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

November 18, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L246 - Tue 18 Nov 1997 / Mar 18 Nov 1997

WEARING OF GREEN RIBBONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

EDUCATION REFORM

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

EDUCATION REFORM

MAJOR SAMUEL JOHANNES HOLLAND

EDUCATION REFORM

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

MOTIONS

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ACCESS TO PUBLIC GALLERIES

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ACCESS TO PUBLIC GALLERIES

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

AIR QUALITY

SCHOOL TEACHERS

RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION / EDUCATION REFORM

RURAL JOB CREATION

CLASS SIZE

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION REFORM

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

EDUCATION REFORM

ABORTION

EDUCATION REFORM

VETERANS' HIGHWAY

EDUCATION REFORM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TENANT PROTECTION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

WEARING OF GREEN RIBBONS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Can you remove the ribbon, please.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to wear the ribbon.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole is seeking unanimous consent to wear the green ribbon. Agreed? I heard a no.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): In all the discussions we've had about Bill 160 and the teachers' protest, it is important to remember that Bill 160 will have some very real impacts on real schools and real communities. By virtue of this government taking over the collection of education property taxes across Ontario, education taxes levied locally for local purposes in Niagara, Halton, Peel, Markham, Ottawa, all the major urban and suburban centres, will be redistributed according to a province-wide formula.

As a result, speaking for my own community in the city of Ottawa, I can tell you that the Ottawa Board of Education is expected to lose some $50 million out of its $260-million budget. That is nearly one quarter of its budget. It is estimated that this loss will have to be accommodated by up to 15 school closures, primarily elementary schools, and the possible loss of such programs as vocational schools and middle or late French immersion.

These are programs that are important to the future of our children in Ottawa. These are the real impacts of Bill 160 that will come about in Ottawa-Carleton as a result of this government's power grab and money grab and, I suspect, in many of the urban and suburban school boards across Ontario. It is wrong. It will be a tremendous step backwards in terms of the quality of education these communities have struggled so hard to put into place with their own money.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I am pleased today to rise on behalf of the Ontario Nurses' Association, which this morning marched a thousand strong on Queen's Park to deliver to the Premier their vision of health care, which they call the Saving Medicare Plan.

It's really important for us to understand that with the cuts that have happened to hospital funding, the cuts that have happened in many areas of health care and the lack of response on the part of the federal government to put those dollars back into communities, everyone who is working in the health care field is trying to tell this government what the results are.

ONA says that 70.6% of the people who responded to their questionnaire report they have difficulty obtaining needed care; 86.3% report noticing a decline in the quality of health care; 89.3% have noticed fewer and fewer professional care providers in hospitals, nursing homes and community agencies; 41.1% have reported having to look after or pay for the care of an acutely ill relative; and 63.5% have to go to many different places to receive needed care. The professionals in the field of health care, particularly the nurses, have a plan.

Last night in Kitchener-Waterloo the new Minister of Health said that the health ministry lacked vision in the past and that she is going to change that. Well, this government has taken the dollars out of health care and has ordered hospitals closed without vision. We've been trying to tell them that for months.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have attended meetings and talked to constituents in Simcoe East who are involved and care about Ontario's education system, as have Joe Tascona and Bill Grimmett.

Some sections of Bill 160 caused me concern when I listened to the

interpretation of teachers and supporters. It appeared to give the minister enormous power over our education system. I took the opportunity to consult with a lawyer in Orillia for an explanation of these sections and was assured these areas referred mainly to financial responsibilities. In fact, they are basically unchanged from the current education bill of 1990. In the amendments now before the committee, our courts will have final power over any act as outlined in the Constitution.

I have read and studied this bill extensively and find it offensive that students and parents are being fed misinformation. I have grandchildren in the education system, as do many other Ontarians, and as one constituent from Orillia said in her letter this week, "My children deserve quality education, my children deserve attention."

While receiving letters against Bill 160, I am also receiving many letters and phone calls from students and parents who support the education improvement changes that Bill 160 will bring to Ontario's education system.

We need student testing. We need a core curriculum. We need parent councils. We need --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock, please. Order. I think it's important that members' statements be heard.

Mr McLean: We need principal and vice-principal involvement. We need to give the students more time with their teachers. We need to cap class sizes. We need to give our students every opportunity to learn to be the best in the world.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Today the Legislature was given a telling reminder that what we're seeing with Bill 160 is just part of a destructive pattern this government has been engaged in for some time. We had a visit from the members of the Ontario Nurses' Association. They filed their plan for saving medicare with the Premier, a plan made necessary by this government. They did that to help fix the harm that has already been accomplished in the health care system by this government.

Let's just look at the parallels between what has been done and what this government intends to do.

The power-grabbing legislation: In Bill 26 they took the power and in 160 they want to do the same.

Making decisions with secret commissions behind closed doors: They did that to hospitals.

Wholesale cuts to programs: They took $800 million away from hospitals.

Firing dedicated public employees: They did that to nurses and they now want to do it to teachers.

If you add this up, it's a decline in the quality of care. Some 86% of the people surveyed by the nurses say that the quality of care has gone down.

The question for the back bench of this government and for the public of this province is, why would we want to do to the education system of this province and to the children of this province what Harris has already done to the health care system?

Shame on this government if it can't recognize the damage it has already done, using the exact same pattern. It wants to repeat that with Bill 160 on the education system.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I am pleased to take this opportunity to express the fact that my leader, right now as we speak, along with my colleague Tony Martin from Sault Ste Marie, are now at the Mowat Block joining Dwyer Sullivan in a show of solidarity from our caucus, as Howard Hampton leads our caucus in continuing the fight against Bill 160. The teachers have done their bit. They went out there and showed great courage and a great amount of principle and a great deal of concern for the children, which sure is a hell of a lot more than this government is showing with their bill.

The fact of the matter is, Speaker, that notwithstanding your ruling, which you have the right to make, wherever we can and however we can we will continue to fly the colour of the apple-green in support of the protest against Bill 160. We saw teachers here yesterday along with parents, after work, in the cold, by the hundreds, by the thousands, surrounding this place.

There are schools and public buildings all across Ontario that are flying the apple-green ribbons in a show of protest against this government. Even Peter Kormos is wearing a tie. That's how much this matters. That's how important it is. In the closing seconds I want to urge everybody who cares, every citizen: Fly the colour. Show you care. Take them on.

MAJOR SAMUEL JOHANNES HOLLAND

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): In October in Bradford West Gwillimbury I had the opportunity to help unveil a plaque in honour of Major Samuel Johannes Holland.

In 1764 Captain Holland became the surveyor general of the northern district of North America, with instructions to survey all British possessions north of the Potomac River. In 1790 the British government's decision to make land grants to loyalists after the American revolution made it necessary for Major Holland to accelerate the survey of the vast tracks of land destined to become Ontario.

His surveying of this region enabled a log road to be built after his death. This log road grew to be Yonge Street, which became an artery connecting not only towns and cities of my riding, but of many communities of Ontario.

Holland's cartographic skills and his systems of rapid surveys that he used in mapping the wilderness helped Ontario as well as Simcoe county to be settled in an effective and imaginative fashion.

At this time I would like to thank all the volunteers whose work led to the commemorative plaque that now honours a man whose dedication and skills assisted in the growth of Canada from the Atlantic provinces to Upper Canada. His foresight and considerable technical skills ensured a strong tradition of cartography in Canada.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I would like to read to the House a number of statements about Bill 160. I quote, "I have a big problem giving all the power of education not just to this Premier but to any Premier that may follow." Who said that, the head of a teachers' federation? No. Teachers? No. Opposition? No. Trevor Pettit, the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Let me give you another quote, "I feel misled over a number of things." Again, was it a teachers' federation? No. Teachers? No. Students? No. Who said it? Trevor Pettit, member for Hamilton Mountain.

It gets better. Let me quote again, "I have a problem giving any one person, whether it be Premier Harris or anyone else, control over the whole system." Again, not a teachers' federation, not teachers, not the member across the floor who's heckling, but who said this? Toni Skarica.

Very clearly, all is not well in the Tory caucus. As much as the Premier and his whiz kids and all the hacks want to come down and hammer your backbenchers, you are losing control of this agenda; you are losing this fight. You haven't been listening to the teachers. You have ignored parents. You have ignored students. You have ignored the opposition. You now have a caucus revolt.

Let me tell you, the smug backbenchers that are standing there smiling and heckling: You are going to be challenged for nominations by teachers across this province. They are not going to give you a chance to come back to Queen's Park. They will beat you on your turf, in your backyard. You are going to pay one hell of a political price for what you've done to teachers and to students. I tell the wimps across the floor: Face the teachers --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Member for Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I want to congratulate John Silva, Steve Moore, William Payne and Dwyer Sullivan, who have all gone to Minister Johnson's office to protest Bill 160, taking risk with their own health and sitting there because the minister refuses to listen to the hundreds of thousands of teachers and parents and others across this province who support public education. They have done a good deed for all of us in this province and we want to thank them.

Indeed our leader, Howard Hampton, and the member for Sault Ste Marie, Tony Martin, are over there right now speaking with Mr Sullivan to ask about what other things we can be doing to stop this bill, and to also bring Mr Sullivan some food, because as you know he's been deprived of food and other supports while he's been there.

I have thousands of petitions here, as do all my colleagues. There are hundreds and thousands of petitions across this province.

When I continue to hear this Premier -- Premier Harris -- in his despicable, disgusting ads, which cross a very fine line in this province in fairness in our democracy, blame it on the union bosses and the union leaders, I want to make it clear that the hundreds of thousands of people in this province have a mind of their own and that's whom we're listening to.

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about a very important issue. This is, as you know, Wife Assault Prevention Month, a commemoration launched by my colleague the minister responsible for women's issues on November 4 at the Barbra Schlifer clinic in downtown Toronto.

As we all know, wife assault is a crime. As political leaders, as citizens of this province, as human beings, we must all act to end the violent assault of women in their own homes by their own partners. Our government is committed to that goal, and promotes community-based services and solutions through nine ministries and more than 30 programs dedicated to violence prevention. Those services, for the thousands of women and children who need help, are very much community efforts.

