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

November 28, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Nov-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 28 November 2002 Jeudi 28 novembre 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EDUCATION

ONTARIO ELECTION DATES

EDUCATION

ONTARIO ELECTION DATES

EDUCATION

ONTARIO ELECTION DATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SUDBURY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

ENTERPRISING WOMAN PROGRAM

HIGHWAY 11 AND HIGHWAY 17

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

NIAGARA FALLS

WINTER FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

PENSION PLANS

WOMEN OF DISTINCTION AWARDS

ROMANIA

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EXPENSES ACT

(CABINET MINISTERS AND

OPPOSITION LEADERS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'OBLIGATION

DE RENDRE COMPTE DES DÉPENSES

(MINISTRES ET CHEFS D'UN PARTI

DE L'OPPOSITION)

TENANT PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(HYDRO EXCEPTION), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

(EXCEPTION CONCERNANT L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MEMBERS' EXPENSES

GOVERNMENT PRESS RELEASE

MEMBER'S WEDDING ANNIVERSARY

ORAL QUESTIONS

PENSION PLANS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

PENSION PLANS

MEMBERS' EXPENSES

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

SPORTS AND RECREATION FUNDING

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PENSION PLANS

HAZARDOUS WASTE

PETITIONS

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

SAVINGS OFFICE

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ALUMINUM SMELTER

HYDRO RATES

HOMELESSNESS

LONG-TERM CARE

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

LONG-TERM CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

ALUMINUM SMELTER

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTRICITY PRICING, CONSERVATION

AND SUPPLY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ÉTABLISSEMENT

DU PRIX DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ,

LA CONSERVATION DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

ET L'APPROVISIONNEMENT

EN ÉLECTRICITÉ

Thursday 28 November 2002 Jeudi 28 novembre 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EDUCATION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I move that in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government should endorse a program based on

Excellence for All, the Ontario Liberal plan for education, to reduce dropout rates and to assist the record numbers of struggling students that would include the following:

-- Better support and better curriculum for the record numbers of students failing subjects in the new secondary curriculum.

-- Special assistance for students who have not passed the Ontario secondary literacy test, with the goal of reducing failure rates by 50%.

-- Raising the official school leaving age from 16 until 18, or until graduation from school or an equivalent learning program.

-- Expanding co-op programs, vocational facilities, pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs.

-- A meaningful high school diploma that combines academic achievement and workplace experience.

-- Establish a standing committee on education for the Legislature to annually review the funding formula's ability to meet the needs of Ontario students.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Kennedy has moved private member's notice of motion number 20. The member for Parkdale-High Park

has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Kennedy: It is my privilege to rise in the House today to draw attention to a little-understood problem in the education system. This is

group of students, a significant body, who stand the risk, as we speak here today, of being left behind. The students we're talking about are, not exclusively but largely, those in the applied

program, in other words, the program that is meant today to prepare students for college or for work experience after high school.

This is a group of students who in the past have always had some level of difficulty with the academic program but who were supposed to be considered and

provided for very explicitly by the new program put forward by the government in 1999. All of the high school was taken as a piece. The five-year program was made into a four-year program. Very

explicitly this group of students, those who were struggling, were meant to do better, to benefit from this initiative.

So the provincial government and the provincial education authorities have created a new circumstance, and we stand here four years later to reckon with where

that circumstance has taken these particular students. Unfortunately, we're not able to report an increased amount of success. The basis of the resolution today is asking for the House to recognize

that in fact these particular groups of students have more difficulty now than they did under the old program, and they have for reasons we can understand, for measures we can actually respond

to.

We are putting this forward in the spirit of recognition. It is a resolution calling on the Minister of Education to do some specific constructive things to

recognize these particular groups of students. These are potentially 100,000 students who exist in applied programs currently today. We know from a report that was done, a substantial report

commissioned by the government, delivered to the government in August -- it only became leaked in October. It's by Professor Alan King at Queen's University. He speaks very explicitly about the

increased risk, that students today who take applied courses are at a 50% higher risk of failing or dropping out than under the old program. What that means is that 64% of the students are not

acquiring credits at a rate that would allow them to graduate. Under the old program, it was 43%.

I would say that this group of students, that represents about 21% of the kids in school today, should command our extra attention, and I have asked for the

indulgence of the House to give them that attention this morning and to also support the endeavour on their behalf. We look at about 30,000 students who are taking applied courses in a single year,

and about 122,000 from grades 9 to 12. If we take the approximately 30,000 in grade 9 today in total, 25% are going to drop out before they graduate.

Our objective here is twofold. As to the ones who are still struggling in school, we want to make sure they can be genuinely successful. Second, we want to make

sure we can reduce the dropout rate. We have other indicators. We know that the literacy test that was put in place told us that 25% of the kids writing it weren't able to pass, weren't able to

attain the standard put forward in that grade 10 literacy test. There currently are no special efforts underway to help those kids succeed. I would say to the people in this House who agree with

the idea of a literacy test or the idea of knowing where kids stand, what would possibly be the point of subjecting kids, young adults, to a test, some kind of measure of where they're at, unless

we're going to do something about it? So the resolution today is about just that, is about the action that this Legislature needs to get behind in order for these kids not to simply spin off and be

lost somewhere in the system.

We have in the House today one of 60 community co-sponsors of this bill. We went around the province and enlisted professional educators for their professional

opinion: what do we need to do? Earlier this year in the House I talked about this Bailey bridges report, which a principal in Niagara did, and I'll quote from it a little bit later on. The title

of that report is kind of the spirit of this resolution. We need to have what they called in the Second World War the Bailey bridge. When there weren't proper bridges in place, they built whatever

there could be, and they called these Bailey bridges. That's the recommendation coming from educators. They're saying that where there aren't bridges standing, we need to put some in place. We

need, I would propose to this House, to do that this year. These are kids who not only won't graduate; these are kids who could drop out, whose education and really their fundamental future could

be compromised unless we act right now.

Now, there are members across who can perhaps give us

chapter and verse about efforts that are being made. What I'm saying to the members of the House is, we

must do better. What Mr Richard Christie, who came here this morning all the way from Fenelon Falls to support this effort, says is that as an educator, he is tired of seeing these students being

treated as second-class citizens in the classroom. I think that, members of the House, if we're being honest, we often attribute academic struggle as a personal failure. I think that's the

inclination, that's the bias we have in society.

Yet there are educators from every part of this province, and I recommend to the members of this House if they'd like to obtain a copy of the 60 co-sponsors we

have from about 25 different communities around the province, to contact them -- their phone numbers are here -- to find out. These 50 teachers have told us about more than 2,500 students that

would benefit directly.

There are about 100,000 students struggling, most of them in the applied stream, but not exclusively. What we're asking is for this House to do what needs to be

done. How did they get in this state? We're not here in private members' hour to point fingers exclusively at the government.

Let's look at two things. Certainly there is a curriculum that isn't working for these students. It's what the Bailey bridges report has said, it's what the

Queen's University report has said, it's what the literacy test results are telling us, it's what the math results are telling us -- where 55% of the kids taking applied math are failing grade

I would say that there's also the fact that circumstances have changed. Yes, we want the government to be responsible for the curriculum that it brought in, but

also we can't afford any more to have a circumstance where kids drop out, where they don't reach their academic potential. So much of their future, so much of our economy, depends on them doing the

best they can do.

One of the things we're proposing is that we take these kids much more seriously; that the kids who are going on to college, or maybe not going on to college or

university, have a viable third option, and that option be started and accelerated within the publicly funded school system; and that we look for an expansion in co-op programs, in apprenticeships,

and so on, and that we tell the public school system that's a serious endeavour that they need to be just as good at as preparation for university. We need to be doing that if we're going to have

the success that is available out there in the changed conditions.

Fifty years ago, it was OK perhaps to have a school leaving age of 16. The real graduation age, as Mr Christie and others will tell you, becomes about 14. We

need to be more ambitious than that; we need to be more intentional than that. We need to see that age being increased to 18 to allow kids not to be in the same classrooms they're in today, but to

be in a learning experience that will benefit them. That's what we're asking the members of this House to endorse, is that further ambition -- that what was good 50 years ago isn't the standard

that we can aspire to today. We need to send a very strong signal that the young adults of today need to have those kinds of competing programs.

What do we propose that to be? We believe that for most kids it still means doing as well as they can academically, but we want them to develop as citizens. We

want them to have an opportunity, the same one they get in many other countries, to find out what they're good at. That kind of learning can be done at the school in conjunction with

apprenticeships, with workplaces, with an expanded co-op program. Many other countries use apprenticeships across a range of professions, not just the trades. We have an economic need to expand

trades, but we also have opportunities in a number of other professions which could benefit those professions by preparing students by getting them to be in touch with their competencies.

Our current strategy is to leave these kids as an afterthought. This is an opportunity, today, for this House to do much better than that: to join with the

aspirations of parents all around the province, to do something that is not just to the benefit of those parents and their kids to see those kids do as well as they can do, but which will benefit

all the rest of the kids in school because, I can tell you, especially as the double cohort year is underway, teachers, principals and administrators are trying to find the resources to help these

kids. They're giving attention to them, and that struggle is affecting everyone in the school. Conversely, they may be giving up or there may be just not enough resources to do it.

I can tell you again that this is an issue for all of society. Who do we think is going to become eligible for the community college courses that we so badly

need, for the technicians, for industry, and so on, if 55% of the applied students that are supposed to be qualifying for that are failing their math courses?

There has been a 300% increase in tutors. There has been a burden on the private interest. We here represent the public interest, and we need to say strongly

today that we will let no students be left behind.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to leave the bulk of the time to Mr Marchese, our education critic on this issue --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): And a good one he is.

Mr Bisson: -- and a very good one he is. I want to put on the record a group of people who I think are forgotten altogether in this debate, and

that is First Nations children. I represent, as my leader Howard Hampton represents, a large part of the province where First Nations communities are a very important part of our ridings.

I listen to this debate, and I can agree with the direction the member is trying to take on the motion. I don't want to go against what he's trying to say but I

have to find some way to put on the record what is happening inside those communities. I just want to give you one example, and I want to bring to the attention of the members of the House the

dismal state of education for many First Nations communities when it comes to kids in those communities.

