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

October 6, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L241 - Mon 6 Oct 1997 / Lun 6 Oct 1997

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CASINO GAMBLING

WORLD TEACHERS' DAY

GUILD INN

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

RITSON PUBLIC SCHOOL

WORLD TEACHERS' DAY

EDUCATION REFORM

PORNOGRAPHY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

ONTARIO HYDRO

PROPERTY TAXATION

FINANCING OF CONSERVATION GROUPS

TOURISM

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

FIRE IN HAMILTON

PROVINCIAL COLLEGES / COLLÈGES PROVINCIAUX

EDUCATION FINANCING

CASINO GAMBLING

TRUCKING SAFETY

WINDSOR CASINO

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

COURT DECISION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

ABORTION

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TVONTARIO

TUITION FEES

TVONTARIO

RENT REGULATION

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

RENT REGULATION

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe that at the time you made a ruling with respect to members in the House wearing buttons that had messages on them, you said there would be occasions on which, with unanimous consent, members of the House could honour certain days or celebrations.

Yesterday of course was World Teachers' Day and the button I'm showing here is the button in celebration of World Teachers' Day, which talks about how public education works. I would like to ask unanimous consent for the members of the Legislature to be able to proudly wear this button in support of World Teachers' Day.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Beaches-Woodbine requests unanimous consent to wear the button for World Teachers Day. Agreed? I heard a no.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): On a point of privilege, Speaker: It's been brought to my attention that remarks I made in the House last Tuesday may have been misinterpreted. It's important for me to clarify the record. It was not my intention to indicate to the House that teachers in my riding are supportive of Bill 160 and I regret any confusion that may have been caused in this regard.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Due to the government's objection, I'll have to remove my button in commemoration of World Teachers' Day.

I stand today to give a statement of support by my leader Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus to the Coalition Against a Casino in Timmins.

The Coalition Against a Casino in Timmins is composed of a growing number of local clubs, associations, charities, churches, along with some representatives of local counselling services and concerned citizens. The main objective of the coalition is solely to stop the government's plan to open a seasonal casino in the community of Timmins. Many Timmins citizens are also expressing concerns about the social problems related to casino gambling activities.

"One person standing behind the coalition, who has been publicly opposed to a casino from day one, is Timmins Mayor Vic Power. `They certainly have my support,' said Power.... `There's nothing positive about a casino,' said Power. `There's the damage it does to the family, society and even our outlook on life.'"

With the support of the citizens of the municipality of Timmins, we add our voice to the coalition. In their words, "Our coalition intends to unite forces and take all the necessary actions to prevent the opening of any casino in the city with a heart of gold."

WORLD TEACHERS' DAY

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I can't tell you how shocked I am that the government members would refuse unanimous consent to wear a button in this House that celebrates World Teachers' Day.

I shouldn't be shocked, not after listening to the debate last week and hearing the comments from government backbenchers disparaging the work of teachers in this fine province, disparaging the quality of the education they're providing our children. This government has, from day one, decided to pick a fight with the teachers.

There are thousands and thousands of teachers who have gathered together and met in places like Ottawa and York region, today in Mississauga and in Toronto and in northern communities like Ogama and Iroquois Falls, tomorrow in many other places, Wednesday in Belleville -- tomorrow is Hamilton -- amazing numbers of teachers coming out because they are fighting to preserve the quality of education. They will accept nothing less and neither will we in the opposition.

Can this government commit to reinvest every single penny you save from restructuring school boards out there and shrinking the number of school boards, reinvest every penny into the classroom, into improving quality of education? We have asked the Minister of Education a number of times to make that commitment; he has refused.

The minister and the Premier continue to disparage the work of teachers in this province. That's backed up by your refusal to have a statement on World Teachers' Day and your refusal to celebrate the day by wearing the button. Shame, shame.

GUILD INN

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Scarborough city council has recently recommended that the Guild Inn be designated as a property of historical value and interest under the Ontario Heritage Act. I'm certain that I speak on behalf of my neighbours, the residents of Guildwood Village, and indeed on behalf of all residents of Scarborough in welcoming this move.

The main building on the property was constructed in 1914 as a country home for Colonel Harold C. Bickford, and in 1932 the property was acquired by the late Spencer and Rosa Clark, who established the Guild of All Arts, a haven for the promotion of arts and for housing artists during the years of the Great Depression. Among the crafts practised there were weaving, tooled leather, block printing, pewter, copper and woodworking.

During the Second World War the federal government took over the inn for the training of WRENS, and subsequently it was converted to a military hospital. With the end of the war, the Clarks resumed operation of the inn.

In the 1960s, the Clarks sold much of the huge estate, and the community of Guildwood Village was built on these lands.

Throughout the landscaped grounds of the property are architectural fragments salvaged from historic buildings demolished in Toronto, as well as the Osterhout cabin, the oldest existing building in Metropolitan Toronto. The property is a popular site for weddings, parties, art shows, community gatherings and casual walks.

Since our election in 1995, I've called for the guaranteed preservation of this great resource, and I believe that Scarborough council is to be commended for designating the Guild Inn as a historic property.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have received a letter from Mrs Lori Drouillard of Windsor, Ontario. On Friday, Lori was picking up her four-and-a-half-year-old daughter from her school bus. As she watched in horror, there were not two, not three, but five cars that passed the school bus when its lights were flashing. She took the licence plate numbers and called the police, who advised her there was nothing they could do.

I get calls on an almost daily basis in one or more of my offices from parents and teachers who are terrified that a careless driver will maim or kill an innocent child. They want to know why Mr Palladini refuses to pass vehicle liability.

Mrs Drouillard says, "The drivers of these vehicles must take responsibility for breaking the law." She goes on to say, "The law now only protects irresponsible drivers, not our children."

Colleen Marcuzzi has said the minister wants to do the political thing, not the right thing. Your job is to protect innocent children, not guilty drivers. Lives are at stake, Minister. Pass vehicle liability. Do it now, for the children.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On Sunday, October 19, at 1 pm there is a rally at Metro Square which everyone who cares about the future of public transportation in Metro should attend. The Toronto Transit Commission has been starved by the Mike Harris government and Metro council may deal with the problem by raising students' and seniors' fares by a whopping 50%.

TTC riders now pay almost 80% of the costs of running the system. That's more than riders anywhere else in North America. There is no way the TTC can survive and maintain quality service for people at affordable rates without assistance from the provincial government. But things are only going to get worse because, as part of the provincial downloading, the Harris government will be contributing 0.0%. If you are a TTC rider, this sure puts that tax cut in perspective, doesn't it?

I spent some time early Friday morning standing at a Danforth subway station with local councillors Jack Layton and Peter Tabuns, alerting people to the problem and asking them to sign a petition. Not surprisingly, with everything else going on, most people were unaware of the issue, but believe me, almost everyone signed without hesitation and expressed deep concern.

Please get involved. Tell Mike Harris to fund the TTC and tell Metro not to increase fares for seniors and students by 50%. The rally is sponsored by the Rocket Riders. They can be reached at 596-0500 for further information. Hope to see you all there.

RITSON PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I rise in the House today regarding the 75th anniversary of one of Oshawa's educational cornerstones, Ritson Public School. Since its first 350 students entered its doors in 1923, Ritson Public School has delivered quality education to its generations of students and holds a special place in the hearts of many of the former students, including such greats as Tata Mary, Tata Sylvia and my mother.

The school is named after a prominent Oshawa educator and citizen, John Ritson, who was the first teacher of a local area school built in 1812 and a Sunday school superintendent. His dedication and commitment to educating Oshawa's youth continues at the school which is his namesake.

The school has always sought to offer increased educational opportunities for its students. One such opportunity at Ritson Public School is a special program that has been a model for similar initiatives around the region of Durham. This program relates to the development, understanding and implementation of acceptable social skills. Programs such as computer-assisted learning technology are being piloted this year as the school adapts to the change in technology in education.

Ritson Public School has grown in its first 75 years and adapted well to the educational needs of Oshawa's youth. The community support and the dedicated faculty and staff of the school are committed to continuing the tradition of excellence in one of Oshawa's earliest schools. I'd like to congratulate Ritson Public School on its 75th year. The school's 75th anniversary celebrations will continue throughout the year, concluding in June.

WORLD TEACHERS' DAY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): It is no wonder that government members did not even want us wearing buttons in recognition of the fact that yesterday, October 5, was World Teachers' Day. Across the world, the invaluable contributions of teachers were being celebrated, but here in Ontario there was not a mood of celebration. We were all too caught up in the tension of the educational crisis this government has created.

Isn't it ironic that while the rest of the world focused on celebrating the achievements of teachers, our Minister of Education and our Premier escalated their war on teachers. Our Minister of Education has deliberately picked a fight by describing teachers as underworked and overpaid. Our Minister of Education is so determined to take $1 billion out of the system that he's willing to put non-teachers into the classroom to teach our students. We have a government in Ontario that has already taken $1 billion out of education and still wants $1 billion more, and a Premier who said last week that teachers in Ontario can't be trusted when it comes to delivering quality education.

Why do the minister and the Premier not want to talk about the fact that our grade 4 students came second on the international science and math tests, or that our grade 7 students scored above the international average in science? Where do they acknowledge that our teachers have made that kind of achievement possible, even in classes where their students have a wide range of abilities and even languages?

Is the Harris government so determined to prove the system is broken that they still will not celebrate the international award of excellence given to the Durham Board of Education or the national recognition for educational excellence given last week to Red Lake? We should be celebrating the achievement of our students and our teachers.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): As things continue to heat up around Bill 160, it becomes clear that the government's agenda is to try and persuade Ontarians that what they are up against is the force of the teacher union bosses, because anybody who is elected in any kind of labour association representing working people at any workplace is automatically labelled a union boss and therefore a legitimate special interest and therefore a legitimate enemy of this government.