I was pleased that as part of her activities for Wife Assault Prevention Month, the minister was able to join me on a visit to the Scarborough Women's Centre. Together we talked with front-line workers and the women who are breaking free of the cycle of domestic violence. They told us that support from their community and from the government are essential if they are to rebuild their lives.

I know all members of the House will join me in honouring these women -- these survivors. I urge each of us to accept a personal responsibility to end violence against women and their children.

MOTIONS

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put a motion to appoint the Integrity Commissioner under our integrity act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There are times in the House, though they are few these days, where there is unanimous agreement on an initiative that is brought forward by the government. This is one where there is agreement. We are pleased to see the appointment of Mr Justice Robert Rutherford as the Integrity Commissioner in the province of Ontario. He brings to this position an outstanding public service record, an excellent reputation on the bench, and we believe he will fulfil the duties and responsibilities of the Integrity Commissioner in the manner in which all members of this Legislature and the people of Ontario would want to see those duties carried out.

It is indeed an extremely important position. The public perception of those in public office isn't always what we would like it to be. The establishment of the Office of the Integrity Commissioner and the rules and responsibilities under which he operates are extremely important to the people of this province because he looks at the integrity of the members in terms of the holdings they have, in terms of their actions as members of the Legislature and any conflicts which may arise as a result of personal and private actions and investments and so on, compared to carrying out the responsibilities of public office.

We are in full support of Mr Justice Rutherford assuming this position. We wish him well in this position and we offer our full cooperation.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On behalf of our caucus I want to briefly state that we also are in support of the appointment of Mr Justice Robert Rutherford to the post of Integrity Commissioner and that we support the motion brought forward by the government House leader.

There has been considerable discussion about the role of the Integrity Commissioner, particularly as it relates to some of the initiatives this government has said it wishes to move forward with. The suggestion has been made, and we agree, that if there is to be any major contracting out or privatization of government agencies, facilities or services, there must be some process in place for ensuring that senior members of the civil service who might leave their employ here can ensure that there are proper protections to prevent conflicts of interest. We support the suggestion that these changes will proceed and Mr Justice Rutherford will play this role.

As we understand it, Mr Justice Rutherford is a very well respected jurist. He has served long on the bench, with great integrity, and has tremendous respect from his colleagues and the members of the legal profession as well as widely held respect in the community. Mr Justice Rutherford served on the Somalia inquiry and is well known for his abilities and his understanding of the complexities and delicacies of some of the issues with which he will be dealing.

For those reasons we join with the Liberal Party and the Conservative government in supporting the nomination and appointment of Mr Justice Rutherford to this very senior and important post, which is of particular importance to all members of the assembly as we ensure that there is proper integrity in all activities around this place.

Hon Mr Sterling: I want to thank the opposition parties for consulting with us and reaching an all-party consensus on the appointment of Mr Justice Rutherford as our new Integrity Commissioner. As you know, he will be our second Integrity Commissioner in this province. Our first Integrity Commissioner, the Honourable Judge Greg Evans, is retiring. On behalf of the Legislature I would like to express to him our thanks for his diligent duty and the tremendous service he paid to this Legislative Assembly and the people of Ontario.

It has been mentioned that Mr Justice Rutherford was a member of the bar of Ontario, he was a justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario and member of the High Court of Justice for Ontario since June 1976.

I also add that he served as a tank commander with the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps during the Second World War. As I go through the next few weeks, I may be calling Justice Rutherford for advice with regard to getting business through this House.

The Legislature will be looking to his leadership not only with regard to the duties performed by the former Integrity Commissioner, but we would expect that his role will be enhanced in the future to deal with such matters as the House leader for the third party has mentioned and additional duties with regard to the behaviour of not only the members of the Legislature but also the staffs of those members.

We welcome him, we will work with him and we will ensure that he will be able to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and continue to serve the people of Ontario in the highest possible regard.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce the Honourable Robert C. Rutherford in the Speaker's gallery. Welcome and congratulations.

Shall the motion carry? Carried.

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent for an all-party statement on Wife Assault Prevention Month, which is the month of November. So far the government has done nothing on this issue. Yesterday they said they would do it today.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to point out that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, during her member's statement, made a statement on this. The minister made a statement on this. I might also add that the tradition of this House has been for these kinds of statements to be very supportive, as we are, of this particular event. However, there has been an understanding and a tradition in this House that we would not stoop to petty partisan politics when making these statements.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Oh, you say it's petty; petty, when women are out there and not getting the help they need. You call that petty?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Beaches-Woodbine, come to order, please.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Yesterday you said it was for today. You've got no integrity at all.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre. Government House leader.

Hon Mr Sterling: The tradition of this House has been that there would be general support of the Legislative Assembly by all three parties on unanimous consent. I asked the third party if they would hold to this tradition. They have said they will not hold to that tradition. Therefore, I would deny consent on this.

The Speaker: If you'd take your seats, I'd appreciate it. I have a request for unanimous consent. I want to put the unanimous consent to see if it's going to carry or not. If it does carry, then I'll hear your points of privilege. Really, unanimous consent is unanimous consent; it's either going to carry or not. There aren't a whole bunch of points of privilege beyond that. Let me put the unanimous consent first and see.

The member for Riverdale is seeking unanimous consent. Agreed? No, it did not carry.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise as the critic for women's issues for our caucus. It was certainly clear to me yesterday, at least I believed it was made clear --

The Speaker: Member for Fort William, I appreciate what you're saying, but as I said earlier, this is not for this place to be debating; this is for the House leaders to discuss, but you know what? I'm not able to tie anybody to anything they said yesterday with respect to unanimous consent. I will give you a brief comment, but it isn't in order, with great respect.

Mrs McLeod: If you will hear me out for a moment please, I think the government House leader today put a totally different complexion on this. There was a general understanding, at least it was my understanding -- I came prepared today for what I expected was a government proposal that I understood both the Premier and the minister had agreed to -- that we'd be speaking to this today.

The government House leader today has suggested that we would not be having unanimous consent to speak on this issue because we were not following what he described as a tradition of this House.

The Speaker: Member for Fort William, it isn't a point of order. With great respect, it's not a point of order. The member for Riverdale rightfully stood in her place on a point of order and asked for unanimous consent. The government House leader rose in his place and spoke what he felt was his response to the request. I put the unanimous consent; it didn't carry. I appreciate what you're saying, but there's nothing out of order at this point for me to even rule on.

Mrs McLeod: -- anybody on this side of the House is prepared to raise a point of order.

The Speaker: I didn't hear completely what you said, but you know what? Unanimous consent is quite simple. If any member decides not to give consent, there's no unanimous consent.

Member for Riverdale, briefly.

Ms Churley: Actually, a point of order, and I think this is a legitimate point of order: When the government House leader spoke, he said that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere made a statement about Wife Assault Prevention Month in the 90-second statement that all members had, and he seemed to be implying that was the government's way of --

The Speaker: Member for Riverdale, I appreciate what you're saying, but there's nothing out of order right now. You're standing on a point of order. There's nothing out of order. I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but the point is this: I sought unanimous consent, which you requested me to do; I didn't get it, so there's nothing out of order.

Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I understand your ruling and I'm not questioning your ruling. You put a question to the House and there was not unanimous consent.

I want to indicate, however, that in response to the member's request for unanimous consent, you didn't simply put the question. In fact, the government House leader stood and made a statement with respect to this issue, in particular commenting and reflecting on comments made earlier as the government's position and referring to anything that we might be saying as petty, partisan politics. He in fact has made a statement, and I believe at this point in time he imputed motive as well with respect to what we may say.

I think at this point in time it is only fair, given that he has made a statement, that the two opposition parties be given an opportunity to respond on this very important issue.

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine, if I can respond to what you just said, and I want to give you this point of order, with great respect, the member for Riverdale started this out not by simply requesting unanimous consent. She made comment with respect to the kind of unanimous consent she was requesting and made comment on the government's position with her request for unanimous consent. That started the ball rolling. It's very difficult for me to cut off one member who is seeking that when the opposite side wants to make the same kind of point with respect to unanimous consent.

I appreciate your point of order, but it wasn't simply standing in her place and seeking unanimous consent; there was political content there. I did my best to cut it off. It's very difficult once that process begins. Once I seek unanimous consent, it's over and there's nothing any longer that's out of order. I appreciate the point you're making, but there's nothing out of order any longer.

Mr Bradley: On a point of order --

The Speaker: Okay, but I'm trying to point out to the members for St Catharines and Riverdale there's nothing out of order on this issue. There's no point in standing up any longer on a point of order. There is nothing --

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): There's another point of order.

The Speaker: Then I will hear finally the member for Riverdale's point of privilege.

Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I have a point of privilege. I would then ask you to ask the government House leader to withdraw his comment suggesting, imputing motive, that I was going to stand up and make petty, partisan points. I want an apology.

The Speaker: I heard what you said, and I know that you're fully aware that any member may withdraw any comments they make. What he said wasn't out of order; it may have been politically exciting, it may have caused this House some disruption, but it wasn't out of order. I can't ask him to withdraw. If he would like to withdraw, he may withdraw, but there wasn't anything unparliamentary about it.

Mr Bradley: On a point of privilege, Speaker: Yesterday I thought that when the House leader gave an undertaking he said we were going to deal with this matter today. That's why everybody's prepared for this. At the House leaders' meeting I thought there was an agreement that we would deal with it today.

The Speaker: I've got to tell you, member for St Catharines, it's not up to me to start interpreting House leaders' agreements. I can't do it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Can I ask the member for Oriole to take that box down, please. Thank you.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I ask the indulgence of the House.

Yesterday, the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) and the member for St Catharines (Mr Bradley) raised a matter of privilege relating to advertisements sponsored by the government that address issues concerning Bill 160 and the recent province-wide work stoppage by teachers.

Both members asserted that the advertisements convey their messages in highly partisan terms, to the extent that the ad campaign amounts to an unfair and abusive use of public funds, funds that are not available to all sides in this House.

Because of the alleged advantage taken of this uneven distribution of opportunity, it was asserted by the members that their privileges had been breached.