I represent a community called Attawapiskat. The J.R. Nakogee school is a school that is situated in that community that has had to be abandoned because of

diesel contamination underneath the school. The federal government has refused, for the last number of years, to address what to do with the school now that the school has been abandoned, and the

children have been forced into portables, as you have never seen before. We have large overcrowding problems inside these portables.

We've got a situation where the federal government, who is responsible for education in the province of Ontario of First Nations' people because of the Indian

Act, is basically not taking its responsibility seriously and, as a result, those kids are left to be out on their own, along with the rest of the members of that community when it comes to trying

to find a way to provide education to those kids.

I received a letter by way of fax just recently from concerned citizens in the community of Attawapiskat with regard to this particular school. I don't have

enough time in the debate to raise everything in this letter, but I can say that there is a hue and cry. There is a hue and cry from a number of First Nations communities like Attawapiskat that are

saying, "The federal government has forgotten us altogether and they have made things worse by not giving our kids the opportunity to get good education by their lack of participation in trying to

find solutions to the problems in the education system in First Nations communities."

This particular school can't be allowed to be left like that. I just wonder, when we have a debate here in the Legislature, what role we can find as a province

to try to respond to the many needs of the First Nations communities, in particular the one having to do with education.

I have had discussions with the Minister of Education for the province and she has told me that the province of Manitoba and the province of Saskatchewan are

both at wits' end with the federal government when it comes to their lack of trying to find a solution to what are very serious problems in the domain of education for First Nations communities. So

I just want to put on the record this morning, in a very quick way, that we need to find a way as a province to respond to the children of Ontario who happen to live on reserves.

It is not good enough for us as fellow citizens of these people to say, "Well, it's federal responsibility and there's nothing we can do as a province." They are

teaching the curriculum of the province of Ontario in those schools and, as such, I believe we have a responsibility. I will be calling on the provincial government and the Minister of Education to

work with the community and myself to try to find a solution to what is a very pressing, real problem in communities like Attawapiskat that quite frankly, if not addressed soon, could turn out to

be quite disastrous.

I just want to put that on record in the House, because we'll be hearing about that a little bit later, but I know my good friend Mr Marchese is going speak at

length on this particular motion itself.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this issue this morning in private members' hour. I

want to respond to the comments made by the member for Parkdale-High Park, who is critic for the Liberal Party in the area of education. He has chosen with his private member's opportunity to

highlight some of the plans the Liberal Party is putting forward in the Legislature and in the province in the area of education.

The Liberal Party has put forward a number of suggestions, and it is our understanding from preliminary study that we have done as a government that it would

cost approximately $3 billion to implement all of the Liberal education plans. What we heard this morning has not indicated to us how you pay for that kind of spending. Maybe that's going to be

forthcoming later on this morning.

The Liberal plan simply does not measure up to the high standards that we have set for education in the province of Ontario. I think it's important to point out

that the Liberals, in their Excellence for All education plan, say that they will invest $1.6 billion over four years. That averages about $400 million per year. This year alone we have invested as

a government over $560 million into the education system in Ontario. Let me provide the House with some examples based on the description of the member for Parkdale-High Park's resolution.

First of all, he has mentioned the issue of curriculum. The government has responded to parents' concerns by providing a more challenging curriculum with

specific, clear, consistent standards to enable students to get the skills that they need for success. This government is committed to providing students and teachers with the support and direction

they need to meet the challenges of this new rigorous and relevant curriculum. We have committed $370 million over five years to give teachers and students the support they need to implement the

new curriculum. Over the same period, we have dedicated another $80 million to provide other professional support and resources.

Boards and schools have a wide range of strategies and program options to support students who are struggling. For example, there are programs to assist in

upgrading -- credit-based upgrading courses; learning strategies courses; and literacy courses. For the year 2002-03 we have allocated almost $500 million to help students achieve these higher

standards.

Funding for students who need extra help includes almost $3 million through the learning opportunities grant for such things as remedial reading programs, early

literacy programs, which are programs targeted toward grades JK to 3, literacy and math programs in grades 7 to 10, summer school programs, and reduced class size for students at risk.

In May to June 2002, the government announced $30 million to expand the early reading strategy to grade 6 and introduce the early math strategy.

There are a number of members of our caucus who also wish to speak to this issue, so I'm going to leave my comments at that. We certainly look forward to the

debate that will take place over the next 45 minutes and certainly look forward to hearing what other members have to say on this important issue.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to thank, first of all, and commend the member for Parkdale-High Park for bringing what I consider

to be a very important resolution before this House identifying a specific group in the education system that is presented with a genuine challenge which, with some work by this Legislature, some

work through the system, I think can be overcome, can be met. We can have some good degree of success following the recommendations the member has made.

I guess where I first saw the problem that existed -- and we all knew it was in society and had been for some time -- was when I was first elected. I was the

critic for the field of correctional services. Gordon Walker was the minister of the day, and he brought the two opposition critics along. He was well ahead of his time for this government, of

course. He was one of the real right-wingers in those days. Today, he would be a moderate. But I want to say that one of the things that I noted in touring some of the provincial correctional

institutions was, in fact, that so many of the people who were there obviously did not have the tools that an education system could provide for them to be successful in society. Many were

completely illiterate; others had only the very basic skills available to be able to succeed.

Now, this is not to say that everyone who is in that circumstance is going to end up in a correctional institution, but I think it's safe to say that there's

going to be a larger proportion of people in correctional institutions who are people who haven't had the advantages that an education system can provide or has the potential to provide.

We remember as well, some of us, that when you went to secondary school there were people who were in a stream called "10 terminal," and that meant that after

grade 10 they were sent out the door into the world of work, often without the kind of education that would give them access to the good jobs in society. The member has identified many of the

problems that are there.

The District School Board of Niagara is the school board which I am familiar with; it's in the Niagara Peninsula. The Bailey bridges Report was an excellent

report that dealt with the study of the new curriculum, and the following finding was made in the report. I thought this was very telling. "What has become very apparent is that the new curriculum,

while itself a necessary change, was hurriedly put together, poorly planned, implemented in an unworkable fashion and grossly underfunded. The results show ... that students are frustrated beyond

belief, parents have disengaged, teachers are overworked and continue to feel unappreciated, books are scarce and resources are few." That was in April 2002.

That's obviously a frustration with the circumstance that confronts people who aren't necessarily going to either a community college or on to university but

they're going to go into the workforce at some point in time.

The suggestions that are made in the resolution lend themselves to support by all of us in this House. Obviously we do need better support and curriculum for the

record number of students who are failing subjects in the new secondary school curriculum. We have to be able to help those people out.

"Special assistance for students who have not passed the Ontario secondary literacy test, with the goal of reducing failure rates by 50%": literacy is so very,

very important. It grows in importance as our society advances, as the years go on.

"Raising the official school leaving age from 16 until 18, or until graduation from school or an equivalent learning program": obviously the member is not

talking about having all students in what you would call a regular classroom setting. There are special settings for students who work well outside of that traditional classroom setting and who can

advance themselves and receive special assistance. It's a matter of allowing them that educational experience, either until they graduate from school or, as we say, an equivalent learning program

or until they reach the age of 18. That will equip these students far better than is the circumstance today as they head out into the world of work and out into society.

"Expanding co-op programs, vocational facilities, pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs": the people who will lecture us on this, I think with some

validity, are people who come from some of the European experiences, where this is routine, where they recognize the importance of apprenticeships and getting people ready for the apprenticeship

programs, where they understand the importance of vocational facilities and where co-op programs are routine. I must say I'm pleased to see those who will co-operate with the co-op programs; that

is, those in business. Our business education council in the Niagara region, for instance, works with employers, works with the school systems and brings people together from all the boards of

education so that these students have that kind of experience. We see it at the post-secondary level, but it's going to be important at the secondary school level in an increasing manner in the

years to come.

"A meaningful high school diploma that combines academic achievement and workplace experience": I think people want to see that workplace experience given credit

in terms of a diploma, that it isn't only the academic experience but also the workplace experience which is often so very valuable to those students.

"Establish a standing committee on education for the Legislature to annually review the funding formula's ability to meet the needs of Ontario students": I like

the idea of a specific committee -- we often call them a select committee, but in this case a standing committee -- that will look at that funding formula. Many, many years ago, in one of my roles

in the House I was the education critic. I sat down with Dr Bette Stephenson, and she was kind enough to provide a briefing to us. After that briefing on the funding formula in education, I can't

say that I was still cognizant of all the intricacies of that formula. I don't know any Minister of Education who understood the formula. There must have been someone in the Ministry of Education

who understood it, but that might even be questionable. So I think it would be good for a standing committee of the Legislature to assess the funding formula to see how it might be modified, to see

if there's a need for an increase in funding or if there's a need to shift funding from one area to another in terms of the emphasis.

I want to say today that I believe this resolution, if it is concurred in by this House, would go a substantial way to improving the lot of students who are

often forgotten in our education system. They have the same right as anybody else. They have a disadvantage in many cases because they don't have access to the top-paying jobs in our society. It is

important that they be given a hand up, as people like to use that terminology, and I think the provisions of this resolution will do that.

What we need, of course, is a school system that has vibrancy, where you have teachers who are excited about going to work instead of being constantly

criticized, almost tormented by criticism from this government.

I look forward to this resolution passing, hopefully getting some considerable support from all members of the House.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got to say I agree with pretty well everything the member for St Catharines has said and pretty well

agree with much of what the critic from Parkdale-High Park has said.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: I disagree with two basic things, and I'll get to that, because I've got 11 minutes, mercifully, thank you. Two of the things I

disagree with, Dominic Agostino, are, one, raising the official school-leaving age from 16 "to" 18, I'm assuming, and the other is funding.

The member for Waterloo-Wellington mentioned that. I disagree with 99% of everything else the member from Waterloo said, because he read the script. They wrote

it for him and they told him, "This is what you've got to say." They can't leave those notes. They can't just throw them away and say what they feel. They write him a speech saying, "Oh, we put

more money into the education system." It's laughable. No one in the province believes what these people have done. Everyone knows $2.2 billion has been taken out of the education system --

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Is that what it is?

Mr Marchese: You've got my buddy, who I think is a buddy from time to time. Where are you from, my friend?

Mr Dunlop: Simcoe North.

Mr Marchese: Simcoe North. He was saying something about my facts.

Mr Dunlop: Your facts are way out of whack.