The reality, as those of us who are parents see our children going back to school, is that Ontarians are seeing teachers not as a group being used and manipulated by union bosses but rather as individual citizens and neighbours and family members who care about their kids, and when Ontarians think about teachers individually, your whole argument falls apart.

I can tell you that just like under Bill 136, when all our communities, my own in Hamilton included, saw that the 136 debate wasn't just about those workers and those rights, that it was about our communities and the quality of our communities and the quality of life for our families, you will begin to see that you do not have the support you think you do. Ontarians will rally behind teachers because Bill 160 is about our communities, it's about our kids, it's about our families, and you're not going to pick a fight and destroy that.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Once again I have the honour to rise in this House on behalf of the White Ribbon Against Pornography campaign, WRAP for short. The week of October 19 to 26 has been declared WRAP Week across Canada. I have distributed the WRAP pamphlets and white ribbons to all members of this House and request that they consider wearing the ribbons starting Sunday, October 19, 1997.

The annual White Ribbon Campaign encourages all citizens to wear the white ribbon as an expression of their concern with the proliferation of pornography and its negative effects upon our communities and the men, women and children living in those communities.

Wearing the ribbon is not a solution but an important method of bringing awareness to this growing problem. It's a simple program with positive results: It educates the public regarding a multibillion-dollar business; it unites all citizens who are concerned; it increases the awareness of police, judiciary and community leaders; and it expresses standards of community tolerance.

I thank all the volunteers in the Catholic Women's League for their hard work in making this campaign possible across Ontario and Canada. I thank members of this Legislature for support of this very important initiative.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 148,

An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto.

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 8, 1997, this bill is ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, October 7, 1997, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Hon David Johnson: I move that pursuant to standing order 9(e)(i), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 12 midnight on Wednesday, October 8, 1997, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Hon David Johnson: I move that pursuant to standing order 9(e)(i), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 12 midnight on Thursday, October 9, 1997, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the three parties to make a statement in honour of World Teachers' Day.

The Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine is asking for unanimous consent for each of the three parties to make a statement on World Teachers' Day. Agreed? I heard a no.

It's time for oral questions. Official opposition: leader of the official opposition.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I have questions for the Minister of Education and I believe he's making his way in now.

The Speaker: I don't know where he is, actually. Stand it down? Your second question?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Unanimous consent that we give the Minister of Education prep time to get ready for his question.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education, who obviously now understands the need for prep time.

The Speaker: I'm going to go back to the official opposition for the first question. Can you reset the clock, please?

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Minister, there are going to be thousands and thousands of people tonight gathering in Maple Leaf Gardens. They're not going to be there to watch a hockey game and they're not there to attend a rock concert. They will be there to talk about Bill 160 and they will be there to talk about you.

Last week the committee considering Bill 160 received all kinds of letters, in fact hundreds and hundreds of letters, from parents who are very concerned about what's happening with your Bill 160. Furthermore, we now know that thousands and thousands of students have been walking out across the province in expression of their concerns about your Bill 160.

Although we are getting closer and closer with each passing day, a strike is not inevitable. You can do something about it. Just tell us, right here and now, that you're not going to cut one single additional penny from education.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I can assure the Leader of the Opposition of exactly what we've been saying for the last year, which is this: We will not have our students subjected to a general legislative grant program to fund education, which hasn't worked in the interests of students. We will not do that.

We will have a new funding system that's based on students' needs. We will work with experts in education, we are working with experts in education to identify those student needs. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we will fund every one of those student needs. We will make sure the students in the province of Ontario have the best education system in Canada. That's our intention. That's why this government has assumed the responsibility to fund education. That's our promise. That's our commitment. I intend to be held to account for it.

Mr McGuinty: The minister talks about what he's been saying for the last year and he still doesn't understand that's not good enough. We are still on the brink of a province-wide strike involving 126,000 teachers and 2.1 million students. What you've been saying to date is not working. We're still on a collision course. You've got to get that into your head and you've got to do something about it.

Here is another option for you. We know that it's over a year ago now that you, through secret focus groups and polling, were talking about getting rid of 10,000 Ontario teachers. That's been planted in the minds of our teachers for a long time now. Last week you said, "No, it may not be 10,000, probably closer to 5,000 teachers that we're going to have to let go."

Here is another option for you, Minister. Stand up right now, because I know you are genuinely interested in avoiding a strike, and tell us that we're not going to have one single teacher let go as a result of your Bill 160.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I don't share the Leader of the Opposition's view that we'll have a strike in the province of Ontario, an illegal strike. I don't think that will happen and I've said that all along. I believe in the honour and the professionalism of teachers and I know that they'll honour their obligation to their students and to their contractual obligations.

I know it's surprising to the Leader of the Opposition. He's the person who tabled legislation in this House that would eliminate the right to strike. We haven't gone down that path. We've honoured the right to strike for teachers.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): That's not true.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Fort William, you can't-

Mrs McLeod: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want the Leader of the Opposition to be assured that we have invited the Ontario Teachers' Federation to meet with us on four separate occasions to work out an early retirement plan that would help us invigorate the teaching profession, and make sure that those who wanted a graceful exit from teaching could do so, and so that, yes, the reductions in the number of secondary school teachers made necessary by asking secondary school teachers to have the average amount of time with their students as other teachers in Canada will be met through attrition.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: There are a few things we know for sure in all of this. First of all, we know that parents don't want a strike. Secondly, we know that students don't want a strike. If the minister took the time and genuinely expressed an interest in hearing from teachers, he would quickly discover that teachers don't want to strike.

On the other hand, we have a minister who has refused to promise here and now that he's not going to take any more money out of the education system and we've got a minister who has now refused to promise that this is not about laying off teachers. It seems the only person who really wants a strike -- a massive, full-scale, all-out education strike in Ontario -- is the Minister of Education himself, John Snobelen. He's the guy who's setting on this collision course.

Why are you so hell-bent on forcing a strike, Minister, and how is it that common sense in a government could possibly bring us right to the brink so that we're looking at 2.1 million students being put out of school?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can tell you, from sitting in this chamber day in and day out over the last few weeks and listening to the member for Fort William and the Leader of the Opposition raise again and again issues that simply are not based in fact, that the people who have the most interest in causing a labour disruption with teachers in the province of Ontario are our colleagues across the floor: the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fort William and the rest of your colleagues.

I can tell you, if you have an ounce of decency or concern about students in Ontario, you'll drop the empty rhetoric, you'll quit misrepresenting the position of the government and you will honestly represent what's in the best interests of our students.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, I would ask you to withdraw that last statement.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I withdraw it.

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

Mr McGuinty: The second question is for the same minister. That, from the minister whose Premier last week said, "We can't trust teachers to deliver quality education in Ontario." Talk about going into negotiations in a true and genuine spirit of conciliation. It's all there for us.

You have told us from the outside, Minister, that our teachers are overpaid and underworked. Your Premier tells us that they can't be trusted to deliver quality education.

It seems to me, and I may be a little bit old-fashioned in this regard, that our Minister of Education should be saying maybe three things: (1) we value teaching in Ontario; (2) we value our teachers; and (3) we have some basic inkling as to the kinds of challenges teachers have to contend with in classrooms in 1997 in Ontario. It seems to me that's the kind of stuff a Minister of Education ought to be saying. My question for you is, why don't you respect our teachers?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Of course, much of what the Leader of the Opposition has said in his

preamble is simply not based in fact. I know that the Leader of the Opposition knows I have stood in my place in this House on many occasions and said that the key piece of our education system, the thing we need to build on, is the expertise and the ability and the commitment of our teachers. I just said that earlier today.

As a matter of fact, I have so much faith in our teachers and I have so much understanding of them as being the most professional teachers in Canada, the best-qualified teachers in Canada, that I believe they can spend the same amount of time with their students in classrooms as their colleagues from other provinces. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has not that sort of faith in Ontario's teachers. We do.

Mr McGuinty: So now we have the great friend of teachers. I guess that explains the fact that we've got this wonderful development of the John Snobelen admiration society developing throughout the province. Teachers have been gathering by the thousands and uttering his name on a regular basis. They've met in Ottawa. They've met in Durham. They've met in London. They've met in Kitchener. They've met in Hamilton. They've met in Oshawa. They're meeting tonight here in Maple Leaf Gardens. I somehow just don't get the sense that they sense your deep respect for them, Minister.

Perhaps, though, there's an opportunity here. Tonight, after Maple Leaf Gardens, thousands and thousands of those loyal members of the John Snobelen admiration society will be gathering here at Queen's Park. Will you take the time to come out and say hello, with me, to your friends?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm pleased to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I am looking forward to meeting with the heads of teachers' unions later this week to talk about the substantive issues in Bill 160. I will not be there this evening.

I hope the Leader of the Opposition, if he has an opportunity to address people who are concerned about education, will represent the file fairly, that he'll suggest to people who are in attendance that it takes great courage to take on the real issues in education. It takes great courage to ask the tough questions -- courage not shown by your government when you were in power, courage not shown, with the greatest of respect, by the previous government, but courage now shown -- to ask the tough questions for the betterment of the students in Ontario, and that is what we are doing. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will fairly represent that.

Mr McGuinty: Let's talk about the kind of courage displayed by this government to date. They had the courage to cut back on junior kindergarten. They had the courage to cut back on adult education. They had the courage to cut back on special education. Now, that is the tremendously warm and encouraging kind of courage we need to hear in education in this province.