The members for Cochrane South, Fort William, Scarborough-Agincourt and the government House leader also made submissions. I have carefully reviewed those comments and the materials that were provided to me.

I want to say that this point of privilege revolves around an issue that is not new to this chamber. Government advertising has increasingly been a source of concern and complaint for members ever since it has been embraced by governments of the day as a method of communicating with the general public. Indeed, the members who spoke to this point have all been members of governments that have themselves been subject to the very complaint that underlies this very point of privilege.

Privilege, as set out in our standing orders and in the parliamentary texts, is a very special thing. Its essence is that each of us has the right to be here, in this chamber; to speak to and vote on the issues of the day; to be free from intimidation or obstruction in doing our parliamentary work; for the assembly to be free from contempt, and to have those privileges protected.

As your Speaker, I must determine, if asked to do so, if any member's entitlement to these very extraordinary parliamentary benefits has been threatened, or if the proceedings of the Legislature have been reflected upon or presumed in a manner that amounts to a contempt of the House.

This is a very imposing duty, but it is also a very imposing test.

The test for a successful case of privilege must surely be: "How does the event or activity aggrieved of prevent either the member, or Parliament itself, from performing its functions? Or, does this activity call the assembly and its honour and integrity into disrepute?"

In the case at hand, does the ad campaign complained about impede any of us, as MPPs, in our functions? Does the campaign call the role of the Legislature into question, or criticize it, or anticipate it?

In my view it does none of these things. The ads may represent an aggressive challenge to opposing views put forward by others, but I do not believe they caused any of us to come here without the uncontested ability to continue the debate on this issue, nor can it be argued that the respect due to this House is diminished by the wording of the ads. Therefore I find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out.

Before concluding, I wish to make an observation.

On previous occasions, I have expressed concern about the nature, tone and propriety of advertisements or similar distributions made by this government. I continue to hold these reservations and strongly encourage this and any future government to consider the power and influence that you wield when you send these messages to the broad public.

ACCESS TO PUBLIC GALLERIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I ask for the indulgence of the House to allow me to make a brief statement respecting the public galleries.

Members of the public have an opportunity to observe first hand the legislative process by attending the public galleries. This attendance though is contingent upon compliance with the rules as clearly outlined on the gallery passes. For example, one such rule states: "Demonstrations are not permitted in the building including the galleries. This includes the display of signs, banners, buttons or other activities." Another says, "Visitors must refrain from applause or making any interruption or disturbance." There is no ambiguity about what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. The gallery is not a place for demonstrations or protest.

As stated in my earlier ruling, the essence of parliamentary privilege is that members must be free from intimidation or obstruction in doing our parliamentary work, and members have the right, and I want to emphasize that, to have these privileges protected, on both sides of the House. When the public in the galleries cause disruptions, they impede the progress of business in this House and in extreme cases offend the privileges of members. It is my role to protect those privileges and it falls to me to remedy these situations when they occur.

Public causing disruptions from the galleries will be asked to leave. In the case of an individual standing and yelling out, he or she is asked to leave and the gallery is cautioned. However, when it appears that such individual outbursts are part of a larger demonstration, I am sure members can appreciate that there is a limit to the number of cautions that can be reasonably given before the entire gallery must be cleared.

Demonstrations are certainly part of the democratic process of this province, and I have encouraged and accommodated these demonstrations outside the building, on the front lawn of this Legislature. I have done so. But inside this place, protest and demonstration are completely unacceptable. This chamber is a forum for considered debate, and the public gallery the place from which to observe that debate.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: We of course accept and respect your rulings, recognizing that they're based upon the rules of this House and the jurisdiction you have. Whether we agree with the content is another matter. We certainly respect your ruling in this regard. However, you have drawn to the attention of members of the House --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is this a point of privilege?

Mr Bradley: A point of privilege.

The Speaker: And it springs from?

Mr Bradley: It springs from the previous ruling.

The Speaker: Because I'm supposed to receive it in writing an hour before the House --

Mr Bradley: It's just a point of order, then.

The Speaker: Okay, a point of order.

Mr Bradley: If you want that, it'll be a point of order that I'm raising. I simply am looking at what you have said as Speaker; not pointing at any specific government, you have pointed out that there is a problem. But, Mr Speaker, I think even the most neutral persons, even some who agree with policies of this government, must recognize that in this last set of ads, of which I have the transcript, the government has crossed the line.

In my 20 years in this Legislature I have never seen ads of this nature. I believe this House must take action and I hope you will provide us with more guidance on how we can take action to put an end to these vitriolic attack ads against people who have paid for these ads themselves.

The Speaker: It's not up to the Speaker to suggest a mode for resolving this issue, if there is an issue to be resolved. Again, it's up to the House leaders in this House if they believe it needs to be addressed.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Speaker, I would like to raise a point in regard to the comments you've just made in response to my friend from St Catharines on your first ruling. I also have a matter to raise with regard to the second ruling, for clarification.

In regard to the first ruling on government advertising, you have clearly made your ruling but you've also expressed once again personal reservations and concern about the tone of government advertising and the use of taxpayers' money.

This is, as you've said, not the first time such an opinion has been expressed by the Speaker about advertising by the government. It would seem to me reasonable, and I hope all members of the House would agree, that this is a matter grave enough and serious enough that it should be considered by the House. I ask unanimous consent that the matter of government advertising of this sort, attack ads of this sort, be referred to the Legislative Assembly committee for consideration.

The Speaker: The member for Algoma is seeking unanimous consent to refer that matter to a committee of the House. Agreed? No. I heard a no.

ACCESS TO PUBLIC GALLERIES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, with regard to your ruling about the galleries and attendance in the galleries and the clear rules against demonstrations from the gallery, I want to ask for some clarification in relation to the exchange that took place here in the assembly yesterday in which you, after some considerable controversy, made it clear what your position was and cleared the galleries.

I am looking at Hansard of November 17, Speaker, and on page 13009 you stated: "I say to all members, if you've been here at any time, I allow for three times" -- that is, three interventions and warnings. "Once, I've warned them," and then referring to the immediate situation, " -- I did warn them after the second, that another time and I would clear the galleries. If you want to check Hansard, you can."

As a result of your direction, I did check Hansard. Further on you repeat, "Three times I warned them I'd clear the galleries." Then on page 13010 you again say, "And it was the third interruption." Then you repeat what your ruling is: "I've lived by the rule. I gave three warnings. I cleared the gallery. That's as simple as it gets."

You were referring to the decision to clear the galleries where you said previously: "This is the third one. Can you clear the galleries, please? Clear the galleries."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Algoma --

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I would just like to refer to one other matter and then I will sit down.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Wildman: I have searched through the Hansard. The only other reference I can find is on page 13005, where you say: "Order. I caution the gallery that it's not in order to speak or applaud. Please don't do that." You did not warn them at that time there could be an ejection from the galleries, and in the intervening pages, from 13005 to 13009, there is no reference by you or anyone else.

The Speaker: I appreciate that. I've got to tell you that I know there were three interruptions from the gallery. If I didn't get on the record one of those times about cautioning the gallery, then I didn't get on the record. I did caution the gallery twice.

If Hansard didn't get the second time, I don't know what to say. I checked with the table clerks and others. I did caution them and it was three interruptions. Even at that point, if I made the mistake, and I'm not saying that I couldn't have -- I would apologize to the members of the House if I made a mistake.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): That won't bring them back.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon.

I think I've been fairly clear in this ruling. I'm not clearing the House just for any reason at all. I do take great pains to try and maintain decorum and order. I would say to the member for Algoma, in future I will try to keep track of the three warnings, but if it's complete bedlam I'm not going to give three warnings. Let me be clear: one warning, maybe none. It depends on the fluidity of this place.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: There are no more points of order on that. If you want a point of order on something else, that's fine. That ruling has been made. It's now gone and now you're at the point, I believe, of challenging whatever ruling has been made. Thank you.

Member for Dovercourt, you have a point of order on this.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Yes, I do, Speaker. I have a point of order to say that because I was involved in a bit of a confrontation, to use that phrase, with you on this yesterday, I hope you can appreciate that the reason, certainly in part, for that happening on my part was because we did not see from our perspective the kind of altercation developing that you have described and we did not see the warnings that you say you have given.

As my colleague from Algoma has just pointed out, Hansard itself does not reflect those warnings. I would just ask that you take that into consideration as you deal with what is obviously a difficult job of --

The Speaker: And do you know what, member for Dovercourt? I will do it as impartially and fairly as I possibly can, and I think on balance I am as impartial and fair a Speaker on rulings as you're going to get. Thank you.

I'm ready for oral questions unless yours is a point of --

M. Bisson : Un point d'ordre.

The Speaker: What? A point of order. I'm sorry, go ahead.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent? All agreed? No. I heard a no. It's time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the government House leader. Ontarians opposed to Bill 160 were pleased to see that yesterday Premier Harris indicated that there would be -- the headline said, "Free Vote for Tory MPPs" on Bill 160. Just so all of Ontario is aware of this decision, will the government House leader confirm that Premier Harris plans to allow a free vote in the Conservative caucus on Bill 160?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): As far as my knowledge goes on it, there has been no decision as to how members should conduct themselves with regard to that. In all of our votes, each member of the Legislature is entitled to vote one way or the other. In each particular situation, the caucus must decide, as a body, what the consequences of that might be. That has not been determined.

Mr Phillips: I'd just like to quote the Premier from yesterday. He's saying: "We're not ordering our caucus to vote against their conscience. Every member of our caucus is free to express an opinion or dissent." In other words, the Premier was saying yesterday that it is his intention to have a free vote. What Ontario wants to be assured of is that it will in fact be a free vote. They are aware in articles like this -- "The Harris Kremlin" -- that Mike Harris can apply his bully tactics behind closed doors if he wants to put the boots to caucus members who want to dissent.

On behalf of the people of Ontario, I want from the government House leader today an undertaking that it will be what Premier Harris promised yesterday, and that is a free vote for the members, and I want the assurance of the government House leader that there will be no threat of recriminations against those Conservative caucus members who choose to vote their conscience and vote against Bill 160.

