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

October 8, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

l243a - Wed 8 Oct 1997 / Mer 8 Oct 1997

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING COMMUNICATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION

WINDSOR DAYS OF ACTION

BREAST CANCER

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

SATELLITE SERVICES

BRING YOUR TEACHER AN APPLE DAY

CLOSURE OF OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

AIR QUALITY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE APPEALS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

COURT DECISION

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ANIMAL WELFARE

EDUCATION FINANCING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

ANIMAL WELFARE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EDUCATION FINANCING

TVONTARIO

EDUCATION FINANCING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

OPPOSITION DAY

EDUCATION FINANCING / FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING COMMUNICATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. You will be aware that I've written to you giving you notice of my intention to raise this issue under the new rules requirements.

As you know, standing order 21 is quite clear: "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

My point of privilege relates directly to my ability and the ability of all opposition members to serve and to do their legislative duties. I believe my privileges as an MPP have been breached, and I'd like to explain.

You will be aware that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing had promised he would release the figures related to the municipal download on October 6, 1997. Yesterday these numbers were sent by courier to some municipalities across the province. We have reports that some municipalities have received them while some have not. For example, municipalities in the north have not yet received these numbers.

But my point relates directly to the method used for giving this information to members of the Legislative Assembly. Yesterday the municipal affairs and housing ministry delivered the download numbers to the press gallery at 5 pm. Packages were delivered to the legislative mail room at 5 pm for opposition MPPs as well. The mail room, as you know, is closed at 5 pm, so it was impossible for opposition MPPs to access that information at that time. Opposition MPPs were forced to wait until this morning when the mail room reopened to see what the download numbers actually were.

But my staff has been informed that Conservative MPPs got these numbers at 9 am yesterday morning, so it's a full 24 hours between the time members of the government party and members of the opposition received the information. It seems the pecking order as far as this government is concerned is that Tory MPPs get the information first, then some municipalities, then the media, and last opposition members.

The whole process surrounding the release of these download numbers has been confused and I believe inappropriate in terms of the release of information to the members of the Legislative Assembly. If it is appropriate to provide the information to members of the governing party at 9 am on October 6, it is also appropriate to release that information to other members, to all members of the Legislative Assembly at the same time. Obviously it means that members of the governing party could have the information, analyse it and comment on it a full 24 hours before members of the opposition.

I ask, Speaker, if you would investigate this situation to determine whether or not indeed the privileges of myself and all members of the opposition have been breached by this inappropriate approach of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I wonder if there might be consent for the government House leader to respond in a few moments.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I guess there isn't unanimous consent as you're seeking. I'll reserve until a later date.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Premier and is in the form of a letter from the Kenora Board of Education's parent advisory council. It reads:

"Dear Premier Harris:

"You owe the people of Ontario an apology for the impudent remarks you made on September 30, 1997, while defending your Bill 160. To say `school boards and unions are not trusted to deliver quality education' is an insult to anyone who has ever served as a school trustee and the citizens of Ontario who elected them.

"Our school trustees, elected at the favour of the voters, have always carried out their duties conscientiously with integrity and prime concern for the educational wellbeing of the students.

"Isn't the natural corollary of your remarks that any elected official should not be trusted? Mr Harris, remember from whence you came.

"We also feel that you should solicit and accept input from Ontario's teachers on an unconditional basis. If your true aim is to better the educational system, input from the front-line troops is essential.

"As Premier of the province we except you to be gracious and humble enough to issue this apology. We await your reply."

Premier, like the parent council of Kenora, parents throughout the province are calling upon you to show leadership on this issue. They are calling upon you to stop the assault on educators and elected school board officials.

Parents in the northwest want you to know that our schools are best in the hands of our students, parents, school board officials and our communities. Decisions about our children's education should be made as close to the community and classroom as possible, not here in Toronto in your and the minister's office.

WINDSOR DAYS OF ACTION

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Windsor city council has unanimously proclaimed Friday, October 17, as the day of action for those who wish to legally exercise their rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

The Windsor Days of Action committee and the Ontario Federation of Labour have been working hard to ensure the day is a success. I want to congratulate those hardworking volunteers. Forty thousand to 50,000 people are expected to be out to demonstrate against this government's cuts to health care, education, social services, the downloading of costs on to municipalities and its phoney tax cut.