Let's go over this again from the beginning. You won't promise that you're not going to take any more money out of education, you won't promise that this bill is not an exercise to put thousands of teachers out of work, and now you're even refusing tonight to meet with teachers themselves.

Here is your last chance to avoid a strike. Teachers have told us it is second reading that's going to trigger the strike. What have you done? You've sped this process up. You've now closed the debate. A strike is now even closer, compliments of you and your government.

Let's stop debating this bill. Let's put the bill on ice. Stand up right now: "We're not going to go on with debate because we know we're too close to the brink and there is too much at stake. We're going to put it on ice." Would you just tell us that right now so we can all go home and relax a bit more?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me be very, very clear that I am interested in and believe it would be fruitful to have conversations with, to have a dialogue with, to discuss the relevant issues with the leaders of the teachers' unions, and I hope to do that later on this week.

I have a faith and a belief in teachers that they will honour their obligations to their students. I have always had that faith in our teachers, although the Leader of the Opposition does not. I will not do what you might do in the same circumstance, obviously from the record, and that is to sell out on our students, to sell out on their futures, to sell out on having the best education system in Canada, because that is the commitment of this minister and this government and it always will be.

The Speaker: New question, the third party.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. If the minister is really sincere in what he just said, then he should prevail upon the government House leader not to call a time allocation motion today and to postpone it until after he meets with the leaders of the teachers' federations.

Last year the minister, in commemoration of World Teachers' Day, said he was committed to changes to our education system that would enable teachers to work as effectively as possible, yet this year the minister is taking away the very tools that teachers need to meet the needs of their students. He has proposed cutting secondary school teachers' preparation time by 50% and he's ignoring the Education Improvement Commission's recommendations to reinvest all savings into education that might come from restructuring our schools.

Will the minister commit today to hold off on time allocation and make a public commitment that any money that is saved from restructuring our education system -- any and all money -- will be reinvested in the education of our students?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe the member for Algoma will know that we have a very public commitment to making sure we meet the needs of our students, of having the province of Ontario take accountability and responsibility for that funding finally and at long last.

I want to assure the member for Algoma, and I want to make this promise very clearly: We will not back away from the tough questions and the tough issues to get a better education system for our students and we will not pass the bill on to our students as your government did.

Mr Wildman: What the minister is saying is that he is going to make the students of today pay and they're going to pay through cuts to education.

Thousands of teachers will be rallying, as we all know, in Toronto and Mississauga, Iroquois Falls, Gogama and Espanola today. Tomorrow they are meeting in Dubreuilville, Hamilton and Wawa. Wednesday it's Belleville, Hornepayne, Victoria-Hailburton, Lindsay and Fenelon Falls.

The minister has indicated he won't meet with the teachers here this evening. We've heard reports that the minister is considering a commitment to reinvesting the $1 billion he plans to cut from education if the teachers give up their preparation time and pension funds. Is that why the minister won't meet tonight? Is the minister essentially saying that a reinvestment in the education of our students will become a bargaining chip to offer to teachers in return for them giving up their pensions and their prep time?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The whole premise of the legislation we have before the House today is to not have students be bargaining chips; to be able to guarantee quality instead of bargaining quality, which the member might be used to.

I know the member for Algoma to be a decent person and I am surprised that he would stand here today to talk about making students pay when his government handed them a $41,000 debt and diminished their future, a future we are trying desperately to restore for them. That's the reason we're doing this work and that's why we won't be satisfied with a mediocre education system. We'll have the best education system in Canada because that's what we owe our students.

Mr Wildman: That's exactly the problem. When it comes to the crunch, the minister can only confront. It's time that he cooled down and backed off. It's not just me or other members of this House who are saying this. This morning, 40 religious leaders from the Waterloo region sent a letter to the Premier saying:

"Massive cutbacks of teachers and other resources in our schools under the name of education reform is a misuse of language and upsetting to us. Our children's needs in maintaining the high quality of education provided by our teachers must not be the victims of such aggressive tactics" -- 40 interfaith leaders from the religious community in Waterloo.

These religious leaders believe that the minister is poisoning the atmosphere for real improvements to our education system by not committing clearly to reinvestment of all of the money and to true educational reform.

Will the minister make it clear now, to avoid a confrontation and to back off and cool things out and meet the demands at least of these religious leaders that you reinvest all of the money in the education of our students?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The member for Algoma may have difficulty in understanding what a zero-based budget is, but I'll go through this slowly one more time. A zero-based budget is one where you start with no assumptions about your past spending habits, which we know did not work. We know that your spending habits made second-class students of some of the young people in Ontario, and that was not acceptable.

We are going through the work now of building a funding system that will meet the individual needs of every student in Ontario. And yes, we intend to invest in those areas that matter to our students in the classrooms in Ontario, and we'll make sure that investment is at a level where every single student in the province has a high quality education. That's our commitment; that's our promise. It always has been, it always will be, and that's what we'll deliver.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Environment, who is supposed to be responsible for Ontario Hydro. The minister will know that the chief executive officer, Mr Farlinger, is appearing before the select committee on Hydro affairs this afternoon. I have a report here from the nuclear performance advisory group, which indicated that there were serious problems at Ontario Hydro in its nuclear division. This is dated April 17.

When you were asked if you'd seen the report, you said, "No, but it wouldn't have made any difference if I had, because I wouldn't have done anything about it, I wouldn't have taken any action." We're talking about nuclear safety and the safety of communities here.

My question for you is, how can you possibly be so dismissive of an interim report that bears a striking similarity to the final report in August that resulted in the resignation of the president of Hydro and the future shutdown of seven nuclear reactors? How can you be so dismissive of that report?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I welcome the opportunity to clarify my statement on television, which was about a 20-minute interview and there were about 10 seconds on the particular interview.

I replied to the questions with regard to this interim report in that I had not seen it. I had asked my staff what this report was about. This report was not new evidence. This was not new material. All of this material, or the great abundance of this material, had been produced in public before. It was not a surprise to anyone. As I understand it from the chairman of Hydro, and you may ask him this afternoon, it was nothing but a reiteration and a benchmark on which the safety committee was to go out and either verify or reject what had been found in the past. As a result of that, that was the reason for my response, that this was not new information which I might have received.

Mr Laughren: This story gets stranger and stranger by the day. Mr Farlinger, who headed up the advisory committee group, is the same person who, despite knowing this interim information, then went to the AECB and asked for a five-year licence for those nuclear reactors. How do you square that? Do you think Mr Farlinger was acting responsibly when he knew there were serious problems which were going to result in the shutdown of those seven reactors? Do you think he was acting responsibly when he then went to the AECB and asked for a five-year licence and even hinted that a 10-year licence would be better? Do you think that's acting responsibly?

Hon Mr Sterling: The member opposite will have an opportunity to ask Mr Farlinger that. I believe there's a response which you can give, but unfortunately I don't have the time in this House to respond because it's a very complex subject.

I would say that Mr Farlinger and I have been in constant communication not only during this period of investigation of the safety of our nuclear reactors but prior to that. I would remind the member opposite that it was Mr Farlinger and Ontario Hydro who took the initiative to engage these people to look at themselves and to examine their own safety. There was no statutory obligation; there was no obligation upon them to do it. So to allege now that there is a coverup by the very people who ordered the investigation I find somewhat strange.

Mr Laughren: That's interesting because I find you strange from time to time as well. I must say I'm puzzled by your role in this whole affair.

I'm wondering whether, first of all, you knew anything at all about that interim report back in April, and if you didn't know anything about it, how you feel today knowing that the people at Hydro who are supposed to report to you knew about that interim report, then went to the AECB and asked for a five-year licence, and then said, "No, it's so serious at Hydro that we have to shut down seven reactors and the president is going to resign." How in the world do you fit that with your role as the minister to whom Hydro bosses are supposed to report? How do you feel about that?

Hon Mr Sterling: As I said, the interim report was old news. It was news which not only was there in public written form but also was there and discussed in a public forum, and that was the AECB hearing which decided in December to give Pickering only a six-month licence. If there was ever anything that publicized the vulnerability of our nuclear program to the public, it was that particular licensing action.

In terms of all the chairmen we have had of Ontario Hydro, I would say the present chairman has been more open, more forthright and more resolved to deal with this problem than any other chair of Ontario Hydro before, and I applaud him in his efforts. He will be appearing in a public way in front of your select committee, the select committee of the Legislature, on these matters this afternoon and will be making all these documents -- he will be able to answer all those questions. I don't think we should be ashamed of the performance of Mr Farlinger and the nuclear performance team; I think we should laud it.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it has to do with Bill 160. We asked the Minister of Education this question last week, but he had frankly no idea what was in the bill.

Bill 160, the education bill, purports to give you, the cabinet, Mike Harris, unprecedented powers. The way we read the bill, the cabinet can set, without any debate, no public input, no opportunity for any debate on it, $6 billion worth of property taxes. You can simply sign a document and $6 billion of property taxes will then be raised. It seems to us extraordinary. It seems to us that's the sort of thing the public should be involved in. It seems to us that's the sort of thing we should be debating here in the Legislature. My question to the minister is this: Why does Mike Harris want to give himself the power to set $6 billion worth of property taxes?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, no rates will be set without consultation both with the public and in committee. Bill 160 will be going to committee. Bill 149 will be going to committee.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable members don't seem to like the committee process; they don't seem to want bills to go to committee.