Hon Mr Sterling: I believe I answered the same question in my initial response, that is, that our members are always free to vote whichever way they might want to. Any kind of recrimination in our parliamentary system is decided by any caucus with regard to the ability of a member to stay in that caucus or not stay in that caucus. In most cases, when a member decides to vote against a particular measure, they usually inform their caucus colleagues that they're going to do that, and the caucus accepts that.

Mr Phillips: I hope the public is listening carefully to this. Yesterday Mike Harris assured those who are strongly opposed to Bill 160 -- and believe me, there are hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who have a strong, desperate disagreement with you on this bill --

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Clear that gallery.

Interruption.

The Speaker: This House stands recessed for 15 minutes.

The House recessed from 1426 to 1441.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: I think you can appreciate how angry people in this province are at Mike Harris. First he says this isn't about cutting $700 million out of education, then we found out that was a fabrication and he planned to cut $700 million. Then he said, "We're going to include principals and vice-principals in the federation, because that's in the best interests of education." Then when he gets mad, he cuts them out of that. He goes over to Europe and says what a fabulous education system we've got in Ontario, and then he comes back here and spends taxpayers' money attacking the teachers and saying what a crummy system we've got.

We found yesterday he said one thing: "Free Vote for Tory MPPs." Are you saying today that Mike Harris was simply fabricating that and you have no intention of giving the Tory members a free vote on Bill 160? Is that what you're saying?

Hon Mr Sterling: The member knows that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, as the Premier said, that our MPPs all have an opportunity to review the issues of Bill 160. I can tell you that the members of our Legislature are 100% behind Bill 160. They believe it is a bill that will improve the quality of education in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Sterling: As I was saying, the members of our caucus are extremely supportive of Bill 160. They believe it is a huge improvement to our education system. Ever since Mike Harris became the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party on May 2, 1990, every vote of this caucus has been a free vote, and it will continue to be so.

The Speaker: New question, official opposition; member for Fort William.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I guess we're going to need a fairness-for-Tory-backbench-members law.

My question is for the Minister of Education. You were asked by the media today about your new amendments to Bill 160, the one that attacks principals and vice-principals. Specifically, you were asked whether under your amendment a principal could still teach. You said you didn't know. Well, you should know, because it's your amendment. For the record, under your amendment they can teach.

If you didn't know that, maybe you don't know what else you have done with your amendments. You are stripping away any rights that principals and vice-principals have. You are forcing principals and vice-principals to choose by April 1 whether they will return to the classroom or whether they will risk losing all those rights if they do not. You are effectively destroying our educational leadership. You are doing it because principals and vice-principals dared to oppose your agenda.

Minister, I ask you again today, will you withdraw this punitive, dangerous amendment?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): In terms of improving the education system, it's going to require everybody to be involved: the teachers and certainly the principals and vice-principals.

I look forward to working with the principals and vice-principals because they are in a leadership role in our communities and in our schools. I highly value that leadership role and the role that principals and vice-principals have played.

But the fact remains that the principals and vice-principals today are in a conflict situation. They are a member of the union on the one hand, where they have obligations to the other members of the union; on the other hand, they are in a key management position, in a position to have to do appraisals and do all the management responsibilities pertaining to the teachers under their jurisdiction. This is a terrible conflict situation. You don't find this in other jurisdictions of this nature, and it's one we intend to clarify.

Mrs McLeod: Your House leader has just suggested that your colleagues are 100% behind your Bill 160, but in fact your own colleagues believe that what you are doing here is wrong and is dangerous, and it's not just your backbench members, it's your cabinet colleagues, your health minister --

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: My duties here have been impugned by the opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I've got to be able to hear the point of privilege.

Interjection.

Mr Preston: You can have one next door -- always yapping and never saying anything.

The Speaker: Although I'm in a point of privilege, I ask you to withdraw that comment, please.

Mr Preston: I'll withdraw it.

My point of privilege is that my actions have been impugned by the other side. There is nobody in here big enough to tell this old bull how to vote -- nobody.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. If you would take your seat, please. I think I got the drift of your point of privilege. It's not a point of privilege. It may be a point of information or you may want to bring it up in a question or a period of time in a speech, but I don't think it's a point of privilege.

Supplementary?

Mr Preston: They're impugning my motives.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's not a point of privilege. I've ruled.

Mrs McLeod: The member for Brant-Haldimand may be 100% behind Bill 160, but the health minister is not. Minister, your health minister, who is herself a former school board chair, someone who knows about education, somebody who cares about education, has said that one of her issues of real concern is your attack on principals and vice-principals. She said just last Friday that she hopes you would look at whatever opportunities there are for a compromise. Minister, compromise means sitting down and talking to the people who are affected by your law. You have talked to no one about any of this.

Will you suspend any further consideration of Bill 160 so that you can sit down and talk about the very real concerns that Elizabeth Witmer has about your bill?

Mrs McLeod: You really don't understand what you're doing here, do you? You've made enemies of every teacher in this province and you think you're going to bring in education reform. You make a punitive, vindictive attack on principals and vice-principals who dare to challenge you, and then you say you will sit down and talk to them about their working conditions. You will have destroyed their ability to provide leadership in our schools long before September 1 comes.

Minister, you've got to understand the kind of concerns your own colleague has expressed, Elizabeth Witmer, your health minister, who says she vows to provide aid on Bill 160, that she will talk to you and try and convince you of the concerns of her constituents. The question is, will you listen? Will you act on them?

She is expressing the kinds of concerns that she's hearing from her constituents and that we're all hearing from parents and teachers and students, like the people who are up in this gallery today, people right across this province who believe your bill is wrong, your agenda is wrong, your cuts to education are wrong.

Are you so determined to force through your agenda, to force through your cuts, to force through Bill 160, despite all the concerns from everyone, including your own colleagues?

Hon David Johnson: We do get selective quotes from time to time in this House. Perhaps I should read what the

article actually said. It said, "Elizabeth Witmer, Waterloo MPP and Ontario's health minister, says she supports the controversial education reform bill set to receive final reading next week." She supports the bill is what it says here precisely. "Witmer said all the steps being taken by the government, including standardized report cards, province-wide curriculum, will build on the strengths of the education system."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon David Johnson: Clearly what the minister is saying is that the reforms we've already made, such as the report card, such as the curriculum changes, such as what's being built on here by Bill 160, are initiatives she supports. That's what this is all about. This is about a broad program to improve the quality in our education system through the report card, through Bill 160, through secondary school reform. I can tell you there is excellent support in this government for those improvements.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Education, and it concerns the broad program. Your government promised the funding formula for education by the end of October. The end of October is now well past and we have not seen the funding formula for schools. I think I know why. I've got a letter here that was sent to you two weeks ago. It's a confidential letter from a number of education finance officials, the people who look after education finances for school boards. This is what they say in their letter:

"We submit that adequate and appropriate funding models must be developed from the bottom up." But then they say, "The focus of recent studies" -- ie by your government -- "has been the allocation of reductions from the funding base using a top-down philosophy."

They don't think your funding formula is going to work. Why won't you show it to the public so they can decide how much you're cutting from education?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The funding formula is being developed. As you can appreciate, the funding formula is a complicated formula involving boards of different size, boards as large as Metropolitan Toronto's, and authorities with one school. There is a need to look at the different situations that occur in all boards across Ontario to ensure the funding formula is fair and equitable. That's exactly what we're doing at the present time. I expect the funding formula will be released later this year.

Mr Hampton: Here we have a government trying to force through their education bill, trying to tell everybody that they know what's best, and these are education officials, finance people who work for boards of education, who are writing to the Minister of Education, and they're saying to him very clearly, "We submit that the top-down cuts approach that your government is using will not work and will not produce the desired outcome." These are education finance experts who work for boards of education. They're saying your whole strategy of trying to cut, trying to sit at the top and then trying to cut at the bottom, ie in the classrooms, will not work.

I put the question to you again: They believe your funding formula is all wrong. They believe your funding formula is all about cuts. Why won't you show your funding formula to the people of Ontario so they can decide for themselves how adequately you're going to fund education?

Interjection: Patience.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, patience is required. There has been a process of consultation. There has been a funding formula that has been put out for consideration. All of these factors are being taken into account. This is something that requires a great deal of care in terms of developing a formula that reflects all the realities that have been gathered through the consultation process, through the expert panel process, which has had a look at the funding formula. These are matters that are being dealt with in the Ministry of Education. Why would we put out a formula that's not ready?

Why would we put out a formula that hasn't reflected all of those realities yet? I can assure you that when it's ready, when it's fair, when it's equitable, it will be released at the earliest opportunity.

Mr Hampton: Nowhere in this private and confidential letter does it say the funding formula is not ready. The point they make is that the funding formulas they've seen from your government are only going to accomplish cuts at the bottom, cuts that will be ordered from the top -- in other words, by you and your right-wing political know-it-alls over there -- and cuts that will affect children in the classroom. They don't talk anywhere about the funding formula not being ready; they talk about how inadequate it is, they talk about how inappropriate it is, they talk about how much damage it's going to do.

I put the question to you again, Minister. It's not a question of the funding formula not being ready -- they say it's ready. The problem is it won't work. The problem is it's all about cuts. When are you going to show the people of Ontario what you're really doing to education -- cutting it?

Hon David Johnson: The member of the third party will know that, as input into this model, there were several months of consultation, that there was an expert panel putting input into the process. The ministry has received that information. The ministry is assimilating that information. The model involves a basic foundation grant, pupil by pupil. It involves money in terms of an accommodation grant to recognize the facility needs. It involves special purpose grants involving language, geography; learning opportunities grant; adult education grant; special needs grant. It will focus the moneys to quality and into the classroom. These are the objectives of the new funding formula.

Once that funding formula has been determined, with the results of all the consultations and the expert panel, then it will be released, and that will be by the end of this year.

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

Mr Hampton: Again, to the Minister of Education, because the Minister of Education just keeps digging himself in deeper. I'll quote from the letter again so there's no mistake: "The focus of recent studies has been the allocation of reductions from the funding base using a top-down philosophy with little or no current expenditure data or related information." Then they go on to say that you cannot get an adequate funding formula unless you're prepared to look at the needs and you're prepared to state some principles.