I'm inviting all members of this Legislature, particularly those from Chatham-Kent, Lambton, Middlesex and Sarnia, to come to Windsor that day.

The Mike Harris government is trying to shake its reputation as a government that doesn't listen. Well, here is an opportunity to visit our community and listen to the concerns about health care. Visit Hotel Dieu and Metropolitan hospitals and see at first hand the crisis in the emergency wards and the chronic shortage of beds. Listen to the many families incurring debt and experiencing financial hardship because of the mismanagement of the family support plan. Listen to injured workers express their concern over the gutting of the workers' compensation system.

Listen to auto workers, nurses, teachers, social workers and absolutely everyone else, and they will tell you how your cuts are affecting their families, their neighbours and their community.

If you don't want to hear it from me, come to Windsor on October 17 and listen to the people and the message they are trying to send to Mike Harris.

BREAST CANCER

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): This past weekend a very important event happened. More than 40,000 Canadians ran, walked or jogged to raise money for breast cancer research.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and these participants helped raise more than $3 million for this very important research. I would like to congratulate each one of them on their efforts.

Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of death among Ontario women, with those over 50 particularly at risk. Research proves that early detection among this group of women can reduce the number of breast cancer deaths by 30%. That is why the Ontario government is committed to expanding the Ontario breast screening program. This government has provided an additional $24.3 million over four years to this program. The funding, which began in 1996-97, is to expand the OBSP province-wide and increase capacity at existing sites. By the year 2000, the OBSP is aiming to screen over 325,000 Ontario women every year, increasing the number of breast screenings by 400%.

Our ministry is proud to provide support and funding for groups such as Willow, an organization that provides counselling and support to women diagnosed with breast cancer. What is unique about Willow is that breast cancer survivors provide all the counselling.

Breast cancer does not only affect women; it affects their fathers, their brothers and their sons. We all have an interest in ensuring that a cure for this disease is found quickly.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to direct my statement to the Minister of Health. May I say, it is delivered with a strong degree of frustration and anger at a minister who will not accept that his severe cutbacks and restructuring process are harming the quality of health care in my community.

Almost every day we hear the Premier and the minister tell the Legislature that health care delivery is improving in the province. The truth is that they are wrong, they know they are wrong and the people in my community are paying for their stubbornness and gross misjudgement.

Hospital cutbacks and a forced restructuring process have left us in Thunder Bay with too few acute care beds, not enough long-term beds, and lengthy waiting lists for chronic care facilities.

Just today we have learned that 40 beds will now be reopened at Hogarth Westmount to deal with this crisis. But we ask, why did it take so long to acknowledge the need? The fact is that every day I receive letters and phone calls from constituents whose family members are becoming victims of a system that cannot provide the quality of care that we all deserve and expect.

Whether it's a loss of dignity for our seniors and disabled in our long-term facilities, or the time spent in hospital hallways because no acute care beds have been available, or the fact that our doctors and nurses are simply run off their feet trying to help their patients, the situation has become intolerable.

Minister, you've got to recognize that the dictates of your restructuring commission are simply too demanding. You must acknowledge that we need more acute care beds and more long-term facilities. The fact is that you must not deal with the bottom line, but deal with compassion for those people in need: people today who are frightened and concerned that we now have a health care system that is failing us.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Since day one, the Minister of Education has said that there is a need to invent a useful crisis in our education system, and he is now getting what he has been looking for all along.

Teachers across the province have already done everything they can to change this government's mind about education changes, but the changes are so undemocratic and will damage education so badly that teachers have no alternative but to launch a province-wide walkout.

Teachers want this government to listen to what they have to say. Teachers know far better than the minister or his colleagues how much preparation time they need to provide a quality education to our children. Teachers know that people without teaching certificates may have very good skills but have not been trained to deal with a class of 40 or 50 children.

Teachers are frustrated and very disturbed by the fact that they have been denied access to the education minister's e-mail. I tried it myself. The message I got was "Access forbidden" -- very typical of this government, ramming legislation through without planning, consulting or listening.

The Minister of Education doesn't expect that there will be a teachers' strike. We know that a walkout is coming. As a parent and a grandparent, as a member of this Legislature, I fully support any action the teachers will take to get the message across to this government that we care about the education of our children right across this province.

