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

September 29, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L237a - Mon 29 Sep 1997 / Lun 29 Sep 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

NORTH BAY DAYS OF ACTION

MUSKOKA-GEORGIAN BAY ECONOMY

SABIN CAUTIS

TAKE BACK THE NIGHT

EDNA DAVENPORT DONATION

PEOPLE FIRST

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

ELECTRICAL POWER

ELGIN-MIDDLESEX DETENTION CENTRE

CHARITABLE GAMING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

PETITIONS

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

BEAR HUNTING

EDUCATION ISSUES

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION REFORM

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

EDUCATION REFORM

SOCCER FIELD

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): For over a year, Mike Harris has been moving at breakneck speed to close hospitals in Ontario. My colleagues and I have been trying to make the government listen, really listen, to the people they serve; listen and slow down. Recently the OHA released a study conducted by the University of Western Ontario. The study confirms what we have been saying all along, that the speed of restructuring is directly affecting patient care. It means less nursing time per patient, reduced patient supervision, high employee stress and a reduced level of cleanliness. In other words, the government's too hasty agenda is undermining the quality of health care in Ontario.

In my own community, to quote the CEO of the Chatham-Kent Health Alliance, "The amount of change is overwhelming...less time with patients is a reality here." The president of the Kent County Medical Society believes the cutbacks have already adversely affected patient care. He says, "The government hasn't come through with the financial commitments it said it was going to make."

On behalf of all the residents of Chatham-Kent who are already experiencing serious medical underservicing, I urge the government to slow down. Be certain the changes you impose guarantee quality health care for every single resident of Chatham-Kent. The government should only use speed in providing the money required to support our hospitals and community-based patient care.

NORTH BAY DAYS OF ACTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): The North Bay Days of Action are technically over, but the spirit and energy lives on. As organizers projected, Saturday saw the largest demonstration ever in northern Ontario. Over 30,000 protesters filled the streets of North Bay in an orderly and peaceful but unmistakable denouncement of the Harris government's policies and their negative effect on working people.

I met teachers, child care workers, custodians, clerks, psychiatric nurses, garbage collectors, community workers, correctional officers, property assessors, professors, government inspectors, students, people from all walks of life joining together to send a message to Mike Harris.

"We won't back down" was the rallying cry of the day, as speaker after speaker spoke about preserving community services, health care and the quality of education. "Fish or cut bait" was the repeated challenge to Premier Harris, in recognition of the fact that he chose to ignore the people in his own home town and instead went fishing with the governor of Iowa.

As one local resident said in response to the question, what did they think of this event taking place in Mike's town, "It's not Mike's town, it's our town." In a similar vein, others added their voices, "It's not Mike's Ontario, it's our Ontario and we're taking it back."

I want to pay special tribute to the team of ordinary working people who planned, organized and marshalled the Days of Action events. They are a true tribute to the skill, ingenuity and energy of the working people of Ontario.

MUSKOKA-GEORGIAN BAY ECONOMY

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Small businesses are the economic strength of this province and when they are booming, so is the province. It's my pleasure to inform the Legislative Assembly what the small business owners in my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay are saying.

Sue Paul, the manager of Northern Reflections in Midland, said, "We've been extremely busy over last year, an incredible increase." "This year there's a lot more tourists, a lot more cottagers, a lot more travellers. We're seeing more from Europe, England and a lot of Americans. We're just running off our feet."

In Bracebridge, Inn at the Falls owner Peter Rickard said of 1997, "This is the best season we've had since we owned the business."

At The Panhandler in Midland, owner Sharlene Bullock says: "This summer has been very strong. I'm having to bump up orders that I thought were sufficient but now realize are not." She said that a noticeable increase in traffic began last Christmas season and it hasn't stopped since. During that time she found that customers were interested in more expensive purchases.

In Gravenhurst, Russ Brown of the steamboat RMS Segwun had a record-breaking summer. "As of the end of August, we had all record months. We're very pleased."

Muskoka Tourism marketing manager Randy Clark said 1997 was a great year for business and he expects the remainder of the year to be busy in anticipation of the upcoming Bala cranberry festival and the fall colours tour.

The chair of the Midland Business Improvement Area said, "There have been a lot more people downtown and more activity on the main street."

I was very pleased to hear these comments from the business owners in my riding. As they benefit from an expanding economy, so do all Ontarians.

SABIN CAUTIS

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise today concerned that this government does not acknowledge the achievements of the Ontario educational system. It was only last week that the Minister of Education called Ontario "the caboose at the end of the education train." I hope the minister will take some time and learn about the successes of our system before he condemns it, by his irresponsible and reckless actions, to mediocrity.

Let me tell my fellow members about the achievements of a student from my community, Sabin Cautis of Earl Haig Secondary School in North York. Sabin is a member of the 1997 Canadian International Mathematics Olympiad team. Sabin was selected from among more than 200,000 students who participated in local, provincial and national mathematics competitions and has been on the Canadian team for the past two years.

The Canadian team of six high school students won two silver medals, two bronze, and an honourable mention at the 38th International Mathematics Olympiad. The Canadian team placed 29th out of 82 competing countries. Since 1981, Canadian students have achieved a total of eight gold, 21 silver and 39 bronze medals.

Obviously, the achievements of Sabin Cautis and many other students in Ontario are a reflection of the good that can come out of the province's educational institutions.

TAKE BACK THE NIGHT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On Saturday I had the opportunity to participate in Toronto's annual Take Back the Night march. This year, the festivities took place in my riding of Riverdale at the Jimmy Simpson Recreation Centre. Inside, there were displays and information tables to let women know about resources and programs available around Metro. Outside, in the park, we were treated to the music of local female singers and inspiring speeches by women directly involved in the fight against violence against women.

By about 8:30, the crowd had grown to about 600, and it was an enthusiastic, noisy group of women who took to the streets to proclaim our right to be free of violence and to walk in our own streets without fear.

Ironically, this year's event coincided with the Solicitor General's release of the news that they will fund 17 shelters and agencies this year; that is to say, 17 of 261 applications from organizations working to prevent violence and to help deal with the devastating effects of violence against women. This is happening on top of cuts to welfare, legal aid, day care, social housing, second-stage housing and rape crisis centres, and the gutting of rent control. And the list goes on.

This government's war against women must stop. I want to congratulate all of those who organized this year's Take Back the Night event and all those working in the trenches to help end violence against women.

EDNA DAVENPORT DONATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): As a graduate of the University of Toronto, it is indeed a pleasure that I rise to inform the House that the U of T has received one of the largest cash gifts in its history, $9.7 million from a former household science student. The donation, from 90-year-old Edna Davenport in the estate of her late husband, John, was announced by the widow's son, Peter, at a dinner honouring six Nobel laureates last night.

Edna, originally from Owen Sound and now living in Florida, was wooed by her late husband, a chemical engineering student from Hamilton, during her flapper years at the University of Toronto. They wed in 1932 on campus in the Hart House chapel. The widow's son, Peter, said his parents wanted to do something special to thank the institution that meant so much to them.

The donation will be used to build a state-of-the-art laboratory on top of the school's aging chemistry building. It will pay for a three-floor expansion of the current building as well as the necessary new lab upgrades.

University of Toronto president Robert Prichard called the donation a "breathtakingly generous gesture." The University of Toronto describes the Davenport donation as a "spectacular act of generosity." This is extremely significant to the university and Canada, because it is the kind of philanthropy that will some day produce future Nobel laureates like John Polanyi, who was the laureate in chemistry in 1986. I am sure all of us will join in thanking the Davenport family for their generous gift. We all wish the University of Toronto success --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

PEOPLE FIRST

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On Saturday afternoon in Welland I attended a public forum sponsored by the People First organization where individuals with disabilities gathered to share with everyone in attendance their needs and their hopes and aspirations. It is unfortunate that all members of the Ontario Legislature were not able to hear what the member for Welland-Thorold and I were able to listen to, as the experiences of these individuals with disabilities were most revealing.

The apprehension felt by everyone about the changes being contemplated in Bill 142 was apparent in virtually all the presentations. What each one of these people was seeking was an assurance that an adequate support system would be in place to assist them in being as independent as possible despite their disabilities. To have some of their needs met requires an investment by the government of Ontario, an investment in people.

The People First forum was not a gathering of the rich and the privileged in some posh, private club. They were not people who by virtue of a powerful position and an accumulation of wealth are able to live comfortably without the financial intervention of government. They are, rather, people who need the understanding and help of elected representatives to give them an opportunity to cope with and overcome obstacles presented by their various disabilities.

They live in fear that in an attempt to cater to those who want to randomly slash social expenditures and take advantage of an income tax cut that favours the richest in our province the most, their support systems will be eroded or removed. Let all of us work to allay their fears to ensure that the people with disabilities are not treated as second-class citizens.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It's my pleasure to rise today and advise the House that I was also one of those in North Bay this weekend. Even though the Premier thought North Bay wasn't a good enough place to be, there were certainly better than 30,000 of us who thought that was an excellent place to be, and it was, because the message coming out of that rally and those two days of protest is that this government cannot expect that the sham of a process around 136, apart and aside from the content, is going to be accepted in this province. Make no mistake, 136 and 160 are linked decidedly in the minds of all those you have heard from so far about 136.

Talking about 136 and the sham process we just went through, today we received the long-awaited amendments to Bill 136 that effectively give us a completely different bill. Let me point out: There's Bill 136, as originally printed and presented, and there's the 150 pages of amendments we got a few hours ago -- 136 then, 136 now. When do we start clause-by-clause discussion of these detailed legal concepts? At 3:30 today, and somehow that's supposed to be democratic? The fact is you have no interest in listening to anyone. You want to ram through your legislation, ram through your hard-line agenda, without giving a care for anyone, as long as it looks good.