The only thing we've heard from your government is that preparation time doesn't count, library doesn't count, guidance, psychologists, speech pathologists, custodians, maintenance workers, principals, vice-principals, busing and transportation and adult education don't count, and junior kindergarten is an option. Tell us, if all those things don't count according to your government, what does count in the funding base? What does count in our children's education?

Hon David Johnson: If the member is willing to listen, I'll tell him what does count. What does count in the formula is quality. What does count in the formula is directing the resources into the classroom. What does count is ensuring that special education, children at risk, are taken into account. What does count is that we recognize that across the province of Ontario there are different needs, different needs in different jurisdictions, in rural and urban areas. All these factors are being taken into account, and until the final formula is put out, then we have to wait, we have to be patient to see.

The final formula will reflect all of those realities to ensure that it's as fair as possible to every board in Ontario.

Mr Hampton: I'm going to repeat this because the minister just doesn't seem to get it. They say that you need sound empirical data about what's happening in the classroom, together with a statement of fundamental, basic principles defining quality, needs and priorities. They say that is exactly what is lacking.

Despite your rhetoric, despite the fact that you come in here every day and smile, these are education finance experts. Many of them have spent 20 years working in education finance. They've advised successive governments on education finance. They say when they look at your funding formula, it's all about someone like you sitting at the top telling people at the bottom how much is going to be cut from classrooms, how much is going to be cut from junior kindergarten, how much is going to be cut from adult education, how much is going to be cut from special education.

We've got your road map. I just listed all the things that your government says don't count.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: Minister, when are you going to listen to these officials who are trying to help you? When are you going to come clean with the public? Show us the funding formula.

Hon David Johnson: I'm more than happy to listen to those officials and to anybody else who has advice to offer me as we work out this process. With all the bluster that's taking place over here on the other side of the House, it's interesting to note that in the secondary and elementary system today, there are over $14 billion of expenditures, more than ever in the history of Ontario. More funds than ever are being directed into our elementary schools and high schools. Also, during the term of the NDP, the expenditure control plan, the social contract, $571 million was reduced from our schools in Ontario.

Mr Hampton: I want to quote from this letter again because these are, after all, people who have experience in the field. They've worked in education finance for some time. This is what they say. This is the last paragraph of their letter. They say: "We are deeply concerned. It is out of this concern that we offer our professional expertise."

That's how vitally concerned these people are.

Your government promised the funding formula last spring. Then you didn't produce it. Then you said that the funding formula would be available by the end of October. The end of October is well past.

They're saying in this letter that the funding formula they have seen from your government is totally inadequate, totally inappropriate. It's all about cuts, cuts imposed from the top on children who are in classrooms at the bottom. When are you going to come clean with the people of Ontario? Show us your funding formula. Show us what these people so urgently are writing to you about. Show the people what you're trying to hide from them.

Hon David Johnson: For the fourth or fifth time I will say that we are working on this formula. Once the formula is fair and equitable across the province of Ontario, it will be released. Up until that point, it's all speculation.

There have been months of consultation. There has been an expert panel. All that's been helpful. Any other suggestions that this group may have will be helpful. The stable funding for the school boards is protected until September of next year. Over the next couple of months this formula will be considered with all of the input we've had and then we will show the formula when the formula is ready. It will be out there in plenty of time for the school boards to understand it and to be able to plan for the 1998-99 school year.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Minister of Education. Last weekend your government launched what can only be characterized as the most vitriolic and vicious attack on a group of people in our province that I have witnessed by a government in some 20 years. That attack was paid for by all taxpayers in Ontario, including the people that your government is attacking.

In these ads that are paid for by all the taxpayers of this province, and not by the Conservative Party, the Harris government tried to place teachers, the front-line deliverers of education services in this province, in the most unfavourable light and made accusations which are completely without any basis in fact. Minister, are you now prepared to withdraw these ads, to sit down with the people who are delivering education services on the front line and abandon this vitriolic, vicious campaign which reminds us of the worst aspects of American politics?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, I want to say that this government values very highly the role of the teachers and the value they add to our education system. What this program --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Johnson: I think we have to understand the difference between the teachers and the unions. This government values very highly the role of the teachers. This government has never attacked the teachers.

The ads point out that class sizes, unfortunately, have increased as a result of negotiations. That's a fact. That happened in the case of Waterloo county, for example. It's a fact that high school teachers, for example, because of the arrangements that have been negotiated there, spend three hours and 45 minutes in the classroom. These are matters that really need to be brought to the attention of the general public, and the government has an obligation, through communications, to convey that sort of information.

Mr Bradley: An

article in the Southam News services states the following: "Education Minister Dave Johnson, who has been the government's prominent public face during the strike affecting 2.1 million students, is receiving many of his marching orders from the so-called whiz kids in the Premier's office, Southam News has learned."

Minister, I don't happen to believe, knowing you as I have for as many years as I have, that you really support this kind of vicious attack on one segment of our society, using the taxpayers of Ontario to pay for this attack. When are you going to insist with the Premier that you and other elected members of the government caucus override that group of right-wing, vitriolic, ideological whiz kids who run this government now, and why don't you take charge and ensure that we don't see this kind of attack on people in our society by a government paid for by all taxpayers in this province?

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite is basing his question on a lot of assumptions. I can tell you that the Ministry of Education is committed to reform in the education system. The Ministry of Education is committed to communicating with the people of Ontario the kind of reforms that are taking place. The Ministry of Education needs to communicate with the people of Ontario the kind of roadblocks that are being faced at the present time.

This is a matter that's of interest not only obviously to the teachers and the members of this House; this is a matter that is of interest to all the people of Ontario. They have a stake in this, and we need to communicate effectively to everyone.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The Minister of Education and Training, in his response earlier, said that we should distinguish between the unions and the teachers. We have two representatives here today: One is the distinguished leader of OSSTF, Mr Earl Manners, and in the gallery up here we have Mr Dwyer Sullivan, who is a representative, a grass-roots teacher who occupied the minister's office. That's the kind of people we have here today, and there's no distinction between the --

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Sit down, please.

Mr Wildman: My question is with regard --

Interruption.

The Speaker: Order. Question?

Mr Wildman: A question to the Minister of Education and Training in regard to the leaked 1997-98 performance contract for Veronica Lacey, the deputy minister.

The Speaker: You only have 10 seconds left to ask the question.

Mr Wildman: The contract says that the government intends to withdraw --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I think I understand the humour of it, but the length of time just widens, so it kind of defeats the purpose.

Mr Wildman: Will the minister commit today that despite what it says in this contract, there will be no cuts to apprenticeship funding in Ontario?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I will commit, in terms of apprenticeship funding, in terms of any component of the education budget, that I will ensure that the money is there to have the quality program that our students need in Ontario. If that's more money than we spend today, then so be it; if it's less money than we spend today, so be it.

Mr Wildman: In the performance contract it says that Ms Lacey is responsible for taking $10 million out of apprenticeship, which combined with the federal cuts works out to a 40% cut.

We also have another document that was leaked some time ago, a confidential document, "New Directions for Ontario's Apprenticeship System," and it sets out the specific plans for cuts by your ministry in apprenticeship. You want to eliminate any protections in minimum age and minimum wage for apprentices and you want to make apprentices pay tuition.

The Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council passed an emergency resolution saying your plans would have "disastrous effects on apprenticeship programs."

Minister, will you promise the youth of Ontario that you won't make the same mistakes with their future that your government has made with its massive cuts to classroom education? Will you commit to protect apprenticeship training programs and to increase, not cut, the funding for apprenticeship in this province?

Hon David Johnson: If there's one thing I've heard over the years in terms of the education system, it's that the apprenticeship program has not served the people of Ontario well; the young people or people frankly at any stage of life.

What I will promise the member opposite is that we will have an apprenticeship system in the province that's more streamlined, more flexible and modernized, that serves the needs of our young people and those people who need the apprenticeship program in Ontario. We are going through that sort of reform today. It's being investigated and reviewed. I can promise you that there will be a better system to serve the future of our province.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As you know, I come from a heavy industrial community. Last week there was a report released by the Commission for Environmental Co-operation. It was addressing the issue of smog and air pollution problems that exist not only in my riding but affect the rest of Ontario as well. I would ask you if you could tell us some of the details the report addressed.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I know the member for Sarnia is very concerned about air quality issues, as he lives on a border of the United States and as a result of that his citizens receive many of their air quality problems from across our provincial and international boundaries.

Last week the Commission for Environmental Co-operation, an organization which includes Canada, Mexico and the United States, released a report which confirms what this province has been saying for some period of time, and that is with regard to transborder air pollution. The report shows that the air-borne pollutants from the American Midwest and Ohio River Valley are significant contributors to air quality problems here in our province.

Among their findings is included that smog is a summertime problem primarily; that air masses are moving across our borders significantly; that transboundary air flows include several pollutants; and that it's not a localized problem.

We are working on this problem.

Mr Boushy: Minister, I can appreciate all the work put into the report by the CEC that confirms people's suspicions about the origins of our air pollution. What is this government doing to combat air pollution and improve air quality in Ontario?

Hon Mr Sterling: I think it's important that this province show leadership with regard to taking measures to improve our air quality so we can go across to our neighbours and say: "We've done something. We want you to do more as well."

One of those significant campaigns we have put forward and one of the significant steps we have taken is our Drive Clean program, which is going to reduce smog from cars, trucks and buses in urban centres of southern Ontario. This is a very ambitious, huge program that's going to affect some 4.7 million cars and vehicles in this province in the very near future.

We have also made a significant number of other air quality improvements to this province.

This government will continue to take an aggressive stance to fight air pollution in this province, but we know that part of the problem comes from across the United States. We will continue to encourage those governments and the Canadian government to take a strong stance with regard to this matter.

SCHOOL TEACHERS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Education. Whether you like it or not, the agents of change for your revolutionary reforms to education are going to be the 126,000 teachers that you and your government have vilified, degraded, beat up and bullied over the course of the last two and a half years but especially over the course of the last month.

Your response to the member for St Catharines only reinforces what the people of Ontario think: You dislike, you degrade, you disrespect and you don't trust the teachers of Ontario. That's what you're telling the people of Ontario as they listen to your ads.