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Eves: For example, I have made a commitment under Bill 149, and the honourable member knows this all too well. There were some 25 regulatory powers initially outlined in Bill 149 that could be set by regulation. I changed seven of those into amendments of the statute because I, like he, was concerned that the more that can be in statute, the better. I also tabled in this House about a week and a half ago another additional seven proposed regulations; they're all going to be in committee for members and members of the public to debate. I hope, quite frankly, to have more proposed regulations so they can be debated and considered by the committee and the public.

Mr Phillips: I said earlier that if Bob Rae had ever tried to pass this bill when he was the Premier, Mike Harris would have gone berserk, because this bill -- and the public should realize it -- allows the Premier to set a third of the property tax with the stroke of a pen. It is taxation without representation. It's a huge mistake. It should never have been allowed to get to this point in the Legislature. As I say, if Bob Rae were still the Premier, Mike Harris would be so red-faced that he wouldn't be able to talk. It's just wrong.

My question to you is this: Will you agree that it is a mistake and that you will agree now to change the bill so that you cannot set property taxes with the stroke of a pen, secretly in the cabinet room, and that there must be a public vote before you set property taxes?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member knows that these things are not done in secret, that they are done by regulation. He knows full well, for example, that there are 68 powers in the Retail Sales Tax Act that are done by regulation. His government did it when David Peterson was in power; their government did it when Bob Rae was in power. The provincial land tax has 11 such provisions.

However, I can tell you this: We will make sure that education taxes across this province are fair. We will freeze the rate on education taxes across this province. The exact rate, he knows quite fully because he has been briefed on this by the finance ministry, cannot be determined until later this fall when all the exact assessment information is in, but he can be assured of one thing: It makes sense for people to pay for a service like education that benefits us all at the same rate regardless of where we live. That is the fair and equitable thing to do. That's what we'll do. That's what your governments didn't have the courage to do.

FINANCING OF CONSERVATION GROUPS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Today we read in the press that Conservation Ontario, the umbrella group for Ontario's conservation authorities, is selling seats on its board. The first buyer is Dofasco, named last year by Environment Canada as one of the big polluters on the Great Lakes. You have cut conservation authorities by two thirds by now.

There is a limit -- you should know this -- to how much cutting you can do before you do exactly what's happening now: drive conservation groups and others to go further and further into the arms of corporate Canada. Does it bother you that a major group that is responsible for public lands is selling seats on its board to raise money?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): This is clearly within the purview of my cabinet colleague the Minister of Natural Resources, who is not here, and I would take the question on notice for him.

Ms Churley: Minister, you are responsible. You are the Minister of Environment, and this is about environmental protection. I would like you to tell me, as the environment minister, that no, you don't approve of this and that you will talk to the Minister of Natural Resources about at least your opinion.

I would say to you that there is nothing wrong with corporate donations. In fact, I would say that corporations should be paying more for the public benefits they receive. The problems come, as you should know, when conservation groups give up control, when groups are so desperate for money that they let corporations run them. I want to ask you now: Will you work with the Minister of Natural Resources and tell Conservation Ontario that you do not approve and ask them to reverse their decision?

Hon Mr Sterling: I have been given some information. I understand Conservation Ontario is seeking to gain support from a whole number of sectors, including the government. We are in a number of areas in the environment, in terms of the overall natural resources we have in this province, encouraging not only people on the street but our corporations and everyone to pitch in and do more than they have in the past.

I imagine that the Minister of Natural Resources, who is responsible for this area, would welcome all of those contributions towards keeping our provincial parks and conservation lands in the best possible condition they could be. We are not excluding anybody; we are including everybody in this endeavour.

TOURISM

Mr John L. Parker (York East): My question is for my good friend and colleague the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. I was very pleased to see in yesterday's paper that tourist spending in Toronto is expected to be nearly $5 billion this year. In fact, Kirk Shearer, president of Tourism Toronto, is quoted as saying that the number of visitors to Toronto this year is on track to exceed last year's total by over one million. This proves again that tourism is a very important sector in Toronto.

Minister, can you assure my constituents, many of whom are here this afternoon in the company of one of East York's many fine secondary school teachers, Mr Short, that you recognize tourism as an important contributor to the economy and tell them over the din of the opposition, if you can, what you are doing to promote and enhance tourism?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I am very happy to respond to the question from the member for East York. First of all, I agree very much with him that tourism is a very valuable contributor to our provincial economy in Ontario. In 1996, total employment in this sector was 413,000 people, a large number. Total tourist spending was $14 billion last year. That's up about 15% from the previous year.

The preliminary numbers for this year look extremely good and we're expecting very good numbers, which I am sure is very good news to all of us assembled here today. It is the quintessential small business. Tourism is small business. It is the fifth largest economic sector in Ontario.

I'd like to give some examples of the proactive work we are doing to show that Ontario is a top tourist destination. We have a tourist action plan. We have one-stop tourism reservation and information networks. We have a new tourism information signage program. We're celebrating Tourism Awareness Week annually. We support tourist-generating high-profile events by helping out at such events as the Molson Indy.

Interjections.

Mr Parker: I had a suspicion you were going to have difficulty getting that message out. Somehow, the opposition just doesn't like to hear good news.

I appreciate the value of the efforts you just described, but I recognize that the tourism industry is becoming very highly competitive and I believe we have to do everything we possibly can to stay ahead of the game. Minister, do we have any benchmarks or follow-up that enable us to measure these marketing efforts and prove how effective they actually are?

Hon Mr Saunderson: Our government believes in measurement and benchmarks, and so does our ministry. First of all, we noticed the Tourism Toronto announcement that it was expecting 23 million visitors by the end of this year. That's a very good benchmark. The hotel occupancy rate is up almost 4%, and the Kitchener-Waterloo Record reports that tourism spending in their area grew by 7.3% last year.

To keep these numbers growing, we're working very hard with the industry to develop a very aggressive five-year strategic marketing plan. We've reintroduced our domestic advertising campaign. Our TV ads campaigns have resulted in a 50% increase in North American calls to the 1-800-ONTARIO line.

Our marketing plan is supporting events such as the Ontario marketplace event which occurred last week in Waterloo, Ontario, and that is to promote Ontario to international tour operators. Two hundred foreign buyers attended that event, which goes to show dramatic interest in coming to Ontario. Tourism is on the rise.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Deputy Premier. My question concerns cuts you have made to the disabled community. Your promise in your revolution says very clearly that aid to the disabled will not be cut.

Today we spoke with families who are here from other parts of Ontario, whose children are disabled and need special services at home. Gary, aged 38, was born with brain damage. Karen, with cerebral palsy, wasn't expected to live 42 years. David, who is 23 years old, has spastic cerebral palsy.

Minister, their condition hasn't changed, but your support for these families has been cut. Could you explain why you are cutting aid to the disabled?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Speaking very specifically of the special services at home program, that program in fact has not been cut, as the member will know. Not only has it not been cut, but as of January of this year we added $5 million to that program. An additional $15 million will be going to the community to increase community services, and $5 million is going to the special services at home program to bring up the number of families it supports. This will bring the special services needs budget to approximately $42 million a year.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Just like your $40 million in child care. You didn't spend any of it.

Hon Mr Eves: I say to the honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine, who insists on interjecting here, that this is one program, quite frankly, where we continued on the support your government gave it. As a matter of fact, since 1990 the total percentage increase --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Eves: -- in the special services at home budget has gone up 131%, between 1990 and 1997, and this year alone this government is putting it up --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mrs Pupatello: I guess my question continues for the Deputy Premier. Allison Ouellette is here today. She's David's mom. Her son requires 24-hour care. You have cut her special services at home from 20 hours to 10 hours. Katie Walters is here. She and her husband, who is 71 years old, have had a 60% cut in their hours, from 12 hours to five hours. There is no evidence of any new funding, just announcements, no proof of any funding. Family after family comes to us from across Ontario, one disabled person after another having their aid cut. Minister, that would make your document a lie.

I ask you again, Deputy Premier, how can you rationalize announcements with no evidence of actual spending when we have proof here today in the House of families whose children are having their aid cut?

Hon Mr Eves: In fact there is evidence of actual spending, and the spending in this program, as I've just alluded to, has gone up 131% since 1990. It's going up 12%, an additional $5 million, this year alone. For example, in the fiscal year 1994-95, 10,488 families, to be exact, were served by this program. They received an average annual stipend of $2,700 a year. The past fiscal year just ended, 1995-96, 11,500 families, exactly, received assistance under this program, fully 1,000 families more, and the aid has gone from $2,700 a year to $3,100 a year.

With respect to her specific examples, I would be more than happy to take them under advisement and take them up with the Minister of Community and Social Services, but I can assure the honourable member that this program has not been cut; in fact it's been enlarged by this government.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. While you continue in this House to define the need for a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire by how many spin-doctored answers you can give to questions, your Premier seems to understand the law much better. The Premier yesterday said in Hamilton, "If the public feels it needs more answers, then we will look into an inquiry."

The law says, under the Public Inquiries Act,

section 2, if it is "a matter of public concern." This is not about how many answers you can give in the House, this is not about how many MPPs speak out, it's not about how many groups speak out, it's not about whether you personally think there are any unanswered questions; it's whether there is public concern.

In light of what the law says and your Premier said, Minister, will you today acknowledge that there is public concern and that you have an obligation to call that public inquiry?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I read the news

article this morning and I read of the Premier's concern. It is my concern that all the people of Hamilton get adequate answers. The Premier said he thought the people were getting adequate answers at this time, which is the position I have maintained consistently over the last month with regard to this.