Mr Marchese: My facts are way out of whack. Some $2.2 billion has been taken about of the education system. Everyone knows about it, but the

member over there, including the rest of the caucus who are sleepwalking through this entire political process, says I'm out of whack with the numbers. We've been cutting education assistants,

special ed, ESL, music teachers and librarians. We're short $1 billion in terms of teacher negotiations because the money's not flowing through and he says my facts are out of whack. You've got to

wake up. You and your other buddies have got to wake up to the problem.

I know you put up Rozanski, to come up with somebody to help you out so you could cherry-pick a couple of ideas and say, "Ernie's got a couple of good ideas."

I know you've done that. You know it too. Stop the game. Everybody knows --

Mr Dunlop: What do you have to say today other than nothing?

Mr Marchese: I know the bright lights are coming on soon. The member from Simcoe will be speaking very shortly. I'm looking forward to those

remarks.

This curriculum has been introduced in haste. Everyone knows it except them. This is why it's so laughable. They don't understand educational curriculum.

That's why they blah, blah throughout this whole process. Education reform has been introduced at such a speed that every teacher in this province has criticized it, including the 25% to 30% of

those teachers who voted for them, including those members.

Yes, the curriculum has been made tougher. No doubt about that. We agree with that. Yes, I've got some disagreement about how they did it, first in haste, and

secondly, they started at the secondary level instead of starting at the primary grades, the earlier grades, as a way of logically building it up. They started it the other way around. How dumb

these people are, and they don't even realize it.

They create two streams, the academic and the applied, and yes, the people in the academic stream will survive the rigour of the new curriculum, but the young

people in the applied stream are not doing very well. What are they doing for them? Nothing. We know that, the teachers know that, the parents know that, and the Tories still blah, blah, blah about

how much money they're putting into the education system and how much they're helping those poor kids.

I've got to tell you, Speaker, that those poor kids in the applied stream are not rich babies. They're not rich adolescents. They don't come from wealthy

homes. They come from the working class. They come from poverty. They come from homes where there is a great deal of stress -- financial, psychological and social problems that these people are

doing nothing to help with.

Please, the next time you read your speech, throw it away and say what you feel. Don't read the garbage they give you, because it doesn't mean anything.

Mr Dunlop: The $1-million-an-hour deficit you left us with. You don't want to talk about that, do you?

Mr Marchese: The $1-million-an-hour deficit we left as a government. Here you have a government, with a good economy, throwing out $10 billion

every year for income tax cuts, and he doesn't speak about the deficit he's leaving in our health care system, the deficit he's leaving in our education system, the deficit he has caused to our

water and the death that has happened as a result of the money they've taken out of the system. There's $10 billion going out every year. You think nothing has suffered? They're blind to the

problems. Everyone in Ontario knows the problems that have been caused by the deficit they have caused.

He laughs. He laughs at the Walkerton disaster. He laughs at the thousands and thousands of active parents involved in education who are not laughing about the

cuts they're enduring. They're not laughing at that, but he laughs at it. In a good economy they have devastated all the things for which we, as a government, are responsible, including water,

education, health and our senior citizens who are suffering from lack of funds in home care. And he laughs so heartily. I wouldn't laugh.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: I know you're not laughing. I know you know you are in trouble politically, and it's good; it feels good. I laugh at that. I take

pleasure in that.

Mr Dunlop: You should worry about yourself.

Mr Marchese: No, I don't worry about myself. I worry for the people. I don't worry for me; I worry for the people you have attacked. I worry

for the vulnerable you have attacked, in a good economy. Imagine what you would have done if you had been faced with our recession in 1990. If you could devastate services in a good economy,

imagine what you would have done in a bad economy. He laughs so heartily, the member from --

Mr Dunlop: Simcoe North.

Mr Marchese: -- Simcoe North, my good friend from Simcoe North, Mr Dunlop, God bless his little soul.

Coming back to the Liberal resolution: I agree with much of what is said there; no disagreement. If you look at our plan, much of what they're talking about is

in here.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Have you guys released that yet?

Mr Marchese: We released it before the Liberal plan, for Dominic Agostino, in case he didn't know.

Mr Agostino: Did anybody notice? What if you release a platform and nobody comes?

Mr Marchese: Well, we're doing our best, Dominic.

I disagree profoundly with the Liberal position that says students should stay till age 18.

Mr Sorbara: You disagree?

Mr Marchese: Gregorio, it's a dumb idea, I've got to tell you. It's a dumb idea, boys. Keeping students till age 18 is not smart.

Mr Bradley: I'm telling Earl Manners.

Mr Marchese: Member for St Catharines, I know Earl Manners has taken that position, but it's not a smart one, I'm telling you.

Mr Sorbara: But 50 years ago they said that about high school: "Let them go after grade 8."

Mr Marchese: Gregory, let me explain. Give me a break. I've only got three minutes. Let me tell you the problemo with this, all right? After

age 16, if a student has a problem, a behavioural problem, a learning problem, other social problems he may have, intellectual or emotional, you're saying to him, "You're going to have to

stay."

Mr Sorbara: No. Read the resolution. That's not what we're saying.

Mr Marchese: Oh. Oh? The resolution says yes.

Mr Sorbara: The resolution says there will be programs.

Mr Marchese: The resolution says, "Raising the official school leaving age from 16 until 18," although it should read "to 18," I'm

assuming.

But your little Liberal book that you guys got says you're going to keep them there till age 18. I think it's wrong. If students have a problem and they need

to leave or want to leave, you can't hold them back. I tell you, teachers are not going to be happy holding on to students who desperately want to leave or need to leave.

Mr Sorbara: You're misrepresenting the program.

Mr Marchese: No, siree. Maybe you need to refudge it somehow as you re-present your program. But I've got to tell you, if there is a problem,

the way to deal with it is in the early years, not to try to hold them at age 16. The expenditure of effort to hold them until age 16 is just a difficult thing to do. You are endangering the

classroom when you're holding students who can't, ought not to be, do not want to be in that classroom.

In our plan, we propose --

Mr Agostino: You just want to give up on them.

Mr Marchese: No, Dominico Agostino, listen carefully. I have two minutes. The NDP guarantees "a training seat, academic upgrading opportunity,

apprenticeship position or job placement assistance for every unemployed Ontarian, aged 16-18." We say that in our plan. That's what you've got to do.

We're not abandoning those kids. We're saying that you've got to give those opportunities. But to hold them in school, you're not doing students a favour --

those who are leaving, those who are staying -- and the teachers who need to teach them.

Here's my second problem with your plan. In your little Liberal book, you say you're going to spend 1.6 billion bucks. You say that you're not going to raise

income taxes to get the money.

Mr Agostino: That's right.

Mr Marchese: Dominic Agostino says, "That's right." He says they're going to get it from the $2.2-billion corporate tax cuts you guys

introduced last year. Here's the problemo for the Liberals. The Tories have only cut $700 million of that corporate tax; the rest has been deferred. So the Liberals are playing with 700 million

bucks plus the tax credit that they say is $500 million, and only a couple of million has been spent so far. They've got $700 million for health, education, environment, social services, home care

-- whatever you can think of. They just don't have the money to keep their promises, I'm telling you.

Applause.

Mr Marchese: Please don't clap for me, member from Wellington, because I already disagreed with what you said.

I'm telling you, citizens out there, without reinvesting in education, we can't do what the Liberals are saying. It's a matter of trust. It's a matter of

reinvesting. For that, you've got to say to the public, if you've got to reinvest, "We've got to go after somebody for the money." Without that, you can't have the good programs the Liberals are

talking about.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in this debate on this Liberal private member's resolution today. I'd like to

start by talking --

Mr Marchese: Don't read the speech. Throw it out.

Mr Miller: Thank you very much, Rosario.

I'd like to begin by talking about the strike that's going on partly in my riding right now, the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board strike. We just

this week passed legislation to end the secondary part of that strike. Although the third party did not on the first day, on Monday, give unanimous consent, I was happy to see that they did on

Tuesday. It was really important that those secondary students get back to school because they were looking at the possibility of losing their school year. So I was very pleased that all three

parties agreed to the legislation and legislated an end to the strike as recommended by the Education Relations Commission, which had ruled that those kids' year might be in jeopardy.

There still is, though, the elementary strike which is going on in the riding. I'm hopeful that both parties will get together and bring an end to that strike.

Whether they agree to mediation or agree to arbitration, I would certainly like to see an end to that strike for the benefit of all the students in my riding and the surrounding ridings that are

covered by the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board. I certainly hope the parties get together and end that strike, because in a strike, really, nobody wins and certainly the students are

the losers.

I would like to talk about some of the programs the government is doing in terms of expanding school/work opportunities. I would also like to mention that I do

have four children in the education system: my son Winston in grade 8; Stuart in grade 10; our daughter Renée, who is in the double cohort year, grade 12; and our daughter Abigale, who is in

her second year at McGill. So I am actively interested in what's going on in the education system. I have to say that they're getting a great education and are working hard at doing so.

This government has increased funding for the Ontario youth apprenticeship program, which I think is certainly a program that works. It provides very useful

skills for those who try to get into a trade.

Ontario's tough new curriculum requires all school boards to provide co-op education, work experience and school/work transition programs. Through the Passport

to Prosperity, a joint initiative of the Ministries of Education and Training, Colleges and Universities, and 26 business education councils, the government is seeking to expand opportunities for

students to participate in programs such as co-op education, school/work transitions, job shadowing and the Ontario youth apprenticeship program, and increasing employer involvement in these

programs. I think that's really important.

It's nice to hear that the Liberals would like to see a meaningful high school diploma that combines academic achievement and workplace experience. In fact,

the new high school program does include both academic and workplace preparation.

Students currently earn credits toward the Ontario secondary school diploma through a combination of school and workplace-based learning experiences. Some

choose co-op programs to test out specific career options, some choose school/work transitions to prepare for entry into workplace opportunities or specific college programs, and others choose the

Ontario youth apprenticeship program to get a head start on their apprenticeship career.

The ministry provides two certificates for students who leave school before earning their Ontario secondary school diploma. I think that's important. The grade

10 literacy test is not a requirement for either of these certificates.

In addition, the ministry is piloting the Ontario Skills Passport, which provides clear descriptions of skill requirements for entry-level work in today's

labour market. The skills students demonstrate in work placements are documented by employers using the Ontario Skills Passport. I think that's important, and we're working with employers to

provide real jobs and find occupations that people enjoy and find fulfilling and worthwhile.