Minister, how do you propose to get these agents of change, my fellow teachers, to institute these changes when you and your government have such a negative view of them?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I want to reiterate what I said here previously, a couple of things: One is that there is no question we need the teachers, the principals, the vice-principals, the directors, the boards, everybody involved in the education system; and second, I have nothing but the highest respect for the teachers, the principals, everyone involved with the education system.

The reality is that there needs to be reform in the education system. Asking for reform in the education system doesn't cast any aspersions on those who are involved in the system itself today. The teachers are performing as well as they can. They are performing admirably under a system that needs to be reformed, and that's what the education system reform is all about.

I am more than happy to sit down and will be seeking avenues to sit down. For example, early childhood education is an issue where we need to sit down, we need to explore. We need reinvestments. There'll be any number of opportunities, for the curriculum review, to sit down with the teachers. I'm looking forward to doing that.

Mr Bartolucci: Minister, get real for a second. When you say that teachers are wasting money in education, you're sending out a negative message. When you're telling the people of Ontario that teachers are lowering standards and are accepting lower standards, you are sending out a negative message. When you are telling the people of Ontario that teachers want larger class sizes, that they want higher taxes, that they want less instructional time, you're sending out negative messages about the teachers of Ontario. Minister, will you commit today to putting on an advertising campaign that enhances in a positive way what the teachers of Ontario are all about? Will you commit to that today?

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite should get his facts straight in the sense that through union negotiations, class sizes have gone up; through union negotiations, we've had various restrictions on the instructional time and we've had higher property taxes.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): -- that the teachers want larger class sizes? Get a life.

The Speaker: You know what? I'm not arguing with you. It may be and it may not, but you're out of order. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The reality is, within the system our teachers have been performing admirably. They need to be supported. I want to work with them. I want to work with them on curriculum reform. I want to work with them on many other topics. As I mentioned earlier, early childhood education, for example, is a topic. We need to get together, work together. I anticipate doing that and I'll be making initiatives in that regard.

RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION / EDUCATION REFORM

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Ma question est au ministre d'Éducation. Vous dites que le but de la Loi 160 est supposément de donner aux parents de la province un peu plus d'appui et un peu plus de pouvoir quand ça vient au système d'éducation. J'ai ici une lettre signée par Lynne Dénommé, qui est membre du conseil des parents de l'école Saint-Gérard, datée le 13 novembre, au directeur de cette école. Je vais vous lire une

partie et ça dit :

"Suite à une consultation auprès des membres, c'est avec regret que nous vous informons qu'il nous est impossible de continuer à siéger au conseil d'école suite à la législation, éventuellement la Loi 160, imposée par votre gouvernement provincial."

Si vous avez perdu la confiance des parents, comment êtes-vous capable d'aller en avant avec cette loi ?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Am I saying here today that there aren't some board members or some members of our community that are in opposition to Bill 160? Obviously not. Obviously there are people who do not support Bill 160. But the reality is that through Bill 160, through the establishment of school councils, parents will have more input into the system, parents will have more authority within the system. That, I believe, will improve the accountability of our system and will improve the quality of our education system. I think you'll find that in terms of parents and the education system, they can look forward to improvement as a result of Bill 160.

M. Bisson : Monsieur le Ministre, vous avez perdu la confiance des étudiants, vous avez perdu la confiance des parents, vous avez perdu la confiance des enseignants et vous avez perdu la confiance du public en général, où 60 % du public disent que vous allez dans la méchante direction avec la Loi 160. Combien de personnes dans la province de l'Ontario ont besoin de s'opposer à vous avant que vous n'écoutiez la population, le monde que vous êtes supposé de représenter ? De combien de personnes a-t-on besoin ?

Hon David Johnson: I have every confidence that the people of Ontario want to see reform in the education system. They want to see a higher level of quality. They want to see greater efficiencies within the education system. They want to be assured that average class sizes will not go up. That's exactly what Bill 160 does. They want to see that our students have the same number of instructional days as students in other provinces. That's exactly what Bill 160 does. They want to see that our students have qualified people to assist in complementing teachers within the system. That's exactly what Bill 160 does.

They want to see parents having a role through councils within their own schools. That's exactly what Bill 160 does.

I believe that when the facts are known, when people see precisely what is in Bill 160, they will say: "Right on. That's the kind of reform we've needed for years in the province of Ontario."

RURAL JOB CREATION

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, member for Norfolk.

Interjection: Welcome back.

The Speaker: Welcome back.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I was pleased to hear that you recently launched the government's $30-million rural job strategy fund. This is further proof of our government's commitment to creating a climate for private sector job growth and investment not only in rural Ontario but also in my riding of Norfolk. Minister, can you assure the House that we aren't merely throwing money around like previous governments?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I can assure my colleague that we are not going to throw around money the way other governments have.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): This is embarrassing.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: It should be embarrassing to the Liberals, yes. To the member for Kingston and The Islands, it should be embarrassing to you; you're absolutely right.

The rural job strategy fund is a long-term economic development to benefit rural Ontario. Over the past 10 years, rural Ontario has been to some degree forgotten by previous governments. This government is investing $30 million to create that climate. This past July the parliamentary assistant the member for Bruce travelled the province to listen to rural people, farmers, entrepreneurs, and they told us what they wanted in rural job creation.

Mr Barrett: Rural job creation is the key. As someone who grew up in the country, I can assure you that one problem we all identify with is the lack of opportunity for people in rural areas. Many of our high school and university graduates wish to work in the area and they can't. This program is very promising and will give our graduates the option to return home. Can you inform members of the House what else the rural job strategy initiative will achieve?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The fund is designed to encourage investment in rural Ontario. It was based on input, a lot of information that we received, to obtain economic growth and job creation throughout all of rural Ontario. We're looking for permanent jobs. We're looking for partnerships where the investors will be providing the initial money. The government will indeed be supporting that with an equal amount. So it's not a situation where the government is leading; it's a situation where our entrepreneurs in rural Ontario will be leading by forming partnerships in order to provide those very, very needed jobs in rural Ontario.

We are losing some of our good young students from rural Ontario. They're coming into the urban parts of this province to find employment. This is oriented towards keeping our good young people where they were born, where they were raised, where they were educated, in rural Ontario, so the brain drain doesn't go to our urban areas.

CLASS SIZE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. You and your government have claimed that you want to take control over class size because you are concerned about increasing class size. You clearly want people to believe that you are going to be lowering class size. Through the amendments that were passed last night in committee, your amendments, you are about to enshrine in law the status quo for class size. Parents in this province know that the status quo means that their students very often are in classes of 36, 38, 40. Can you assure parents across this province that their students will no longer be in classes of 38 or 40?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I know parents are very concerned about that, and I share their concern. We have taken the first step towards tackling this situation, because over recent years, dating back to 1992, I guess, at the elementary level, the average class size has been going up and up every year. We have examples recently of union contracts which have actually increased the class size. This will stop the growth of the class size. That's the first step. It's an excellent first step. It will actually mean that in some boards the class size will have to come down to this level, so in some boards it will come down.

It's certainly the long-term objective of this government that not only should we stop the growth of the class size, which this bill does, but indeed that the class sizes come down.

Mrs McLeod: You have absolutely no idea how your law is going to work or how it's going to affect class size at all. You have put the status quo into law -- average class sizes. It doesn't mean there aren't going to be classes of 38 or 40. The reason we have classes of 38 and 40 now is that boards are struggling to keep class sizes in the lower grades and special education classes smaller. The only reason they can even hold class sizes to that level now is because they have had to gut special education classes and cancel junior kindergarten classes.

You are going to make things worse by taking $700 million more out of education. There is no way there will be smaller class sizes when you take $700 million out of education. Tell me, Minister, how can you have lower class sizes and take $700 million more out of the education system.

Hon David Johnson: I have indicated clearly on several occasions that what will be spent on education on a year-by-year basis will be determined through the estimates process to ensure quality education. This step, which is reviewed every three years -- so this will be reviewed after three years -- halts the growth of the average class size within Ontario.

I share the concern of parents who have students in classrooms with 30, 35 or more. This shouldn't be happening. The class sizes should not be growing in Ontario. We have taken the first step to halt it. It will be reviewed after three years. There will be a fair funding model out to ensure that boards have moneys to implement those class sizes, and those boards which have average class sizes beyond those stated in the bill will have to bring those class sizes down to the average.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent to allow all-party statements, November being Wife Assault Prevention Month.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Riverdale is seeking unanimous consent for a statement on November being Wife Assault Prevention Month. Agreed? I heard a no.

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I am pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents in Renfrew county and the southern part of the district of Nipissing, which petition reads:

"Whereas the Renfrew County District Health Council and its hospital steering committee has recommended a 100% reduction in the number of chronic care beds at St Francis Memorial Hospital in Barry's Bay; and

"Whereas St Francis Memorial Hospital's catchment area includes communities in Nipissing district and Hastings county; and

"Whereas the Renfrew County District Health Council did not allow for meaningful consultation and public input into their decision; and

"Whereas the long-term care facility and community-based programs are already stretched to capacity; and

"Whereas the unique geography of our communities in west Renfrew and south Nipissing must be taken into consideration in determining equitable access to quality health care services; and

"Whereas it has been determined by public groups, including the Ontario Hospital Association, that the scope and speed of restructuring health care in Ontario is putting patients at jeopardy;

"We, the undersigned citizens of communities served by St Francis Memorial Hospital, do hereby petition the Renfrew County District Health Council and its steering committee to withdraw its recommendation to eliminate the hospital's chronic care beds and to commit to genuine public consultation with regard to any changes in the delivery of health care service to this area."

I proudly sign my name to this petition and support it on behalf of my constituents, ably represented here today by Reeve Ethel LaValley and some of the nurses from St Francis Memorial Hospital in Barry's Bay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The chair recognizes the member for Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): For the record, the minister responsible for women's issues was the one who said no to making statements on Wife Assault Prevention Month.

