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

September 29, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L035 - Tue 29 Sep 1998 / Mar 29 Sep 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

MUSHROOM PLANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PREMIER'S REPORT CARD

PLANT CLOSURE

ANIMAL WELFARE

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

ISSUES IN HAMILTON

PROSTITUTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE COMPTE DES VOYAGES MINISTÉRIELS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

TEXTBOOKS

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

LONG-TERM CARE

AIR QUALITY

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

HOME CARE

LABOUR DISPUTE

SOCIAL POLICY REVIEW

SCHOOL CLOSURES

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

PETITIONS

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

ABORTION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ROYAL ASSENT SANCTION ROYALE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): There's no question that the government cutbacks to our health care system are the number one issue for constituents in my Thunder Bay riding, but it causes just as much alarm when funding commitments to improve health care delivery are not met by this government.

In 1996 the government was directed to make an immediate investment of $3 million to $4 million to recruit specialists to Thunder Bay. This must happen so the waiting lists for urgent care can be shortened. The fact is that the Thunder Bay region is in dire need of trained specialists to meet our community needs. Despite this desperate situation, the government refuses to act.

The government is also stalling on tackling the problem of physician recruitment and retention to medically underserviced areas as directed by a private member's resolution I put forward in June, which was supported by all members of this House. This government promised $36 million a year to address this chronic problem, yet these dollars remain mostly unspent because the minister refuses the request of northwestern Ontario doctors and the northwestern chambers of commerce to ensure that an adequate physician complement is provided.

The minister is also failing nurse practitioners across this province by refusing to spend a promised $5 million to better integrate these unique health care providers into the system. All of us in this House fast-tracked legislation so nurse practitioners can get to work in the province, yet the minister is now stalling.

Access to medical professionals and front-line service providers is the most vital component of patient care. I urge the minister to break this trail of broken health care promises -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

MUSHROOM PLANT

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): After six years of extremely hard work, the community of Opasatika recently celebrated the official opening of the Opasatika Northern Champignons du Nord Mushroom plant, better known as Northern Whites. The opening of this plant exemplifies the application of northern initiative, hard work and ingenuity. It is the direct result of people coming together and working towards a common goal of creating jobs for the community.

In this context, the Opasatika plant presently employs 20 people, but it is anticipated that within the next three years the plant will mushroom and hire an additional 15 people. Even though the plant produces approximately 5,000 pounds of mushrooms each week, this volume is not nearly enough to satisfy the market demand in northern Ontario, and production will soon be increased to 9,000 pounds.

It is interesting to note that the mushroom plant initially benefited from provincial government funding under the NDP government about six years ago. We believe that access to government loans is important to northern economic development as far too many small businesses suffer from underfinancing. Unfortunately, this Conservative government continually fails to understand the need for a concerted approach to economic development and job creation in northern Ontario.

We believe that government can serve a positive role in helping businesses grow and prosper in northern Ontario. The Opasatika Northern Whites mushroom plant is a fine example of this partnership. We congratulate the people of Opasatika for their steadfast resolve to make this project a success.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today in the House to speak of not one but 43 companies from the greater Peterborough area. Last week these companies received cheques totalling more than $200,000 from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for collectively improving their workplace health and safety performance.

These companies joined the WSIB-sponsored Greater Peterborough Safe Communities Incentive Program in an effort to reduce workplace injuries and illness. This program is sponsored by the city of Peterborough and the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce and is funded with seed money from the Safe Communities Foundation. The participating companies reduced their collective costs by more than 60%.

Under this incentive program participating firms join a group policy. The group then receives 75% of all savings resulting from combined improvements in their health and safety performance.

The Greater Peterborough Safe Communities Incentive Program was launched in the spring of 1997 and is one of 10 officially designated safe communities across Ontario.

I wish at this time to congratulate all 43 companies and their management and staff as well as the chamber of commerce and the city of Peterborough for having the foresight to move towards workplaces that will allow workers a safer and healthier work environment. Congratulations to all.

PREMIER'S REPORT CARD

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): We all know that Mike Harris likes to talk about his new report card and how it will be easier for parents to read and to know what kind of standards their students are meeting. A group of parents has decided that the report card format should work for premiers too. Here's a sample of the report card that these parents have given to Mike on his educational performance.

In mathematics: "Michael has difficulty justifying his choice or method for calculations, estimation, mental computation, etc. He has demonstrated only a limited ability for problem-solving and is unable to explain multi-step problems using rational numbers," and it goes on. Needless to say, Mike gets straight Rs for "remediation."

They conclude:

"Michael appears to have the ability to succeed but lacks the co-operative effort needed to produce a consistently acceptable product. Decisions lack thorough planning and sensitivity for the needs of his peers in this `classroom' (Ontario). A remedial program will only be successful if Michael personally wants to continue successfully and is willing to incorporate the ideas of his peers, the people of Ontario, and not just a selected group of peers."

Parents presenting the report card feel a higher standard of performance is in order for the Premier of Ontario.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Welland and Niagara region were struck a major blow last week when Ucar International announced the closure of the Welland facility. This means that 280 jobs are going to be lost, jobs that are performed by hard-working, competent, skilled workers in Welland and area, jobs which have enabled them to support themselves and their families. As well, the municipality and the region are going to lose the tax assessment of this multi-acreage property. There's going to be a harsh blow as well to taxpayers, who have already been hard hit by this government's downloading.

The Premier, in a letter to me, expresses sympathy for the 280 workers who lose their jobs. I tell you, those workers and their families and the communities of Niagara deserve and indeed are entitled to far more than just sympathy. It's imperative that this government become actively involved in the process to save those 280 jobs and indeed, failing that, put into place immediately the groundwork, the framework, for job training and job retraining and for alternative strategies to protect those families in the communities that are going to be seriously impacted.

One questions what it is that Mike Harris can say about his Ontario when 280 good jobs, well-paying jobs, are lost in Welland - what, to be replaced by more minimum-wage, part-time, temporary jobs? That's not acceptable to the people of Welland or Niagara. It doesn't put food on their tables. It doesn't permit them to send their children to school.

ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): This week the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals launches its Animal Violence Prevention Week. Violence in our communities and households is alarming, and one of the first signs of domestic abuse is abuse of pets. Police and social agencies recognize the link, and an abused pet is a good indicator of domestic violence in the home. Research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among child, spouse and elderly abusers.

The US Humane Society has launched First Strike, a campaign to increase public awareness of the connection between animal cruelty and human violence. The FBI recognizes that animal cruelty is associated with violent behaviour. Violent offenders, research has shown, have childhood and teenage pasts that include serious and repeated animal cruelty. Animal cruelty can predict domestic abuse, criminal activity and even mental illness.

I congratulate the Ontario SPCA in its 125th year and its violence awareness campaign. It is fitting that the prevention of cruelty to animals week includes October 4, which is the feast of St Francis of Assisi, protector of all animals. May the gentle example of St Francis towards animals inspire us this week and help us to recognize in them the truly divine spark of friendship and love. Animals often understand us in a way we can't understand ourselves.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The following is an example of government at its worst. Maybe this ought to be written up in Ripley's Believe It or Not.

Imagine a truck carrying 40,000 pounds of explosives is involved in a single-vehicle accident, blows up in the town of Walden, which is in Nickel Belt, destroys 100 feet of Highway 17, forms a crater 15 feet deep, measures 2.3 on the Richter scale, causes houses to move off their foundations, causes some people to lose partial hearing and forces some residents to become involved in trauma counselling so that they can sleep.

Do we hold a public inquiry into Canada's second-worst explosives accident? "No way," says Mike Harris. No to my request; no to the request from the town of Walden; no to the request from the regional municipality of Sudbury; no to the people of Nickel Belt; and no to the 104 other municipalities, representing a population of 1.8 million people, who say, "We want a public inquiry."

Add to this the fact that the driver was charged and an official from the minister's office says the truck company was under investigation for a variety of issues before, at the time of and after the accident. Add to this the fact that the truck company continues to haul explosives.

Tell me, would Mr Ripley be happy with this in Believe It or Not? I suggest to you this government should call a public inquiry now.

ISSUES IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise today to bring to the attention of the government, particularly the cabinet ministers, at least three major crises that are happening in my home town of Hamilton that quite frankly are the direct result of the Harris Tory agenda.

The first one is the issue of the property tax crisis. Hamiltonians are absolutely furious at the massive increase in property taxes that's a direct result of the actions of this government. In fact, in today's editorial in the Hamilton Spectator, the headline reads, "Tax Bill Crisis Demands Action.

"Hamilton-Wentworth hasn't seen an outcry about property taxes like this in many years. Petitions, protests and even threats to withhold tax payments are spreading in what amounts to a genuine crisis. Angry taxpayers are reeling from increases that in some cases are soaring into the red-line zone of several hundred and even thousands of dollars."

Aldermen are having to take the heat for this because there's a $38-million shortfall in your supposedly revenue-neutral downloading, and you run around saying that you're cutting taxes. All you have done is put the pressure and responsibility on local aldermen.

We've got a $38-million deficit in hospital funding that is clearly going to result in loss of services for patients, and we've still got Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital on the chopping block while your Solicitor General takes care of his own in Brockville.

PROSTITUTION

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): As the former Metro councillor for Parkdale-High Park, I still keep in touch with many of my former constituents. I'd like to discuss one of their concerns today.