I'd also like to talk about our standing committee on education. Our government has listened to the concerns of Ontarians about the student-focused funding

formula. We have worked consistently with our partners in education on working groups and committees to refine the funding formula. We have implemented many of the recommendations of these working

groups and committees. For example, this year we implemented the recommendations of two working groups: the working group on the learning opportunities grant and the working group on declining

enrolment.

This year, Dr Mordechai Rozanski, president of the University of Guelph, is leading the Education Equality Task Force in a review of the student-focused

funding formula. Dr Rozanski's recommendations will ensure that student-focused funding continues to promote the principles of fairness, responsiveness to student needs, and accountability; that

the stability of the education system improves; that the constitutional and statutory framework for education in Ontario is respected; and that the fiscal situation of the province is taken into

account. I think that's an important point, because that's something the Liberals usually do not take into account as they promise more and more different programs that they don't really figure out

how they're going to fund.

I think the funding formula makes sense in this province, and of course across the country many different areas use the funding formula. I speak coming from

the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, where if you're in some of the rural areas they don't necessarily have a huge tax base. I think it's a wonderful thing that no matter whether you're from a poor

area of the province, you still get a set amount of money going to you, the student, to provide equal opportunity in education. I think that's very important, that you don't have to live in a rich

neighbourhood to get a rich education.

The Education Equality Task Force has listened carefully to our education partners to help us identify the best way to fund school boards. The task force has

met with more than 900 presenters. There were 25 days of presentations and approximately 775 submissions.

I'm using up most of my time, and I know the member from Simcoe North would like to speak, so at this time I will allow time for him.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I'm certainly here in full support of the resolution by my colleague from Parkdale-High Park. He has a

profound and deep interest in helping students in this province, who have been in a whirlwind of upheaval as a result of this government's reckless education policies, which were a formal part of

their political agenda. We know they were proud to say that they were going to put education into a crisis. The original minister was true to his word, and the ministers who have followed are still

following that path of crisis. We've got this latest minister now who has torn the Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton schools into total upheaval with these appointed so-called supervisors.

Frankly, parents are totally fed up with this government's callous, reckless approach to education. They've gone through this not for one year, two years,

three years; they've gone through this for almost eight years.

In my riding of Eglinton-Lawrence I've got some of the finest schools in Canada, I think. They've been made into these excellent educational institutions

because of the hard work of the whole community, including the parents, the janitorial staff, the neighbourhood, the local elected trustees, all the volunteers. They've made these schools, like

John Ross Robertson, Allenby school, John Wanless, Lawrence Park, Blessed Sacrament, Ledbury, Regina Mundi -- these are superb schools, but they have had a heck of a time coping with the upheaval.

This ludicrous funding formula, which from day one was not workable, this one-size-fits-all formula was something this government imposed without ever looking at the impact. It's taken three years

to come up with some kind of task force that's basically going to finally say what everybody said three years ago, that the formula was a farce, that it didn't pay attention to the individual needs

of schools in urban centres, rural areas or special-needs schools.

I think it's time to support an attempt to get rid of the education deficit in this province, because our educational institutions, whether they be at the

elementary or the high school level, are resources we should feed, not starve. We shouldn't be using them as political footballs, as they've been used for seven or eight years. They have kicked

around the teachers, and now they're kicking around the elected trustees. Then they kick around the janitorial staff, and then it's the parents' fault, and then it's the students who are at

fault.

Frankly, everybody's fed up with this confrontational conflict, this bulldozer approach to education. That's why I support this resolution that talks about the

fact that parents, teachers and students have a lot to offer in making our education system work so that we produce good citizens, well-trained people for the workforce, people who contribute to

society, whether they be doctors, artists, musicians. This is what people like Ryerson wanted to do with public education. This government has been almost hell-bent on destroying that.

I look at a perfect example of what we can achieve by supporting students in our schools. There's a school in the west end of Toronto where my brother teaches.

It's called Archbishop Romero high school, in one of the most challenging areas in Canada. The parents of the children, the high school students in that school, come from every part of the world.

They speak every language conceivable. Many of the parents of these students have two or three jobs. The students themselves have two or three jobs, but they come to this high school in great

harmony and with a great sort of vigour to learn.

I'll give you an example of one of the things they're doing in that school. Archbishop Romero is near a very polluted creek called Lavender Creek, which is

adjacent to Black Creek. They've been in that creek. These are so-called teenagers we always like to beat up on. They're in there with their rubber boots pulling out shopping carts, steel drums and

mounds of garbage. They're testing the water. They're writing letters to the Ministry of the Environment asking for the water to be tested. They're begging the Ministry of Transportation to clean

up the garbage because a lot of the property adjacent to Lavender Creek belongs to the Ministry of Transportation. They have left garbage on the banks of Lavender Creek for the last 10 years and

refuse to clean it up.

These students are using global positioning devices. They're mapping the area. They're bringing in heritage experts. Again, these are young boys and girls, 13

and 14 years of age. They're doing phenomenal things, trying to clean up a creek. They're totally engaged, totally involved. They feel strongly about this because it is in their backyard. They're

making their community better. They're learning things. You should see them mapping on the computers. You should see them going through the analysis of the water pollution that's taking place.

They've been marking the outlet areas for pollution.

Yet this government does nothing to help those students at all. In fact, do you know what it does? It imposes on those students that literacy test they all

have to take in grade 10. Do you know what happens when they write that literacy test? There's a very high rate of failure in that school. Every time they get the results, the whole student body is

their first language.

This government punishes these students, demoralizes them with this test that's a one-size-fits-all, that doesn't take into account that maybe the students who

live in one part of the province or the city have a different cultural background, language background, linguistic background than students who may live in Leaside or Windsor.

This is the type of callous attitude this government has. Rather than giving students a pat on the back, rather than saying, "We're here to help you. We're

here to appreciate you. We're here to get you through the rough spots" -- no, they're there to be punitive. They're there to basically say, "Listen, kid. You didn't make it. You're going to have to

drop out. You don't count." That's what the kids say: "The government doesn't think I count, and I think I'm going to drop out, sir."

Let's stop this recklessness. Let's start looking upon these students as human beings who deserve our help rather than our attacks.

Mr Dunlop: It's a pleasure to rise this morning to say a few words about the resolution of the member from Parkdale-High Park. I want to leave

about a minute and a half for Mr Barrett to put something on the record as well.

I guess the people in the province of Ontario are going to have some tough decisions to make in the future as we start talking about the platforms of these

political parties. The first thing I'd like to say is that we've been following very closely the Liberal promises and the flip-flopping and the dodging of questions here, there and everywhere

across the province. The fact of the matter is that right now people in the province of Ontario are looking at about $14 billion in extra expenditures promised by the Leader of the Opposition. That

works out to be about $1,250 or $1,300 for every man, woman and child in the province. I guess their explanation will have to be, "Where are we going to find $1,300 for every man, woman and child

in this province to make up for our promises? Do we go into huge deficits again?" We had our buddy over here who doesn't care about deficits. "Are we going to raise taxes?" We know you voted

against every tax cut that was ever made here. Or are you going to cut programs? Or are you just not going to deliver on your promises? That's what I would expect to happen.

Interjection.

Mr Dunlop: The member over here from wherever he's from, chirping away as usual, has always made a few comments. But the fact is that I expect

it'll be something like what we're probably going to hear this afternoon under the Romanow report. The Romanow report has come out --

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It came out an hour ago.

Mr Dunlop: Yes, and I understand they're asking for $7 billion. Everyone knew we were being shorted by the federal government, and already

they're saying, "We'll phase it in" over how many years. That's what will happen, because we know that's the type of promise they carry on with.

Second of all, I want to say something about our school boards. Since I've been a member elected here in 1999, spending in the province of Ontario's education

system, the money that has been transferred to the 72 school boards, has gone from $13.16 billion to $14.25 billion.

Interjection.

Mr Dunlop: You know that's not true. To stand there and say that, you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact is, education spending

has increased. My two major school boards in the county of Simcoe have now passed half a billion dollars in spending for the first time in history by those two boards, the Simcoe-Muskoka board and

the Simcoe Catholic board, and we're pleased with that.

As a former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, I've visited a number of schools throughout this province. What bothers me is the

fearmongering I hear from the other side, both parties. If you've ever been in a school, you'd see the spirit that's in the school; you'd see the discipline that the teachers have; you'd see how

well the students coordinate and how well they perform. It's very, very disappointing to hear this fearmongering continue.

Interjection.

Mr Dunlop: I'd like to turn over the last little while -- I know I'm getting under their skin because they can't stand the truth -- to my

colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfolk.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I appreciate my neighbour making mention of the work we've been doing with respect to finding

solutions to closing rural high schools. I've been fighting these high school closures with a number of communities for a number of years. Burford, for example: we lost that school. It did not open

this spring. I worked with high schools in Port Dover, Valley Heights and more recently with Delhi. There have been very heated discussions of late in the community of Delhi. A citizens' group has

established a petition to ask for a moratorium on school closures, and I have also created a petition to that effect, which members will recall I tabled several weeks ago, and most recently tabled

both petitions yet again yesterday. Despite what people may hear or read in the media, I was the first one to call for a moratorium on high school closures. I did that on February 8, 2000, well

before any member opposite --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Parkdale-High Park has two minutes to respond.

Mr Kennedy: I appreciate the participation of all members of the House. I regret a little bit the limitations of this format. I hear from the

government members and they want to say everything is OK. I appreciate that, except this is a little bit too important. We stand as members of this House, at a certain, particular point in time;

these kids are trying to graduate this year. This House, whatever its strengths and weaknesses, was the source of a lot of their extra difficulty. We're not saying that the government of the day

invented struggling kids. But it is obvious, on the evidence that this government itself pays a lot of money to collect through literacy tests and so on, that these kids are struggling. Why spend

$31 million to find that out if you're not going to do something about it?

We need a signal, a message from this House to those kids. Their parents do everything they can. There's been a 300% increase in private tutoring in this

province in the last five years, and they're paying it out of pocket: people like Lee Franzak, who has two kids and pays $300 a month to tutor them. Most families can't do that. Publicly funded

education needs to pick up the slack. The students are there. I want to reference Richard Roy, who's in grade 11, and he had the courage to tell us his marks have dropped from 69% to 54%; the

concepts are too complicated, the curriculum is moving too fast, he doesn't have a textbook and they're giving him photocopied stuff. Mr Roy has the courage to stand up. He needs our assistance

here today.