EDUCATION REFORM

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have thousands and thousands of names on a petition on Bill 160. It reads:

"To Premier Mike Harris, Minister Dave Johnson, and members of the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Harris government is proposing detrimental changes to education services in Ontario;

"Whereas inclusive and open consultation on education has not taken place;

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow the government to cut funds for education to fund tax cuts;

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

"Therefore, we the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature as follows:

"That the government of Ontario reconsider its direction on education policy and that they halt any further changes to the education system until a thorough and inclusive review has taken place, and withdraw and review Bill 160."

I affix my signature to this petition.

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I received these petitions Sunday from tobacco farmers and business people concerned about freedom of choice.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario the following:

"Whereas freedom of choice regarding tobacco smoking in a privately owned business as previously allowed is being unfairly curtailed by the strict and unnecessary enforcement of the regulatory tobacco act as passed by the previous provincial government in the counties of Brant, Elgin, Oxford and the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request the province of Ontario to amend or revise the regulatory tobacco act in the following ways:

"That within the tobacco-producing counties of Brant, Elgin, Oxford and the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant the policing of the regulated no-smoking protocol be left up to the municipalities to enforce as they see fit; and

"That this also apply to any municipality, county or riding within Ontario where tobacco production or processing is an economic factor;

"That privately owned businesses that produce or process tobacco and/or whose business services or supplies the tobacco industry and reside within the designated regions be exempt from the posting of the regulated no-smoking signs and be allowed proprietary discretion on tobacco use within their establishments;

"That the use of legal tobacco products as used by adults be allowed in businesses that produce or process tobacco and/or whose business services or supplies the tobacco industry within the designated regions without the fear of penalty or fines to their clients or staff."

I hereby affix my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): This petition was given to me by a group that wanted me to wear the green ribbon today, but as you know, the Speaker's ruling yesterday would not allow me to do that. The petition reads:

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas education is our future; and

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

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

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

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

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, support our MPP, Frank Miclash, in his efforts to withdraw Bill 160 immediately."

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

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by no fewer than 700 people in the great riding of Lake Nipigon. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public on Bill 160; and

"Whereas we, the people, believe that no government has a mandate to act in isolation of the wishes of the electorate of this province and we have lost confidence in this government;

"We, the undersigned electorate of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the Legislature and call a general election forthwith."

I too believe that they should resign, put Bill 160 for public education to the test and call an election.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Before I proceed, would you please put that box on the floor.

Further petitions?

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition that's been forwarded to me by approximately 204 constituents in my riding. In accordance with the standing orders, I'll summarize the petition by saying that it is in opposition to Bill 160 and I'll file it today.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): This petition is similar to the large one that I presented to the minister yesterday.

To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas education builds the future for our children and society; and

"Whereas parents, students, educators and taxpayers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas parents, students, educators and taxpayers recognize that Bill 160 is about power and money, not quality education; and

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards and bankrupting Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas students, parents and educators want a funding model that quantifies a reinvestment in education rather than a reduction in funding; and

"Whereas parents, students and concerned citizens won't back down; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has trampled democracy with Bill 160 and has refused to even listen to the citizens it serves;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately."

I affix my signature to this.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have hundreds of letters and faxes and petitions that have been presented to me by Mary Walford and Joanne Kenny, concerned parents who have led the charge to generate these pieces of correspondence. I present them to the Legislature. They're addressed to the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker and area Tory MPPs. A sample of the letters reads as follows.

This one happens to be addressed to the Lieutenant Governor:

"I would really appreciate if you would support our efforts to help the government hear the voices of the people of Ontario prior to the passing of Bill 160. As the Lieutenant Governor, you have the power to allow our voices to be heard by slowing down the passing of Bill 160.

"There are three pieces to this puzzle. We are the largest piece, the missing piece that fits.

"The Ministry of Education and Training and the Ontario Teachers' Federation have stated all along that they have the best interests of our children in mind. Who better than the parents of Ontario to ensure that the children are the focus of the education system? We are talking about our children, their future. It is the right of every child in Ontario to have access to quality education, regardless of their socioeconomic place in our society and their diverse ethnic cultural backgrounds. The schools, students and their families and the communities must have a voice within the Ministry of Education and Training.

"I thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice my concerns regarding Bill 160."

It is with great honour that I add my name to those of these Ontario citizens.

ABORTION

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition signed by some 900 residents in Oxford. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

"Whereas the province has 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; and

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

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

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is a petition against Bill 160 on behalf of the people of Windsor.

"Bill 160 does nothing to improve or guarantee quality in Ontario education. It is an unnecessary and vaguely worded piece of legislation. This government has no business controlling issues that are best decided locally.

"Bill 160 is not just about teachers' prep time and class size; it's about giving the government absolute control over education, including the ability to change anything in education without debate. There is no guarantee that centralized control over education by the government will allow our schools to keep programs such as special education and extended arts. There will be no democratic process to follow if we are unhappy with decisions made.

"We, the undersigned, being taxpayers, parents and concerned community members, believe that there are other ways of controlling costs in education without the government distributing our education tax as they see fit. We must be consulted. We want Bill 160 scrapped or amended so that control over education matters stays in the local communities with the people who know best what our students need. We want to continue to have the ability to exercise our democratic rights."

I affix my signature to this petition.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I wear this green tie today in support of the green ribbon campaign and join with the many parents who continue to write to us and send petitions such as this one against Bill 160. This one reads:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public on Bill 160; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has chosen to overtly deceive the people of Ontario as to the true objectives of Bill 160; and

"Whereas we, the people, believe that no government has a mandate to act in isolation of the wishes of the electorate of this province, and we have lost confidence in the government;

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the Legislature and call a general election forthwith."

I've affixed my signature in support of this petition.

VETERANS' HIGHWAY

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Canadian and Allied veterans are recognized the world over for the effort they gave in fighting to preserve our free and democratic way of life; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario are forever grateful to the many dedicated men and women who bravely and unselfishly risked their lives for Canada; and

"Whereas too many Canadian children are unaware of the extraordinary courage and profound sacrifice Canada's veterans displayed in securing the safe and prosperous country we live in; and

"Whereas dedicating Highway 416 in memory of Canada's veterans would be an appropriate gesture of respect, reminding everyone of the contribution veterans have made to our society in preserving an important part of Canada's history;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to name Highway 416 the Veterans' Memorial Parkway."

I have affixed my own signature thereto, and I know the members for Lanark-Renfrew and Norfolk will want to join me.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I am proud to present petitions that have been signed by literally thousands of my constituents.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public on Bill 160; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has chosen to overtly deceive the people of Ontario as to the true objectives of Bill 160; and

"Whereas we, the people, believe that no government has a mandate to act in isolation of the wishes of the electorate of this province, and we have lost confidence in the government;

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the Legislature and call a general election forthwith."

I am proud to affix my signature to these petitions.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by hundreds of parents and teachers representing the Burkholder middle school in Hamilton. That's grades 6, 7 and 8. The students are aged 11, 12 and 13, including Stephanie MacKay, who played a role in providing this to my office. Their teacher is Rosemary Almas and the principal is Mr Forbeck. I thank them for their efforts. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Premier Mike Harris and the Minister of Education" -- then the Honourable John Snobelen -- "to withdraw the legislation to lengthen the school year and school day; and

"Whereas the Minister of Education has introduced the lengthening of the school year and it would be harmful to our teachers who take courses during the summer to make themselves better teachers; and

"Whereas through this legislation the summer vacation will be shortened, which will not allow some students to seek summer employment and holidays with members of their extended families; and

"Whereas students will be forced to concentrate on work through 30 degrees Celsius weather; and

"Whereas the majority of the schools in our city are not equipped with air-conditioning and many students will end up with heat stroke, asthma attacks, allergies and many other illnesses; and

"Whereas with the longer days there will still be homework assigned and those students involved in extracurricular activities will be penalized by having a lot less time to do homework; and

"Whereas the economy will suffer because there will be no kids to go to camps and tourist attractions;

"Therefore we, the teachers, students and parents of the province of Ontario, demand that the government and the Minister of Education withdraw this legislation."

I agree with them and support their petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TENANT PROTECTION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

Mr Leach moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 96,

An Act to Consolidate and Revise the Law with respect to Residential Tenancies / Projet de loi 96, Loi codifiant et révisant le droit de la location à usage d'habitation.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would first like to point out that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener and also the member for Hamilton West.

Today I am moving third reading of the Tenant Protection Act. This is a bill designed to improve the climate surrounding Ontario's rental housing industry; a bill that protects tenants while encouraging landlords and developers to do more to maintain and build rental units; a bill that streamlines the system.

Bill 96 will do these things. It will do them while keeping tenants safe from unfair rent hikes and arbitrary evictions, and it will do them by establishing a new user-friendly Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to resolve landlord-tenant issues faster and more efficiently.

This legislation is the final product of a long, careful process that the government began back in June 1996 when we released a discussion paper suggesting a new direction for tenant protection legislation.

Ontario has had rent control since 1975, and there's no doubt that the initial intentions were very good, but since then each party has brought in legislation designed to improve the system but in reality has simply succeeded in making it too complex and too unworkable. While it keeps rents under control, it fails in many, many other ways; maintenance, for example.

Estimates of repairs needed to Ontario's rental housing stock run as high as $10 billion. Landlords are so restricted by government regulation they do as little maintenance as possible because they can't recover their costs, and tenants suffer. Broken locks go unfixed; elevators can go unrepaired; pipes leak; tenants have to live in increasingly rundown buildings. This is under the current system.

Then there is new supply. Under the current regulations, development will not build new apartments because it's a very poor business investment. This means tenants have access to a limited supply of old buildings that are only getting older and have little choice of where to live.

We needed to change that system. That need was confirmed in private studies such as the Lampert report conducted in 1995. It was also confirmed in meetings with landlords and tenants and when our discussion paper was the topic of hearings held in nine cities across Ontario.

We studied what the experts had to say. We talked with landlords, we talked with tenants and all other interested groups. We listened carefully to what the committee heard. All of those details were considered during the drafting of the legislation we introduced last fall.

Bill 96 received second reading in May, and this past summer there was another round of committee hearings around Ontario, and again we listened carefully before announcing any amendments.