Neighbourhoods across this province are under siege and often feel neglected by a federal Liberal government which refuses to make substantive changes to -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Shea: Those neighbourhoods often feel neglected by the federal Liberal government, which refuses to make substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act or offer our neighbourhood improved security legislation. And despite the valiant efforts of community groups like the Parkdale Focus Community Watch and the Parkdale Business Improvement Association, prostitution remains a cancer on our communities. It spawns drug addiction, family breakdown, crime and neighbourhood decay.

The police tell me that the way we need to attack the problem is to vigorously pursue drive-by johns. One very good way would be to impound their cars for a minimum of 48 hours. This will help send the message that our communities don't want their kind of business and want them off our streets. We hear, however, that this would pose an inconvenience to the families of johns and further punish innocent bystanders. Frankly, the private pain of dealing with the betrayal of a john in the family is not my chief concern. My concern is for the community members and police who tell me that if we take away the demand for prostitution, we'll go a long way in dealing with many of the social problems.

Parkdale and other urban neighbourhoods across this province need effective tools to help empower them as they fight to improve their communities.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE COMPTE DES VOYAGES MINISTÉRIELS

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 64,

An Act respecting Accountability for Ministerial Travel / Projet de loi 64, Loi concernant l'obligation de rendre compte des voyages ministériels.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The bill is very simple. All it asks for is accountability. It asks that a written

summary of the purpose of the travel and any accomplishments resulting from the travel be included in a listing which is presented to the Legislative Assembly within 60 days: a detailed statement of all expenses incurred by the member, as well as by any staff accompanying the member; a listing of individuals and organizations contacted, and with whom the meetings were held; and a detailed

summary of any contracts signed during travel outside the province.

All we're asking for in this bill is that Mike Harris and the executive council, the cabinet of Ontario, be held responsible, the same way everyone else in this House is held responsible.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the finance minister - I assume he's not coming.

Interjection.

Mr McGuinty: I understand the Minister of Finance is on his way.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do you want to stand it down?

Is the Minister of Education here? Is he coming? They are both coming. Stand them down?

Mr McGuinty: I'll go to the Chair of Management Board. Minister, yesterday this House put off the immediate chaos for the 200,000 students affected by lockouts and strikes, but I want to look at the big picture now. Those children are back in class, but with rare exception, if you look at classrooms right across the province, there are no extracurricular programs taking place, there is no extra help available for our students, there are now more students per teacher and there are fewer programs.

Your government has gone out of its way to publicly beat up on teachers, to the point now where their morale is at an all-time low. Last week the Premier told students that they won't be able to cut it in today's economy. He said that before a business audience.

What I'm going to ask you right now is very simple. What is it that you intend to do, now that you've put a Band Aid on that problem that arose yesterday, what do you intend to do now to provide stability to parents of children in schools in this province?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I welcome the Leader of the Opposition's question around education, because that is the number one priority, the number one social program in this country. One of the fundamental principles this government has undertaken with Bill 160, with our education funding formula and with our achievement standards is to make sure there's equity in the system, that the funding formula is based on children's needs, that whether you grow up in Red Lake or in Rosedale, you have the dollars for textbooks.

We've also tried to prioritize funding into the elementary system with new textbooks, a tougher curriculum and testing so that parents know what their child is supposed to learn at the start of the year, how they're doing, how they compare to other children in their class and how that class compares to other schools. I think that's a goal we should all share: to raise the standards in this province.

We have the best teachers in the world but we've been locked in a system which encouraged union power, encouraged laxness in our system. We're trying to improve the quality and we're trying to work with teachers to make sure they have the dollars in the classroom to do their jobs.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I find it atrocious that you'd play politics with that and try to say that somehow -

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: I don't want to talk about standards right now; I just want to talk about old-fashioned stability. If you talk to teachers, parents, trustees and students, the number one thing they are seeking in Ontario education today is stability, nothing more and nothing less.

I've got a proposal for you. Here's a very simple three-part proposal. I call it the school stability plan. There are three parts to it:

(1) You will provide an independent review of the funding formula.

(2) You will permit one-year contracts to be signed until that funding review is complete.

(3) You will permit a one-year phase-in of the class size requirement provisions where you haven't given boards enough time to get the physical space to meet your requirements.

It's simple, it's straightforward, it helps go some way to restoring stability in the system and it costs almost nothing. Will you, Minister, agree to implement my school stability plan?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Leader of the Opposition hits the issue right on the head when he says that they care not about standards. I think we should all care about standards, we should all care about the improvement of quality. To stay at the status quo or do nothing and just get everyone so they're happy I think sacrifices our kids' futures. If you want to make sure we can compete in a global economy we have to have First World skills, and to get those First World skills we need a quality education that's equal throughout this province.

For you to stand up on behalf of the Liberal Party and say that you do not care about standards or that they're not important I think is indefensible and it goes along with other parts of your platform, where you talk about one of your new policy programs and say it is to restore vice-principals and principals to the bargaining unit. That has nothing to do with quality or standards. That's catering to special-interest union politics on union dues.

This government and this party believe we can improve the quality of education, and to do that everyone has to work together.

Mr McGuinty: Let's understand what the government's standards are, then, when it comes to public education. According to your standards, it's okay if our children aren't getting help with extracurricular activities. According to your standards, there's no extra help outside the classroom setting. According to your standards, it's all right to have more students for every single teacher. According to your standards, it's OK to have fewer programs. Those are your standards, those aren't my standards, and I reject your standards.

I'm trying to introduce just a little bit of stability into public education in Ontario. I put forward a simple proposal. It costs almost nothing and it will go a long way towards ensuring that parents can be assured of a simple right, that their schools are going to remain open for at least the next year. That's all I'm trying to do. It's a simple proposal. Why will you not buy into it?

Hon Mr Hodgson: We realize that the Liberal Party rejects our standards, which parents have demanded for almost a generation in this province, of improving the curriculum, of making sure we have province-wide standardized tests to make sure we know how our young people are doing, so we can help improve them if they need help. We know that you reject the idea of focusing more dollars into the classroom and making sure those dollars are equal throughout the whole province.

We know that you want to open up the commercial-industrial assessment base in Toronto to negotiate those new union contracts and roll them right across the province. We know that. But we think the kids should come first, that we should improve the quality of their education. The only way to do that - I know it ruffles the status quo and I know it's been difficult. We're asking high school teachers to teach another 20 minutes that elementary teachers already teach, and they prepare for every class.

As a result of that four hours and 10 minutes we're asking high school teachers to spend in front of the students teaching instructional courses or special ed or remedial programs, the union has requested that they withdraw the extracurricular activities. We think those extracurricular activities are important and that teachers -

The Speaker: New question.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Throughout the summer when I was travelling the province I met with small business owners. They came to me and said: "Listen, you've got to do something about the Mike Harris government. I am getting hammered when it comes to property taxes." This is something they hardly expected from your government. They expected you would understand how hard they work: They put it on the line, day in, day out, work long hours and create jobs. The last thing they expected from the Mike Harris government was whopping property tax hikes.

What are you going to do, Minister? Right now, stand up and tell us how you're going to help these small businesses that are being savaged by your economic policies, having to contend with massive property tax hikes they can't cope with.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, it has nothing to do with government policy. Municipalities in this province have been given several tools that they can use, such as phase-in, different commercial values for small or medium-size commercial properties, different industrial-size tax rates for different industrial-size properties. They could create new property classes. They could opt for a cap like the city of Toronto has done, 2.5%, so that no small business person, as you point out, would have a property tax increase of more than 2.5% this year.

To date only about 60 municipalities out of 646 in Ontario have availed themselves of the use of any of those tools, but I can assure you the tools are there for municipalities to use, municipalities such as the city of Toronto, which has been very responsible in dealing with its taxpayers and its constituents. We are working with municipalities -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: It's interesting. Apparently this government has nothing to do with property tax hikes that are being experienced by businesses right across the province. Of course they also had nothing to do with hospital closures and they will have nothing to do with school closures. This is all something that's done by other people. Small business doesn't buy that.

Let's look at some of the numbers: In Windsor, 69% of all small businesses are going to face an increase; York region, they're looking at increases from 200% to 300%; Mississauga, 240%; Dundas, 70%-plus; London, 80% increases; Hamilton is looking at property tax hikes for small businesses in the range of 100% to 900%, compliments of the Mike Harris government. Minister, what is it, again, that you are going to do? Don't try to tell us it's the responsibility of the municipalities. The municipalities didn't ask for this. You imposed it on them. You foisted it on them. What are you going to do to help small business?

Hon Mr Eves: As I was saying in response to my first question, as recently as Friday, finance officials were meeting with AMO officials to talk about the individual cases where municipalities did not use the tools that were given to them, to talk about what they can now do to avail themselves of the usage of those tools. You rhymed off several municipalities, York region being one of them. I ask you: What tool or tools did York region use to make sure this didn't happen to their taxpayers and their constituents? The answer is: None, they didn't use one single tool that was given to them.

Municipalities like the city of Toronto, on the other hand, took a very responsible approach to protecting their taxpayers and you don't have that effect in Toronto, and there's no need for it to happen in any municipalities in Ontario if they avail themselves of the tools that were given to them.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I go to the minister to follow up on the questions from my leader. Minister, I'm astonished at the insensitivity you have shown to the difficulties that the small business community is facing as a result of your moves. As has been mentioned, in Hamilton, Dundas, Flamboro, we are talking about an increase of 100% to 900%. Very few small businesses can absorb that without going out of business, or by layoffs. It is impossible.