The fact is when I was an alderman in the city of Hamilton, I couldn't get a stop sign put up as quickly as you're ramming 136 through.

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to rise today and report in the House that it's National AIDS Awareness Week. From the beginning, the Harris government has clearly indicated that AIDS is one of its priorities. We're doing more for people with HIV and AIDS than any other government in Canada.

This year alone, the Ontario Ministry of Health will spend almost $56 million for HIV and AIDS programs, and that doesn't even include doctor billings to OHIP. This is close to $16 million more than the federal government spends for all of Canada.

Our funding goes to a wide range of programs including outpatient clinics, supportive housing and drug therapies for people living with HIV. In the last provincial budget we announced we would invest $10 million in the Ontario HIV treatment network. The network will exist to improve the health and quality of life for people living with HIV and AIDS by ensuring high quality and appropriate treatments. I believe these initiatives demonstrate our government's solid and long-term commitment to people living with HIV.

I would like to acknowledge the passing of Mr Andrew Lafontaine, who died of AIDS in January of this year. He served as the co-chair of the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS for over a year. His work and insight will be greatly missed.

As well, I would like to announce the recent appointment of Mr David Hoe of Ottawa as co-chair, a respected voice in the AIDS community who will complement the work of the other co-chair, Dr Anne Phillips of Toronto.

Our province has come a long way in fighting HIV and there is a lot more to be done.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, September 29, 1997, Tuesday, September 30, 1997, and Wednesday, October 1, 1997, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to request the unanimous consent of the Legislature to have a question period with each of the evening sessions this week.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines is asking for unanimous consent to have question periods for each of the evening sessions this week. Agreed? I heard a no.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 105 and 106.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. You will know that Ontario teachers have informed us that some time after the beginning of second reading of the teachers' bill and some time before third reading, 126,000 of them, all Ontario teachers at the primary and secondary levels, are prepared to step outside of the classroom and to go on strike. That strike would affect two million Ontario students. There have to be nearly one million families that would be affected if that was to happen.

One of the single greatest stumbling blocks in the resolution of this matter, and you well recognize this, Premier, is found in the person himself of your minister John Snobelen. Teachers across this province do not have any faith in your minister. They do not believe that he understands the importance of the work they do in classrooms. They do not believe that he values teaching or values teachers themselves.

Will you, given that, demand the resignation of your minister?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): From what I have heard, and I have talked with a number of teachers over the last few days, they are concerned. The teachers I have talked to over the last few days and weeks have told me that they were concerned about school boards and their federations cutting deals to increase class size, and they want that to stop. They have told me that they're a little surprised with all the rhetoric, because they know that the Mike Harris who negotiated with them in Nipissing is fair and reasonable and has always fought for quality education.

That's why I appointed as Minister of Education somebody who shares those same goals. The Honourable John Snobelen from Mississauga North is one whose commitment to quality, to improving excellence, to improving our standard of education is unparalleled in North America.

Mr McGuinty: I'll tell you what your Minister of Education has done to date: So far he's robbed our classes of $533 million; he has killed junior kindergarten; he is attacking special education and he is attacking adult education everywhere across the province.

There is another important stumbling block in the way of a resolution of this matter quite distinct from the minister himself, and that is the fact that he continues to maintain that he will remove another $1 billion from education funding in Ontario. Premier, you yourself can, right now, eliminate that stumbling block by promising that not one more cent will be removed from education in Ontario. Will you do that right now?

Hon Mr Harris: The problem is that the member is coming up with the same amount of accuracy as his critic for health. Most of the stuff he is saying is simply not founded in any facts that I've been able to see.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Oriole, member for Ottawa West and member for Hamilton East, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Harris: This Minister of Education has not cut one single junior kindergarten class throughout the whole province. Junior kindergarten is alive and well in Nipissing, alive and well in Durham. Some boards, even though we still fund the full share of junior kindergarten the same as we do for all other elementary classes, have opted not to have it, many at the insistence of their constituents. Certainly this minister has not condoned or encouraged that.

This minister has never used the figure of $1 billion; you have and others have. He has never used that kind of figure. This minister has never taken a cent out of Ontario classrooms. In fact the legislation that is being brought in is to stop what happened in the last four or five years when money was taken out of the classrooms. That's why this minister has brought in a bill to ensure --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Nobody is buying that. Here is a suggestion, Premier: Leave this Legislature, go into half a dozen Ontario classrooms and talk to teachers, those people who do the work on the front lines, and ask those teachers what this minister has done to them and their working conditions. Then you will gain a good understanding of what's happening to education in Ontario.

Premier, you won't get rid of the minister. You will not promise to stop cutting education. There is one other thing you should consider: Put this bill on ice. Why the unseemly haste? Why do you have to rush it through? Why do you have to engage in this politics of brinkmanship on a regular basis? Two million kids could be evicted from their classrooms as early as this week if you don't do something. You've got to intervene. Will you put the bill on ice and withdraw it for the time being?

Hon Mr Harris: It is teachers who have said we need changes. It is the very front-line teachers in the classroom who have been calling for the kinds of changes we have. I would ask the leader of the Liberal Party, if for the first time in your life you want to be constructive, tell us what it is you object to. Do you object in this bill to limiting class size? Do you object to putting more --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Since this bill takes not a penny from the classroom but merely implements the changes front-line teachers have been talking about, I would ask you, what do you object to? Limiting class size? That's in the bill. Do you object to the longer school year and more contact time with teachers and students? If you do, say so. You see, since you've become leader of the party, you're "No, no, no." You're against everything that comes along. You've never stood for anything constructive, for quality education, for better health care or anything else in this House. That's why you're irrelevant.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of Education and Training, but I might say in passing that arrogance on the part of the government is actually a good sign for us, because it is a classical prelude to the defeat of a government.

Minister, you will know that one of the sticking points in this debate with our teachers is the fact that you have inserted in this bill, through the back door, a provision which allows you to interfere with their right to strike during the transitional period. You have told us that this is purely a technicality and that this was not your intention and really doesn't mean that.

We now have, and you should know this, a legal opinion. The opinion says that such regulatory-making power would permit the stopping of a strike or lockout through regulations resulting in forced arbitration or other methods. No doubt the minister may claim that such power was not intended to be granted; if so, then amendments should be introduced. Will you now admit that you have doublecrossed our teachers?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Nothing could be further from the truth. We obviously met with the teachers' federations and others in education before we brought this legislation forward. We answered their concerns. They had a concern about making sure the federations could represent teachers. We honoured that, although it was recommended in a report that we not do that. We heard them say that they wanted principals in the bargaining unit, that this was the best way to run schools and we honoured that. We heard that the right to strike was very important and we've honoured that.

I showed the Leader of the Opposition last week a legal opinion suggesting that this

section of the bill does not in any way, shape or form interfere with the right to strike of teachers. That's my understanding of the legal

interpretation of this bill. I'm not a lawyer; the member opposite is. I'm surprised he would bring this up in the first place. What it does do is this: It protects the interests of students during the transition, to make sure their programs are not affected, as we have promised teachers and parents and students. That's what it does.

Mr McGuinty: Your understanding of your bill is wrong. We have a legal opinion that makes it very clear you can stop a strike or a lockout through your own regulations.

Furthermore, you attach such tremendous weight to that provision that you have included in your own bill another

section which reads as follows. It says, "In the event of a conflict between that regulation," the one I referred to, "and a provision of this or any other act, the regulation prevails."

What you have taken pains to state in your bill is that if there is any doubt whatsoever, your bill, which reserves unto you the right to interfere with the teachers' right to strike, has to prevail. Your bill, which says you can interfere with the right to strike, will be given primacy. Minister, that's like waving a red flag in front of our teachers. Is this bill really so important that you're prepared to risk putting two million Ontario students out of school?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, in view of the fact that I brought this up last week with the Leader of the Opposition, I'm surprised he is taking this tack. I have a letter here from Cassels, Brock and Blackwell that says, "In our view, the enabling legislation would not extend to permit the provincial cabinet to enact legislation relating to labour relation matters." It goes on further to say, "As noted above, the enabling legislation would not give the cabinet the authority to enact regulations relating to labour relation matters."

That's the legal opinion we have on this

section of the bill. This

section of the bill will certainly allow to us to protect the programs students are engaged in during this transition. This is a legal opinion we have obtained. If he has a counter legal opinion, please send it over and I'll send it to the lawyers in the ministry. I'd be more than happy to do that.

Mr McGuinty: I'll be delighted to send a copy of this opinion over to the minister. Minister, what your words and your actions make perfectly clear to us over here is that you just don't understand how serious this matter is: Two million students have their educational career at risk here; over one million Ontario households are going to be affected by this; and 126,000 teachers have been brought together. That's without precedent. You single-handedly have succeeded in bringing teachers together; in a rather perverse way, you've brought about some unity among our teachers.

You've taken half a billion dollars out of the system. You want to take another $1 billion out. Your actions are about to take our teachers out. Why don't you yourself, Minister, get out? Why don't you simply resign?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The Leader of the Opposition sees a different issue here. I see the issue as being, how do we make sure that our schools provide our students with the opportunities they need? How can we take students in Ontario -- despite the fact that we have the best teachers in the world, we have students who are locked in mediocrity, average on the test results in the pan-Canadian international tests.

Our challenge is step by step to build a better education system, to make sure our students have the best performance of any students in Canada. That's our objective. That's what I work on every day. That's what my colleagues and I are behind. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to join us in making a better education for our young people and a better future for our young people, because that's what this effort is all about.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Premier: A couple of hours ago, we got a look at your new Bill 136. I must say, it looks like an entirely new bill, and that's a good thing, because the old one was awful. But you've created another problem along the way, Premier. You see, this is the old bill; it's about 63 pages long. This is the new bill; 150 pages of amendments.