So you can see that the legislation now in front of the House is a product of a great deal of input from a great many people. We believe we have learned what will work and we have learned what won't work. We believe that we have put before us a bill that is fair, that is well balanced, one that works better for tenants, one that works better for landlords and works better for the Ontario taxpayer.

When writing the legislation, one of our primary concerns was ensuring that tenants would be protected from unfair rent increases. Tenants will still be protected by the rent control guideline exactly as it stands now in the current legislation, which has been set at 3% for 1998.

What has changed is that under the proposed new Tenant Protection Act, when an apartment becomes empty, rent controls come off and the landlord would be free to negotiate a new rent with a new tenant. When the new tenant moves in, rent controls would go back on and the new tenant would have all the protections that all other tenants enjoy. In essence, we would be moving from a system that protects the apartment to a system that protects the person.

I would like to state here that there's absolutely no evidence anywhere to support claims that rents would skyrocket under this new system. As a matter of fact, right now about 50% of the rental units in Ontario are rented below what the landlord could legally charge. This means that already many rents are determined by what the market can bear, not what rent control determines. Remember that landlords are in business; they compete with other landlords for tenants. They would have to have well-maintained buildings and a competitive price or their units would stay empty, and they certainly don't want that.

We believe that this fundamental change strikes a balance. It protects tenants while addressing the legitimate need of landlords to gain a reasonable return on their investment. It gives landlords more freedom to maintain their buildings. That also benefits tenants. It should help create a better climate for investment in the construction of rental buildings, again benefiting the tenant.

The balance we were seeking in the new Tenant Protection Act is also illustrated by the package of amendments we introduced following this summer's committee hearings. Many were technical amendments, and I'm not going to go into those, but let me touch on a few that once again show the balance we have striven for in this bill.

Tenants asked for automatic rent reductions when municipal taxes were reduced. That has been agreed to. Now if a landlord benefits from a tax decrease, the tenants will benefit as well.

Tenants asked for mandatory rent receipts. Under the proposed Tenant Protection Act, they'll get them. We believe it's a necessary step towards avoiding future disputes between landlords and tenants. It also means extra protection for people who pay their rent in cash; that's the particularly vulnerable low-income tenant who lacks the financial means or the credit identification to maintain a bank account.

Landlords sought, and got, both a fast-track eviction process and the ability to pass through new charges for security services. But while the landlords asked for these changes, tenants also benefit from those changes. They too want their homes to be safe and secure, and they too stand to gain from a system that will see dangerous neighbours leave sooner rather than later.

The fast-track eviction process will only apply where there are safety issues. Let me give you a real, true-life example. A man we're going to call Joe was a resident of a group home operated by a church organization for recovering alcoholics. Despite repeated warnings, Joe continued to drink alcohol on the premises. Things took an ugly turn one evening. Joe went into a drunken rage, threatening the other tenants and attacking one of them viciously. This incident traumatized the other residents in the home, many of whom were just in the process of putting their lives back together.

The operator was forced to move other tenants out of the facility while the lengthy, extremely lengthy, eviction process moved along.

In this case, vulnerable tenants were victimized twice. First they had to endure Joe's erratic behaviour; and second, they were forced to relocate because of this one tenant's actions.

There have been many other situations where tenants have used their apartments as crack houses or have set fires in rental buildings. There have been incidents where tenants in apartments have been abusive and violent against other tenants or small landlords and destructive to property. These incidents don't happen every day, but when they do, faster evictions are needed to protect both the landlord's property and the other residents in the building.

Within this process, I should emphasize that tenants will still have due process. The time frames for giving eviction notices may have been shortened, but the hearing processes will still be held just as they are now. Under the Tenant Protection Act, those hearings will be conducted by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, the quasi-judicial agency that will be at the heart of the government's simpler, faster and fairer approach to resolving landlord-tenant issues. This less formal approach will lift the burden currently placed on Ontario's crowded courts and offer Ontario's tenants and landlords a one-window opportunity to resolve problems.

At the present time, there are no clear guidelines and legislation, and that has caused much confusion. For example, 80% of rental buildings contain four units or less, and many mom-and-pop landlords certainly need payments to meet their own mortgage commitments. The new Tenant Protection Act would clarify for both landlords and tenants what information would be acceptable for the landlord to ask. What I'm referring to here is the right for landlords to request income information from prospective tenants. This is a business, as I've said, and in any business, whether it's a bank or a landlord, they have a right to ensure that a new tenant has the ability to pay the rent.

Finally, in the event that this legislation is passed, it would be our intention to wait several months after third reading to proclaim the Tenant Protection Act. Those months would be well spent. It would be our intention to spend that time appointing a chair and other members to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. We would select the best decision-makers possible, based on skills and experience, and we would staff and fully equip the tribunal.

We would also use that time, again subject to the passage of the legislation, for public education efforts required to inform landlords and tenants about their rights and obligations under the act and how to use the new tribunal. We want to make sure we get it right for tenants; we want to make sure we get it right for the landlords of this province.

I'll close my remarks by thanking the many individuals who invested time and energy in the process that brought us to this point. I would like one final time to reiterate our four main goals. In proposing this new tenant protection legislation we wanted (1) to protect tenants from unfair rent increases and arbitrary evictions; (2) to improve maintenance and get tough on landlords who fail to take care of their buildings; (3) to create a climate where people will invest in new rental housing -- this in turn would give tenants more and better choices of where to live; and (4) to streamline administration and cut red tape to create a faster, fairer, less costly system of rent control.

As you are well aware, this law will combine six existing pieces of legislation and will substantially amend two other statutes. We believe this proposed Tenant Protection Act achieves all of those goals. We believe we have put forward legislation that will truly benefit the tenant, the property owner and the Ontario taxpayer.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate? He's not sharing his time?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, Chair, I did.

The Deputy Speaker: I wasn't in the chair, so can I clarify again, please.

Hon Mr Leach: I announced that I would be sharing my time with the member for Kitchener and the member for Hamilton West.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Speaker, on a point of order: There's no quorum in the House and there should be, because people should hear this member speak.

The Deputy Speaker: Could you check and see if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I'm pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act, and I speak in favour of it. We toured around the province in public hearings this summer for a couple of weeks, and of course a year ago this past summer we also toured around the province for two weeks leading up to the introduction of this bill. We asked for a number of suggestions from tenants' advocates, we received a number and we have made amendments.

Tenants' advocates have suggested imposing absolute ultrastrict rent controls that will ensure property owners can't get a dime; and vice versa, the landlords' groups that we heard from suggested that we get rid of rent controls entirely. What we tried to do was to reach a happy medium. In discussing with tenants' groups since the introduction of this bill, since the public hearings -- I have met with a couple different groups back home in my riding in Kitchener, and my executive assistant has represented me as well at meetings -- I think what we have done is succeeded in reaching that happy medium.

The tenants' groups, after we explain to them what we have attempted to do, agree. They have some reservations, they have some concerns, and that's okay.

What we have tried to do is take into consideration the viewpoints of the many diverse groups. The delegations that we heard from included tenants' associations, landlords' associations, seniors' groups, churches, legal clinics, development companies, students' groups, various types of construction and development companies, municipalities, social planning councils and other various groups. Some of them were diametrically opposed, as you can appreciate, so what we wanted to do was fix a system that we felt wasn't working.

Did everybody agree that the system needed fixing? No, not everybody did, but I'd like to bring out some quotations. The Liberal red book, for instance, said, "Within our first year in office, [we will] simplify the existing system and streamline it to provide better service to tenants and landlords." In addition, the Liberal red book said, "A Liberal government will undo the impact of Bill 120," which was the old rent control legislation, "in order to meet the special needs of those who live and work in retirement homes."

Alvin Curling, the member for Scarborough North, went so far as to say: "Let's not go about insulting investors and landlords. Let's not feel that tenants are the only ones to be protected in this process, but all." He went on to say: "Bill 121," the NDP rent control bill, "does not in any way protect tenants and landlords. It hurts both landlords and tenants."

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Who said that?

Mr Wettlaufer: Alvin Curling, the member for Scarborough North. "It does not provide funds," he said, "that are needed to complete the necessary repairs on the province's aging rental housing."

Here's another very notable quotation from a very noteworthy individual. He said: "Many people assume that rent control is there to protect the lower-income tenants in the units that they rent. In fact, it's upper-income tenants who get the most benefits." The man who said that was John Sewell, and he said that on Studio 2, TVO.

Mr Baird: Who said that?

Mr Wettlaufer: John Sewell.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): John who?

Mr Wettlaufer: John Sewell.

Interjection: A paid union organizer.

Mr Wettlaufer: A paid union organizer, right.

I think it's important to keep in mind here that $10 billion of repairs are needed to existing rental housing. We have seen that balconies need repairs, garages need repairs, plumbing needs to be repaired, roofs need to be repaired. Essentially what this boils down to is that the previous rent control system did not allow a landlord who had to carry out the repairs to recover his costs. That was one of the things we had to address, and we have addressed it.

We have heard from a number of landlords in our areas that the majority of them are immigrants who have come here since the Second World War.

Mr Marchese: Are these the people who own a house or two or the big apartments?

Mr Wettlaufer: Some of them do own a house or two. Some of them own just a sixplex or a fourplex or a duplex. This unit represents their life savings, and they have not been able to carry out the repairs. They have come to us and said, "We must have some relief."

Mr Marchese: They came to you? I don't believe it.

Mr Wettlaufer: Yes, they came to me. I have a number in my riding -- Italians, Poles, Greeks, Jews and Germans -- and they needed relief.

The former government's housing policy resulted in Ontario growing into one of the largest landlords in the free world. The government was competing with the people we expected to provide reasonable rental housing. These were the people who were paying taxes. These were the people who were providing jobs. But no, the government had to go into competition with them.

Mr Marchese: Oh yeah. Get the government out of the housing business. Stop building non-profit housing.

Mr Wettlaufer: That's right. Now you understand.

I'd like to read from the New York Times of June 13, 1997. This was an

article written by Henry Pellakowski, and it was what was evident in Massachusetts:

"Those who envision catastrophe if New York's rent regulations are undone can look to Massachusetts.... A rent control phase-out there is bringing more benefits and less disruption than many expected.... Deregulation has affected the poor less than anticipated, construction and renov