Basically you are forcing them to close their doors. Property owners are being devastated. Seniors by the hundreds are calling city hall in tears, afraid of losing their homes as a result of your downloading. Many of the businesses simply have fallen through the cracks of your inept rebate program that was put in place. You are causing chaos and you're causing a tax crisis in the city of Hamilton.

Minister, when small business owners on the Mountain have called your member for Hamilton Mountain to complain, do you know what they were told? "Don't pay your taxes." That is the advice that's coming and we have a number who will verify that. Will you review the inept rebate program you put in place? Will you review the $36-million shortfall you have screwed the people of Hamilton-Wentworth out of in downloading? Do you agree with the advice given -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon Mr Eves: To the honourable member, first of all, if he wants to deal in specifics, there's nothing that prevented the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth from implementing a 2.5% cap, the same as the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto did.

With respect to seniors, there's nothing preventing the same municipality from implementing the tools that were given to them to totally protect seniors from one cent of property tax increases in that municipality. If they didn't use those tools, perhaps constituents should be asking their municipal representatives why they didn't use them.

Having said that, to date 37% of the municipalities in Ontario have a 0% tax increase or a decrease this year; another 30% have an increase of less than 5%. That's 67% of municipalities in Ontario having either a decrease in taxes, no increase or an increase of -

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): A third are paying more than 5%? Incredible.

Hon Mr Eves: I say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, do you want to talk about municipal tax increases when your government was in power? We can talk about that if you want a little later on -

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

TEXTBOOKS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. It's very clear that yesterday you brought in your back-to-school legislation because you had meddled so much in teacher and board of education negotiations that you had to fix the problem you'd created. In fact we find that you're meddling elsewhere, and meddling is blowing up in your face elsewhere. The latest fiasco was your much-ballyhooed textbook purchase.

What I'd like to ask you about is Bliss Carman Senior Public School in Scarborough. They were told by your government that they had $37,000 for textbook purchases. They placed an order with the publisher for new textbooks. Their order, given the prices they had always used, would have accounted for about $28,000 and they would have had some money left over. Then they get a statement from your ministry saying that not only do they have no money left over, but they are over $100 in the hole. Minister, who took the $9,000 that they didn't spend?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I don't think one would expect that I would know school by school what the allocations are. I can assure you of this, that the procedure was set in place to ensure that right across Ontario there would be equal access to textbooks and materials - not only textbooks but science equipment and computer software - for all the children of Ontario, and we would do so on a basis that saves taxpayers money.

The original RFP that went out attracted textbooks worth $68 million, but they were purchased on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario at a reduction of almost $13 million; $13 million in savings to the tune of a $55-million cost. Each and every board is assured its allocation in that global context of $100 million. We will give every board the opportunity within that total allocation to spend every nickel on textbooks, computer equipment and science equipment.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you try desperately to miss the point. I would suggest to you that there are a lot of other schools out there like Bliss Carman Senior Public School. You said to them, "You have $37,000 for school textbook purchases." They looked at the price they would ordinarily get from the publisher, they did the calculations and the figure came out to $28,500. Then they get a statement from your ministry saying that in fact the textbooks cost over $37,000.

The question here is, who took the $9,000? Where did it go? The school board knows and the teachers know what their price was to the publisher. They didn't get a new price list from the publisher. The publisher didn't write back and say, "You owe more money." It was your ministry that said, "You owe a further $9,000." Who has the $9,000? The publisher doesn't have it. The school doesn't have it. Who's got it?

Hon David Johnson: The reality is that the government of Ontario through this program got the very best possible price, not only for this particular school but for all schools across Ontario. What is often overlooked in these matters is that there are transportation and handling costs and there is GST. It's a funny thing, but you have to pay tax and that's a matter that's often overlooked.

I can assure you that the total cost of the books, the handling and the taxes was the best possible purchase price. I have, as a matter of fact, letters from publishers indicating that they've given their best preferred price, which we've simply passed along to the school boards, and through that process achieved over 3.2 million books to all of our schools across Ontario.

Mr Hampton: There's something here that doesn't quite calculate. We talked with the teachers and we talked with people at the board and we also contacted the publisher. The publisher said that the price they ordinarily give to the school includes things like transportation and handling. The publisher covers all that. Suddenly you're adding in a second transportation and handling charge. You're folding into the price some other charges. Who got these other charges? Who is this phantom that is siphoning off $9,000 in textbook money from this school? Where do these extra charges come in?

Who do you have a deal with that they get to add handling charges into all this? Where did the $9,000 go? The publisher says he didn't get it. The school didn't get it. Where did these additional charges come in? Who got the money?

Hon David Johnson: I think we know that the leader of the third party is grasping at straws, as is not uncommon in this House. There are no extra charges, but the transportation and handling charges do have to be paid once and the taxes have to be paid once.

I have letters from the publishers to indicate that Ontario got the best possible price that could be achieved through bulk purchasing. This purchasing of over 3.2 million books across Ontario achieved the best possible price not only for students here in Toronto, not only for students in the large urban areas, but for students right across the province, in northern Ontario, where I might say the transportation costs are higher, and in rural areas. We got the best possible value, a $13-million discount. We got 3.2 million books for our students and they're in the schools today and being used by our students.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: To the Minister of Health, but I would say to the Minister of Education, you'd better find out where the $9,000 went, because school after school wants to know what you did with their money.

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Health: Last week in the Sudbury Star there was a letter asking for a commitment from your government to expand the use of nurse practitioners in northern Ontario health care. As we've pointed out to you before, expanding the use of nurse practitioners would be one very good way of dealing with underserviced areas.

The letter actually calls on the candidates in the Nickel Belt by-election to lobby the government for increased funding for nurse practitioners. I'm here today on behalf of Blain Morin, the NDP candidate in Nickel Belt, to do just that.

Not a single penny of the $5 million you announced for nurse practitioners has been spent. Meanwhile there are approximately 50 qualified nurse practitioners in underserviced northern Ontario communities who are unable to practise because you haven't provided the funding.

What are you going to do about this problem? You said you were going to do something about it. What are you in fact going to do about it?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I'm very proud of the fact that this past February it was our government, under the leadership of then Health Minister Jim Wilson, that did officially proclaim the nurse practitioner legislation. As we had indicated, we are and we will be announcing very soon the allocation of the $5 million in order that the nurse practitioners who are prepared can make sure they provide the needed services to the underserviced areas of our province, and we'll be making that announcement.

We have invested a tremendous amount of money in the Sudbury community. I'm very proud of the fact that we have added $117 million in spending in Sudbury-Manitoulin in health care services, and I want to assure those people that additional money will be made available for this issue of the nurse practitioners.

Mr Hampton: The minister's empty words underline the problem. You've gone into Sudbury and you've made announcement after announcement. Then community organizations and nurse practitioners try to access the money because they want to provide health care services and they find they can't access it. They are completely empty announcements, phony announcements. There are nurse practitioners who want to go to work but they can't go to work because they can't access the money that your government boasted about when you made the announcement.

That's the question. You can't go on across this province making these announcements and then when people try to access it to improve health care, they find that it is empty. So I'm asking you again on behalf of Blain Morin, the NDP candidate in Nickel Belt, and all of those people in the Nickel Belt riding, many of whom live in underserviced area communities, what are you going to do to make this money available so those nurse practitioners can go to work providing health care for people who need it? Don't give us another empty announcement.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me assure the leader of the third party that we have certainly done more for nursing than you did during your time in office. In fact, I was extremely pleased yesterday to have met with the members of the Nursing Task Force. We have actually listened to the nursing community. We are prepared to address the long-standing problems and issues of concern for nurses that were ignored by the previous governments.

Last night we had the first official meeting of the Nursing Task Force, which is going to look at the problems that, as I say, are of long standing. In fact, as Barb Wahl, president of the Ontario Nurses' Association, indicated in speaking about the task force, "This is a significant first step," and we would agree.

Our government is working in partnership with nurses throughout this province and we will continue to ensure that the services they are providing will continue to be there.

Mr Hampton: Correspondence from your own ministry indicates how hollow your words are. What I've got here is a letter to the chair of the Council of Ontario Universities' program in nursing from Judith Wright, your assistant deputy minister. In the letter she says that your government is reducing the funding for nurse practitioner education because you're going to reduce program enrolment and you're also going to limit the number of locations that provide nurse practitioner education. Even your own ministry officials know how phony your announcement is.

I ask you the question again: Will you come clean for the people of Nickel Belt? When are you going to stop making these empty announcements, these announcements that are completely phony? When are you going to put the money actually in place so that nurse practitioners who live in the Sudbury area, who are currently unemployed, who want to provide health care services, will be able to provide health care services?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I can assure you that we are certainly doing much more than you did during your time. Unfortunately, you did not proclaim the nurse practitioner act. It was our government that did so.