You've also got your time allocation order which says that the 150 pages of amendments have to be considered and dealt with in the next 30 hours. What it amounts to is that once again you're trying to change the laws of Ontario without any public consultation, without allowing the public to understand what you're really putting in place. You're simply trying to ram through your legislation. Premier, we know that when you do that your government makes all kinds of mistakes. You've made mistakes on health care; you've made mistakes elsewhere. Will you withdraw the time allocation order and allow the public time to consider what you're really doing?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Labour is very anxious to answer and I'll let her do so in a minute, but I want to tell you this: The changes that are being introduced have come from the public, they've come from the unions, they've come from the hospital boards and they've come from the municipalities as a result of extensive consultation over the past year.

If you contrast the amount of consultation on this bill, leading to the bill and the amendments, versus the social contract you jammed through without any hearings at all, the contrast is rather astounding. You may have difficulty understanding it, but the unions don't, the municipalities don't, the hospital boards don't. Those who are affected by the legislation don't have difficulty understanding. In fact, most have been rather supportive that this government has been 10 times more consultative than the government we replaced.

Mr Hampton: Premier, there were a whole bunch of folks in your home riding on the weekend who would very much like the time to completely understand what's in Bill 136. Their point is simply this: You introduced these amendments a couple of hours ago. No one out there in the public has had an opportunity to see them, to understand them or to understand what direction they set.

Let me get right to the point. One of the concerns we have is that you are going to use Bill 136 to in effect take away pay equity from a whole bunch of women who work in the broader public sector. As we read the amendments, that is what you're doing. Can you tell us why you're using Bill 136 to take away pay equity settlements for women who work in the broader public sector? Can you tell us that and can you tell the public that?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the Minister of Labour can.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I believe if you take a very careful look at the changes which have been introduced today, you will see in there that there have been changes made to the pay equity provisions. We did what we said we'd do: We listened very carefully last week during the course of the consultations and we have made some changes. You will see that we're going to be focusing our legislation very narrowly on the broader public sector restructuring, so we're going to be dealing only with the issue of a sale of a business and we will not be dealing with the issue of pay equity as it relates to home day care providers or retroactivity.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Minister, you seem to think it's okay for you to hurry up this process for everybody else, that everyone else has to rush through this. Experts, lawyers, labour leaders have been meeting since about 10:30 this morning, just a few hours ago, poring through all these legal amendments, because we have to start voting on them in another hour and a half. If it's okay for everybody else to have to rush through their understanding, let's test your understanding.

All the people who have been looking at subsections 15(6) and (7) of

schedule B aren't quite sure what they mean, including the legal labour experts. Will you stand in your place right now and tell us what it means? If you can't, how do you expect your government backbenchers and the rest of us who are on that committee to bloody well start voting on this thing?

Hon Mrs Witmer: If the member opposite would give me an opportunity to find it, I would be very pleased to respond.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I can understand your desire to get into all of the little nitty-gritty details, because you find it totally --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Witmer: You seem unable to understand that when we said we were going to listen, when we said we were going to consult and when we said we were going to make changes, we actually followed through on our commitment. We made the three major changes: We did withdraw the restriction on the right to strike; we did eliminate the LRTC and give those provisions to the OLRB; and we did withdraw the DRC.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would indicate to you that unlike you, we are quite prepared to review the details with you today --

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

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier again, but I'd say to the Minister of Labour, that's part of our job, to look at the nitty-gritty, to make sure the laws in this province make sense.

We have looked at the nitty-gritty of your Bill 160, your changes to education. Not only are you attacking teachers and attacking children, you are also attacking the fundamentals of early childhood education. In fact you're taking away the capacity of the Minister of Education to approve child care centres in schools. In effect, you're trying to take child care centres right out of the education system.

Premier, can you tell us, why are you attacking teachers, why are you attacking children and, most of all, why are you attacking the fundamentals of early childhood education?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Education can.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): The leader of the third party has I think misrepresented both the bill and the intention of this government.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You can't say that. It's unparliamentary.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I withdraw that, Mr Speaker. His representations are not consistent with my understanding of the bill; let me put it to you that way.

First of all, this government has very clearly recognized the importance of early childhood education. We have worked with the community to make sure that we have that available in our schools. As the Premier mentioned a few moments ago, we continue to fund junior kindergarten at the same rate that we fund other programs in our schools. We have obviously committed to stable funding throughout the entire year and we are working very hard on finishing an allocation model which will meet the needs of those students right across the province. That's what we're doing. Our track record is very clear. We're keeping the promises we made to the people of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: I know when the Minister of Education is in trouble. First he accuses other people of misrepresenting, and then he mumbles.

It's in your own bill. You no longer have the authority under the Education Act, if your bill becomes law, to provide for capital allocations so that we can have child care centres in our schools. Not only that, you take right out of the Education Act any consideration that a child care classroom in a school is a permanent improvement within the meaning of the act. In other words, you're trying to write child care totally out of the education system.

Already in this province we have over 1,300 classrooms in our schools that are being used for child care. It is absolutely essential in many of our schools, because we have single-parent mothers who want to go back to school, who want to have their children cared for. I put it to you: Why are you attacking early childhood education? Why are you going to make it so much more difficult for --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: We obviously have viewed child care as a very important issue, and obviously my colleague at the Ministry of Community and Social Services has been working very hard to make sure that those services are available.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): You cut the funding anyway. They have been closing down for two years.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): We have 3,000 more day care spaces, Sandra.

Mrs Pupatello: That is a lie.

The Speaker: You must go back to your seat to withdraw that. You must be in your seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, you have to go back to your seat. Member for Yorkview, you can go back to your seat at the same time.

Mrs Pupatello: I withdraw, Speaker.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Those issues are being addressed and are being improved on for the people of Ontario, but the leader of the third party does not recognize that what this government is doing is changing fundamentally how we meet the needs in education right across the province.

I'd invite the leader of the third party to come to my riding and talk to the people who have been waiting three and four and five years since when you were in government to get a school built in their area. It's time to change that, to bring it into this century before we get to the next one. That's the intention of this bill, to meet the needs of our students right across the province and make sure there are schools for them. That's why we're doing it.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Minister, even the Common Sense Revolution recognized the value of child care for parent students. It promises a learning and earning and parenting program, saying, "Young single parents on welfare will be encouraged to stay in school and complete their educations."

Instead of following through on that promise, you're threatening programs like the YMCA child care program located at the Alexander Henry High School in Sault Ste Marie, where 24 children are cared for while their parents, aged 15 to their early 20s, finish high school.

The supervisor, Penny Kucyk, tells us that she is aware of only four people who have not graduated into the workforce or further education since the centre opened. Why do you want to get rid of child care centres like the one at the Alexander Henry High School in Sault Ste Marie?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I remind the member of what this government has done to support very young people in this province, including the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program that we put $10 million into; the preschool speech and language services for children, another $20 million; Better Beginnings, Better Futures, a program you should know about that has $4.6 million. We've committed to over $200 million over the next five years to make a difference for those young people. This is an extraordinary investment in the very young people in this province.

Let me tell you what we're interested in reducing. We're interested in reducing the over 10,000 portables that our students are in, in this province, because of you. That is why we're changing it, to get rid of those portables.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier regarding a four-month-old baby girl living in the Ottawa area. Her name is Alyssa Larabie. Her paediatrician has made an assessment that she could die in her sleep as a result of sudden infant death syndrome and has requested that she be provided with a special monitor until reaching the age of somewhere between nine months and 12 months.

You have made a change to the assistive devices program and effectively have said you will no longer pay for these special monitors beyond the age of six months. The paediatrician is saying that this baby should have a monitor until she is at least nine months of age. You have changed the law so that now you're only paying for it until she reaches the age of six months.

I wonder, Premier, first of all if you knew about that; and second, recognizing that the paediatrician has made an important decision in this matter, will you now intervene and ensure that Alyssa Larabie has this monitor until she's at least nine months of age?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Yes.

Mr McGuinty: Why did I have to learn about this story in the Ottawa Citizen? I had to stand in this Legislature and bring this matter to your attention for you to personally intervene. I'm not sure how many other cases there are like this throughout the province, but just so I'm perfectly clear on this, you are now saying that we are going to change the policy for the assistive devices program in Ontario for every child, and that if any paediatrician deems it appropriate and fit that a child be equipped with a monitor until nine months or 12 months, that's the end of it and you will pay for it? Am I correct in that regard, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: First of all, you didn't have to raise it in the House; it has already been dealt with. The family has been notified and they will receive it.

I'd love to tell you that in spending the $18 billion that we spend, each and every decision is perfectly executed and there's never any error, there's never any medical decision that is wrong for whatever reason, that everything in the world is perfect. That is not always the case. From time to time there are situations that arise. If you hear of any, we're happy to have you pass them over to us.

There is a policy that has been brought into place that talks in generalities in consultation with the medical community. If there are exceptions to be made, gosh darn, let me know and we'll look after it.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): My question is to the Premier. I hope he is as positive and taciturn in his response to my question as he was to the Leader of the Opposition's first question. My question is regarding Ipperwash and the wrongful death of Dudley George.

Earlier today the crown dropped weapons charges against one of the young demonstrators who drove a car at the riot police on the night of September 6, 1995, the night Dudley George was killed. We have known all along that the demonstration at Ipperwash Provincial Park posed no threat to public safety. Even the OPP identified no public risk and told the interministerial committee that at the meeting Deb Hutton, the Premier's executive assistant, attended. On the next day, the OPP buildup occurred, though, and the police used force to try to enter the park. We've been saying that this is an unprecedented buildup that led to a man's death.