I have said, however, to the member before, and I'll say it again, the city of Hamilton and the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth have the power to call their own inquiry. Those politicians seem to see that there's a need to look behind their particular processes, and I would ask him to urge his own local politicians to call an inquiry of their own if they see that is necessary.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you just don't seem to get it. You're not listening to anyone other than your own bureaucrats, who for some reason or other feel they have something to worry about if there's a public inquiry. The fact is, you're the Minister of Environment for the province of Ontario. There are other communities, like Oshawa, Ajax, Burlington, Halton, Niagara, Toronto, in addition to our own local councils, that have said they want this looked at from beginning to end to determine how the fire happened, how adequate the responses were, and whether we could improve your ministry's role as well as that of local communities, because they're worried about their own communities.

My question to you is, will you please stop putting the blinkers on and your fingers in your ears and listen to what people in the community are saying? They want the answers. They want the public inquiry. You have an obligation. Stand up. Take responsibility. Take what you have to take and call that public inquiry now.

Hon Mr Sterling: Last week, this member stood in the House and stated categorically that the city of Hamilton and the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth didn't have the authority under their legislation to call an inquiry. He found out after that he was wrong, dead wrong.

What am I to make of his protestations at this time? We have been doing, along with the fire marshal, a review of our regulations, of our legislation, to determine steps we can take. We believe that can be achieved outside of an inquiry. If the local governments feel that an inquiry is necessary, I invite them to have one.

As well, my ministry is expending its efforts and money on a $1.8-million cleanup of the Plastimet site. This fire was not caused by environmental issues. It was caused by someone who lit a fire in that area, and the fire code was not being followed.

PROVINCIAL COLLEGES / COLLÈGES PROVINCIAUX

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): My question today is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Because my riding has a great rural area, I realize the importance of education in matters of agriculture, and I'd like to direct my question to the minister.

I understand that you attended the inauguration of the new Sudbury campus for Collège Boréal during the weekend, and I wondered if you could agree whether this is an example of the government's strong commitment to education in the province of Ontario.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): To my colleague from Wentworth East, yes, I was very privileged to attend the official opening of Collège Boréal in Sudbury, the main campus and a number of satellite campuses that will be joined up with Collège Boréal, along with four of my colleagues from the Legislature here and two of my federal colleagues. And yes, it was a very, very impressive opening, a new way of teaching -- teaching via satellites and long distances in the north -- that really recognizes the needs of our students.

Le campus Boréal et ses satellites sont orientés à la fine pointe de la technologie et sans aucun doute montrent un exemple modèle pour plusieurs autres des collèges. Alors, il me fait plaisir de féliciter le président, M. Jean Watters, et tous ses collègues qui ont travaillé d'arrache-pied pour assurer la venue du Collège Boréal, un collège qui va desservir la francophonie du nord pour de nombreuses générations.

Mr Doyle: My supplementary question: I understand that the recently formed partnership between the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the University of Guelph has resulted in some impressive enrolment numbers at our agricultural colleges and at the University of Guelph. With the opposition of course constantly spreading doom and gloom, I wonder if you could share these positive numbers with the members of this House.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The enhanced partnerships with the agricultural colleges from across Ontario with the University of Guelph have been very, very positive and they will ensure a responsive delivery of essential research and laboratory and education programming.

I'm sure members of the opposition will be interested in this good news, and it is good news, because enrolment at Ridgetown, as an example, has reached its highest level, at 180 students, for first-year enrolment, when the average was 150. I want to tell you that when these students graduate, they do find employment in their chosen field, the agrifood sector, at 85%.

That is a success story. We're very proud of it. The enrolment at all our agricultural colleges is up this year and that just shows everyone the importance of the agrifood sector in this province.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Education. Last night I attended a town hall meeting in Dryden of well over 200 people, and many of those in attendance were awfully concerned about the dismantling of education in Ontario, particularly in Dryden. After listening to the crowd -- we had parents there, we had students there, we had trustees and teachers there -- I have heard that they are certainly not going to be silenced on the cuts that they are seeing in the town of Dryden to the education system.

As a matter of fact, one parent was actually brought to tears when she stood before that crowd and before us as a panel to talk about the erosion of special education services to her child. If you were on that panel, what would you tell that parent, again, who was brought to tears, about the lack of services that she has seen to a child who needs special education service in the town of Dryden?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want you to know that I have heard from parents across the province over the course of two years that, under the old funding system, the wrong services were reduced in education. There was too much money spent on bureaucracy, too much money spent on the political governance of our schools, and not enough money going to the kids who needed it, especially those students with special needs.

The member opposite knows that there has been no reduction in the special needs envelope and yet we have seen some examples where some of those services have deteriorated over the last four or five years. So we are getting rid of the general legislative grant system. We are building a funding model with special needs students entrenched in that model so that we can meet their needs and guarantee that we will meet those needs to parents like the one you have just mentioned.

Mr Miclash: Let me tell you, they are not believing that in Dryden. This morning, over 150 students walked out of Dryden High School to show their anger about the cuts. They are feeling those cuts at the high school level in Dryden, and you don't seem to get it. You just don't seem to get it.

I started off this term asking you to phone a teacher on the front line. You refused to call her. You don't want to listen to what is happening out there. You've created your crisis in education. The parents, the teachers, the trustees, they've all seen it. They feel that you've created that crisis. The students are walking out. The teachers are very, very frustrated. You must be hearing that. I hear that every day. I heard that last night from many, many teachers. We've got students outside right now who have probably walked, as the students in Dryden have walked this morning, to show that they are feeling these cuts.

You are not listening to the concerns of these people. They are now convinced that you have created your crisis, and now that you've created your crisis, they are asking me to ask you to step aside. Minister, will you resign?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let's talk about what has been created in education in Ontario. The Liberal government, the NDP, the previous government, were willing to allow our students to have a mediocre education, middle of the road, middle of pan-Canadian tests. It didn't offend you. It certainly offends this government.

You were willing to have a system of funding in education in the province where young people in Dryden and other parts of Ontario didn't have their needs met and parents were left not knowing whom to hold to account for that.

This government, step by step by step, is building a better education for those young people in Ontario. We're going to be able to stand here and say that the province is responsible for funding education and meeting the needs of those students. I'm proud of that and so are my colleagues.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. When your government first got elected, the city of Sault Ste Marie asked for the green light to go ahead with a full-fledged casino. It wasn't going to cost you a penny, but you told them you weren't going to allow any more casinos in the province until you had a province-wide referendum. Well, we have it on good authority that you're not going to do that.

As a matter of fact, I have a letter here from the mayor of Sault Ste Marie to the Premier, cc'd to yourself, asking for some clarification on that, referencing the mayor of Point Pelee, who has the same concern. Minister, given that you're not going to do a province-wide referendum, is Sault Ste Marie going to get a full-fledged casino, yes or no?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm pleased to respond to the question from the member for Sault Ste Marie. He has referred to the casino matter in Sault Ste Marie. He knows that I have spoken many times to the mayor of Sault Ste Marie and I have been in Sault Ste Marie. We have had many discussions about a casino for Sault Ste Marie. I told the mayor, as I think I've told the member before, that until we have a province-wide referendum we will not be establishing any more major casinos like the ones in Windsor, Niagara Falls or Rama. That is the situation.

We won't do it until we have this referendum, and I have said this time and time again. Until we have that referendum, we will not be proceeding with major casinos.

Mr Martin: Maybe you didn't hear me, Minister. We have it on good authority that you're not going to do this province-wide referendum.

Let me paint the picture for you here that's being presented out there. On one hand, you're going to force municipalities that don't want them to have these permanent charitable casinos, yet we have in this province municipalities that want full-fledged casinos so they can benefit from the economic activity that will be generated and you're saying you won't allow them to have them. They don't know any more what the process is. Is Sault Ste Marie going to get a casino or not?

Hon Mr Saunderson: Again I say that we'll have to wait until there is a province-wide referendum on a major casino. I might point out to the member for Sault Ste Marie that there are, as he knows, charitable gaming clubs which will be established in the province. They will take the place of the roving casinos, which have not been very charitable at all to charities. It's very possible that an area such as Sault Ste Marie can apply for and get a charitable gaming club. I know Windsor has that opportunity, as do any other centres that have major casinos at the present time.

It's very possible that a casino of a charitable gaming club nature could come to Sault Ste Marie. It's up to the area to approve it.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The minister will be aware that in 1989 a convoy of dump trucks surrounded this building in protest. As a result, the government of the day stopped enforcing axle weight limits on the aggregate industry. The minister will also know that this situation continued for seven years, until last year when the province again began enforcing the limits. Minister, what has been the result of the enforcement of this legislation?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the member for the question. Certainly since July 1996 the ministry lifted a moratorium, as we all know, and now the industry is complying with the axle weight enforcement.

We also began enforcing Bill 179, passed under the previous government, which places joint liability on the shipper and carrier for axle and gross vehicle weight compliance. As a result of these changes, 100% of the aggregate industry is now subject to axle weight enforcement. Since July 1996, 2,836 axle weight charges have been laid. The compliance rate has increased from an estimated 15% in 1995 to 40% in 1996-97. I'm very pleased that we are going in the right direction.

Mr Stewart: Although this certainly is an improvement over the present state of affairs, I'm sure everyone would want to see a compliance rate of 100%. What plans does the minister have to further improve this compliance rate with axle weight laws?

Hon Mr Palladini: I agree that when it comes to obeying weight laws, our goal should be higher, and 40% is definitely not enough. Not only would this have a safety benefit but it would also benefit our highways and roads. Right now, my ministry is looking at ways to improve compliance to our weight laws. One way is through box markings, a program developed with the industry. Testing has shown that such a program could increase compliance levels to over 80%. We are very close to making some sort of decision that will help us get to that over 80% compliance.