I'm also pleased to indicate that for the people in the Sudbury-Manitoulin area we have increased our funding by $117 million. Let me just review with you the money we have put into the Sudbury community. We've invested $12 million in priority programs. We've invested over $2 million in long-term-care services. We have invested $566,000 in mental health services.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We've invested $1,580,000 in aboriginal health services. We have, on hospital restructuring, added $88 million. The list goes on and on. I would like to indicate to you that these are actual -

The Speaker: Thank you.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care. In the members' gallery to my left are representatives of the African Canadian Society on Health Care Issues, a not-for-profit organization established to address the needs of the elderly in the local African Canadian community.

You may be familiar, Minister, with the fact that the group worked very hard to put together a proposal pursuant to a request for proposal to build a facility for long-term care. The deadline was 12 noon on July 31 this summer past. When they arrived at your offices, they were told that there was an address missing on the box. They scrambled, found a pen, put down the address, turned over the box, only to discover that it was submitted at 12:01. I am wondering, Minister, given the special circumstances of this matter, would it not be the fair and right thing to do to accept this proposal?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): I'd like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and the spirit in which he has raised it in the House. It is a very important matter and it's a serious matter, the expansion of 6,700 new long-term-care beds in the province.

The province set up what I believe is one of the most rigid and most above-reproach systems that could be designed for this open competition for 6,700 beds. Right here in the city of Toronto 2,000 beds will be announced within a couple of weeks. This process follows, through the legislation, a very clearly defined set of rules and guidelines because, frankly, there are hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars involved. The fact is that through this entire process everyone was advised, ministry dollars were spent in a series of meetings privately with all of the applicants -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mr Jackson: - who made application for these beds. It is a time-honoured tradition in this province that when -

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, what I'm wondering is, are you prepared to exercise discretion in the circumstances? Are you unprepared to use good judgment, given the special circumstances? I've got a letter from your offices that says quite clearly that the box was received at 12:01. The reason for the delay was that one of your staff members asked that an address be affixed to the box. But for their compliance with that request, the box would have been submitted before the deadline. Given these very special circumstances, I'm asking you to exercise your discretion as the minister and to at least consider reviewing this matter so it receives the time and consideration it warrants.

Hon Mr Jackson: I must reiterate here that these rules are designed and entrenched in law. These are matters of a legal nature and we are guided very clearly by the laws of this province in how to tender, whether we're building a bridge, whether we're building a nursing home, whether we're letting out a major contract. The facts that you present in the House are not necessarily the facts that have been shared with me, and I'd be pleased to investigate further.

I want to share with the member opposite that there were several tenders that came in late that were not on the premises of ministry property at exactly 12 noon. With two months' notice, organizations had opportunities to present their case, and this was one of several that did not get their tender in on time. We are not prepared as a government, having waited 10 years in this province for new long-term-care beds, to hold up the 2,000 beds in Ontario while you ask us to go back to square one for three months to look at this process. We need to build these beds immediately in the province.

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The new US EPA limits on nitrogen oxide seem to have caught your government off guard, just as I've caught you off guard today. The new rules announced last week will mean cuts of about 65% in the NO x produced by utilities in the US Northeast. This will make Ontario Hydro's emissions stick out like a sore thumb. In fact, I estimated that it will require at least a 60% reduction in Ontario Hydro's NO x emissions.

Minister, unlike the Minister of the Environment, here is an opportunity for you to help reduce the 1,800 premature deaths that happen each year in the province of Ontario because of smog. This is already a crisis. My question is, are you going to pass a law so Ontario meets the US standards?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The EPA standards are currently at the discussion stage in the United States; they are not law. Very clearly, we are already world leaders in emission standards and we're extremely pleased that the EPA is now at least going to meet Ontario Hydro's standards and perhaps surpass them. That's good for the environment, given that the Minister of the Environment here has constantly pointed out that it's very often the pollution from the United States that's creating the smog right here in southern Ontario.

We're very pleased with the direction the EPA is going in. Yes, Ontario Hydro and the successor companies to Ontario Hydro will meet very tough standards, will meet US standards, if we're going to be selling in the northeastern United States. We're 17% of the northeastern United States market now, and the Americans had better watch out, because our new Ontario Hydro and its successor companies are going to capture that customer base and return dividends to the shareholders, the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Minister, you are not being a leader when it comes to environmental standards; you're quickly becoming an embarrassment when it comes to those standards.

You say that you're for green power and that Bill 35 is going to be good for the environment, but the Energy Competition Act, which is in clause-by-clause hearings at committee, doesn't commit you to tougher environmental standards so that communities like Windsor and Essex country and other southwestern Ontario communities can breathe a little easier.

The NDP have proposed amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act that would tighten the rules against smog. They would make all generators selling power in Ontario comply with limits that are tighter than they are now. If you're not prepared to commit to meeting the US standards, will you at least support the NDP amendments so that we can have some clean air?

Hon Mr Wilson: Environmental groups in Ontario are extremely supportive of Bill 35. For the first time those producing green power will have access to the grid, something that your government and the Liberal government of its day never had the courage to do, that is, open up the grid, give customers choice and allow them for the first time in the history of this province to buy more environmentally friendly power.

The hydro bills that consumers will receive beginning in the year 2000 will for the first time in the history of this province show the actual emissions. People will be able to know how their power was produced and they can exercise their choice to buy green power.

Tom Adams of Energy Probe said in the Ottawa Citizen on June 10, "Customers are going to get to see where their power comes from and what emissions are associated with it." So it's a consumer empowerment that should really help the clean power industries promote themselves as an alternative to polluting ones.

Greenpeace applauded the bill as an opportunity for the "significant chunk of the public that wants to buy green power." That was in the Toronto Star just recently on June 10.

Our nuclear asset optimization plan is all about improving the environment.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. I read last week that the federal Liberals came out with a study to say that the shortage of skilled workers in Canada is a myth. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that Ontario companies are in need of more skilled workers. What has your ministry done to ensure that Ontario companies have enough local skilled labour to meet their needs?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I want to thank the honourable member for Simcoe Centre for his question. As the member has indicated, the skilled labour shortage in Ontario is a reality. A 1996 Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey found that half of their members had a problem in finding qualified replacement workers.

A shortage of skilled people can discourage investment in this great province of ours, so as a government we have listened to businesses both large and small that are concerned about training and we are responding directly to the skills shortages that many of them have identified.

In last spring's budget we committed $30 million to a new strategic skills initiative and I believe this program has started to take effect. Education is a priority for our government. We know we have to work with the business community in making sure that we work together to ensure that students are graduating with high skills so we can compete at the global level.

Mr Tascona: I thank the minister for his answer. What specifically can he tell us about the strategic skills program and how it will benefit Ontario workers and companies?

Hon Mr Palladini: The May budget announced $10.9 million in funding for the first four projects and a commitment to a competitive process to allocate the remaining funding.

This morning I had the pleasure, along with the honourable member and my colleague the Honourable Jim Wilson, to be at Georgian College in Barrie to present a cheque for $3 million - yes, $3 million - for a new partnership between Georgian College and the Industrial Research and Development Institute.

These are the programs this government is working on with the private sector to make sure that we have the tools for our young people. This program will assist in providing advanced training in the automotive parts sector and manufacturing. It's also a great program that will meet the skills needs of Ontario's most important sector: the automotive industry.

The call for proposals for the first competitive round of the skills challenge fund was released on September 2, 1998. I want everyone to know that the deadline for the next program is -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. New question.

HOME CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Long-Term Care. Your government supposedly acknowledges the importance of home care by appointing you as minister. You know that patients are being discharged earlier from hospitals and that the frail and elderly are staying longer at home. Your Minister of Health has already closed a hospital in Kingston that has operated for 153 years. You can well imagine the shock the people in our area had when they read a headline just last week that 2,000 will lose home care after cutbacks.

Minister, could you explain to these people who are losing the home care services they currently have, explain to these patients, why you have cut them off when apparently there's plenty of money available for colleges and universities. Why have you cut these people off? These are patients who have had home care and need it. You've cut them off by $1 million after you've already closed a hospital in our community.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): First of all, I'd like to thank the honourable member for his question. I'd like to correct the record that these services have not actually been cut off. The CCAC in Kingston has indicated that it is seeing and forecasting increased demand and utilization in the Kingston area.

What we've been trying to do as a government with the additional dollars we've added to home care this year, and I just announced $83 million to increase budgets in this province, is to make sure that areas which have traditionally received more care dollars do not overshadow those areas of the province that previously have been discriminated against by previous governments.

Today in Kingston they are receiving $144 per person, and yet in York region they're only receiving $59 per person. I ask the member opposite if he would consider the fact that Kingston historically has received a higher level of funding. We have increased funding in Kingston by 8% even though their levels of service are much higher than many of the colleagues who are right with you in your own Liberal caucus.

Mr Gerretsen: The caseload has increased by 15% over last year. There has not been one additional penny put into home care during the last two or three years.

You know that these services are there so that people can be kept at home. I know you think, as you stated earlier this year, that if people think they're going to have vacuuming done for the rest of their life just because they've had surgery, that's not what the program is for. I know that is what you're thinking about this.

Your boss, the Minister of Health, has already closed a hospital, and her own officials in estimates earlier in June have stated that of the $52 million you're taking out of health care in the Kingston area, only $36 million is being returned to the area. When are you going to live up to your commitment to actually reinvest the money you're taking out of community health care and put some of these dollars back into home care? Two thousand patients in the Kingston area will be going without the home care they have had over the last number of years from now until at least March of next year.

When are you going to do something about it and make sure the reinvestment takes place in the community?