Now another outstanding charge is out of the way. This was the last criminal trial arising out of the events on September 6 and it has now been disposed of. There is no reason to stall on a public inquiry. Premier, it's time to call a public inquiry.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Attorney General --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Attorney General.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): There are still matters of appeal before the courts, there are civil actions before the courts, and my understanding is that the crown is continuing with three charges that are presently before the courts even though a couple of those charges have been withdrawn.

Mr Wildman: To deal with the minister responsible for native affairs and the Attorney General, the Supreme Court of Canada has given some clear guidelines regarding inquiries so there cannot be any excuse about legal issues pending in this particular situation. In the case of Westray and most recently in the Krever blood inquiry, the Supreme Court clarified the circumstances in which you can have an inquiry even when there are civil and/or criminal investigations outstanding. The Supreme Court ruling on Krever states:

"The ability of an inquiry to investigate, educate and inform Canadians benefits our society. A public inquiry before an impartial and independent commissioner which investigates the cause of tragedy and makes recommendations for change can help to prevent a recurrence of such tragedies in the future."

All the information we have is that the government can now have a public inquiry. What is the government hiding? When are you going to call a public inquiry? Will you follow the Supreme Court ruling?

Hon Mr Harnick: The member has been told before, and I will say again, that no one has precluded an inquiry taking place. No decision has been made about that. When all the criminal matters and the civil matter and the appeals are dealt with and the three outstanding charges are completed, that's something we will consider. Consideration of that has never been precluded.

ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. In my riding the Peterborough Utilities Commission, and many other local municipal electric utilities across Ontario, are in the process of restructuring the manner in which power is supplied to the customer. As you can well appreciate, recent problems at Ontario Hydro have created a number of questions and concerns.

The PUC is of the understanding that potential legislation is being drafted that would permit third-party access to the system. This would allow any electric supplier the option to supply electricity to any customer in Ontario. The supplier would then have to pay a toll fee to the owners for the use of wires required to deliver electricity. Minister, can you inform me whether legislation to allow third-party access is being prepared by your ministry, or can we expect this issue to be addressed in the upcoming white paper on electricity?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Many of the municipal electric utilities are interested in the government's plans to restructure its electricity sector. There are some 306 municipal electrical utilities across the province. We are drafting our paper to introduce a competitive environment in Ontario to ensure that we will have the lowest possible electricity rates for our future generations. That will entail a number of changes in the existing structure. It will introduce competition at various and different levels.

I look forward to introducing this paper and being able to clarify these issues with the public in the very near future. We are not at the present time drafting legislation. That would come after the introduction of the white paper.

Mr Stewart: Third-party access is a very serious issue. Local MEUs feel that if third-party access becomes a reality, it should be phased in over a number of years. Issues such as rate subsidies or preferential treatment of large urban customers over rural customers by suppliers must be carefully thought out. Minister, can you reassure my local utility that issues such as third-party access and all other important issues will be carefully thought out before long-term, permanent actions on restructuring take place.

Hon Mr Sterling: There has already been a significant amount of consultation take place with regard to these kinds of issues. There's the Macdonald advisory committee. My ministry has engaged all different stakeholders with regard to their interests in this issue. When the white paper will be issued, the select committee on nuclear affairs will no doubt be discussing some of these issues as well. Then we will have of course the necessity of introducing legislation in front of this House.

There will be an adequate source of opportunities for the municipal electric utilities to let us know of their feelings with regard to the competitive nature of our structure as well as to the timing of when those particular aspects of that white paper and the legislation should kick in.

I understand their feelings, but our goal is to get to a competitive system in order to provide the best possible rates for our future Ontario citizens.

ELGIN-MIDDLESEX DETENTION CENTRE

Mr Peter North (Elgin): My question is for the Solicitor General. Minister, I've asked you on a couple of different occasions questions with regard to the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. Last week you stood in the House and talked about the federal government and what it was doing with regard to young offenders.

In my questions, I've asked you with regard to the people who have been dismissed by your ministry with regard to the incident at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. I want to know if you can tell me what happened between June 6, 1996, when you made a commitment in this Legislature to a member of the third party to do an inquiry, and June 9, when members of your ministry, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and cabinet office met on a Sunday afternoon and decided to suspend those four people at that time, and subsequently on what grounds you came to dismiss these people in the months that followed.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The member knows there are a number of matters before the courts with respect to this situation and a number of the individuals whom he is representing, so I'm very limited in what I can say with respect to those circumstances. I know he fully appreciates that.

Mr North: I sincerely do fully appreciate that, but I'm not asking you about court proceedings. I'm asking you about process in the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the government of Ontario.

These people have been fired from their jobs. These people have not been found guilty of a single crime in Ontario. These people have not been served natural justice by the province of Ontario. So I think it's incumbent on me and incumbent on you as the Solicitor General to explain to these people what exactly they are guilty of and why they are fired.

It is important to people who are losing their homes, people who are losing their families, people who have lost their dignity in the community, and people who have lost a tremendous amount of respect and in some cases their mental health as a result of the decision that your and other ministries have made. It is time for you to produce some proof, some evidence, some basis in fact to show these people why --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Runciman: Again, the member is aware that the process is under way with respect to the dismissals involved where the individuals involved will have the opportunity to have their day in court, if you will, with respect to whether the dismissals were indeed justified.

The member and I have had this discussion with respect to the role played by a minister. The minister in any ministry in this government is not making hiring or firing decisions. Those decisions lie with the senior levels of the civil service and the bureaucracy. They are not decisions made by the minister. I have explained that to him on a number of occasions.

I very much appreciate his concern with respect to his constituents, but because of a variety of constraints, I can say no more.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is for the Premier. In Mike Harris's Ontario, you said that you wanted to give citizens of the province more say in where we locate casinos. In Mike Harris's Ontario, you wanted to give more autonomy to local governments.

Community after community has said no to charitable gaming casinos. Now we read that municipalities will receive an annual fee of $1,500 per video lottery machine in charitable gaming clubs for services. Premier, who is going to pay this fee?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know that the minister --

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): We've gone through a process over the last several months where the municipalities have expressed some concern in terms of what will happen after the implementation of the charity gaming clubs. They have said they need to monitor the process; they need to have some involvement with the processing of the sites to be selected.

We have listened to the municipalities. We are giving them some resources to deal with this. Yes, it's $1,500 per machine.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I don't believe the municipalities think this is a laughing matter. Clearly what we're trying to do is compensate them for resources they're going to have to utilize.

Let's not lose sight of what this is about. This is about replacing a system that does not work and has not worked under any of the previous governments because of a lack of monitoring, because of a lack of accountability. This is all about accountability to both the taxpayer and the charities in this province.

Mr Crozier: I'd like the record to note that first of all the minister didn't answer the question. I asked specifically who is going to pay the $1,500. Some people have said this is a bribe to the municipalities. I suggest that it's a move to put pressure on municipalities by charities in order that the government can buy some moral persuasion, some moral protection.

Minister, what price will you actually pay to justify your downloading to the municipalities and subsequent attempt through this means to pay them off so that they might accept a charitable casino?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Currently, under the previous NDP government and the previous Liberal government, the system has been that the municipalities have been participating, whether it has been through the charity bingos or whether it has been through the break-open tickets, and certainly with respect to the roving casinos, but unfortunately there has not been the accountability that's necessary to deal with this. This is all about making sure there's accountability back to the various communities, back to the charities and certainly back to the taxpayer.

Despite what the member is suggesting, there are many people across the province and many municipal mayors who are indicating that's not the case. Very recently, on September 27 in the St Catharines Standard, Fort Erie Mayor John Teal indicated that he welcomes the resources and he doesn't see it the same way as the member does. Clearly this is all about creating a new system that works and getting rid of a system that didn't work.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. You know as well as we all do that when polyvinyl chlorides are burned, we get dioxins. Dioxin is the most toxic substance known on this planet. Yet when we had the Plastimet fire in Hamilton, there was no declaration of a hazardous materials fire. Had there been -- and we know now in hindsight that there should have been -- firefighters would have been wearing better equipment, there would have been decontamination units on the site, the evacuation might have taken place sooner.

Certainly the people who were sitting by the fire with lawn chairs would have been advised that this was very serious. The police would have been better equipped to protect themselves and protect the public and perhaps there might even have been a need to evacuate the hospital that was ultimately exposed.

Minister, without a public inquiry to determine exactly when a hazardous material fire should be called, how can you guarantee that although there aren't dead bodies in Hamilton because of the fire this time, there won't be the next time?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Of course no one anticipates having a fire in any kind of situation. Therefore, when a fire does occur, there is a call to the Ministry of Environment and we dispatch the information we have in our files to the fire department and the medical officer of health.

In this case, we had information as to the material at that particular site and we informed the fire department within an hour and a half of the fire beginning. I don't know any other kind of system which would provide any more speedy response, which would provide a more technical response than we were able to provide in this case.

Mr Christopherson: Two things, Minister: First of all, the fact that you don't know doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact it points all the more to the fact that we ought to hold a public inquiry so we can find out how we can do that. For you to just say you don't know is not acceptable.

And let me say, to say no one anticipates a fire, what are fire plans for? Give me a break. Of course you plan for a fire. You don't hope it happens, but you plan for it.

Minister, you have sloughed off all calls for a public inquiry by saying it's just politics. I've pointed out to you that our local officials, both of our local councils, other municipal councils across the province and the Hamilton Spectator editorials five times have called for one. You still say we're all playing politics.