Certainly we will not stop until we get to 100%, because in the best interests of safety as well as protecting our roads, I believe there should be a compliance of 100% from the industry. I'm really happy to say that the industry is buying into this and we are working with ministry staff and industry in making a resolve.

WINDSOR CASINO

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question to the Deputy Premier in the absence of the Premier. The Deputy Premier will recall that in 1995 the Premier promised a 10% cut of the casino profits to the city of Windsor. The Deputy Premier was widely quoted in our community in June as saying that the government is still prepared to look at that. Is it the government's intention to proceed with that promise and, if so, when can we expect to see it proceeded with?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): If the honourable member wants to go back a little further, I believe he was in municipal politics at the time the travelling road show for Bill 8, with the member for Riverdale, then the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, came to Windsor. I, along with his colleague the member for Wilson Heights, was sitting on that committee.

I introduced an amendment, as he will know, and I'm sure he's checked the record, that would allow municipalities in the province to participate up to 10% from a casino located within their jurisdiction. The government of the day didn't think that was a very good idea and unfortunately voted that amendment down.

However, there have been ongoing discussions, as he knows, with the mayor of Windsor and the city of Windsor with respect to this matter. The mayor of Windsor has come forward to the government with several what I would call quite innovative proposals that perhaps would replace any commitment --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Eves: -- that he may see or anybody else may see of any casino profits going to municipalities. I am confident that the government will continue to look at his proposals and requests and that --

The Speaker: Thank you.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition concerns Bill 160 and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their students to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's educational system; and

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents, teachers want reinvestment in education rather than reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students," as is evidenced in the demonstration today, "parents and teachers won't back down;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further,

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and to be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, the parents or the teachers of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My petition is to the Minister of Environment and Energy and the Premier.

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins, as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry on the Hamilton Plastimet fire.

I proudly join my constituents by adding my name.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 12 people.

"Whereas the courts have ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Northwestern Hospital provides quality health care to the residents of northwest Toronto; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario and the board of Humber River Regional Hospital are planning to close Northwestern Hospital as early as November 1997; and

"Whereas adequate replacement services are not available and the care of all residents in northwest Metro will be in jeopardy; and

"Whereas there have already been cases of risk to patients due to the rush to close Northwestern this summer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to guarantee that no shutdown of services at Northwestern occurs until replacement services are available, and further to review the quality of health services which will be available to the whole northwest area."

I add my signature to this petition and note for the pleasure of the assembly that today we had all three emergencies in this area closed down, unavailable to patients, and one of them is set to close in less than a month.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a further petition, differently worded, but still calling for a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire.

"We, the undersigned, request the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy and Environment Canada jointly:

"(1) to conduct a full-scale public inquiry into the Hamilton Plastimet fire to determine the complete nature and extent of the pollution it has caused, the health effects on firefighters and others attending the fire, as well as residents in Hamilton and further afield; and

"(2) to ensure safe, speedy and complete cleanup of the fire site, plus residential and all other areas where chemicals from the fire have fallen out."

I continue to support these petitions.

ABORTION

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax does not recognize the uniqueness of the north; and

"Whereas Mike Harris should know that gas prices are higher in northern Ontario; and

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax is blatantly unfair to the north; and

"Whereas we have no voice for the north, fighting for northerners around the cabinet table;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to revoke the new tax imposed on the north and convince the Tory government to understand that northern Ontario residents do not want the new Mike Harris vehicle registration tax."

I have affixed my name to that petition as well.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospitals are underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population of over 200,000; and

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and cut desperately needed services; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged that additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Minister of Health to provide appropriate levels of health care funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west-end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

I join with hundreds of my fellow Windsorites in signing this petition.

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have yet a further petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario is owned by the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has opposed public support for maintaining TVO as a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster by putting TVO through a privatization review; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not confirmed that full public participation will be part of this privatization review;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold open and honest public consultation with the people of Ontario before making a decision on the future of TVOntario."

I've affixed my name to this petition as well.

TUITION FEES

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

"Whereas the Conservative government has cut funding to St Clair College; and

"Whereas these funding cuts have caused hardship on senior citizens by increasing the costs for their programs by more than 400%;

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

"To ensure that all college programs, be they educational or recreational, remain affordable and accessible to senior citizens."

I proudly affix my signature to this petition.

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have yet another petition, which is on the opposition to the privatization of TVOntario. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, oppose any plans to privatize TVOntario and strongly support TVO's proposal to convert the agency to a not-for-profit corporation. We, the undersigned, strongly urge the government of Ontario to ensure continued access by Wahsa and Wawatay radio to TVO's distribution system. The privatization of TVOntario would jeopardize the excellent educational and information programming provided by TVOntario. The sale of TVO to commercial interests would also jeopardize Wawatay radio network's native language programming, and Wahsa's distance education services, because both depend on TVO's distribution system."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

RENT REGULATION

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

"We, the undersigned concerned citizens of Ontario, Canada, oppose the proposed amendments to the Human Rights Code contained in

section 200 of Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act.

"Section 200, which allows landlords to use income information to disqualify prospective tenants, will have a devastating impact on single mothers, the disabled, refugees, seniors and people receiving social assistance, among others. It will severely reduce the housing options for low-income individuals and families, increasing the number of households that are forced into homelessness or into overpriced accommodation.

"If

section 200 of Bill 96 is not amended, the government of Ontario will be authorizing discrimination against people with low incomes.

"Thus we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the words `income information' be deleted from sections 36 and 200 of Bill 96."

Having presented an amendment to this effect to the bill, I am proud to affix my signature to this petition.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas many questions concerning the events preceding, during and after the fatal shooting of Anthony Dudley George on September 6, 1995, at Ipperwash Provincial Park have not been answered; and

"Whereas the influence and communications of Lambton MPP Marcel Beaubien with the government have been verified through transcripts presented in the Legislature; and

"Whereas the trust of the portfolio of native affairs held by Attorney General Charles Harnick is compromised by his continual refusal for a full public inquiry into the events at Ipperwash;

"We, the undersigned, request that a full public inquiry be held into the events surrounding the fatal shooting of Dudley George on September 6, 1995, to eliminate all misconceptions held by and about the government."

I affix my signature to that.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario against fingerprinting on the part of Mike Harris. It reads:

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, has proposed the fingerprinting of all Ontario citizens; and

"Whereas fingerprinting Ontarians was never promised in the Common Sense Revolution or in his election campaign; and

"Whereas universal fingerprinting of Ontario citizens is a direct violation of basic civil rights and fundamental rights of privacy; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is intervening and intruding into all aspects of daily life, from megacities, user fees, rent controls and market value taxes, which he never promised in the election campaign;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to oppose Mike Harris's plan to fingerprint Ontario citizens, and to respect their privacy and to stop creating a mega-government that does not respect the basic freedom and individuality of the citizens of Ontario."

I've attached my name to that petition as well.

RENT REGULATION

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the protections of the Rent Control Act; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to allow a landlord to charge a tenant who moves into an apartment whatever the landlord can get away with; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to raise the limit of how high rents can increase for all tenants; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to make it easier to demolish or convert existing affordable rental housing; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the rent freeze which has been successful in forcing some landlords to repair their buildings;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the existing rent laws which provide true protection for tenants in place."

I affix my signature to this petition.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, has proposed the fingerprinting of all Ontario citizens; and

"Whereas fingerprinting Ontarians was never promised in the Common Sense Revolution or in his election campaign; and

"Whereas universal fingerprinting of Ontario citizens is a direct violation of basic civil rights and fundamental rights of privacy; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is intervening into all aspects of daily life, from megacities, user fees, rent controls and market value taxes, which he never promised in the election campaign;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to oppose Mike Harris's plan to fingerprint Ontario citizens, and to respect their privacy and to stop creating a mega-government that does not respect the basic freedom and individuality of the citizens of Ontario."

I affix my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 160,

An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size, when Bill 160 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice;

That the committee shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill for eight days during the next recess;

That all proposed amendments shall be tabled with the clerk of the committee by 5 pm on the seventh calendar day following the final day of consideration referred to in the previous paragraph;

That the committee shall further be authorized to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill after routine proceedings until 6 pm, and from 7 pm to 9:30 pm, on the first regularly scheduled meeting day of the committee following the tabling of the proposed amendments;

That the committee shall further be authorized to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill after routine proceedings on the second regularly scheduled meeting day of the committee following the tabling of the proposed amendments; and that the committee shall be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on that day until the completion of clause-by-clause consideration;

At 5 pm on that second day of clause-by-clause consideration, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a);

That the committee shall report the bill to the House on the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That, upon receiving the report of the standing committee on administration of justice, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That one sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:45 pm or 9:15 pm as the case may be on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

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

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 5 minutes.

Mr Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Middlesex, Mr Smith; the member for St Catharines-Brock, Mr Froese; and the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, Mr Hastings.

This bill, which speaks to the quality of education in Ontario, is undoubtedly one of the more important pieces of legislation that will be considered by this House this year, perhaps during the term of this particular government. The desire of the government is to follow up on the consultations and the work of the ministry, and of the second reading debate that we've had in this House, some three days of second reading debate that have occurred, and now to take that consultation, that debate and the ministry work over quite a long period of time and send the bill to the committee to have public hearings.

That would take place during the recess period of this House so that the bill could be considered by the committee and the public will have an opportunity to speak to it, and the results of those public hearings will, of course, generate amendments. I'm sure there will be amendments to this bill, as there are to all bills. No matter which government is in place, there are always ways to improve the legislation. Those amendments go through the clause-by-clause and come back to this House for consideration later this fall.