We have dropout rates that we simply can't afford. We can't have, from this House, a message of condemnation for kids who need to go forward. There have to be

corrections that occur this year. We've put forward a plan. The school moratorium was a different part of that plan. But to the members opposite who talk to us about cost, I say to them, can we

afford not to act and make these kids fully part of society? Give them some success. See them get a message from this House that they belong and that we believe, despite the extra barriers we've

put up for them, that they will finally succeed and not be left behind.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on this ballot item. I will place the questions needed to decide this at 12

o'clock noon.

ONTARIO ELECTION DATES

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Ernie Eves government be directed to bring forward

legislation to establish fixed election dates as outlined in the Ontario Liberal Democratic Charter.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Sorbara has moved ballot item number 62, private member's notice of motion number 19. The member

for Vaughan-King-Aurora has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Sorbara: I'm pleased and delighted to be moving this resolution and to be speaking to it in this private members' hour, really for two

reasons. First of all, under the circumstances that govern my daily life, I do not get as much opportunity as I would like to participate in the debates in this place. Secondly, and more

importantly for me, this resolution is extremely important. As a democrat and a parliamentarian and as someone who believes in our responsibility to, in an ongoing way, reform our democratic

process, it is something that is extremely important to me.

The essence of the resolution is simple, that is, that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians in Ontario to be constantly reforming our democratic system

so it remains vibrant and strong. I was so pleased when our leader, Dalton McGuinty, the member for Ottawa South, put forward an entire package of democratic reforms, which we will be moving

forward with after the next election. Anyone who wants to review those in detail can visit our Web site to do that.

The essence of what I hope to achieve here -- our system is falling into significant disrepair in Ontario. Democracy is not strong in Ontario. If I had longer,

I would make that same argument at the national level and right across Canada's 10 provinces. It's our responsibility to change that; that's the first point.

The second point is that in our system, the real problem, as it is in so many other systems, is that the power is being concentrated year by year, decade by

decade, increasingly in one person. In Ontario it's the Premier; it's Ernie Eves. The power of this Parliament, the power of other components of our democratic system, is wasting away, and

government after government continues to vest more power in the Premier. I would venture to say that cabinet ministers in this government feel powerless to achieve their objectives. Certainly in

this Parliament, the frustration of members of this Parliament is almost breathtaking in their inability to actually achieve and participate in democratic decision-making. I have the advantage of

having sat here for 10 years beginning in 1985. On my return in 1999, frankly, I was shocked at how increasingly irrelevant what happens here has become to the life and times and democratic rights

of the people of Ontario.

Now, we can't change all that with the reform that is the subject of this resolution, but we can go a long way. I say to my colleagues in this House, the only

way to redress the balance of power that Ernie Eves, the Premier, vests in himself is to start to break up that power and put it elsewhere. This resolution is magnificent in its simplicity. Take

away from the Premier the power to decide when the voters of Ontario shall have the right to be consulted and go to the polls. Take that power away from him and vest it in our constitution and have

our constitution set fixed dates for elections -- in our proposals, every four years. Think of the variety of ways in which things would change if that happened. We know that an election is coming

up. Only Ernie Eves knows when that election is going to take place. The former Premier Bob Rae described it as the divine right of Premiers to decide when the people shall be consulted. That right

belongs with the people, not with the Premier. If we break up that power in the Premier's office in this small way, then the abuses committed by this government and former governments in trying to

manipulate the public will change as well.

For example, we know that an election is coming up when Ernie Eves decides that the time is right because, as we watch our televisions every night, suddenly

there are millions and millions of dollars being spent by the Ontario government in advertising to tell the people of Ontario how great they've been and how great they are going to be -- millions

and millions of dollars to try to manipulate the electoral process. If you take that power away from the Premier, this Parliament will also have the opportunity to regulate and moderate the

government's appetite to abuse taxpayer dollars taken for that kind of manipulative advertising.

In addition to that, if you take that power away from the Premier, you give everyone in Ontario a fair opportunity to prepare in an intelligent and informed

way, to reconsider which party and which government they want to have in power in Ontario. As president of the party, I spend a lot of my time talking to potential candidates who are interested in

running for us. One of the most difficult questions put to me in that capacity is -- they always say the same thing: "When is the election going to be? Because I would like to do it. I think I've

got something to contribute." When you say, "Well, it may be three months away or it may be a year away. The Tories will do polling. They'll start spending, and if they feel like the time is right,

they'll pull the plug and Parliament will be dissolved and we'll have an election," invariably, the response I get from potential candidates is, "How in the world can one regulate one's life by

that system?"

I invite members opposite to consider just this. Ask yourself, if we were to institute this reform, if we were actually to change our system so that elections

occurred every four years in Ontario by virtue of our Constitution and not the divine right of Premiers, which of you would be standing up after that reform and saying to your constituents and to

the people of Ontario, "This is horrible. What we should be doing is putting that power to call elections back in the hands of one person"?

In our municipal system, we're quite content every three years to allow municipal councils to go back to their voters to seek a new mandate. It would be

horrific in the city of Toronto or in any municipality to suggest that a municipal election should occur when the mayor thinks the time is right. That would be totally unacceptable.

So think of it in this fashion, and I'm sure members opposite, when they consider it -- imagine that in Ontario each of us knew at the time of an election when

the next election would be. Which of you on the other side would be standing up and saying, "This is horrific. We should no longer have fixed dates for elections. It should be up to the Premier of

the province to determine when that should happen"?

This reform and the other reforms that are contained in our party's democratic charter --

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): We would be governors.

Mr Sorbara: My friend from Simcoe says we would be governors here. They're worried about the invasion of the American system. That is patent

nonsense, I tell my friend. Our proposals protect all of the important parts of our democratic institutions as well as the possibility that a government would fall by losing the confidence of this

House. These democratic reforms, when implemented, sir -- and I tell you that they will be implemented -- will put the democratic power in this province back in the hands of the people to whom it

belongs, and that is the people of the province.

We're going to be putting severe restrictions on fundraising. We're going to put very severe restrictions on the government's ability to rob taxpayers of their

funds with partisan political advertising.

But the one reform I am advocating here today and that I'm inviting my friends opposite to consider and support is that the power to manipulate and call

election dates in Ontario must come to an end. That power belongs to the people. If we pass this resolution this morning we'll be taking a significant step to make our democracy stronger, and I

commend it to my friends in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): As the member of our caucus responsible for the democratic issues agenda that we have launched and that

we will be talking more about later, I want to be able to respond to this, and I know my good friend Mr Christopherson from Hamilton wants to speak about this as well.

I want to say, first of all, we will support this resolution. We think quite frankly that it's not a bad idea. The member, Mr Sorbara, is right when he says

there's far too much ability for Premiers of all stripes -- I will not just argue the current Premier, but Premiers before and, I would argue, Premiers after -- to have too much power in being able

to manipulate things when it comes to elections. The idea of setting a term or date as far as when elections should be called is not a bad one.

I also want to say to the government members across the way, it's not a concept that's too far away from the province of Ontario. We have set terms for

municipal mayors and municipal councillors and school board trustees. The lower level of governments that gets their authority through this Legislature already have set dates for when elections are

called and how long the terms are going to be. This is not something that would be out of the ordinary. I would argue that you need to have at least four to five years as far as how long the term

should be -- that would probably be the fair thing to do -- and set the election date for a spring or fall election, considering Ontario for both geographic or weather reasons. We should be trying

to pull the election off at a time where the weather is conducive to door-knocking and doing the kinds of things that we do during election time.

I think, however, that the resolution stops short on a whole host of issues when it comes to democracy, and I want to talk about that in some detail here this

morning. But I just want to say up front that the issue of setting when an election is going to be called is not what's going to curb the power of the Premier. I think there's a whole bunch of

other issues you've got to deal with when it comes to how you rein in the power of the Premier from exercising too much authority over elected members in the Legislature.

We know now that the problem we have under the current system -- and it doesn't matter whose Premier is there, which political party -- the Premier gets to

appoint cabinet, the Premier gets to decide when the election is, the Premier is the head of the executive council and, as such, is able to exercise a lot of power, especially over his own caucus,

by right of being party leader and head of the caucus at the same time. What ends up happening far too often is that members of the government -- in this case, this government -- basically don't

have an opportunity to vote as they might want to vote because they're held, by the power of the Premier, from voting against. For example, if a backbencher who is trying to get into cabinet is

seen as being critical of his government, critical of his Premier, the chances of getting into cabinet are pretty slight. So the Premier holds a lot of power over individual members just in that

right.

That's why we in the New Democratic Party propose a much different approach to how this Legislature should work. The issue to us, as New Democrats, is not just

the power that's in the hands of the Premier, because the argument could be made that the Premier has to have certain powers. To us, the issue is how this assembly doesn't work. Currently what

you've got are rules in this assembly that say the government can introduce a bill for second reading on Monday and by Wednesday it's all over. All you need is a time allocation on Thursday and a

bill gets passed into law, with no committee hearings, no opportunity for public input, no serious reconsideration of the points in the bill. The government just does as it pleases, and there is

nothing anybody can do about it because of the rules of this House.

That's why we in the New Democratic caucus are proposing a different approach to this problem. We believe that, first of all, you have to change the way the

Legislature itself operates. One of the ways to do that is to do what is done in most parliamentary democracies in the world. In fact, 99% of them have what's called a system of proportional

representation. That is, simply said, on election day the parties that get elected end up with an amount of seats as per the percentage of vote they got in the election.

For example, in the provincial election where, let's say, the Conservatives got 43% of the vote, the idea would be that they would get no more than 43% of the

seats in the House. The reason behind that is, clearly the people of Ontario have said they support the government to a position of 43%, but they don't want to give them all of the power. They want

to be able to take the direction of the government, but not a majority of the people in Ontario support the direction of the Conservative government. So by a system of proportional representation,

the rest of the seats in the House would be apportioned to a party based on their percentage of vote, which means, at the end of the day, that we'd all have to work together.