The latest one to call for a public inquiry is your own backbencher from Hamilton Mountain, who says, "I believe that the Plastimet fire is a unique event that necessitates a full public probe into how and why it began and how its aftermath was handled by all levels of government." We agree with the member for Hamilton Mountain. What do you say to him?

Hon Mr Sterling: Contrary to how previous governments acted, our backbenchers have their own individual opinions, and from time to time they express those opinions in public. In this case I don't agree with the member for Hamilton Mountain with regard to this particular matter, but I respect him for putting forward his opinion.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to respond to a question from the member for Wilson Heights on September 16, concerning the TTC and its intention to purchase additional buses.

I would like to start off by saying that thanks to the growing economy, the TTC is blessed with an increase in its ridership and requires additional buses before they were anticipated. In May of this year the TTC issued tenders to purchase 100 monocoque buses with lifts and up to 50 low-floor buses from three manufacturers.

Although there is only one supplier for the monocoque buses, all three manufacturers make low-floor buses and two of these companies bid on the low-floor portion of the tender. Orion Bus Industries manufactures low-floor buses; however, they did not bid on the low-floor portion of the tender.

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

Hon Mr Palladini: The TTC is satisfied that it has conducted a competitive tendering process. However, I do have some questions about their decision.

The Speaker: Member for Wilson Heights.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): It's a little difficult for me to respond when I haven't heard the concerns of the minister, but I will say this: The facts of the matter are quite simple. The government has a policy of funding only low-floor buses, and these particular buses are not low-floor buses. The other thing is that they're going to be built in Roswell, New Mexico, with 60,000 man-days of labour that could sorely be used in Ontario. Again, the government is funding that.

My question is, and I am very anxious to hear the minister's reply to his original statement, what is the government going to do about it? Are they going to allow the TTC to place that order?

Hon Mr Palladini: I am aware, number one, that disabled groups have expressed opposition to the high-floor bus purchases, and several of them have actually written to the ministry and to me personally to express their concerns.

I would like to inform the honourable member that I have written a letter to the Toronto Transit Commission asking for further information about this particular purchase. As I indicated to the member when he asked the question, I am reviewing the TTC's request for another exemption to the low-floor bus policy and hope to have a decision shortly.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Education. We are on the verge of a crisis of epic proportion in education which is going to affect in excess of two million students because of Mike Harris's new education bill, Bill 160. As late as Saturday evening, on Focus Ontario, you continued to say, "I encourage the teachers to talk to me; I encourage them to dialogue and to meet with me."

Earlier today, in response to a question from the third party, you invited the member to your riding to find out at first hand. This evening in Sudbury members from all the affiliates will be meeting at the Caruso Club to voice their concerns about Bill 160. There will be in excess of 2,000 teachers at tonight's meeting. I have purchased a return ticket for you. Will you accompany me to that meeting tonight?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Obviously there is now some dispute about whether or not a plane ticket has actually been purchased. If it has been, please send it over with a page and I'll have a look at it; if it hasn't -- well, just send it over and we'll have a look at the ticket.

I can tell you, and the member should know, that I spent an awful lot of time over the course of the last two and a half years in classrooms talking with teachers, talking with students, and I've spent a lot of time talking with parents. I know their concerns. The door remains open at the Ministry of Education, and I'm glad to have this chance again today to say publicly that the door is open, that I'm willing to meet with the teacher union heads at any time to talk about this bill, to talk about the future of education.

From what I've heard from teachers, we have alignment on the need to improve education for our students, on the need to find a funding system that better meets the needs of students and teachers in the classroom. That's what we're working towards. The door is open. I look forward to meeting with those teachers.

Mr Bartolucci: On November 19, 1996, I invited you to tour overcrowded classes with me. Sadly, you said you were too busy. Today you say you're not going. I ask you again, will you accompany me to Sudbury to hear at first hand from the teachers, the group you say you want to meet with, about what their concerns and their alternatives are to Bill 160? Will you come with me or are you too busy again?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The member opposite hasn't responded to the request to send the ticket over. I think there might be some hyperbole going on with the member opposite, but let me tell you I take this very seriously.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Snobelen: While the member opposite would like to engage in theatrics on this subject, it is a very serious one. We do have to have constructive talks. We've demonstrated over the past two weeks that when we get together with teachers' representatives and the ministry, we can come up with agreements that work in the best interests of the young people of the province of Ontario. It's time now to do that again.

I have said time and again, and I've said again today, my door is open. I welcome those conversations. I'll meet teachers' unions whenever they ask me to. I guarantee that I believe and my colleagues believe that those kinds of conversations can be fruitful for the young people of this province. That's why we want to engage in them.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, and it's with respect to your program of introduction of video lottery terminals. You're proceeding at this point with phase one. I have two simple questions to you. First, could you tell me whether phase one, which I know includes racetracks, also includes the Ontario Jockey Club's teletheatre on the Greenwood site? Second, would you tell me, if the municipality says no to video lottery terminals, will you stop the implementation of them in the racetracks?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): Mr Speaker, I would like to refer the question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, please.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I believe the situation is right now that the proponents have been selected for the charity gaming clubs. It is up to them at this point in time to find appropriate locations. This is partly why we're allocating the amount we are for the video lottery terminals and the charity gaming clubs, so they can have meaningful discussions with their communities to ensure that the appropriate locations are selected.

PETITIONS

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here dealing with Bill 136. It's addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas Bill 136, the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act, 1997, will not meet its stated objective to facilitate collective bargaining in the event of mergers and amalgamations; and

"Further, if enacted, Bill 136 will interfere with free collective bargaining, impose a new bureaucratic and dictatorial regime, remove the right to fair and impartial arbitration of disputes and the right to strike; and

"Whereas the Ontario Labour Relations Board has a long and successful history of mediating labour disputes;

"Therefore, in the interest of maintaining and enhancing quality public services provided by dedicated public employees, we hereby petition the Ontario government to withdraw its proposed Bill 136 legislation and support a fair and workable system that will not disrupt the supply of public services to the community or the livelihoods of thousands of Ontarians."

It has been signed by some 25 people, and I affix my signature to it as well.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition sent to Mike Harris's government that is holding public hearings on Bill 136 in the city of Toronto only for four days, and nowhere else in Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, are petitioning the Ontario government to hold public hearings here in Sault Ste Marie on Bill 136."

It's signed by literally hundreds of my constituents. I sign it myself and will pass it on to the Clerk's desk.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition signed by eight people. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government has failed to address the root causes of waste, duplication and unnecessary administration in our health care system; and

"Whereas the provincial government has instead introduced Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, that makes it easier for employers to reduce the numbers of front-line staff and to lower their salaries and benefits and thus causing further deterioration of quality patient care; and

"Whereas Bill 136 also erodes the democratic process by tampering with collective agreements and potentially interfering with workers' choice of bargaining agents;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, and restructure the health care system in a safe, coordinated and rational way."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly that reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEAR HUNTING

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas black bear populations in Ontario are healthy with between 75,000 and 100,000 animals and their numbers are stable or increasing in many areas of the province; and

"Whereas black bear hunting is enjoyed by over 20,000 hunters annually in Ontario and black bears are a well-managed renewable resource; and

"Whereas hunting regulations are based on sustained yield principles and all forms of hunting are needed to optimize the socioeconomic benefits associated with hunting; and

"Whereas the value of the spring bear hunt to tourist operators in northern Ontario is $30 million annually, generating about 500 person-years of employment; and

"Whereas animal rights activists have launched a campaign of misinformation and emotional rhetoric to ban bear hunting and end our hunting heritage in Ontario, ignoring the enormous impact this would have on the people of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all current forms of black bear hunting."

This is signed by about 225 residents of the province of Ontario, and pursuant to the standing orders, I am affixing my signature to it.

EDUCATION ISSUES

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It comes on behalf of many of my constituents and others within the province and it deals with education issues.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The following petition was presented to me like this, and I understand that T-shirts are not allowed, so I'll put it down, but it was presented by Marg Rondina with regard to that. I said that I would do that.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government has failed to address the root causes of waste, duplication and unnecessary administration in our health care system; and

"Whereas the provincial government has instead introduced Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, that makes it easier for employers to reduce the numbers of front-line staff and to lower their salaries and benefits and thus causing further deterioration of quality patient care; and

"Whereas Bill 136 also erodes the democratic process by tampering with collective agreements and potentially interfering with workers' choice of bargaining agent;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, and restructure the health care system in a safe, coordinated and rational way."

I thank Marg Rondina for collecting these 2,000 signatures, and I sign it.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has decided to reduce taxes by 30%; and

"Whereas this government has proceeded to reduce the level of public health care service through the hospital restructuring committee; and

"Whereas complementary legislation such as Bill 7, Bill 26 and Bill 136 are turning the negotiation process into a one-sided sham; and

"Whereas the morale of these front-line health care employees has hit rock bottom;

"We, the undersigned organized service and practical nursing staff of the London Health Sciences Centre, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To withdraw Bill 136 and to re-establish the funding and level of service in the public hospital sector."

I agree with this petition, which is signed by approximately 500 people from London, and I am affixing my signature.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario and, by the way, it's signed by a number of people from Parkdale and also from Davenport. It reads:

"We believe that the heart of education in our province is in the relationship between students and teachers and that this human and relational dimension should be maintained and extended in any proposed reform. The Minister of Education and Training should know how strongly we oppose many of the secondary reform recommendations being proposed by the ministry and government.

I will cut this short by simply adding one more paragraph. I will not read the rest. It says:

"We strongly urge the ministry to delay the implementation of secondary school reform so that all interested stakeholders -- parents, students, school councils, trustees, teachers and everyone -- are able to participate in a more meaningful consultation process which will help ensure that a high quality of publicly funded education is provided."