I will say that some of the issues that have arisen and are being considered through this legislation are also the topic of a report I have in my hand from the Education Improvement Commission. The Education Improvement Commission, a committee of seven members, seven citizens of Ontario, was appointed some time ago to look at the state of education in the province and make certain recommendations. In August of this year, they came forward with a report and made a number of recommendations.

Of the two co-chairs of the Education Improvement Commission, one was a respected long-term member of this Legislature and a former Minister of Education under the NDP government, Mr Dave Cooke; and the other was Ann Vanstone, who has served as the chair of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, again a person who has a great deal of respect in education circles in the province. They were supported by five other commissioners, people with abilities and talents in their own right, and together this group came forward with a number of recommendations.

Some of the issues they spoke to which are of concern to this government deal with, for example, the length of the school year. In many other jurisdictions, the Education Improvement Commission noted that the school year was longer than in Ontario. In Ontario the school year is apparently 185 days long, according to the commission,

whereas in for example England, just to pick another country, 192 days; in Italy, 204 days; in Switzerland, 207 days. It is of concern to the Education Improvement Commission that we are not allocating enough days in the calendar year for the students. Perhaps there are some reasons for that, but the commission felt that situation should be addressed.

The commission made note of some of the factors involving the amount of time that is available for students in the classroom through the year. One of those considerations, for example, concerns professional activity days. I think we would all say that a certain number of professional days are necessary. Some of the days concern professional development for the staff themselves. The teachers need a certain amount of time to perhaps upgrade themselves, that sort of thing.

Other days are associated with parent-teacher conferences, and certainly teachers need to have time to get together with parents to discuss items. However, there are about 10 PA days, I guess is their term today, and the commission felt that the days should be set to five rather than 10, that five would be sufficient to perform that level of activity.

Another area concerned the number of examination days. Apparently in the secondary school level today there are some 15 examination days that are set aside,

whereas the commission felt there should be a maximum of 10 days. Again, this is time that should be spent with the students.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): You are debating the bill. You are not telling us why we should be on a time allocation motion.

Hon David Johnson: I think my colleague opposite, the House leader for the third party, would say the students should have that time and bring up those 185 days they have available to learn.

The topic of preparation time was certainly researched by the commission, and the commission did some comparison, in terms of preparation time, with what is available in other jurisdictions. The fact is, at the secondary school level the commission has reported that teachers spend about 3.75 hours per day in the class,

whereas in other jurisdictions, according to the report, the amount of time spent in the classroom is longer: in Manitoba, for example, almost five hours; in New Brunswick, four and a half hours. In all the other provinces at the secondary school level, the teachers spend four hours or more in the classroom per day,

whereas in Ontario the amount of time spent by the secondary school teachers averages about 3.75 hours.

The commission, in terms of recommendations in and around that area, has suggested that the preparation time at the secondary level be reduced by at least 25%. That's the recommendation of the Education Improvement Commission, that the preparation time at the secondary level be reduced by some 25%. They felt that the preparation time at the elementary school level was appropriate and that a reduction of some 25% would bring the secondary time to about what the elementary school time is and would still leave plenty of preparation time. I gather that is the recommendation from the Education Improvement Commission.

All of this adds up to a concern for the amount of time that is available to our students. We know we have excellent teachers and we know we have bright students and we know we've been spending a lot of money in the system, yet the results we are achieving on tests are not what we would hope for as parents and as residents of the province. I have the results of an international mathematics and science --

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): For our grade 4 students?

Hon David Johnson: Grade 8 students. The Ontario students scored under 55% in mathematics, in science scored about 57%. When I look at Canada in general, the students in Canada in general scored about 60% on both tests, which is higher than the Ontario level. In Alberta the students scored above 60% in both and in British Columbia almost 65% in science. This is of concern. When we see results like this, it's only natural for parents to have concern, for residents of the province to have concerns.

We have excellent teachers, we have bright students, and we spend a lot of money. Why are we not getting the results we should be achieving? If you take the report of the Education Improvement Commission, they would say that maybe the classes should be limited, that class size may be too large. Certainly this government feels the class sizes should not be allowed to get any larger. The amount of time available to the students is not what it should be. In other countries there are more days.

Because of the system, the amount of time that teachers are able to spend in the classroom is certainly less than in all the other provinces, at the secondary school level in particular, less time than teachers are able to spend in provinces such as Quebec or Alberta or British Columbia. These are issues that need to be dealt with.

Then there is of course the general matter of funding the system. We had a few comments earlier this afternoon in question period about funding of the system. My experience over a number of years at the municipal level is that if there's one tax people are concerned about, it's the property tax, and it's the education component on that property tax.

I have, as I'm sure all of us in this House have, been out knocking on doors and talking to constituents over many years, and when people say they're concerned about the tax and ask why the tax is still going up, nine times out of 10 they're talking about the property tax and nine times out of 10 it's the education component of the property tax that people are concerned about.

I remember that years ago -- it seems like years ago, anyway. I guess it was about five years ago --

Mr Wildman: It's a good investment. One of those students might give you a heart transplant.

Hon David Johnson: It's a good investment if we're getting value. I say to the House leader for the third party that we're spending a lot of money, one of the highest in spending. Other than the province of Quebec, we spend more money per pupil on education than any --

Mr Wildman: That's not correct.

Hon David Johnson: It certainly is correct.

Mr Wildman: Per pupil we're 49th in North America.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for Algoma.

Hon David Johnson: I'd say to the House leader, include all the costs and you will see that except for a minor difference between us and Quebec -- we spend a lot of money, we have excellent teachers, we have bright students, yet we're not scoring as well as we should.

If the taxpayers I'm talking to who are concerned about the huge amount of money on their property tax -- and they have every right to be concerned -- felt that we were scoring high on these tests and that our students were getting value, I think they would be more inclined to say: "Yes, I realize I'm spending a lot of money but I'm getting value for it. Our students are really doing well and we should be satisfied with that." But unfortunately, we are not scoring in the highest ranks on these tests and as a result there is concern by the taxpayers.

Year after year I've encountered this. I remember years ago we did town hall meetings -- I believe they still do them in East York -- around budget time. What you would find was that there would always be somebody there to speak to the local municipal budget, there would always be somebody there to speak to the regional budget, which in this case is Metropolitan Toronto, and there would always be somebody to speak to the school board budget. Well, 90% of the questions would go to the school board representative; 90% of the questions on taxes --

Mr Wildman: That's why we need more school boards.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Algoma.

Hon David Johnson: -- would go to the school board representative, because that's where people were concerned about the level of spending and not getting the best value for their dollar.

With the results of this Education Improvement Commission report, with Bill 160, with working with those involved in the education system, we will have a system where there will be still an immense amount of investment into and immense spending in the school system, but we will find that the students will have more time, we will find that our excellent teachers have more time with the students; we will find as a result that our students will have a better environment in which to learn, and they will learn more and do better on these tests and receive a better quality of education.

That's what the bottom line in this whole issue is about: to have a better system of education so that our students, our future in the province of Ontario, will have that opportunity to have the best possible education for the value and for the money the taxpayers are putting forward.

With those comments, having gone over my time already, I will sit down and allow the member for Middlesex to take over.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure to speak on the time allocation motion today and lend my support for the motion that's been moved by the government House leader.

I would echo his comments and agree fully with him that this piece of legislation is obviously very important, and certainly the details and components of it cannot be taken lightly in terms of the reforms the government is anticipating with respect to education in this province.

I think what the motion allows us to do is take this bill to the next stage, the committee stage, where public hearings can be conducted and consultations can be held with respect to the merits of the bill, as well as the opportunity to consider possible amendments or changes that may be necessary to the legislation in terms of the feedback we receive or in terms of the feedback the minister receives from representatives of teachers' federations during his discussions with them this week.

As parliamentary assistant, I've had the opportunity to share in many of the discussions that have taken place and experience the comments and concerns and debate that have been presented by a number of members in this Legislature from various points of view. It's obviously a very passionate issue for many people in this Legislature. It's one that either brings us together or polarizes us, depending on the position you might hold with respect to the legislation itself.

Although I don't want to misrepresent the comments that were presented by the member for Dovercourt and the member for Renfrew North, both of whom are former ministers of education, I would say at the outset it was very clear that they both expressed concern in opposition to the bill, but I think as part of their debate they both recognized in a very articulate fashion the need for change in the education system in this province. Certainly, that's an important position for them to recognize as former ministers of the crown who held responsibility in a very important portfolio such as the Ministry of Education.

I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition today who requested the Minister of Education to put this bill on ice. I don't think that's the responsible action to deal with education in this province and one that I was glad to hear the minister reject in terms of his intention to deal with the changes that must occur.

We've had interesting debate in this House. It has ranged from various extremes, both emotional and very concise, in terms of some of the points of view various members have brought to the forefront in their capacities as members of the Legislature or as members who have had previous experience either as teaching professionals in this province or alternatively as trustees representing various boards of education. Certainly, they brought that experience to the forefront with respect to this legislation. I think that is valuable in terms of the input that is required to move ahead into the future.

I think one of the most important aspects that many have agreed upon is the extent to which this particular issue has been reviewed and studied in this province. We certainly see that since 1950 we've had some 24 separate reviews, two royal commissions, 10 additional commissions and two fact-finding reports in that period of time. I'm not questioning the merits or the motivation of why those reports were done. I trust that the governments of the day did so with the objective of bringing education reforms to this province and I think that provides us with a basis from which we can move forward into the future.

Those studies serve as a very good piece of background in terms of what we need to do in the future and where we've been with respect to education in this province.