SATELLITE SERVICES

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I recently had the great pleasure of joining in a groundbreaking ceremony in Montague township for the first of two Canadian gateway sites for advanced mobile satellite services. Canacom, in partnership with Globalstar, is investing $15 million in this site in Montague township which will link up eastern Canada with a constellation of 48 satellites and provide international mobile communication services in remote areas.

There will be only two such sites in Canada, with the other being in Calgary, Alberta. This will make Smith's Falls and area a prime location for a call centre for the banking industry. The primary market is customers who travel worldwide. The product includes an affordable array of mobile services such as call forward, call waiting, conference, message and fax transmission.

I was pleased to join the representatives of Industry Canada, the companies, the reeve and the mayor to launch the construction of a high-tech site that will give tourists, international business travellers and people in rural areas first-rate cell phone access.

Most important: It will create 35 new jobs in the riding of Lanark-Renfrew.

BRING YOUR TEACHER AN APPLE DAY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The Liberal caucus is designating this Friday, October 10, as Bring Your Teacher an Apple Day all across Ontario. We encourage all students, parents and all the partners in education to bring the teachers in their local schools an apple. This is a very real way for the partners in education to show their opposition to Bill 160 and to show that teachers are important and that education is our future and that Bill 160 erodes rather than enhances the future of education for the students we love and care for.

Bill 160 is rotten to the core, and for the healthy growth of students and the nurtured blooming and maturing of our educational system, it must be drastically altered. Our teachers deserve to have the respect and appreciation of the Mike Harris government, something sorely lacking now. As we enter the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, it affords us a perfect opportunity to count the blessings we have. The students, parents and partners in education can manifest in a very real and tangible way that teachers are special and deserve recognition.

The Liberal caucus encourages all Ontarians to take

part in Bring Your Teacher an Apple Day this Friday, October 10, and is happy and proud to sponsor this event. Bring your teachers an apple.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): When I do so on Friday, I'll also bring a copy of Dalton McGuinty's private member's bill from 1992, I can assure you.

CLOSURE OF OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): We learned with shock this week that the Ombudsman's office in the city of Timmins is shutting down. For members of this assembly to know what this means, all the people of Cochrane North, all the people of Cochrane South, into Timiskaming and part of Nickel Belt, use the Ombudsman's office as their last recourse when bad decisions are made by the government, their only opportunity to have somebody independently look at what the government has done, to look at whether the process was fair and was followed properly, and if it wasn't, how you redress that.

I'm calling on this government and I'm calling on the members of this House to make sure that the Office of the Ombudsman's budget is adjusted so we can ensure that we keep that office in Timmins in place, that serves everybody from Timmins all the way up Highway 11 to the James Bay coast. If we don't have it, it means that people in Cochrane South and in Cochrane North are going to lose their ability to complain against this government. Maybe that's what the agenda of this government is.

I just want to quote from the yearly report of the Ombudsman, Ms Roberta Jamieson, who I think put it aptly when she said, "It has become a basic feature of our democracy that individuals who believe they have been treated unfairly in the provision of public services have a right of recourse to seek redress." With this decision, we will lose that right in Cochrane South and North.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRE

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Last week it was my pleasure to attend the opening of the new community care access centre in Hamilton, along with the Honourable Cam Jackson, minister responsible for seniors.

The CCAC is the new coordinating hub for home care and health placement services in our area. The centre will provide residents of Hamilton one-stop shopping for their long-term health care needs as well as acting as a central dispatch for inquiries on a wide variety of services.

The community care access centres were an initiative of this government as part of its move to focus our spending on services to people, but the implementation of the centres took more than government fiat. It took the sincere initiative of hundreds of dedicated employees across the province and a particularly outstanding team at our centre in Hamilton.

Terry Shields, chair of the volunteer board, in her address at the opening ceremony mentioned time and again the "service first" philosophy of the people at the centre. Terry's own words said it best: "These staff will be the backbone of the community care access centre. They will continue to be the lifeline to people in the community who count on them for their caring, their professionalism and their service."

It's initiatives like the CCAC that show how we can do better for people when we concentrate our resources on front-line services ahead of expanding bureaucracy. I would like to extend to the staff and volunteers my sincere best wishes.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on administration of justice and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 153,

An Act to provide more protection for animals by amending the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr90,

An Act respecting the City of York.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr87,

An Act respecting the Korean Canadian Cultural Association of Metropolitan Toronto.