Hon Mr Jackson: As the local member you should be aware of when these new dollars have been not only put into the Kingston area but actually spent. I want to remind the member opposite that in the last year of the Liberal government they were spending less than $10 million in the Kingston area. Today we're spending $23 million. It's a 134% increase in funding in the Kingston area.

I want the member opposite to know that we are increasing the funding to the community care access centres - in Kingston's case they've recently come through a labour dispute with one of the service providers; they have yet to complete their RFP process - where CCACs all across Ontario are receiving additional service units because it's costing less to perform these important care services for the seniors of Ontario.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to Minister of Labour. I want to raise the plight of a courageous group of workers who are fighting for dignity and their working lives. These less than 50 workers unfortunately are fighting both an unscrupulous employer and your own Harris government. These workers are at J.B. Fields, a local sock manufacturer in Trenton. Six months ago, when their employer demanded a 38% pay cut, they went on legal strike.

This would have been a fair fight under the progressive NDP labour legislation, but under your anti-worker labour legislation, Bill 7, all the power went to the boss. Scabs were hired, strikers were intimidated, and last week these employees were told by the employer that they can forget about coming back to the jobs they had before.

The problem these workers have is that your government is encouraging this kind of action by the type of labour legislation and anti-worker legislation that you've promoted and passed. Minister, is this your idea of how to make Ontario a better place to live, work and raise a family?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I thank the honourable member opposite for the question about J.B. Fields in Trenton. There was a strike that commenced there March 22, 1998. I'm sure the honourable member knows that the Ministry of Labour extended conciliation and mediation facilities to both parties, as is the duty and the process of the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour is not pro-management or pro-union; it is pro-negotiated-settlement.

The ministry has made every effort in this instance, as it does in other instances, to avail the ministry's people, the expert people that we have in mediation and conciliation, so that hopefully the best possible result can be obtained, which is always a negotiated settlement.

Mr Christopherson: That does not hold. If you were actually caring about workers and promoting negotiated settlements, then you wouldn't have passed legislation that lets this employer hire scabs to go into that workplace and do the jobs of those legitimate legal strikers. That's what is prolonging this strike - your legislation.

I'll tell you what these workers need. They need a government like the NDP that's going to make it illegal to hire scabs again. That's what they really need.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Stop the clock. Member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, I really wish the government members would show that much compassion and caring about these workers and their families, who have been out on strike for over six months because of your legislation that lets the employer hire scabs. That's the bottom line.

Minister, you have to stand in your place and tell us how allowing the employer to hire scabs that prolonged this strike and kept those workers out of their jobs for over six months is somehow good for them and good for the economy of this province.

Hon Mr Flaherty: To the member, it is true that under his government we were out of the mainstream in labour relations, that we were in the minority in Canada and in North America in prohibiting the hiring of replacement workers. It is true that under the previous government employers, including small business employers, could be bankrupted by strikes in the situation where they could not hire replacement workers, with the result being of course that no one had work, that there was no business and that there were no jobs.

The Ministry of Labour's role is to provide mediation and conciliation. If there has been improper behaviour, if there has been activity by the employer in the situation described, then the Ontario Labour Relations Board is available to the parties to seek the remedies that are available under what is now a balanced Labour Relations Act in Ontario.

SOCIAL POLICY REVIEW

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I understand that you were at the premiers' conference in Saskatoon back in August and that the premiers reviewed the status of negotiations on their framework agreement for the social union. It's indeed important to Canadians that health and social programs be effective, secure and sustainable. As the Ontario representative to the ministers' council on social policy review and responsible for these negotiations, could you update the House on the progress of these negotiations?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I think all the members of the House are interested in the future of Canada and the importance of how we work together in our social union. Our discussions with the premiers in Saskatoon were extremely positive in that everyone came away united in their efforts to make our health care programs and our social programs more accountable, more accessible and more fair across the country.

I think of interest to this House would be that Quebec is now at the table in these negotiations. We're all hoping that will work in favour of a united Canada.

I'd also like to say that governments are more committed than ever to working together, especially with our federal colleagues. We know that unilateral decisions, especially with regard to funding and funding reductions, do nothing to improve our health care and our social programs in Canada and we want to work towards more togetherness and more unanimity and more discussions.

Mr Galt: At the Saskatoon conference, I understand that the premiers directed ministers to meet with the federal government, with the co-chair, the Honourable Anne McLellan, for a negotiating meeting with the ministers as soon as possible and that a draft agreement be drawn up before the end of this current year. Minister, can you update us further on the progress made in this regard?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, we have been meeting since Saskatoon in August. On September 9, the ministers and the territorial ministers responsible across the county met to work and make more progress on the mechanism, on the new way of dealing across Canada and with the federal minister. We'll be meeting this week actually, on October 2 in Edmonton, with Ms McLellan. We are extremely positive about positive outcomes from that meeting.

Only in generalities right now, and this is very complicated for the general public, but we know there has to be a better way, to get rid of the overlap and duplication, to get rid of the unilateral decision-making, especially around funding with regard to the federal government, and to talk more to each other in advance about the programs that are really important for Canadians: social services, health care and higher education.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): My question is for the Minister of Education. Last night the school accommodation review committee had a meeting at one of the schools in my area to review the possible closings of 29 schools. Three of the schools in question are in my riding and two of them are leased by the Catholic school board from the public school board. All three of the schools are full to capacity, I've been told, and the possible closure is solely due to the funding formula which you have instituted and the pupil accommodation policy which you have also instituted.

My question is this: Because of your imposed arbitrary restrictions, will you allow the closing of schools when operating at full capacity?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): It seems difficult to me to comprehend why a school board would close a school that is full to capacity. The decision and the responsibility clearly rests with the school board, I guess the Toronto school board in this particular case.

I might say that same school board has some 80 schools that it doesn't use for public purposes any more. Some of them are empty, some of them are used for administration purposes, some for storage, and some they have leased out to either the private or the separate sector. I don't know why the board would choose, if indeed it has, to close a school which is full to capacity.

I will say, though, that schools over the years have been closed. Boards have chosen and made this decision to close schools over the years. For example, between 1985 and 1989, when your party was in power, school boards across Ontario chose to close 136 schools. I am proud to stand here today and say that today we announced a new funding formula, which will involve a whole host of new schools. Some 120,000 students will benefit in Ontario because of the new funding formula that we've announced details of this afternoon.

Mr Sergio: Closing a school creates turmoil and chaos in any community at any time. When you say you want the best for the children of our province, I take it you mean that, yet your infamous Bill 160 provides no funding for leased properties, leased schools, and the pupil accommodation policies may force the schools to close.

If you really want to do what's best for the kids as you have been saying continuously in this House, will you rise today and tell this House, the parents and the kids that you will say yes to funding for leased schools and no to closing schools when operating to full capacity?

Hon David Johnson: The curious aspect of this is that today I did just announce the funding formula, and the funding formula contains $26 million for leased schools over the next year, because we recognize that school boards have made arrangements for leased schools and need that kind of support.

I'm very proud of the funding formula. It does give flexibility to the boards. We will flow money through the boards that need the new schools. They will make the decisions of where to build. This program will be the largest one-year program, largest three-year program in the history of the province in terms of about $1.5 billion for funding in the new school construction across the province over the next three years, to assist 120,000 students in getting the proper accommodation.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Minister of Health. On April 8, 1998, you announced increased funding for childhood cancer care at the Hospital for Sick Children. Although the proven need for increased care is equally as urgent in the other regions of Ontario, you have not responded to repeated requests for equitable funding.

At the Children's Hospital of Western Ontario, the two staff oncologists are trying to care for three times the number of children set out in the provincial standards for childhood cancer care. Their request for $3 million is similar to the request you agreed to at Sick Kids and it is supported by both the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario and officials in your ministry.

Will you explain today to parents and physicians in southwestern Ontario why the children with cancer that they care for continue to receive substandard care six months after Sick Kids got its money?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As the member opposite has indicated, we do work and plan to continue to work with POGO, which is the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario. In fact, very recently POGO recommended that we set up four satellite pediatric oncology units in the province in order that we can ensure that young children and young adults, after they have received the surgery and they need the long-term care and treatment, will be able to get that treatment in their own communities. I am very pleased that we were able to make that additional funding available for four satellite centres throughout this province.

We will continue to respond to the needs, that the needs are addressed. We will continue to accept the advice of POGO, and in the months ahead we will be making further announcements in order that we can support these children who suffer from cancer.

PETITIONS

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign that petition along with the representative from the Serbian heritage museum on Tecumseh Road in Windsor-Riverside.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I just wanted to recognize the Minister of Health for setting up the Nursing Task Force. In that respect:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am pleased to present this on behalf of our whip and also on behalf of myself.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the assembly that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Minister of Education intends on taking more than $1 billion out of Ontario's education system at a time when there is an increasing consensus on the importance of supporting our schools and classrooms; and

"Whereas per pupil funding in the province of Ontario now ranks below other jurisdictions, such as Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri and Nebraska; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now embarked on an advertising campaign which will cost the taxpayers of Ontario over $1 million; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government commercial doesn't constitute an important public announcement and instead is clearly an abuse of public funds, because they are self-serving political messages which are designed to influence public opinion; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government could cancel that advertising campaign and use the $1 million which belongs to the taxpayers of Ontario for the purchase of 40,000 textbooks;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris government to cancel their blatantly partisan, self-serving political advertising campaign and redirect the taxpayers' $1 million to classroom funding."