For those who suggest that education hasn't been reviewed, studied and debated, I would simply say that's not quite accurate in terms of the practice that has been experienced here. As many have seen, governments before us have placed the same importance on education reform, the difference being that the government of the day is prepared to move ahead and act responsibly in terms of bringing those changes to fruition.

The whole issue of education finance, curriculum and quality initiatives I think cannot be looked at in isolation of this particular bill. Too often it's very easy to separate the two issues and try to distinguish between them, but I think they go hand in hand. I would certainly commend the minister's efforts in terms of trying to marry and bring along the quality initiatives at the same time as dealing with some of the tough issues centring around school board governance and the method by which education is financed in this province.

The Education Quality Improvement Act is not about money, and I would emphasize that, or necessarily reinvestments or a showdown with teachers. It's simply not about that. It's about improving the quality of education in this province, and I think that is an important premise for us to move ahead into the future.

As we indicated at the outset and as was talked about during the debate on this particular legislation, the government of Ontario fully recognizes that there will be some transitional issues that will be difficult to deal with. That is why the Minister of Education froze education spending at approximately $14 billion. That funding model will be implemented in September 1998, and during that transition period we have recognized the need to provide a stabilized funding environment. That, as well, has been complemented by a capital construction program of some $650 million.

Too often, it's not easily identifiable what a $650-million investment means, but on a localized basis that essentially equates to about 30,000 pupil places in this province. That's a fairly significant undertaking and one that is important in terms of the capital renewal that is necessary with respect to our schools in this province.

We budgeted in the spring budget $250 million in terms of our share of a proposed early retirement package with teachers in this province. We've seen an additional contribution of $100 million to OSAP, an additional $150 million to the Ontario student opportunity trust fund. So all aspects of the education portfolio are being dealt with, in my opinion, in a very positive way. I recognize the next phase of change is going to be difficult and one that requires some careful management.

In a nutshell, the key component to this is the funding aspect. I recognize that. We certainly know that problems existed with respect to how school boards were financed in the past, that there is inequity in the school system in terms of how different jurisdictions finance the services that students realize in this province.

I often remark, as I travel about the province, my observations: whether they're in a small rural board, a separate board, a public board, the challenges they face in terms of any equity of new opportunities to be realized in the school environment; versus those communities where there's greater access to a more vibrant assessment base; versus those communities that have a very strong assessment base which enables them to provide a higher level of service to students in those particular communities. Those are the issues we see and the issues that are very important and critical in terms of the new funding direction that would be anticipated in the fall of 1998.

From the outset we have heard teachers speak about their concerns. We heard their concerns about the changes to the secondary school year, the implementation date, their position on curriculum, their position on destreaming and streaming. Those are things we've responded to by taking a step back and realizing that we have to take a little bit longer to implement those changes. We continue to work, in my opinion, in a very positive fashion in terms of bringing forth a new curriculum for secondary schools in this province, and we continue to work on a new curriculum for the elementary panel with respect to the remaining subject areas of science, technology, history and geography.

Those are the quality initiatives that, as I said earlier, can't be looked at in isolation of some of the major initiatives that are currently taking place with respect to the manner in which schools are operated and funded.

We heard from teachers as well, and I in my own office, the position articulated by principals and vice-principals on the elementary panel that they need not be pulled out of the federation to contribute to the quality agenda, that they were front-line leaders in terms of their school environment and had the ability and wherewithal and professionalism to deal with that. That's a position I fully accept and one the government recognized. We heard the position of federations that we need not remove the right to strike or eliminate the choice of affiliation with respect to teachers and their choice of federation. We heard and responded to that.

Now we're moving to the next stage of this legislation in Bill 160. All sides, whether it's teachers, government, opposition, can learn from this experience, and the experience I have had is that there's a need for more information. The committee process will allow us to gain additional information. Certainly the teachers I've talked to have some legitimate concerns. They also have concerns that are not really founded in any of the contents of Bill 160, and that's the exchange of information that needs to occur as we move into the next stage of debate on this bill.

We've seen that the system is rather arbitrary, to some extent unfair, and certainly by design it's not achieving the results we want. That's not an attack on teachers. It's a recognition that the system itself needs some changes. I must say that became very apparent to me as I had the opportunity to represent the minister among his other provincial colleagues at a recent conference where we had the opportunity to share different ideas and experiences. I must say that Ontario, while there are many opportunities for change, certainly is behind other major jurisdictions.

When I look to Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, each provincial jurisdiction is actually in the next phase of its education reform agenda. It's my firm belief that Ontario should be the leader of that reform agenda and not in the position it is in today.

The government has very clearly said that the time has now come to act, that changes must occur, that whether you live in Ottawa, Thunder Bay or London, Ontario, the opportunities presented to you within the education system must be the same. This bill is in part about that; it's about setting the framework and, yes, the regulatory powers for ministers to deal with specific issues, be it prep time, length of school year or the method by which the system is to be financed.

Those items are in the bill, I recognize that, but by and large this bill provides a framework that needs further discussion, that needs further input, and I fully suspect we will receive that over the course of the committee hearings in this province in the next month or so.

I recognize that my colleagues also would like to make some comments this afternoon concerning the motion itself and, with that, would conclude by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to briefly address some of these comments and reiterate the government's commitment to bring a fair funding system to all students in this province, to provide for a leaner governance structure with respect to school boards in this province and to provide, wherever possible, the needed resources required to complete the classroom experience both for the pupil and for the teaching professional in that place.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I'm pleased to rise to speak on the time allocation motion with respect to Bill 160,

An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size. As we brought forward this bill, in the time leading up to it and now, we're seeing that there's a lot of misinformation going around the province. I would like to give one example of that.

I have an

article here that was in the Ottawa Sun. It's an editorial, actually. It's called "Wool." I'm just going to take excerpts from that document:

"Are union executives pulling the wool over the eyes of their...teachers in their desperate pursuit of the illegal strike which currently looms over the horizon?

"Indeed they are, sir -- and more than three bags full.

"In a document sent out to teachers across the province -- the one titled Tory Teacher Legislation -- the Ontario Teachers' Federation pulled the following on its rank and file.

"It told teachers that `it is the intent of the government to cut elementary teachers' preparation time in half,' with the result of less time for pupil-parent consultation, less time for curriculum development, loss of teaching positions upwards of 10,000."

This is totally false. That's not what the bill does. It goes on to say, "The Ontario Teachers' Federation told teachers that `the government has proposed a 1% rollback and the reduction in benefit coverage by 10%,' with the result that the teachers will `lose (upwards) to $600 a year,' plus money in benefit premiums which will now have to be paid by them." Totally incorrect.

It goes on to explain what the union executives are telling the teachers across the province. It's totally incorrect. It's not true at all. So there's a lot of misinformation out there.

I'd like to bring us back to June 1995 and the campaign --

Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the speakers have been quite rigorous about challenging the use of the term "not true," and I think the member just used that term.

The Deputy Speaker: I didn't hear it, so it's very difficult for me to rule on it. Did you say anything you feel was out of order?

Mr Froese: I was referring to an

article in the paper.

The Deputy Speaker: Do you feel you've said something which was contrary to procedures?

Mr Froese: To go back to June 1995 and the election campaign that led up to the election, if we look at what our government said in its party platform, we see that our government is doing what it said it would do.

I'd just like to quote some of the things that were written in the Common Sense Revolution. Under "Reform Education" it says, "For years now, we have been spending more and more on education, but getting less and less in the classroom." Down a little farther on the page it says, "We believe Ontario's education system is in need of system-wide reform, based on the principles of providing opportunity to students, excellence in curriculum and teachers, and accountability to parents and taxpayers."

We talked about setting goals or setting priorities: "A large part of the problem is how little of our education investment actually reaches the classroom. Under this plan we will move to a system of `classroom-based budgeting.'

"A greater share of our education spending must go to children in the classroom, not to `edu-crats,' consultants and managers."

We also talked about core curriculum. "With a core curriculum set province-wide, and standardized testing at all levels, we know that we can spend more efficiently, while improving the quality of education we offer to students. Central to this reform will be increased autonomy and decision-making for each school, and a significantly increased role for parents and community leaders."

While I'm talking about this, we see that's what's going to be in Bill 160. Bill 160 is enabling legislation to make all of this happen. We talked about the number of school years. We also talked about increasing the number of school days. What we said leading up to the election in June 1995 we are implementing in the bill.

If we go to the Liberal red book during that campaign, they said similar things to what I just read and what we're implementing. On page 40 of the red book: "A Liberal government will bring in a core program and test students in vital areas such as reading, writing, and math. We will give community groups, especially parents, a chance to become more involved in schooling. And we will spend more of our precious education dollars on classroom learning and less on administration."

It goes on to say on page 45: "We must make sure that we are getting value for our dollar. As much as possible, our education dollars must be spent on classroom learning rather than administration.

"The creation of a provincial core curriculum will help save money by eliminating the need for individual boards of education to develop their own core curriculums." They talk about reducing trustees and placing caps on it.

We were saying all the same things. There have been numerous studies. It's a wonder that the opposition now stands up and is critical of this government with respect to what's in Bill 160 because we're doing what we said we'd do. There have been numerous studies. The difference is that our government is finally making the tough decisions to make this happen. We said there has been enough studying done, there has been enough debate; we need to do what we said we were going to do, and we need to make those recommendations.

Then we engaged the Education Improvement Commission, and they came up with recommendations with all the other studies. Mr Cooke and Ms Vanstone finally saw a government that was going to do what it said it was going to do. That's why we have the Education Improvement Commission. A number of their recommendations have come to the government, including the funding formula, how to deal with that; not to increase class sizes beyond the current level; reduce pr