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

Introduction of bills? Motions? Statements by ministries?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent from all parties to allow the Minister of Education and Training to make a statement with regard to the impending crisis of a possible walkout of all the teachers, disrupting the education of students in this province.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent for a statement by the Minister of Education? Agreed? No.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week in this House you made a commitment to release your numbers that would show the impact of your downloading on municipalities right across this province. Yesterday, what did we receive? Nothing but a worthless pile of paper that everyone is calling a farce.

Hazel McCallion, the mayor of Mississauga, said she has absolutely no confidence in your numbers. The mayor of Sudbury -- remember him? -- a former Conservative member, Jim Gordon, said he was disappointed with the numbers. Brampton Mayor Peter Robertson doesn't have any confidence in your numbers either.

Minister, how can anyone believe that your downloading will be revenue-neutral when mayor after mayor right across this province is suggesting that your numbers are nothing but bogus? How can anyone believe you?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It's very interesting. I also saw Mayor McCallion's comments. She hadn't received the numbers yet, but she was convinced that she wouldn't like them.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: I can tell the members opposite that there were 815 packages of material couriered out yesterday. Some municipalities got them yesterday and some will be receiving them today. It depends on how quickly the couriers can get them around the province.

The numbers are an expansion of the numbers that were put out on August 6. At that time we gave the upper tiers the numbers. We've now distributed the numbers as to how they can be assigned to the lower tiers. The ball is now in the municipalities' court to tell us how they want to distribute those numbers between the upper and lower tiers.

Mr Cordiano: Minister, what's really interesting is that you, along with your ministry, have no confidence in your own numbers. Why? Because you've created all kinds of loopholes to weasel your way out of making any real commitments. The fine print tells us the real story. Everything is subject to regulations that have yet to be passed and is conditional upon municipalities reaching agreement among themselves. There's nothing in this document that proves your case that this is revenue-neutral. I ask you again to live up to your commitment and release the real numbers. Can we have the real numbers today?

Hon Mr Leach: We not only provided the real numbers, all of the numbers, to the municipalities, we gave them options because there are different ways to deal with the numbers. It depends on how the upper tier wants to distribute the numbers to the lower tier. They can do it by assessment, they can do it by population, they can do it by caseload. Not only did we give them one number, we gave them the three numbers so that they can review those. We're setting up meetings with each one of the municipalities to go over the numbers line by line so they can understand how they were established.

We provided the assumptions that were behind those numbers so they can comment on how the assumptions were reached to develop the numbers. All that information has gone to them. The ball is now in the courts of the municipalities to get back to us. When we get the answer back from them, we'll be able to proceed to the next step.

Mr Cordiano: It's obvious, Minister, you can't produce any real numbers because you don't have any. Your numbers are like watching an episode of The X-Files. No one can explain them and they're completely bizarre. The truth is out there. All you have to do is listen to the municipalities. Listen to the mayor of St Catharines, Al Unwin. He doesn't believe your numbers and he doesn't believe you will honour your commitment to the transitional funding you've promised.

I want to ask you, Minister, on behalf of all the municipalities out there, will you guarantee in legislation long-term transitional funding that you claim will make everything revenue-neutral? Will you guarantee that today?

Hon Mr Leach: We've advised the municipalities that the Who Does What exercise will be revenue-neutral. We've stated that a number of times. I stated it to the regional chairs and the county wardens in Sudbury last Sunday and Monday. We've set up the funds that are there to make sure it is revenue-neutral. I think all the municipalities know that when this government states it's going to do something, this government does something. We are known for keeping our promises and this is another promise that will be kept.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. You appear to be determined to take our students and our educational system into a confrontation that no one wants, that you claim you don't want, yet you have provoked this fight at every turn. You and Mike Harris say, "We'll talk to teacher representatives," and then the Premier says, "But they can't be trusted." You say, "Let's talk," and then you force through the second reading of your education bill the night before the talks are to take place. This morning, you were still laying down your bottom lines. You say you want quality education, but you said again this morning you want it at the lowest possible cost.

Minister, your determination to pay for your government's tax cut on the backs of our children is still driving your agenda. You are picking this fight with teachers so you can get the tools you need to get the money you're looking for. Our teachers deserve better than this fight and our students deserve better than the cheapest possible education. There is still a chance to prevent this confrontation. You have to back off your bottom lines. Will you back off your determination to pay for your tax cut on the backs of our teachers and our students?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Fort William for the question. We had a meeting this morning. We were able to talk, to present the challenges before our school system to have the best-quality system in Canada.