I'm signing my signature to it.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario is not adequately monitoring community-based mental health services for their effectiveness, efficiency or whether they are delivering the agreed-upon programs according to the 1997 annual report of the Provincial Auditor; and

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

"Therefore

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

I proudly add my name to these Hamiltonian petitioners.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to bring forward a petition from about 80 residents of the Dunnville, Wellandport and Wainfleet area. It's about health-care-conscience legislation and it reads as follows:

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

Again, there are about 80 signatures and I sign mine in support.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the government of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement.

ABORTION

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition which was forwarded to me by the Honourable Al Palladini. It in turn was directed to him by John Lawlor of the Knights of Columbus. It's a petition that was signed by members of the St Mary Immaculate and Our Lady Queen of the World Catholic churches in Richmond Hill. It reads as follows:

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

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

There are some 800 signatures on this petition and I affix my signature to it.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition that deals with the downloading of costs of services in our province. It states:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has dumped the financing of ambulances, social housing and public health care services on to the backs of municipalities; and

"Whereas this irresponsible action will create a shortfall for local governments throughout Ontario; and

"Whereas local councils have been forced to raise property taxes by as much as $200 per household or cut services; and

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

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

"Whereas the Harris government has refused to listen to the representatives who work more closely with their constituents;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris government to scrap its downloading plan, which has caused either an increase in property taxes or unacceptable cuts to important local services."

I have signed my name to the petition as well, as I'm in full agreement.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition submitted by Rev Ross Lambton, the pastor of St Maurice Church, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm adding my own signature thereto.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario on the subject of education advertising.

"Whereas the Minister of Education intends on taking more than $1 billion out of Ontario's education system at a time when there indeed is an increasing consensus on the importance of supporting our schools and classrooms; and

"Whereas per pupil funding in the province of Ontario now ranks below other jurisdictions, such as Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri and even Nebraska; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now embarked on an advertising campaign which will cost the taxpayers of Ontario over $1 million; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government commercial does not constitute an important public announcement and instead is clearly an abuse of public funds, because they are self-serving political messages which are designed to influence public opinion; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government could cancel the advertising campaign and use the $1 million which belongs to the taxpayers of Ontario for the purchase of 40,000 textbooks;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, call on the Harris government to cancel their blatantly partisan and self-serving political advertising campaign and redirect the taxpayers' $1 million to classroom funding."

Because I agree with this, I am signing this document as well.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition that has been given to me by the Minister of Health who, as you know, according to the rules of this House, cannot present petitions in the Legislature. The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas numerous Ontarians have contracted the deadly disease hepatitis C through no fault of their own, as a result of which they have been burdened with various expenses in addition to permanently impaired health and the accompanying mental anguish;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to direct the Minister of Health to initiate no-fault payments to those who have contracted hepatitis C, in accordance with the first recommendation of the Krever report."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Harris cutbacks have resulted in an anticipated $38-million deficit at the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has drastically cut funding to hospitals across Ontario, leaving hospitals facing crippling deficits and massive cuts to services; and

"Whereas the Ontario Hospital Association is projecting a deficit of $200 million to $400 million for nearly 200 hospitals in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp will receive $4 million less in revenue from the Ministry of Health and other sources and needs an immediate cash infusion to meet its costs and purchase life-saving equipment;

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

I proudly add my name to these local citizens.

ROYAL ASSENT SANCTION ROYALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to a certain bill in her office.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): The following is the title of the bill to which Her Honour did assent:

Bill 62,

An Act to resolve labour disputes between teachers' unions and school boards / Projet de loi 62, Loi visant à régler les conflits de travail opposant des syndicats d'enseignants et des conseils scolaires.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Mr David Johnson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 63,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time / Projet de loi 63, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les heures d'enseignement.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): At the outset, I would indicate that I wish to share my time with the members for Simcoe Centre, Northumberland and Middlesex.

And starting off this debate, which has to do with the definition of "instructional time," to reiterate what the Premier of Ontario said last week to a large gathering of some 1,500 people, I believe, that we do have excellent teachers in the province of Ontario. They work hard, they're extremely valuable and valued, and perhaps we can't say that enough. Their role is instrumental in the future of the province of Ontario in moulding the young people and teaching the young people, guiding the young people. We entrust a considerable amount to the teachers and over the years we indeed have been well served by the teachers of the province of Ontario.

The standard that we're talking about here today, instructional time, is part of a very much larger package of quality improvements, of standards, that this government has brought forward and has implemented.

I might say the role of the provincial government is to bring forward these kinds of broad standards. Then the role of the local school boards is to implement within that broad framework of standards the specific programs within the jurisdiction of that board, the specific programs at the local school level. That is the role of the school boards. Then obviously the role of the teachers within that framework is to do the fine job they've been doing over the years to teach the individual students in the classes, within the context of board policy and within the context of the broader standards set by the province.

So today we are participating in a debate in terms of the setting of one of those standards for the quality of education in Ontario.

We have asked the secondary school teachers, through Bill 160 and through this definition today, to spend 25 more minutes in the classroom. The instructional time in the past has measured three hours and 45 minutes. The standard that we set of 1,250 minutes per week of instructional time boils down to four hours and 10 minutes a day on average, which exceeds the previous three hours and 45 minutes by some 25 minutes a day.

The question comes up, how do we define the instructional time? Given that we have through this standard determined that the instructional time should be 1,250 minutes per week, four hours and 10 minutes per day, how do we define what is included within those allotments of time? Certainly across Canada teachers are faced with the same sort of situation. In other provinces, I might say, the amount of instructional time is greater on average than the four hours and 10 minutes.

I suppose I should clarify up front that the four hours and 10 minutes pertains to the secondary level, to secondary schools, not to the elementary schools. The elementary schools have a different standard of 1,300 minutes of instructional time per week, which obviously is greater than the 1,250. The elementary teachers do spend more time in the classroom today, have spent more time in the classroom over the years, and there's no issue there. That standard has not been changed.

But we are talking about the secondary school teachers in Ontario. Comparing the situation in Ontario with other provinces, we find that about seven other provinces do have a higher amount of instructional time than the four hours and 10 minutes, and the elementary teachers do as well, as I mentioned.

Through the debate last year on Bill 160 I think it was fairly clear when we were talking about instructional time that we were talking about teachers in the classroom teaching students. That I believe is a definition that parents would recognize, that parents would say makes sense. Certainly it was what the government had intended through the years. We feel that's the way that instructional time was intended and understood by the people of Ontario, but it had never been defined in

an act.

It's perhaps interesting that some of the

definitions and some of the terms that are involved in education are not defined in

an act. The word "pupil," for example, is not defined anywhere in any particular act. So it's perhaps not too strange that "instructional time" has not been defined.

During the recent negotiations there have been some new

interpretations put on the words "instructional time." These new

definitions have been put on perhaps to make a better match with the lower amount of instructional time of three and three quarter hours that had been the norm in the past, perhaps in an attempt to get back to those lower levels. The negotiations involving the union had focused on other activities which were not classroom activities, such as monitoring the cafeteria during lunch period, for example, or monitoring the halls at various times during the day. These were the kinds of new issues that popped up and somehow got included within instructional time. It was never our intention that they would be included.

I don't think if you were to poll the parents of Ontario they would say that monitoring the cafeteria is part of classroom activity. I'm sure parents would say that somebody needs to monitor the cafeteria, somebody needs to monitor the hall. These are important activities and there should be some assurance that they're undertaken during the course of the normal day, but they are not classroom activities. I agree. I certainly feel that our cafeterias should be safe places for the students, our halls should be safe places, but they're not classroom activities.

Bear in mind that when we're talking about four hours and 10 minutes of classroom activities, that leaves a big chunk of the day beyond the four hours and 10 minutes that teachers would have which they could devote to preparation time, for example, which I consider to be most important.

It's most important that both elementary and secondary teachers have preparation time, but beyond preparation time perhaps time could be spent on other activities such as hall monitoring or supervising the cafeteria - certainly, I know many teachers are involved in extracurricular activities - or any number of meetings that they need, any number of activities that would take place that teachers would be involved with beyond the instructional classroom time. All of that's fine, but not in the instructional time.

The issue came up a few weeks ago that some agreements had actually been signed between boards and unions which took leeway with the definition of instructional time that we as a government contemplated. My response at that time was, "I don't agree with their

interpretation of the words `instructional time' in certain instances if they have gone beyond what is in the classroom." However, I must admit that they did so in the absence of a definition in the act. There was no definition in the act to guide them. So in that event we had indicated, and we continue to indicate, that any contracts which were agreed upon in the absence of a definition of instructional time, we would allow them to stand, we would not rip them open.

But once we clarified in the act for all to see what we understand, what I believe parents understand, is the definition of instructional time, then that definition of course must be obeyed as the standard, as regulations pertaining to the rest of education must be obeyed as well.

That's where we stand today. We now have Bill 63, which was severed from Bill 62, the bill we considered yesterday. In

an act that's worthy of this House, we did, through an all-party agreement, agree to proceed with Bill 62 and get the kids back to their schools today. I'm delighted that so many students are back in their classrooms today where they rightfully belong, where they should have been all through this period of time, and the teachers are back in the classroom. This is

an act that looks well upon this House, that we all got together and allowed that act to be dealt with so that the students are back in the classroom.

