program has not lived up to your government's expectations. Clearly, Minister, this program is failing. Go on the record today. Tell me how far below your reduced target your on-the-job training numbers are.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I can give the same response today that I gave earlier to the question, that the province of Ontario is investing about $180 million this year in terms of youth unemployment to assist young people. Indeed about 141,000 youths will be receiving training, job experience. I might say the $180 million is over double what the federal government spends in Ontario. The kind of problems that the government has encountered include the fact that the federal government has withdrawn some $2 billion from the province in terms of health, social services and education grants.

The member opposite, being a member of the Liberal Party, may wish to consult with anybody he knows within the federal government. If he happens to know any member of the federal government, he may wish to consult in terms of the federal level of funding. The provincial government has certainly invested a good deal of money, $180 million, and helped -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Caplan: Your response tells me that clearly you don't understand that there is a youth unemployment crisis in Ontario today. You don't even understand the programs that your own ministry has run to address this crisis. Let me tell you a little bit more about the problems with CEPP. You've never launched the program. You've never advertised the program to the youth of Ontario or to the employers of Ontario. You say you're spending more money than ever on youth employment. Youth employment agencies haven't seen any of this increased spending.

They see you spending $3.5 million on attack ads on teachers and school boards. What they don't see is any attempt by your ministry to promote its own programs.

What do you have to say, Minister, to your own agencies that are asking for your help? Will you tell the House today when you'll be launching this program so that youth employment agencies can begin to provide desperately needed jobs and training placements for the youth of Ontario?

Hon David Johnson: What I would say is that to the degree that there is any unemployment in Ontario, that's something we need to work on, whether the unemployment involves young people, whether the unemployment involves people of any age within Ontario. I'm pleased to say that at least in the province of Ontario there has been leadership to the degree that some 43,000 young people have found employment in new jobs in Ontario. This, I might say, is by far the vast majority across Canada.

Almost all the jobs for the youth have been created right here in Ontario and this government is committed to continuing the program, the reductions in taxes, the reductions in red tape, the encouragement to business expansions. Those are the best programs to encourage employment, not only in the young people but in all the citizens of Ontario.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Caplan: Minister, you can throw numbers around, you can pull them out of the air, but here are the real numbers: Youth unemployment in Ontario has grown from 15.5% to 17% over the same period last year to this year - Statistics Canada data. Your government cancelled the program and replaced it with CEPP because it was going to help the youth of Ontario. Your predecessor said that "unemployment among our youth is a very high priority for this government."

When will your ministry's actions live up to its words? You've reduced the targets for placements, almost cutting them in half. You've made it harder for young people to participate by eliminating everyone who is eligible for a federal program, by eliminating young people on social assistance from this program - they must go on Ontario Works - and ensuring that young people who are living and working even one day a week - if they lick envelopes one day of work, they can't apply for your program. Minister, can you at least try to help young people? Will you commit to promoting your own program? Will you commit to changing the guidelines so that more youth can participate in your program?

Hon David Johnson: One of the proposals put forward by this government through the Minister of Finance was that the federal government cut the employment insurance premiums to $2.20 for $100 of insurable earnings to eliminate the EI premiums for young Canadians, because, as we know, the people of Ontario pay more than their fair sh