I can say this to the member for Fort William: You probably disagree with the findings of the Education Improvement Commission that said that for too long we have measured our success in our schools by virtue of how much we've spent, not the results that our schools produce. We believe the way to measure our success in education is by the performance of our students. That's the track we're on. That's why we're committed to making improvements in our school system, to making sure our students have access to the highest quality of education in Canada. That is our first and foremost commitment.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, your agenda hasn't changed. All you are prepared to talk about is how you are going to take money out of education and how you're going to do that by taking teachers out of the education system.

There was a group of secondary school principals here yesterday. One secondary school principal tried to tell you what your plan to use unqualified teachers in our classrooms would mean to her school. She said it would mean 34 fewer teachers in her school alone. She said your plan to have teachers spend more time with students would actually mean about 50 fewer teachers to work with students. Multiply those numbers for just one school by 5,000 schools and you will very quickly get the 10,000 fewer teachers you've set out to get in the first place.

In that one secondary school alone, you are also going to lose 22,618 hours of volunteer teacher time spent on everything from tutoring to working with students on the school newspaper. Cutting teachers out of the system does not give us better education. It is not better for kids. Will you back off your plan to cut costs by cutting teachers?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let's be very clear. Under the recommendations of the Education Improvement Commission or anything this government has proposed, the vast majority of people in the classrooms of the schools in Ontario will be certified teachers. They are now; they always will be. That's the backbone of our education system.

The question before us and the issue raised by the Education Improvement Commission is how to augment teachers with other experts from other fields who can help in the learning process. That's the challenge that's before us. This morning I was able to talk with the union heads and ask them for their suggestions on how we can do that, how we can meet not only the current needs of our students, but the future needs of our students, and what the protocol should be for having experts back up certified teachers.

I'm looking forward to having the teachers' unions and others provide us with proposals that will allow us to do just that: make sure our students have the best experts available to help their teachers.

Mrs McLeod: I'm holding in my hand a confidential document. It shows this minister's real agenda. It's called "Conversation with the minister." It tells us where you think education should be going, and it doesn't seem to include teachers. You think students should learn by computer. You say you'll have to figure out some role for educators in the John Snobelen classroom of tomorrow. You even want to combine the Ministry of Education with the Ministry of Economic Development. It shows what value you place on education, Minister. It is only too clear from this document that you are going to cut costs by cutting teachers out of the education system.

Your government's willingness to sacrifice public education to your tax cut is truly frightening. Your so-called vision for an education system without teachers is even more frightening. You cannot provide a quality education without qualified, committed teachers. Minister, will you back off your plan to pay for your tax cut by taking teachers out of our education system?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me be very clear to the member for Fort William. Nothing will ever replace highly qualified, well-motivated teachers in our school system as the backbone of an excellent school system. That's exactly why we are undertaking the kinds of reforms we are in education: curriculum that has exact standards year by year to help our teachers; province-wide, standard report cards so everyone can be clear about how a student is progressing; the reforms and changes that are anticipated under the bill before the House right now to make sure we have funding for all of our classrooms and for all of our teachers right across the province that meets student needs.

That's why we're changing education: to provide more backup for our teachers, because we believe that now and in the future they will be the backbone of the best education system in Canada. Let's be very clear about that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. I want to take stock as to exactly where your Minister of Education has education in this province headed. Your Bill 160 confirms that you want to replace teachers with uncertified, untrained people in the classroom. Your own government confirms that you want to eliminate at least 4,000 teaching positions. We now have a secret ministry document that reports that you want to try to replace teachers with computers. Your Minister of Education met with teacher representatives today and basically told them to go home and find ways to take money out of the system.

Your Minister of Education has us headed towards a huge confrontation with teachers in this province, and children are going to suffer. It's time for you to show leadership. You met with labour leaders over Bill 136. Will you do the same now with teachers and head off the confrontation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'll refer it to the Minister of Education.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me be clear to the leader of the third party that we had a meeting this morning. I invited the presidents of the unions to come to a meeting this morning. They did, and we had a chance to discuss the issues before us.