If you take a look at, for example, the German system, at both their levels of government, in both the lower house and the upper house of the German

Parliament, what they have is a system where, when electors go to the polls, they have two ballots. They have one ballot where they vote for the party and the other ballot where they vote for the

local member. They count up the local members first. They say, "Here's who is elected to represent you in your riding," and you would do that just as we do now and, at the end, they would tally the

percentage of vote for the party. Then they would top up those parties based on what they got when it came to the preferential ballot of the party.

That works rather well. In the case of Germany, for example, Schroeder won yet another government, but he has to form a coalition with other parties in the

legislature of Germany in order to govern. So what you've got is a social democratic labour party that doesn't have a clear majority, that has to work with other members of the assembly to pass

whatever bills come through their House. I would argue that's not a bad idea, and I just want to revisit a couple of very specific votes that we've had in this House where that might have made a

big difference.

Let's just take the amalgamations of the cities of Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa and Sudbury. We in this Legislature all know that every party in this Legislature

had members on both sides of that issue. In our caucus we had a member who felt strongly that you should have moved toward the issue of amalgamation in his particular community. In other parties,

such as was the case in the Conservative Party, there were members in their caucuses who disagreed, but because of party discipline members voted according to their own party lines. Because the

government had a majority of the seats in the House, even though they didn't have a majority in the vote -- they had 43% of the vote but over 60% of the seats -- the government did what it wanted.

To the chagrin of their own Conservative members, they ended up amalgamating cities, against the wishes of their own backbench members. I say, if we had a system of proportional representation in

that vote, each member in the House would have had to stand up and vote accordingly, because then the onus becomes the onus of the member and no one party clearly has the majority. The government

would have had to work with the opposition parties to be able to pass or have that legislation defeated.

My basic point is this: I don't believe that vote would have passed, because almost all of the members, except for a few, were opposed to the amalgamation, and

there were enough members in the government caucus who were opposed that, if we had been under a system of proportional representation, that would have never happened. The city of Toronto would

have never been the big megacity it is today. I think probably we would have been a heck of a lot better off if that would have happened.

The same could be said for a lot of the other decisions that this government is making around the privatization of health care, of Ontario Hydro and of our

school system by allowing charter schools to be introduced in the province. My argument is that under a system of proportional representation, the government could never have been able to pass

legislation like that because clearly there were not a majority of members in this House who agreed with those basic principles. Therefore, if it can't pass here, then maybe it shouldn't pass at

all. Maybe we are representatives of the people and maybe at the end of the day we can do our jobs better in representing what has to be done here in the Legislature.

I will support the member's motion because it is part of what I believe we need to do, but I think the bigger issue here is that if we want to curb the power

of the executive and of the Premier, you really have to come at it from a set of rules. One of the basic ones is how we elect people in this province. We will be talking as New Democrats more about

that as the winter goes on.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to have the chance to rise and respond to the resolution brought forward by

the honourable member from Vaughan-King-Aurora and the Liberal Party this morning.

The resolution we are debating calls for fixed election terms of four years and is part of the Liberals' democratic charter. I could go on and on about how I

feel about this democratic charter. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I can only address the part of the charter that the honourable member has chosen to focus our attention on today.

I can understand the honourable member's sensitivity, as he was a cabinet minister in the Peterson government that went to the polls early, after barely three

years, in 1990, after being elected in 1987. I read very succinctly in a book written by Ian Scott -- who was the Attorney General of the day -- that the member wasn't happy about that particular

decision, and we know the decision resulted in the public throwing out the Peterson Liberals in 1990. I would say that democracy is working well in this province today because democracy is the

public holding the government to account in an election. That's what happened in 1990.

Also, the member comes forth and says, "There's manipulation." I don't know whether he was referring to the fact that the federal Liberal government called an

early election in the year 2000, after barely three years. Our record is that when we were elected in 1995, we called an election after four years, in 1999, with respect to getting another mandate,

which we received in 1999. If there's any manipulation, take a look at the federal Liberal government.

Our current system is based on the long-standing tradition of the Westminster parliamentary model imported from Britain. That's what our model is based on.

It's not based on the US model of fixed dates for presidential, Senate and Congressional elections. Our system has been in place since Confederation and has been used successfully by governments of

all stripes. This resolution would mark a real departure from this model and signal the beginning of a system that only two jurisdictions use worldwide. That's right: only two other jurisdictions

use the fixed term system -- only two. Those countries are the United States and New Zealand. Not one other province uses such a fixed term system at this time. Why would we want to put ourselves

in a situation that separates Ontario from the nine other provinces and the territories, let alone the federal government?

In August 2001, the British Columbia Liberal government did pass a bill that calls for elections on the second Monday in May every four years, but it has not

yet come into effect. This bill comes into effect by regulation. These regulations are set out under order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and as of November 21, 2002, these regulations did

not exist in British Columbia.

I am not sure if it is a reluctance to actually make this legislation binding, but it wouldn't surprise me. It just reminds me of the flip-flopping that the

Liberal Party is becoming famous for. The Liberals claim that fixed terms would simplify election planning. But is this enough to justify overturning centuries of parliamentary tradition? In the

United States, fixed terms are the norm rather than the exception. In contrast, British and Canadian parliamentary tradition has long agreed with the idea that responsible government requires

flexible election terms. This not only enhances democracy but makes government more accountable to the electorate. In the United States, fixed electoral terms often lead to situations where the

executive branch of government finds itself in the position of a lame duck. Too often political parties are so focused on the next fixed electoral date that they ignore the important issues of the

day, and unfortunately those issues are pushed aside.

We, on this side of the House, believe this would be an affront to our democratic traditions. The best check on government power is to have a non-fixed

election date so that government policies are not dictated by a calendar. Policies will be determined by a logical assessment of the issues of the day.

This government is by no means afraid of change. The members on this side of the House are open-minded members and are always willing to entertain new ideas

and suggestions to better the parliamentary system. Adopting this resolution is not the way to do it. I must stress that this government is committed to making the democratic system in Ontario more

efficient and effective. For example, we brought in the Fewer Politicians Act to reduce the number of MPPs in Ontario from 130 to the current 103. This was done not because politicians wanted to

give up their jobs but because the people of Ontario demanded a more efficient government, and we delivered.

We also decreased the length of campaign time from five to four weeks. By doing this, the cost of elections was reduced significantly.

Moreover, our government changed the boundaries of numerous ridings so that the federal and provincial elections could use the same geographical areas. This

has made the administration of elections more efficient and has cut back on red tape.

As I'm sure the people listening have figured out from the tone of my speech, I will not be supporting this resolution. As stated previously, we on this side

of the House are always looking for ways to better our current electoral system. This resolution would not benefit the citizens of Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to commend the member for bringing forward this resolution for discussion by members of the House.

I think there are a number of reforms that have to be made. This is one of them that will enhance the democratic process in Ontario. I agree entirely with the member, Mr Sorbara, who has noted the

trend in all jurisdictions, but particularly here in Ontario, where we can speak about it, and to a certain extent the national level, of concentrating power in the Office of the Premier or the

Prime Minister. The most powerful people, then, are not the people who are elected in the various constituencies but instead are the unelected political advisers, or whiz kids, as we like to call

them, who advise the Premier and some of the ministers. So there's no question that we have to restore some significant autonomy for the elected members, and I think this resolution is part of it.

I think there is a package for it.

I've always noted as well that one of the really corrosive elements in the political system is money. We particularly see this south of the border, where

members of Congress are virtually purchased by special-interest groups, particularly those which are well-financed.

I will start out by saying that I do not think governments should be able to spend taxpayers' dollars on government advertising. Anybody who turned on the Grey

Cup game would see the government ads, which were clearly of a partisan nature to reflect favourably upon the government. Members can smirk about that if they want to smirk and be part of the

government, but if they're looking at it in the democratic process, now and in the future, no matter which government is doing it and which jurisdiction, if you look at it, it is wrong for

governments to use taxpayers' dollars for partisan advertising. That's what's happening in Ontario right now with the hydro policy that the government is attempting to share with the people of this

province.

I happen to think there is legitimate advertising from time to time. Some safety things are reasonable, as long as it's not there saying, "and your government

is doing a great job because it's bringing it in" -- the flu vaccine, for instance. I used several instances where I thought there was reasonable government information provided. But so much of it

that this government has been part of -- it's a government that has cut so many departments and transfer payments to others and has hurt I think people in the lower income brackets but always has

lots of money to spend on government advertising. I think that's wrong and that's part of the package we're looking at.

As well as that, we allow individuals, corporations and unions to donate too much to political parties. We allow the political parties to spend too much money.

I thought the last time this government changed the legislation, it allowed for more contributions to come in to individual candidates and parties, it allowed greater expenditures and it exempted

some key parts of a campaign.

Also, of course, this government, which has millions upon millions of dollars in its war chest because it has catered its policies to the richest and most

powerful people in the province, and has been rewarded by those rich and powerful people who have benefited from its policies, will before a campaign, as well as during a campaign, spend way beyond

what would be legitimate. Those are the kinds of reforms that have to be made.

You can't exempt the leaders' tour. You cannot exempt polling, because there's a wide definition of that. If you want it to be fair for everybody, then you

have to have strict controls on it. The United States is not a good example.

This resolution takes away from the Premier the right to make a decision on when an election shall be. People who are in the country, people who are in the

province, individuals, organizations, municipalities and so on, will know when the election is going to be. There are provisions, if the government falls in a non-confidence motion, where this

would not apply. But generally speaking, there would be a situation where we would know when the election was going to be. I think most people in this province would support that instead of having

it in the hands of one person and his personal advisers.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I found the resolution before us very interesting, particularly given some of the dynamics of where

the different players are coming from on this.

Let me say right at the outset that I think it takes an awful lot of gall for the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford to be talking about defending the

traditions of 100 years in this place, given the damage they've done to all kinds of traditions, especially as they relate to the rights of the opposition. Let's just temper some of those comments

with the reality of what they've done in governance and how they've trampled on decades of tradition. I don't think that's a defensible point to start from at all.

There is actually a historical reference to this, and I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet. It's pretty significant, given that today is the day Romanow

brings down his report on the future of our cherished health care system. When Tommy Douglas was elected Premier in Saskatchewan, I believe in 1946, but certainly just after the Second World War --

there's no need to remind people who understand the history of this country that the moneyed powerful people all across North America were recoiling in horror that this fellow named Tommy Douglas

had gotten elected to a position of power in a democracy. "How could this possibly happen?" because of course Tommy Douglas was a social democrat, a CCFer, the forerunner to the NDP. For some

people there were still memories of what had happened in Russia a couple of decades before. There were concerns about what had happened as a result of the Winnipeg general strike, and some were

saying, "My goodness, the election of this social democrat in Canada means the beginning of the end. The Red forces are at the door." Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, but Tommy

had to deal with that.