We did have to sever out this part of the bill and we're dealing with it here today.

I only note with a tinge of sadness, though, that the vote last night was not unanimous, because I would have thought that all the parties of this House would have voted unanimously to have the kids back in class today. I'm just sorry that colleagues from the Liberal and New Democratic parties were not able to support the bill that resulted in all the children being back in their classes today. So that's the one sad aspect of this bill. But the government did have enough votes, fortunately, to muster together to overcome the odds of the opposition parties and get all the students back in -

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: It's called the opposition. I suppose that's true, but one hopes that every once in a while the opposition is able to support a government bill.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Give some thought to it.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, give some thought to it. Thoughtful opposition.

Mr Shea: Thoughtful opposition would be wonderful.

Hon David Johnson: When we're talking about rights, there are rights of students to have education in Ontario as well. In the minds of parents, that is a very important right, that the school should be open, that the teachers should be there, that the students should have access to those schools.

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, there is certainly a balance that needs to take place. I consider that where the students were resting was the very, very heavy side of the scale. It weighed very heavily on my conscience and I'm sure very heavily on the consciences of all in this House that we needed to act. Just the fact that the opposition parties at least allowed the debate to take place I think is a signal of a little bit of co-operation. If you had only voted for it too, that would have been so much better.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): You're overreacting.

Hon David Johnson: I'm always hopeful. This is part of the quality, having teachers teach in the classroom. What we're talking about in this bill is what does constitute instructional time. First of all, it's on the regular timetable of the teacher; it's time on the regular timetable.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): You were hopeful we would vote for the bill. We were hopeful that you would accept our amendments.

Hon David Johnson: I'm sorry to dash your hopes, but we had to get the children back into the schools.

Mr Wildman: You could have accepted our amendments and still got them back.

These are the kinds of activities that we want our teachers doing. Direct contact with their students during credit courses, special education courses, apprenticeship programs, co-operative education programs; direct contact, teaching, guiding and mentoring our students, our young people in Ontario. Teachers doing the job that they do so well, that they're so well qualified for, that they're so valued for. Those are the components of instructional time and those are the components which will enhance the quality of our education in Ontario.

That's what the issue is about: Are we in favour of that quality approach or are we opposed to that quality approach? That's what this debate is about. I can tell you that I for one am definitely in favour of that quality approach, having teachers do what they do best.

There are many other aspects of the quality agenda in Ontario in which this government has taken the initiative. I would just like to comment on a few of them for a few brief moments.

For the first time in Ontario, classroom spending in general has been defined and protected. We have now defined classroom monies that boards will have and non-classroom monies that boards will have. The classroom monies are protected. Boards cannot take monies from the components of the classroom funding and spend them on non-classroom activities, such as administration or furniture for the bureaucrats or big buildings for the central office or those types of activities. They are restricted and must spend the classroom funding in the classroom on the components of the classroom.

Those components are obviously teachers, supply teachers, the guidance and librarians we've included in that category, the textbooks for the students, the paraprofessionals that support the classroom such as the speech pathologists. These are the kinds of activities that are protected. Money cannot be taken away from them and spent on administration or bureaucracy.

That's never happened before in Ontario. We do hear stories all about the province of Ontario on textbooks, for example, and how our children are being deprived and have been deprived year by year of textbooks, the shortage of textbooks, inadequate textbooks. That can no longer take place. In that context, of course we were pleased to supplement this year the textbooks in the schoolrooms at the elementary level with an initiative which doubled and brought in 3.2 million new textbooks to this point and we're barely over the halfway point in the program. We spent only $55 million out of $100 million.

I still have another $45 million in this fund to put to good use. I can assure the taxpayers that we will put it to good use, and we'll put it to good use by ensuring that we get the best value in a bulk purchase, a reduced price in a bulk purchase.

Some 3.2 million textbooks have been distributed through the elementary level already. Within the upcoming months we will see the remaining $45 million being directed towards more textbooks, science equipment to support the new curriculum, software for our students to assist them in their learning, to assist their teachers. All of these purchases will assist our teachers, will assist our students and will enhance the quality of education in our classrooms.

The curriculum has been revised at the elementary level. I think perhaps one of the strongest features of the quality curriculum that has been introduced by this government is to introduce a new and rigorous curriculum at the elementary level. That curriculum involves mathematics and language, which were introduced just over a year ago and, more recently, the arts, social studies, science and technology, the first real technology aspect of the curriculum that we've had in decades. It's a very exciting new curriculum and it has expectations year by year so that the students, the parents, the teachers, everybody knows year by year what a student should be taught and what a student should know.

That is brand new as well. Formerly, we didn't have that year-by-year expectation, so a parent really wouldn't know at the end of the year what their student should have learned during the course of that particular year. But now the parent can get a copy of the new curriculum. I encourage anybody watching, anybody who wishes to get a copy of the elementary curriculum to write in. We'd be happy to send you a copy and you will know exactly year by year what each student should have learned in all of the elementary courses, whether it's art or whether it's physical education and health or any other component.

I might say that at the secondary level we have been fortunate to receive the assistance of many teachers across Ontario to rewrite the secondary curriculum as well. That rewrite is being undertaken right at the present time. The first drafts of the new curriculum have already been issued. The process is well underway. The new curriculum at the secondary level will start in the fall of 1999, about a year from now, after careful consideration.

It is being written by teachers in conjunction with representation from the colleges and universities across Ontario. It is open for public scrutiny. I would encourage anybody who's interested to participate, to see it, to be involved, to have input into the process and, again, to contact the Ministry of Education.

This is an open process that we invite all stakeholders in education to be part of the writing of a new secondary school curriculum, a curriculum that will focus more on the basics, will have a little more emphasis on mathematics, a little more emphasis on language, a little more emphasis on science, a curriculum that will be more rigorous, more challenging to our secondary students, and it will work hand in glove with the curriculum that we've already developed at the elementary level.

These are exciting times for education in Ontario. "Quality" is the key word: better curriculum, more challenging curriculum, province-wide testing, testing that has been assisted by the teachers. The kind of testing we've done at grade 3 across the province has been designed by teachers to ensure its success. I think that's one of the reasons we've been so successful in coming forward with quality products in education, that we've sought and received the guidance and assistance of the teachers of Ontario.

The report cards are another aspect of the quality improvement. New report cards will be available right across the province at the elementary level by Christmas in all schools, report cards designed with input from the teachers of Ontario, and there is the electronic version of the report cards, again designed by teachers and educators across Ontario.

What else have we done? We've capped the average class size. I've spoken on this issue a few times and I think it's important, because average class sizes have been going up and up at the elementary level, year after year, and at the secondary level. Between 1991 and 1997, for example, the average class size in the province of Ontario rose at the secondary level, rose year by year at the elementary level, and teachers are being asked to teach more and more students in their classrooms. This is not fair to the teachers. This is not fair to the students. We, as the first government ever, have said this cannot carry on. We have put a cap on the average class size.

Will some classes be larger than the cap, than the average? Certainly they will. Some will be larger, some will be smaller. At the elementary level the cap is 25. If there's one class of 30, there will be another class at 20, so that the average is 25. That's the nature of an average. But I'll tell you that at least we have stopped the growth of the classes. That class which is at 30, without putting a cap on class size, would be 31 and 32 and 33 as the years roll by. That will no longer happen. That was taking place to some degree in the context of negotiations between the boards and the unions.

The boards and the unions were negotiating compensation and other aspects and it was resulting in larger class sizes clearly in some instances across Ontario, but we've now put a stop to that.

Tutors in the classroom is an issue we haven't talked about much over the last couple of days, but here is support for our teachers in the classroom, another program of quality. Young people from our colleges and universities who have skills are coming into the classrooms, helping the teachers with computer programs to teach the elementary students, by and large, about computers.

I was at the Andrew Hunter Elementary School in Barrie and they are just so pleased with the program and they have such an excellent program at the Hunter school in Barrie. The young kids in the elementary schools are so magnificent on the computers. They can create their own Web sites, dial into the Ministry of Education Web sites. They are so proficient with the computer. They could teach us all in this House a good deal. How did the elementary kids arrive at this level?

They arrived at this level because the tutors program was there, which was an initiative of this government, I'm pleased to say, a quality initiative. We set up the tutors program. The young people came in from the colleges and the universities and showed the elementary students how to do these things on the computers and now the young kids are just so proficient on the computers. You have to be proud to see them and see how well they operate.

The special education I've mentioned.

Today I was really pleased, and I guess it's the last thing I'll speak to today before I sit down, to specify board by board the monies which will flow to school boards to build new accommodations. We know that in many boards in the province there are more students than there is space to accommodate the students, that there are many portables and that students are not being housed in the most accessible accommodations. This is something that needs to be dealt with.

The formula that we announced earlier this year, details of which I announced this afternoon, will flow monies to the boards. The boards will now be able to rely on a flow of revenues. They will be able to convert that flow of revenues into a capital program. We've given the boards the flexibility. We've said to the boards, "You are responsible entities and we're not going to direct you as previous governments have done." Previous governments have said you have to build a school here or you have to build a school there. We say no, we're not going to do that.