I am delighted to add my signature to this document.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Bill 136 gives employers unrestricted rights to tear up collective agreements. It affects union rights, workplace rights and seniority rights of many working people in Ontario.

"For health care workers who have not had the right to strike since 1964, it takes away the fair and independent arbitration system that up until now satisfactorily resolved contract disputes between labour and management. The existing arbitration system also ensured smooth transitions in hospital mergers.

"With last week's announcement, the government of Ontario is clearly moving in the right direction on Bill 136. However, we have no guarantee of that until we see the wording of the proposed amendments.

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, demand that the Legislature of Ontario immediately make public the amendments to Bill 136 and hold public hearings on Bill 136 in communities throughout the province."

That's signed by hundreds of people who are involved in the health care sector in Windsor from AAHPO, CUPE, ONA, OPEIU, OPSEU and SEIU.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I rise in my place to present a petition to the Legislature regarding protecting education services in Ontario.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the government's obsession with the fiscal bottom line will result in a reduction of the quality of education services for our children;

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

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

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

SOCCER FIELD

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition that petitions the Ontario Legislature as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of the province of Ontario, petition the Ontario provincial government to keep the London Psychiatric Hospital's soccer fields for use as youth soccer fields even in the event of the closing of the hospital."

This is the first of a large number of petitions that are coming in and it is signed by 500 citizens of London, Brantford and all of southwestern Ontario.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A very topical subject these days: I have a petition to the government of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery; and

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation and will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for many years to come; and

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across our province is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes, to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income; and

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities; and

"Since Premier Harris and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in the province."

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement with the contents of this petition.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition and letter from numerous members of CUPE in Sault Ste Marie in opposition to Bill 136. It says:

"This letter is written to express opposition to Bill 136. Bill 136 will only serve to distort the balance between workers and management by shifting all advantages in management's favour. We've worked for years to establish an equilibrium between these two parties, and it's very important that it remain. In the past, employers and workers have completed mergers and amalgamations on their own, very successfully, without government intervention.

"As a member of your constituency" -- talking to me -- "I'm requesting you to oppose the passing of Bill 136."

I will certainly be doing that.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders, I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to my question on charitable gaming casinos.

The reason for my dissatisfaction is that I asked the minister who will pay the $1,500 per video gaming slot machine fee to municipalities. The minister did not answer the question. I will file this with the Clerk.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION

Mr Snobelen moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 160,

An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à réformer le système scolaire, à protéger le financement des classes, à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte et à apporter d'autres améliorations compatibles avec la politique du gouvernement en matière de qualité de l'éducation, y compris l'amélioration du rendement des élèves et la réglementation de l'effectif des classes.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'd like to mention before I begin that I'm splitting my time today with the member for Middlesex and the member for Huron.

Today I'm pleased to begin a very public debate on second reading of Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act. This bill is a significant step in building the future of education in Ontario, a significant step in building a solid foundation for our youth and a significant step in addressing the decade-old grievances within the structure of our schools.

We would all agree that our students deserve the very best, we would all agree that our students must measure up to the best in Canada and the best in the world and we would all agree that our children should not pay for their own education, as they do when we leave them our debts.

Let me be very clear. When we burden our children with our debts, as we have in the past, we diminish their futures. When we formed the government, each of our students owed $41,000, and year after year deficits have added to this burden.

For the sake of our children's future, we must embrace the challenge of change: change in curriculum from fuzzy, feel-good outcomes to measurable, year-by-year standards, standards that are regularly tested and clearly communicated to parents and students through a province-wide report card; change to a four-year high school, a high school that recognizes the needs of the 70% who have been left out; change in the governance of schools, with less bureaucracy and fewer politicians, with clear accountability for the ministry, the boards, principals, teachers, parents and students, a governance model built up from the classroom, not down from the boardroom; and change in how we fund our schools from the general legislative grants system.

This is a system that was perfectly designed to hide provincial politicians from accountability. We propose a system designed to meet the needs of our students and to end the old game of hide and seek between the province and the boards.

Make no mistake about it. The easiest way for the province to reduce its costs is to reduce the GLGs, to let the boards pile up more property tax or to add to the provincial debt, as have previous governments, with no intention of paying it off, preferring to leave that burden to our children. This government is committed to a different path, to taking on the burden of fully funding our schools and to being fully accountable for providing for our students; and most important, to being accountable for our students' performance.

In his review of Bill 100, Mr Paroian asked groups presenting to him a simple question: "Where does the buck stop in education?" He got the same answer that has frustrated parents and taxpayers and teachers for decades: "The buck stops nowhere. No one is accountable." Once and for all this bill will allow us to say, "The buck stops here." For too long the legitimate bargaining for wages and benefits for our teachers has been cloaked in what is best for our students, but the result of the bargaining has been the opposite: larger classes and less time with teachers, and this simply cannot continue.

In the last two years a number of school boards have increased their class sizes. Some of them, like York region, Haldimand county and Lakehead district secondary, have done so in collaboration with teachers' unions. Our bill would cap class size and guarantee that quality for our students is not negotiable.

Bargaining has also increased taxes way out of proportion with inflation. Our young people pay for high taxes. They pay with their jobs as investment in Ontario declines. This cannot continue. Our bill would end the spiralling education property taxes.

Over the past two decades, the bargaining atmosphere between teachers and school boards has gotten in the way of making many quality decisions for education. Ultimately, sadly, this diminishes the teaching profession in the eyes of the public. This doesn't serve the interests of our students or the interests of our teachers. I believe we must reverse this trend. That is why I was proud to introduce the College of Teachers and why I believe we must have a forum to discuss the changes openly, publicly and regularly.

Old political wisdom would suggest that we should hide from tough questions like: Why is our student performance not the best in Canada? Why are our costs high? Why do our students spend less time on task than students in other provinces? Why are our secondary school teachers out of the classroom more than their colleagues in other provinces? Tough questions, but it's our duty to ask them openly and publicly and to listen very carefully for the responses.

As this bill moves through the democratic process, our task is to engage the questions and to listen with great care. I sought political office for one purpose and one purpose only: to do my part to leave a legacy to the children that is even better and brighter than the future left to me by my parents; to leave a richer possibility for a better life to my niece and my nephew.

I believe we can do that, but it means having the courage to engage the tough questions, the strength to withstand criticism and the wisdom to listen. In the end, I believe we have the courage, the strength and the collective wisdom to make a better place for our children. That is my purpose and my joy.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure to rise today and have the opportunity to share in support of this bill and to compliment the Minister of Education on his comments previously.

I want to start from the perspective of complimenting and recognizing the achievements of students in this province, because there has been a considerable achievement by many students. When I reflect upon the London area and look at three students who won first place in the Ontario Mathematics Olympics earlier this year and a Bramalea student who has been named the 1996 Junior Citizen of the Year by the Ontario Community Newspaper Association, there certainly are many worthwhile achievements that are being recognized by our young people in this province.

The objective of this legislation and many of the reforms that the minister has introduced is simply to ensure that there are more young people such as the ones I just referenced, young people who continue to be leaders in our society and young people who are prepared to act on the opportunities that I think this legislation will present for young people across the province.

We continually see -- and I don't think there would be much disagreement -- that children, students in this province, will face a much more complex, fast-paced and highly technological world. They will need a high level of skills and knowledge to meet all of those challenges that are presented to them. They'll certainly need to learn a new set of skills throughout their lives to meet these challenges of tomorrow and challenges that will present opportunities for new jobs in a new century when specialization and education is paramount.

Right now too many students are not as prepared as those young people whom I referred to earlier, the ones I just applauded. There is opportunity to expand upon the numbers of those individuals and move forward. Time and again we hear parents and students talking about the actions of this government and its predecessors, and they have expressed concern about the quality of education in this province. They've expressed concern relative to achievement of students, not just internationally but collectively, locally within the province and on a national level.

There's much debate and many theories of why this has come about and a great deal of time could be spent debating that particular issue. But the bottom line is our students and our children deserve much better. The bottom line is that Ontarians are not getting the best return on their investment in education. Certainly our students deserve more.

My belief is our students should be among the best in the world. As I indicated earlier, many of them are. Our teachers should be among the best in the world. I would recognize, as I have met with teachers in northern Ontario and central Algoma last week, teachers in Elgin county this morning, there is certainly the dedication and commitment that needs to be brought to the classroom on a day-to-day basis to ensure that our students are achieving and to ensure that the delivery of the service is the best it can be.

It's really not about just students and teachers; it's about addressing problems within the system, a system that can be remedied and a system that will provide us with the best education in the world. Previous governments have responded with studies and commissions. I think it's important to realize that no other particular issue has been more studied by government agencies or government itself than the field of education.

I don't believe the students of Ontario need another royal commission. It's time for action. It's time to make the publicly funded school system more accountable. It's time to build a system that will provide answers to parents' and students' needs. It's time to build a new system that will bring education back as the fabric of our province's planning for tomorrow. It's a time to build new partnerships. Certainly, as we move through some difficult transition periods, it's very evident to me in my capacity as parliamentary assistant that those partnerships are materializing, and those are to be encouraged and built upon.

It's time to use proven methods to build a better education system, to understand those methods and apply them wherever possible. Very clearly, whether it's educators, government people, taxpayers or parents, we all can agree that our bottom-line objective here is to bring the best-quality education in the most cost-effective manner, not with the total focus on cost-effectiveness, but one that delivers a quality education for all of our students in the best possible way.

In January the minister announced our government's intention to move Ontario students to the head of the class. Certainly that commitment has been very evident and I think met very positively by most educators in the province. As I have met with teachers, I find, particularly in the elementary panel, a very clear focus, notwithstanding some of the areas of concern, on the issues of quality, recognition of the need to provide a better curriculum framework for students, recognition of the opportunities that can be realized through province-wide testing, and the opportunities a standard report card can bring so that we all understand the achievements of students across this province.