I mention Tommy because Tommy Douglas is now recognized universally as the founder, the father, the leader of bringing in our universal health care system. In

fact he was just inducted into I think the first -- I don't know the exact title -- the Canadian national medical hall of fame. I'm torturing the real title, but that's what it is. Their first

inductee was none other than the guy they had struck against, in a general strike by a lot of the doctors at the time in Saskatchewan. The very same group of people, the medical association of

Canada, named him as the first inductee, recognizing that without Tommy Douglas we wouldn't have a universal health care system and we wouldn't have the Romanow report.

As I look across, the galleries are filled today with young people, students here, I would assume, on a class visit. It may be a number of years before they

recognize the significance of the historic day they are here, because Roy Romanow is releasing a report that is either going to provide a blueprint for them to have the same health care system I

had when I was their age, or we're going to lose it. It's that significant.

I raise all that and talk about Tommy today, particularly on this historic day, also to point out that one of the things he did when he was elected, to sort of

calm the Red scare fears, was to say, "I will have elections every four years no matter what." I believe it was June. I stand to be corrected, but I believe it was in June. Do you know what? Tommy

Douglas was in power, the first social democrat and founder of our universal health care system, for 16 years as Premier, and every four years on the button he held an election. As long as he was

in that election, he won.

I think it's worth mentioning too, parenthetically, that Tommy Douglas every year of those 16 years brought in a balanced budget. He didn't really bring in

what was then the universal insurance program until about his 14th or 15th year. There are a whole host of reasons for that, but most of them were based on the fact that he wanted it to be fiscally

viable and he wanted to deeply plant the roots of the notion of a universal health care system so that future right-wing governments couldn't come along and just wipe it out.

He took all those years to prepare and educate the public, bring them onside, let them know what the benefits of a universal health care system would be for

them, and to ensure it could be afforded. Having been in an NDP government and sat in the cabinet, I know the kind of pressure you get from your own supporters to move, especially on those big

items that, in large part, bring people to be a New Democrat as opposed to the other parties.

I've only got one minute left, but in terms of the BC legislation, the Institute for Research on Public Policy found that 54% of the population support fixed

elections. They had one concern, and I thought it was legitimate. I just spoke to my friend Mr Sorbara to get a clarification from him. Their concern was that you don't want to remove the ability

of this House to say, "We've lost confidence" in whatever the government is, whoever the Premier is, and force an election. They felt we lose something if we don't have that. I'm assured by Mr

Sorbara that part of their legislation would guarantee that a majority vote of this House, regardless of party, would still constitute a lack of confidence in the government and that would trigger

an election.

I think we end up with the best of both worlds. This is a valid idea. Things have to change. The people are demanding it. I think this is a good, positive step

in that direction.

Mr Dunlop: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on Mr Sorbara's resolution.

First of all, I'd like to take this opportunity, because we've mentioned how many young people are in the audience today -- I don't know the names of all the

other schools, but I do know that Premier Eves has a school here today from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, St John the Baptist Catholic school in Bolton. Mrs Bernardi, Mrs Visintine and a number of

the parents and other teachers are here with them. Perhaps we could give them a warm welcome. It's so nice to see so many young people here on this very historic day.

Something I didn't know earlier: I didn't realize that Tommy Douglas actually delivered balanced budgets for 16 years in a row. That is amazing and I think

that's a great tribute to his great life as a politician.

However, we're here today to talk a little bit about the resolution. I want to say up front that I will be opposing this legislation. Quite frankly, I'm

against the Americanization of Canadian politics, and that's what this does. This is a very simple resolution. We might as well have a Congress. We might as well have governors. We might as well

have a President.

We haven't seen any leadership in this particular area on behalf of the federal government. As recently as 2000, they pulled an election after three years. If

the provinces are going to go in this direction, to a selected term of four years, I think we really have to see the leadership from the federal government. When they decide to call after four

years, then we should look, as provinces, at maybe doing the same type of thing.

Mr Sorbara: Why?

Mr Dunlop: Because we need federal leadership. The federal government has to show leadership in some area. In some area of this country, we

have to see the federal government showing some leadership.

We've seen some leadership today, I guess, with the Romanow report coming out, but as I said earlier today in my other comments, we don't know what's going to

actually happen. Apparently there's $7 billion, I understand now. Finally the federal government will probably have to ante up. We've been saying this for the last six or seven years. Already I

read an

article where Mr Manley is saying, "The money's not there. We won't be able to provide the money. We'll phase that money in" over God knows how many years.

I'm someone who believes very strongly in the traditions of our country, of our province. I do not want to see the legislation changed. I believe very strongly

in the British parliamentary system and everything it stands for.

As I said earlier, I will be opposing this resolution. I want to leave some time for our other members as well today.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I commend the member from Vaughan-King-Aurora for bringing forth his resolution, because I think the

resolution really is an attempt on his part to show that a lot of the democratic traditions in Ontario have been eroded dramatically by the Mike Harris-Eves government. When they stand up and say

they're defenders of British parliamentary traditions, it is just laughable. If you look at Bill 26, it did more damage to democracy in this province than any other single bill has done in any

western democracy.

What it comes down to is that, in this Legislature now and in this province, if an idea comes from outside the inner sanctum of the government controlling

interests, they reject it. I've got a perfect little example for the schoolchildren here today. As you know, there's a law in the province of Ontario now that requires schoolchildren to sing O

Canada in school. As the opposition, we brought forth a simple resolution, on behalf of myself, to allow for the singing of O Canada in this building, even once a week. Do you know that the

government has stopped that? They won't allow the singing of O Canada in this Legislature as part of our proceedings. Do you know why? Because it's not their idea; it came from the opposition.

That's why they oppose resolutions like this one from the member for Vaughan-King-Aurora. It's not their idea. It didn't come from the backroom group that

controls this government. These are faceless, nameless people you never see. They run the province of Ontario. For instance, legislation now is divided and crammed into -- they have two days in

one. Nowhere in western democracies do they have two days in one. Do you know why they have two legislative days in one? So they can ram through bills that you the public, young and old, will never

know anything about.

We have this bill before us now called Bill 198, where they're raiding pension plans. They tried to ram that through so nobody would notice. They've changed

the rules to the point that things go through here so quickly we can't even question them. There are no hearings. In the past, we used to have hearings where there would be input, there would be

amendments, there would be changes. That doesn't exist in Ontario any more. We go through a democratic façade totally controlled by backroom people who are not in this chamber, and we don't

even know their names or faces.

My colleague from Vaughan-King-Aurora is saying, "When you're calling an election, perhaps there should be some kind of accountability or oversight. It

shouldn't be the manipulation of the democratic process to call an election when the polls show you might win." This government spends millions of dollars polling all the time, trying to find out

how they can take advantage of public opinion to manipulate it.

That's what they're doing right now. They're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of your money this month, I'm sure, trying to find out when they should

call the election. They're not going to call it when they think it's right for the people or right for the voters; they're going to call it when they think they can save their necks. That's what

they'll do.

What this would do is bring in some sort of accountability whereby you would know when the elections were to be called so that it couldn't be manipulated by

the government and the backroom people. Every four years, you would know when the election date would be, and it would be a fair process. What this government really likes to do is essentially make

rules that benefit not you, the voters or the citizens, but benefit them and their friends. That's what they're all about in this place, and they don't want you to know what they're doing. They

want to try and change things so fast, and then if we ask for an improvement or a change, they say, "No, we can't do it, because it doesn't help us."

I commend this attempt to basically get some dialogue on getting democracy back in Ontario. This government does not believe in free votes; in this case,

you'll see that all the government side will vote against this. They never vote according to their conscience. They always vote according to how they're told to vote. This is wrong, because

democracy is supposed to be based on your beliefs and what's best for your voters, not on what's best for vested interests and special interests. In this case here, we've got a debating point, a

good way of looking at how we can make democracy better and how we can maybe listen to new ideas. As I said, this government of Ernie Eves-Mike Harris doesn't believe in ideas coming forward and

being debated, even -- never mind being accepted; they don't think they should be debated. They just will all say that this is wrong.

To say this is about Americanization -- this government copied the neo-con agenda word for word, right out of Newt Gingrich's dictionary, and they have the

nerve to say they're against Americanization? They bought that hook, line and sinker and tried to sell it to everybody in Ontario.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I'm pleased to offer a few comments on the resolution we're debating here this hour. It will be a

frosty Friday when I or anyone in our government agree with the Americanization of the election system in this country. It's not going to happen.

This is from a party and from a member who demonstrated precisely why the voters can be trusted by trying to pull the wool over their eyes and going out for an

election after two years and nine months, thinking you could sneak something through, so excited that for the first time in 1987 the election results, under the current system, had actually

favoured your party -- the first time in over 45 years. You were sure it would happen a second time, that lightning would strike twice. So you said to yourselves, back there in the cabinet room,

"The voters are incompetent. The voters are blind." You said, "We can pull the wool over their eyes."

You want to know something, Mr Sorbara? You were wrong. David Peterson was wrong; you were wrong; all the other cabinet ministers, including the members still

here today, were wrong. The voters are smarter than that. The voters understand the issues. The voters understand that when they have the chance to cast that vote, there is an opportunity to

reflect, and it doesn't matter whether it is exactly 48 months or 46 months or 50 months. They reflect on the package of initiatives that have been presented by the government and on the

alternatives offered by the two, maybe more, would-be pretenders to the throne.

The reality is that in the last half-century, your party, under the current system, has only ever attracted the attention and the interest of the voters once

-- once. You're equalled by the socialists, for Pete's sake, in that regard. In every other election in the last half-century, the voters have correctly concluded that there is one party that has

their best interests at heart, one party that is not favouring special interests, that has the working families, that has small business, at the heart of all the policy decisions they make. As

opposed to the member here, a member who personally was part of the charade of the 1990 election, who was certain -- certain -- that they were --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Vaughan-King-Aurora has had his opportunity. He needs to respect the member for Scarborough

East.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm sorry if the truth hurts, Mr Sorbara, because the reality is that the status quo doesn't just work here in Ontario; it works

all across Canada. It works all across the Commonwealth. This is a principle that goes back centuries, and the member opposite is suggesting that somehow the Liberal Party in Ontario has a better

way of doing it than all the other parties in all those other jurisdictions. What arrogance. What conceit.