The boards are responsible. They know the needs of their students. They know the needs within the context of the whole board. We'll flow them the money. They will convert that into capital and they will decide, with their parents, with their constituents, with their ratepayers, where to best invest, where to best build new schools, where to best put renovations on existing schools. That's the money that we announced this afternoon. It will flow right across the province. It's an unprecedented program. It will involve some $800 million worth of building over the next year and about $1.5 billion over the next three years: an unprecedented program in Ontario.

When those schools start to come up, as the one in York region today, Richmond Hill - I was in Richmond Hill this afternoon -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Hon David Johnson: When that school is built, I think we'll all be proud in this House, even those who are heckling me today, those merchants of fear. We'll all be proud to see those schools crop up and the students having the proper accommodation.

That's another aspect of our quality program, as is Bill 63 to describe the instructional time, to define it. I challenge the opposition. I say this is part of our quality improvement program in education in Ontario, and I ask you to look at it in that vein and give us your support. We need your support. Go for quality.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 63,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time. The bottom line here is, we're dealing in terms of instructional time for secondary school teachers. Instructional time, in my view, is a teaching condition. Quite frankly, it's a quality teaching condition we're talking about here. Time in the classroom teaching students is certainly time well spent and it's one of the standards that we're trying to maintain.

Last fall, the government, through the Education Quality Improvement Act, which was Bill 160, and the Fewer School Boards Act, introduced reforms to improve the quality of education for all students in Ontario and to ensure consistent province-wide standards. During the implementation of these reforms there has been discussion about the legislative requirement that secondary school teachers provide instruction to pupils which amounts to, on average, four hours and 10 minutes daily.

In his letter of September 4 to chairs of school boards and school authorities, the Minister of Education and Training reminded them of the new provincial standard-setting and a minimal amount of time that teachers are required to spend teaching. That's what we're talking about here: teaching in the classroom. That's what instructional time is all about.

The minister's letter also discussed the meaning of secondary school instruction and signals his intention to introduce legislation that would confirm this definition for the purposes of

section 170.2 of the Education Act. The minimum instruction time standard was adopted by the Legislature last year and is now the law. The proposed instruction time amendment provides confirmation of what has been a commonly understood term: that instructional time is time in classroom teaching students. That's basically common sense. I think it's fairly well understood.

However, that's not what's been going on with respect to the negotiations between school boards and the teachers' unions. The proposed instruction time amendment provides confirmation of what has been a commonly understood term. If passed by the Legislature, it would ensure consistent, province-wide understanding and application of the instruction time standard as we move ahead to enhance the quality of education for students.

What we're talking about in terms of instructional time is that the Education Act provision under

section 170.2 provides that every school board "shall ensure that, in the aggregate, its classroom teachers...are assigned to provide instruction to pupils for an average of at least 1,300 minutes" per week for elementary schools, which works out to four hours and 20 minutes per day, and 1,250 minutes per week for secondary school teachers, which works out to four hours and 10 minutes per day. I'd have you note the differential between elementary school teachers' time and secondary school teachers' time. There's a significant difference between the two. Yet that's what we're faced with respect to secondary school negotiations.

The very fact is that it's the responsibility of school boards and unions to negotiate agreements respecting provincial standards. That's their obligation but they have to negotiate with respect to the provincial standards, not water down the provincial standards. Some of those standards are a five-hour instructional day for pupils, 110 hours per credit, limits on class size, prohibition of planned budget deficits, minimum instructional time for teachers and 190 instructional days for secondary students, which includes a maximum of 10 exam days and a maximum of four professional activity days. These are provincial standards that have been set out.

What we're talking about is a teacher assigned to a regular timetable providing instruction in programs which are obviously to the benefit of the students in terms of their education. It's not dealing with such items as cafeteria supervision; that's not instructional time. Neither is hall monitoring. Instructional time is time in the classroom teaching students. That's the common sense definition, that's the common sense approach of this government with respect to instructional time.

The law was passed last year so that secondary school teachers would spend more time in the classroom. High school teachers in Ontario have been spending less than four hours of their day teaching students, while the national average is 4.5 hours. Let's look at some of those national standards and other jurisdictions in the country in terms of the time that's being spent teaching students in the classroom at the secondary level.

In this province in January 1998 the teaching time hours per day ranged between three hours and 40 minutes to three hours and 50 minutes per day teaching students. Under this new legislation which was put into place, as of September 1998 in Ontario that has been increased to four hours and 10 minutes. We're increasing by 20 minutes classroom instructional time. Even with that increase, we're the third-lowest in comparison to all the other provinces in this country. The only two provinces that are below us are Quebec and Saskatchewan. All the rest are above us.

I would say to you that we're certainly not at the norm level. We're dealing with essentially trying to bring up what I would call a teaching condition. I think David Cooke, who is the co-chair of the Education Improvement Commission, would characterize instructional time to students in the classroom as a teaching condition, and I would agree with him. I wouldn't view this as a working condition, something you can negotiate with the trade union and water down so they can achieve whatever objective they want in terms of maintaining staff or maintaining the status quo in terms of the level of teaching and the time of teaching per day in front of students.

That's not what we're about. We're about providing quality education for students, not quality time for the teachers in terms of performing their job. We have to focus on this teaching condition, because another common sense fact about this is that the greater the amount of instructional time you have, the greater the quality of education you're providing; that's increasing and providing quality student time, and that leads to better performance. That's the bottom line.

What are we trying to accomplish here? Are we trying to accomplish providing collective agreements that do not provide for quality teaching time and quality education? That's why the province got involved in providing these standards. But even with what we're providing here under Bill 63, we're well below other provinces in this country. As I said, we're still the third lowest, even by increasing instructional time for secondary school teachers by that additional 20 minutes.

I think it's fundamental. I don't think it takes away from quality education, as do those taking an opposition approach to this, saying: "The less time you're in the classroom, that's going to affect the quality of the teachers being able to teach. It's going to affect quality education, because you're making us teach more in the classroom." I just don't understand that argument. I'd remind the opposition parties that the parents in this province outnumber the teachers - that's common sense mathematics - so let's focus on who we're trying to benefit here.

We're trying to benefit the students and we're trying to make sure that the parents get the value for their dollars with respect to sending their children to school and making sure that as a province we provide quality education and these standards.

That's an unfortunate outcome of what has happened with respect to these negotiations this time around. We're getting caught up into basically fine hairs, the thin edge of the wedge, if you want to put it that way, in terms of what's instructional time. Why should we be negotiating instructional time in terms of taking the teachers out of the classroom so you can maintain teaching six classes out of eight and also maintain your staff level? That's the union's objective. That's obvious in terms of what their goals are.

The bottom line is that I don't think it's out of line to increase the teaching time in front of students in the classroom by 20 minutes. That's a basic, common sense approach.

We've had to take this measure as a government to come forth with this legislation because the school boards and the trade unions haven't been able to negotiate that standard which is set out already in the legislation. That's already out there in terms of how much instructional time is required of the secondary school teacher. What they're dickering about is, what is instructional time? We know what instructional time is. It's teaching the students in the classroom their core curriculum. It's not monitoring the lunch period and other matters that take the teacher away from the classroom.

We have to come forth here in this Legislature to define instructional time. That's what we're all about here in terms of dealing with this, and I think it's a fairly common sense approach to deal with it. But that's the unfortunate outcome in terms of the negotiations that have taken place this time. Unfortunately it led to lockouts on behalf of school boards and it led to strike activity on actions of the trade unions. I'm talking about full strike activity and not rotating strikes.

That's another unfortunate aspect in terms of the negotiations, rotating strikes, which have obviously affected classroom time, instructional time. But that's what we're trying to do here, to make it very clear that you can't negotiate down a standard, and that's what's happening out there, negotiating down instructional time. We're not in favour of that.

The law is the law and the law has been very clearly set out in terms of the amount of instructional time that is required. We're asking for four hours and 10 minutes a day from secondary school teachers. I don't think that's too much to ask. We come here today and now we're defining what instructional time is to make it crystal clear that what we're talking about is teaching time in the classroom with respect to core subjects.

We're not talking about cafeteria supervision and we're not talking about hall monitoring. We're talking about instructional time, which is time in the classroom teaching students. That's what we've had to come to in terms of this piece of legislation, to obviously add transparency, to add clarity, so both parties know what they're negotiating in terms of what instructional time is. It's unfortunate that we have to do this because I think it's common sense what it's about.

I'm very pleased to have been able to join the debate and I fully support Bill 63, its objectives and what we're trying to accomplish in this province in terms of providing quality education. I focus on and I reiterate that what we're talking about in terms of instructional time is a teaching condition that is to the benefit of our students in this province. These are quality standards, it's quality education and it's going to improve our education system.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on Bill 63,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time.

In my first minute or so I'd like to first compliment the Minister of Education on his bill yesterday, Bill 62, because in my riding we have the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board - it's Board number 41 in short. They were locked out and I certainly had a lot of parents phoning, concerned about their children not in school. I think it's rather ironic that in the town of Cobourg we had a brand-new St Mary's school just built, finished, ready to go and, lo and behold, the students were locked out. I think that was very unfortunate.

Yesterday was a beautiful exercise in the democratic process and the party system. There was give and take on both sides. Even the NDP gave and took a little bit. It ended up that the students were the winners. They were the winners in the end at 11:30 last night when we had our final vote. Even though the NDP and the Liberals didn't want to agree with the final bill, it was kind of them to let it go thro