These quality initiatives the minister has introduced I believe strongly will provide students and teachers with the skill sets they need to move ahead, not only as professionals but as students within their academic careers. They're certainly initiatives that will allow parents to better understand how their child is progressing through the school system. In my opinion, it will encourage our children to reach higher and develop skills they need to succeed.

The introduction of Bill 160 is about taking the next step. As I mentioned, we have seen numerous reports, studies and commissions on education in this province, and we are moving into the next step of reforming that system effectively.

The proposed legislation would help ensure a smooth transition primarily in three areas: by improving the governance of schools -- I think as we look we will recall that we dealt with many of the school board issues through Bill 104; this is the next logical phase of that to provide for a smoother transition with the amalgamating boards and jurisdictions -- and we continue to look at every opportunity for increasing the involvement of parents, and opportunities for simplifying and making the education system more accountable from a financial perspective.

This bill has resulted from many months of hard work, and I want to take the time to recognize the work of many people who have contributed to that bill, particularly those people at the Education Improvement Commission, those people within the ministry who liaised with the commission on a regular basis, and the representatives of school boards who have provided assistance and advice as well.

It's always more important to bring some real life application to this issue, and that experience is best presented by teachers and educators themselves. My colleague from Brampton North shared with me a letter from a public school principal today. While there are concerns raised in terms of implementation and management of change, there is general agreement with the theme of putting students first, which as I said at the outset, no one in this Legislature, I doubt, would argue.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): That's like motherhood.

Mr Smith: Yes, that is a motherhood statement, I would say to the member for Algoma. As I mentioned at the outset, I had the pleasure of being in central Algoma last week to spend some time with students and teachers in that area. I must say that the teachers I met with on the elementary side had a great deal of information and input in terms of the effectiveness of new curriculum initiatives, the effectiveness of implementing a new, standardized report card.

It certainly was beneficial in terms of receiving their input and viewpoints on how we move ahead into the next phase. That's the challenge that lies before us. As I indicated at the outset, this bill represents the next phase of education reform for this province, and a large part of that implementation will require the expertise of teaching professionals across this province.

The member for Brampton North's letter continues to recognize the achievements of the new curriculum the minister has introduced for grades 1 to 8, and other quality initiatives that have been presented by the government to date.

There are some positive indicators coming back from teachers across this province, ones that I think will serve well because, as I said earlier, they are the deliverers, the front-line people who will be dealing directly with the initiatives of the government.

The objective as well is obviously to bring quality initiatives to the forefront and that's a very large part of the initiatives to date, as I've alluded to earlier. This bill recognizes that student achievement generally increases with the amount of time spent with teachers in the classroom. It paves the way for a smooth transfer of administration, a more accountable and streamlined system. The bill requires fair funding of school boards and calls for review of the funding system, a review that would challenge and examine to ensure the standards of fairness are being met in terms of the expectations of our new financing model.

The minister, who spoke earlier about parental involvement and his discussions with parents across the province, has clearly indicated that we want to bring, through this bill, a system that's more accountable to parents and one that looks for their continued involvement in the career paths and education paths of their children.

The bill itself is obviously to some extent controversial for some, but I tend to look more positively to the opportunities, and I think, by and large, people are starting to look more positively to the opportunities that are being presented.

I would refer to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record: "A high school teacher and parent, Bob Bonisteel, says, `Snobelen's education overhaul is long overdue.' The father of two, who has taught 27 years in the Ottawa area, states: `Finally we've got a government that means business. We are performing in an okay fashion and it costs too much money for an okay system of education.'"

There is the recognition, as I said at the outset, that we can pursue opportunities to better the system. There are good things happening in education in this province. I find one of the frustrating things about that is that some of the good new things are not being shared to the extent one might think. They may happen locally, within an individual school, they may happen within a specific school board, they may happen regionally, but very often we do not hear about the success stories that are occurring.

This bill, as well as the initiatives the Minister of Education has undertaken to date, will complement those things to ensure we can continue to build upon those success stories in the future.

Some tough decisions had to be made, tough decisions that previous governments, for whatever reason, chose not to act upon, tough decisions that in my opinion will better the education system of this province, and tough decisions that need to be acted upon now.

Now is the time to act, and I welcome and support the comments of the Minister of Education and Training this afternoon. I support Bill 160 and believe strongly that as we move ahead into the next phase of education reform in this province, by putting the kids and students of this province first we will have in the long term and in the short term the quality education system we expect in this province.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): It's a great opportunity today to be speaking about Bill 160 and I would like to say how pleased I am to be able to speak to this issue. I think I'm one of maybe 12 people who sit in this House who has kids in the elementary school system in Ontario. I, as a parent, am very pleased with the changes that are happening in the education system. I would first like to give my thanks to Minister Snobelen for the work he has done on both bills and then to thank everyone for the consultation that has gone on over the past period of time.

From the perspective of the people who are watching today and my colleagues here, it's important to know I'm very concerned about education and about my children and the way the environment around them works. That's one of the reasons I chose to try to become elected in the last provincial election. I'm concerned when there's debt and we're mortgaging our children in the future. I'm also concerned about the hope and opportunities for our children.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Did you speak out against the tax cut?

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

Mrs Johns: I think it's important that we recognize that there are a few things that are very important to the betterment of our children in Ontario. Of course a strong economy for students to be able to get jobs is important, as is an education that will allow them to compete in an ever-changing world.

I know that when I graduated some 20-odd years ago, and that's probably being very kind to myself, the opportunities were a lot more open. There were a lot of things I could do within the province of Ontario. Today, my children are going to compete in a global marketplace. They are going to have to be able to compete against people throughout the world for very different jobs, technological jobs, different jobs that I wouldn't have even dreamed about competing for 20 years ago. It's very important that we consider, when we're looking at educational reform, putting our kids first.

The first thing I'd like to say is that with my kids in the education system today, the teachers my kids have are doing an excellent job. They spend time with kids. They try and do creative things that allow kids not only to think in the logical terms that I did in past years but also to consider new and interesting environments that we never had the option to consider in the past. I think it's important.

I want to say that over the summertime I hired a high school student who had just graduated from South Huron District High School. He worked in my office for the summer and he was the top graduate out of the high school in my area. One of the things I noticed about him that I can say was not the same for myself when I graduated was how well-rounded he was. He had done a number of things that I had never considered: community involvement; political involvement, I might say; helped work with the federal Tories during the federal election.

I'm not saying that you have to be involved with a political party or with the Conservative Party. Don't get me wrong here. But I think, on the other side, a well-rounded group of young individuals is very important for us to have and I was very proud of him. He took independent thoughts and processes and worked through to, I think, a very successful conclusion in the items that he worked through in my riding.

This has happened in my riding despite a very tough education system for the county of Huron. The county of Huron in the past has had a very low education property tax base and as a result of that, we've spent approximately $5,000 per student a year on their education. What has happened in the province since we started with this, what I consider an ill-devised property tax system, was that we created a system where we had two tiers of education. The kids in my community were being educated on $5,000 a year and the kids in some communities were being educated on $9,000 a year.

What I would like to say to that is, I don't believe money is everything in education. I'm the first person to say that in my community there are a lot of things that are different than if you're educated in Toronto or Ottawa. But on the other side, $4,000 per pupil is a computer; $4,000 per pupil is textbooks, it's a speech therapist. All of those things are very important and have led to a two-tiered education system in Huron county.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Check your numbers.

Mrs Johns: I'd like to say to the member for Oriole that even Sean Conway admits that the system has been a two-tiered system for a long time. The Liberals are admitting that. Maybe it's because you were just elected that you don't understand that this has been happening in the community. But the member from Renfrew in his dissertation a couple of weeks ago said that this was a very admirable thing the government was trying to do, that other governments just hadn't had the political will to move forward with it.

I'm very pleased that this government had decided that equity and fairness in education are the most important things, and that's what's going to happen with my kids in my system. I'm very pleased about this. I'm very pleased with respect to the financial reform that's involved in this bill, and I think that kids in my riding are going to have a more equitable educational level compared to other people within the province.

We are not in this world here to say that some kids deserve more dollars spent on them in education than others. Every child deserves to be educated. Yes, that is a motherhood statement, but let me say first that I am a mother and I make motherhood statements, and second, if that's motherhood, that's what I believe in: fairness, equity in the education system.

I'd like to take a minute and talk about the curriculum. I am a big fan of this new curriculum. I have a little boy in grade 1 who is an interesting little guy and he's going to have some difficult times with structure in grade 1. There's no question about that. The new curriculum says some very important things that I think parents would be very interested in when they are dealing with their elementary school children. For example, the overall expectation for the first time is that kids will read by the end of grade 1.

I think the kids should be able to read by then. They should be able to read aloud in a way that allows them to communicate. They should be able to read independently, express clear responses. I think it's important that we aspire to those goals for our children, so we should put them down, we should make teachers and students and parents accountable to those goals and we should work as hard as we can to ensure that they meet these goals. We are the province that spends the most money on education and it should be a results-oriented education.

When we talk about writing in grade 1, I'd also like to say that my little boy should be able to communicate ideas for specific purposes. He should be able to write simple sentences. As a parent, I believe that those are the things he should be able to do by the end of grade 1.

We talk about number sense. Math is my little baby, I have to tell you this. He has to be able to understand whole numbers. He has to be able to add numbers together. He has to be able to understand the concept of sequencing: two, four, six, eight, as opposed to just being able to go through the numbers. I think those are all admirable things we should be demanding of our teachers, of our students and of our families for our children.