The reality is that this resolution, just like the entire Liberal democratic plan, is predicated on the proposition that you cannot trust the voters. Well, I

for one do trust the voters. I suspect it's predicated on something else. If you knew the exact date of the next election, you would know how long you had to hide your leader, Dalton McGuinty.

You'd know that. As it is right now, you're not quite sure when you can bring him out and when you have to keep him behind closed doors.

There's mention that out in British Columbia the Liberal government there has suggested that they want to go to fixed terms. What the member has not suggested,

has not put on the record here today, is that the law says that that will take place only when a regulation is filed by the Lieutenant Governor. There is no regulation filed. So in the province of

British Columbia, even today it would not be accurate to say that it is the law that the next election will take place on a certain day. It may be the government's intention to prepare that

regulation, it's certainly their stated intention, but they haven't done it.

There is no precedent where you can stand in your place and say that someone else has made a formal commitment to have an election on a specific day on a

specific cycle. So I'm prepared to continue on with the status quo. I'm prepared to continue to trust the voters in my riding. I don't understand why a member here wouldn't want to continue to

trust the voters in his riding -- but obviously you don't. You are here as a result of the current system.

On the other hand, if it is this ongoing frustration that there aren't enough of you that can attract the attention and the positive support of people in your

riding, then I understand why you want to change the rules. But what I don't understand is how you of all people, of all the Liberals sitting opposite, could stand in your place and suggest that

somehow an American-style political system is the way we should be going, when you yourself are the poster child for why the voters can be trusted under the current system.

While I have a second here, I was intrigued, as our good friend from St Catharines is so prone to do a rambling about the by-product of elections -- it was

fascinating watching another Liberal initiative just before coming up here: the tabling of the Romanow report, and the fact that Mr Romanow himself admitted that if the federal government agreed to

all his recommendations, it would increase federal spending to 25%. I just want it on the record that last night on Michael Coren, Gerard Kennedy swore up and down that it isn't 14% that the feds

paid today; it's 35%.

So I'm glad to see that he is just as inaccurate, and just as prepared to try and pull the wool over the TV viewers, the voters, as you're trying to do here

today. It's a consistent pattern. It really is not becoming to a member to have that attitude toward the voters. I suggest to the member that this is not an appropriate resolution. I will not be

supporting it. Nor, I suspect, will any of my colleagues.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I'm so excited about the opportunity to speak following on the leader of the bitter former

ministers' club. I just can't tell you how funny it is to hear a man froth about for six minutes and create the impression on the one hand that the manipulation by the leader of an election date is

bad, and then to make an enormous pronouncement, with much pounding of the chest, to indicate that he stands firmly in favour of the status quo, because the status quo has meant that leaders of

political parties, all of them in our province, have manipulated election dates in a way that is unhelpful to the quality of our democracy.

So while we on this side are able to stand and say, as Mr Sorbara did in his opening comments, that this isn't a practice that we think has been good for

Ontario in the past or that we're proud of, this guy, the member from Scarborough East, stands and makes a speech that makes absolutely no sense, on the one hand criticizing the Peterson government

for having called an early election and then on the other hand defending that practice and the status quo.

The thing that I found most incredible from that government, and the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford did it too, was talking about how it would be just

terrible to see this kind of change to this parliamentary process, with its traditions deeply rooted in Westminster. He practically brought the Maple Leaf Forever and songs from Britain to my ear.

Instead, we had speeches of denial from the members opposite, because they denied the very role that they have played in undermining our democracy to such a great extent here in the province of

Ontario.

We seek, on behalf of the people of Ontario, to grab back from them and the way they have operated some connection to our democracy, by enhancing the role of

oppositions and committees and giving power back to MPPs and, on this one singular issue, removing from the power of the Premier of Ontario the right to manipulate the date of the election.

These guys get it going, on this matter, on all different fronts. We have a piece of legislation in front of us that they're all going to vote for next week,

Bill 198, that is flawed. It has been proven to be deeply flawed, and yet they will ram it through and hope in the quiet of their regulatory environment and the cabinet's basic right to do whatever

the heck it pleases, that this issue will just go away, because even when they are caught red-handed, even when the smoking gun has been produced, there is no meaningful opportunity, in an

environment where the government has a majority and the majority members are acting like seals, to restore a sense of vigour to our democracy by forcing change on badly flawed legislation.

I have a funny story to relate in my last minute, and it involves the member from London-Fanshawe, Mr Mazzilli. He and I were recently on Focus Ontario, about

three or four weeks ago. Every once in a while, because of our capacity to jostle, they bring us on there. The host, Graham Richardson, said to Mr Mazzilli, "So, Frank, when's the election going to

be? In the spring?" Frank said, "Yes, that looks very likely, Graham." I said, "Yes, in the spring of 2004." Because once the stink of desperation is on a government, like the stink is on this one,

you start to see the kind of manipulation that is disgusting. It's disgusting.

On the weekend of their convention a little while ago, I arrived at 11 o'clock on Saturday. By noon, all of the talk was how the election, which was rumoured

to be right now, had been put off. Then at 6:45 or 7 o'clock, the Premier had a press conference. He said, "No, the election is definitely going to be two months one way or the other of the

four-year anniversary." On the Sunday he said, "No, no. Fall of 2003," and within a few days later it was the spring of 2004.

End the manipulation. Take back the power for the people.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Sorbara: I'd like to thank in particular my friend from Hamilton West for reminding us on this day in particular of the important work that

Tommy Douglas, one of the great parliamentarians in Canadian history, brought to this debate on fixed terms for Parliaments.

I just have to summarize by pointing out that the incredible arrogance of my friend from Scarborough East is exactly the disease that has poisoned the

Conservative Party and is going to end in their defeat when an election is finally called. I have rarely heard such arrogance, an epiphany of nonsense, in support of a resolution on a motion that

really will change and improve our democracy.

This is quite simple. We need to improve our democracy. The Premier of this province, Ernie Eves, has far too much power, and this Parliament has far too

little power. And the people have far too little power. No democracy is strong when power, wealth and income is concentrated in the few, let alone the one.

I want to talk as well about the remarks by my friend from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, because he gave a litany of reforms that he suggests were brought forward to

improve our democracy. There is no doubt in the mind of any serious commentator that as to the power of this Legislature, rule changes brought forward by the Progressive Conservative Party have

reduced to a minimum the significance of this Legislature.

If parliamentarians on the Conservative side are not concerned about that so that future members of this Parliament can have a real and vibrant opportunity to

participate in the lifeblood of their province, then they don't understand their responsibilities here. I invite them to reconsider and support this motion.

The Acting Speaker This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item number 72.

EDUCATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I will now deal with ballot item number 71. Mr Kennedy has moved private member's notice of motion

number 20.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.

We will take the vote following my putting the question on ballot item number 72.

ONTARIO ELECTION DATES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Ballot item number 72: Mr Sorbara has moved private member's notice of motion number 19.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.

EDUCATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Call in the members for a vote on ballot item number 71. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Kennedy has moved ballot item number 71. All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until your name is

called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 30; the nays are 46.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

ONTARIO ELECTION DATES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Sorbara has moved private member's notice of motion number 19. All those in favour will please

stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Colle, Mike

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and remain standing until your name is called.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 33; the nays are 42.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters related to private members' public business now being complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1214 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SUDBURY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): It's pretty sad when you see that it takes longer for the Harris-Eves Tories to deliver the Sudbury regional

operational review than for Roy Romanow to complete a federal study about health care across Canada. It is pretty sad when the Sudbury Regional Hospital continues to wait for Tony Clement and Ernie

Eves to release the report that our community wants released. That operational review will set the course of action for the construction of our new single-site hospital. It will set the course of

action for our community with regard to health care, and yet the government sits on the report.

Why do they sit on the report? Well, it's very simple. They do not want to release the report because the report is clearly an indictment that they have

short-changed our hospital and health care in the north by too many dollars -- absolutely, no question.

In our community, we say that this government has abdicated its responsibility when it comes to health care. So today we ask Tony Clement, the Minister of

Health, and Ernie Eves, the Premier of this province, to act immediately. Release the operational review of the Sudbury Regional Hospital so our hospital administrators can start planning for the

future. We have a course of action. It's time you told us what yours is.

ENTERPRISING WOMAN PROGRAM

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Ten months ago Corrine was a stay-at-home mom with a business idea but little knowledge of how to start a

company. Today she owns a registered soap-making business and sells her product at craft sales and local stores. If Corrine had not signed up for the Enterprising Woman program, run by the women's

centre of York region, she says she would not even have a business plan.

Corinne had a good product but she really didn't feel she knew how to start a business. The program showed her how to get her business organized. The program

helped her to write a business plan and encouraged her to do market research. Corinne benefited the most from being able to network with other women and to know she wasn't alone in her challenge to

get her business started. She began the program in February and graduated in June, launching her business a month before.

The program, facilitated by business professionals, starts with the basics: choosing a name, conducting market research, cash flow analysis, and legal issues.

It then offers specialized sessions such Web marketing, e-business, networking, commercial real estate, and balancing life and work. The program is available to 25 women who have a viable business

idea.

All the best to you, Corinne. Congratulations on your entrepreneurial business endeavour.

HIGHWAY 11 AND HIGHWAY 17

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Earlier this week a Ministry of Transportation spokesperson was quoted as saying that the

four-laning of Highway 11-17 between Thunder Bay and Nipigon would not go forward unless traffic volumes increased to a preset ministry-determined level. To say that this remark irritated me, as

well as many of my constituents, would be a very polite understatement.

This four-laning project is one that was first announced 13 years ago by the provincial government of the day. It is a rare part of the Trans-Canada Highway,

in northwestern Ontario, where no alternate route across the country is available. It is a

section of the highway about which Premier Eves himself made reference to the need to four-lane during a

fundraising speech in Thunder Bay this past spring.

To say that volume of traffic alone will determine the need is unseemly, and I, for one, will not accept that thinking. Besides, if numbers alone determined

these projects, the

section between Thunder Bay and Pass Lake should be fast-tracked, as its numbers frequently meet that cold criteria.

Regardless, the province