I also noticed that we have measurement expectations for these children. They have to be able to demonstrate an understanding of and an ability to apply measurement terms. My little boy came home the other day and had to be able to figure out his height, his weight. I have to admit he had to do it in kilograms and centimetres and I had a really tough time trying to help him with it, but I think it's important for them to be able to do that.

He also has to be able to solve problems related to day-to-day environments using concrete experiences. He has to be aware of shapes and sizes. All these are things that parents expect their grade 1 students to be able to do. With this curriculum document, where we can compare what students are doing to where they should be, what the expectations of education are, I know that parents are feeling much more comfortable about the system. We've been sending this curriculum out to parents with the grades their children are in as they call and they have really thought this was an excellent idea and that it met more of the goals the parents had with respect to educating their children.

I want to talk a little bit about class size. I have a little boy in grade 3. As I have watched over the short time he has been in elementary school, I have seen class sizes growing and growing. I think that especially in early elementary school years there needs to be an ability for children to have a relationship with their teacher.

For example -- and because I'm down here, sometimes I talk to my kids on the phone every day as opposed to seeing them like most lucky parents do -- I say to them, "So, did you read today in school?" Before I was so lucky to have this position, I used to go into the school and read with some of the kids who were having trouble in reading. The class sizes are getting too big for teachers to be able to read to students and we need to be able to bring that class size down.

One of the interesting things I have seen as I have watched this, and as a parent it's hard to understand what is happening here -- in the backgrounder that went out it says: "Currently class sizes are larger than the number of teachers would indicate. In the elementary grade, there is one teacher for every 17 students, but average class size is 25." That means, and I have thought about this, some teachers aren't in the classroom. They are doing other things outside of the classroom. I don't think there is anything more important in a school than being with the children.

From my standpoint of other items that teachers might be doing, I want them with my kids, helping them to learn to read, write and do arithmetic. We can't continue to run a system where kids aren't getting teacher contact all the time. We need to change the system to make it such that the average size is a more realistic size that allows kids to be taught.

I'd also like to talk about teachers in the classroom. Because my kids are only in the elementary system right now, I have not been in the high school system, I haven't seen the ability of the high school system, but a couple of years ago my husband and I had a foreign student who came to stay with us for a year from Germany. She was in the high school system, so I have a little bit of knowledge about this but I haven't had firsthand knowledge, so I have to say my expertise here is more, granted, by the Ministry of Education.

As we have all agreed here, because I seem to be provoking some thought, we need to have teachers in the classroom. I see no reason why the average teacher in the high school system spends 3.75 hours in the classroom when the average across the rest of Ontario is 4.5 hours. I think we need to get to the point where the principal job of people in the education system is contact with kids.

One of the things that has really become a good thing in my riding and maybe we were forerunners in it -- I admit my board has done some terrific things as they've moved forward -- is parent advisory councils. When I was on the first education bill, we heard from a lot of parent advisory councils who were involved in greater roles with their kids in the school system. I think all of us would admit that there is a role for parents in the system. The last thing I want to know at the end of the year is that something has gone awry with my child during that year. I want to be able to work with the teachers.

I want to be able to work with my child. I want continually to be able to provide a second source of information to help the teachers. I think there is a big role for parent advisory councils within our school system.

My parent advisory council doesn't only want to be a fund-raiser. They want to decide about things that are happening in their school system. They want to talk about discipline. They want to talk about changing morals and values in the school system. They have had people come and talk to them about how they can better be part of the education system. I went to talk to them about the previous education bill for an evening to try and help parents decide where their children are going and what they need to have. There has to be a greater role for the parent advisory council, and this bill does that.

When I was on the education bill, one of the groups I found the most interesting, and I know a number of us were on this -- I think it was in Windsor -- was a parent advisory council which had really become involved in the school. I think it was the previous member from Windsor -- in the new head of the Education Improvement Commission's riding. They had really got involved with parent involvement and responsibilities within the school system and they were truly amazing. Parents want to be involved. Gone are the days when we want to drop our kids off at the school door and pick them up at the end of the day.

Gone are the days when we want to just hear at the end what the report card says. A number of us, and I speak for almost all people in my generation, do a lot with their kids that my parents were unable to do. We run between hockey arena, baseball diamond, soccer field. We do a lot of things with our kids, and I want to be involved with them in their school system. So I think providing a greater role for parent advisory councils is the right thing to do in this day and age. I think it's going to provide a far greater breadth to the parents and the students within the area.

The last thing that makes me very happy about our movement in education is standardized testing. For many years I have heard some really nice things about my kids, and I've heard parents hearing nice things about their kids when they got their report cards home. It's nice to know my child has a good personality -- I don't want to rave about my child today -- and it's nice to know he interacts well with other people, but I also want to know how he's doing compared to other kids in his class.

Maybe that's because I'm a competitive individual, and maybe that's a bad thing, but on the other side, my child is going to have to compete when it comes to getting a job in Ontario, when it comes to getting into university, when it comes to everything. We all had to compete to get these seats we have here today that we're so lucky to represent. So I think it's important for us to know how our kids are doing.

With that information parents will do a lot of things. Some parents will say, "That's fine, I'm not interested." Other parents will say, "I'm going to spend some time with little Johnny or Jarrett at night on that specific issue." Other parents will bring in tutors. Other parents will do whatever it takes to be able to help their children along. Parents deserve to know how their kids are doing. Standardized testing at three, six, along the line to allow parents to know what their kids are doing I think is an excellent opportunity for parents to once again become involved with their children.

I think everything we have done, every movement we've tried to make has been well-thought-out. There has been consultation on those issues. We have looked carefully to see how we can put the student first. It is very important for us to look at this and to say: "This is an opportunity for our kids in the future. This provides us with an even funding base for our children. It provides us with limited class size. It provides us with more teacher hours in the classroom." All of these things are important to our kids getting a big hand up when it comes to education.

It's time for us to move forward with this bill and to look at alternatives we can do to make the system even better. I'm not saying that we do this in isolation; I'm saying we do it in conjunction with teachers, principals, parents and students, because at some levels, especially at the high school level, students are able to give some input into what they think should happen. For example, my husband believes that after grade 13 we should poll these students and ask them: What could have been better in education? How could you have had better teaching methods?

These young people are better able to tell us how the system works than some of the people outside, and I think we need to follow through with this. Accountability and fairness are the key to the education system being what we need for our kids in the future.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank John Snobelen, the Minister of Education, and his parliamentary assistant, Bruce Smith, for the work they've done on these two bills. I'd like to say I'm proud to be associated with a government that is moving forward with a fair and equitable system in education. I think our kids will thank us in the long run.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Gerretsen: Let it never be said in this House again that the opposition isn't speaking to the actual bill because, quite frankly, what the minister, the parliamentary assistant and the last member talked about had precious little to do with the bill.

They talk in generalities about accountability, about being concerned for education and putting children first. Who would be against any of that? Nobody. But the other thing people aren't for is for the Minister of Education to take $530 million out of education already and for the other $1 billion that he's going to take out as a result of this bill. Why don't we talk about that for a while? Why didn't the member mention that?

Parent advisory councils: Sure, there should be greater involvement of parents in schools, but how about talking about the reduced roles of school boards? School boards are going to have no say whatsoever. There's no funding say, no say whatsoever. We are looking at school boards that are so large you wonder why anybody would want to serve on some of these boards when the new trustees have to travel anywhere from three to four hours to get to a particular meeting. Why don't we talk about that?

Class sizes: Why don't you just come forward and say what you want these class sizes to be? They could be larger or they could be smaller than they currently are. There's nothing in this bill about that.

To talk in very general terms about how important education is, everybody would agree with that, but let's talk about what's in this bill. This bill is about cutting $1 billion out of education in addition to the $530 million you've already cut. If everybody is so happy about it, how come the teachers aren't happy? They are the ones who are in touch with our kids on a day-to-day basis in schools. I say shame on all of you.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I do feel sorry for the poor public who might be watching this, who are being force-fed this Pablum, this grub on a daily basis. I do feel badly because I'm here listening and, I tell you, it's hard to take.

They have eviscerated funding for school boards ever since they took office. You have heard the members for Huron and Middlesex and the minister not comment at all, or barely, on Bill 160. Why? Because they are either ashamed of their own bill or too afraid to talk about its contents. That's why they're not speaking to this bill. By and large, they talk about equity as if somehow these people have become the new champions of equity. Good God. These are the people who are widening the gap between the rich and the poor and they talk about equity.

Mrs Johns: Does $9,000 widen the gap?

Mr Marchese: These people, the member for Huron included, are centralizing control and decentralizing the burden down to the municipal level, in this case boards of education. They talk about putting a cap on class size. We don't even know what those grants are going to be for the boards. I tell you, everybody is quivering with fear. They are quivering because they know they're not going to get what these people are talking about. They're taking the power away from local boards to determine local needs.

The member for Huron must know that needs are as different in cities as they are in some other part of Ontario. She must surely know that. She must surely know that we're not all equal in society. God knows, I wish it were so, but we are not equal. This member pretends to create this illusion that all these kids across Ontario are equal. They're not. That's why boards have had the ability in the past, but no longer, to achieve that equality that they are destroying.

Mr Caplan: I'm very pleased to reply to some of the statements that were made earlier by the minister, the member for Middlesex and the member for Huron. There are an amazing number of inaccuracies in the comments. One comment was to a $9,000 figure as opposed to a $5,000 figure. I would suggest to the member she check her facts. In fact it's way out. If this is just propaganda and spin to sell something, which quite frankly is unsaleable to the people of Ontario, I say shame -- shame on the member, shame on this government.

The whole issue around class size is a very interesting one. The member, and all the members, should know that there is legislative protection for