I was able at the start of that meeting to go over the times we've listened to the teachers' federations and unions over the past few months. When they assured us that the right to strike would not ever jeopardize the education of a student, we listened to them. When they said that having principals be part of the bargaining unit was important because principals would be above the fray any time there was a dispute, we listened to them. When they said it was important for the Ontario Teachers' Federation to retain the statutory right to represent teachers because they are professionals and need that sort of body, we listened to them.

So we're building on that record of listening, of being open to their concerns and being able to approach the improvement of education for our students from the point of view of putting people together and listening to what they have to say.

Mr Hampton: My question was to the Premier, because we all know what this Minister of Education has accomplished. He has called students across the province mediocre. He has said they're at the end of the train, the caboose of the train. He regularly goes around the province insulting teachers, and he has marched us into this confrontation.

I asked the Premier a question because it's obvious to everyone that if your government wants to avoid a confrontation in this province, Premier, you have to step in; you have to show some leadership. Premier, will you do that? Will you sit down with the representatives of the teachers' federations and will you put an end to the kind of confrontation tactics that your Minister of Education has practised? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps I can give the leader of the third party an opportunity to correct the record, because if he examines the record he will find that we have said that student performance in Ontario is mediocre versus other provinces in Canada and other countries and that this simply is not a reflection of the abilities of our students. We think they're the best students in Canada, and their performance should be the best in Canada. We think our teachers are the best in Canada, and therefore we must give them the backup, the curriculum and the resources they need in order to make sure we have the best system in Canada.

That's what we've said. We've said that time and time again. I have stood in this House, in this chamber, and everywhere else I've been in Ontario and said that Ontario has the best-qualified teachers in Canada and we need to resource them properly so they can do the best job.

Mr Hampton: Let me go back to the Premier again because this is the problem that the Premier has to deal with. The Premier has a Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier who goes to Harvard University and delivers a speech, and in this speech he says, "The greatest strength of our economy is our highly skilled and educated labour force." In other words, he says that one of the reasons we do so well in terms of our economy is because we have a well-educated, highly skilled labour force. Then we have the Minister of Education, who charges around the province and elsewhere and says the performance is mediocre, that people's achievement levels are mediocre.

That's exactly why no one has any faith in this Minister of Education. The Premier goes to Europe and tells everyone we have a good education system. The Minister of Finance goes to Harvard University and tells everyone we have an excellent education system and a well-skilled workforce. Then we've got this Minister of Education who runs it down.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: Premier, that's why you have to intervene. No one has any faith in this Minister of Education. No one believes him. No one gives him any credibility. Will you intervene to --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps I can clear this up for the leader of the third party. The strength of Ontario has always been a well-trained workforce of people who are well educated. For many years, education was valued in Ontario. However, under your government, sir, with fuzzy standards, with fuzzy outcomes, with no commitment to the performance of our young people in systems where you measured our success by how much you spent, not how well our students did, that has deteriorated.

This government has been working hard and continues to work hard to answer the challenge, to have the best education system not just for today but for the future of this province. That's why we're working so hard.

I'm glad I had a chance to clear this up for the leader of the third party.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: Let me go back to the Premier, since I think he needs to show some leadership on these issues.

Premier, I want to quote a letter. This is a letter from one of your MPPs, Mr Al McLean from Simcoe East. Mr McLean was responding to a letter from a teacher. The teacher had raised the issue with him that he was not happy with Bill 160 and that a lot of other teachers were not happy.

Mr McLean responds to the teacher this way. First of all, he says he believes that the College of Teachers may discipline any teacher for unacceptable action, and then he says to the teacher, "I'm going to send a copy of your correspondence to the Minister of Education, the College of Teachers and to the Simcoe County Board of Education," the teacher's employer. In other words, when someone tries to raise an education issue with your government, your response is to say to the teacher: "We're going to report you. We're going to bully you." Premier, is that your government's approach? Is that your approach to education issues?

Hon Mr Harris: If you'd like me to take a look at the letter, I'd be happy to. It sounds like a constituent talked to his member of Parliament, and he referred it to all the appropriate people.

Mr Hampton: Premier, I'm going to send over a copy of this letter. But this letter that went from the member for Simcoe East follows the lead of the conduct of your Minister of Education. That's why you need to show some leadership and you need to get involved in this situation. If you care about Ontario's school system, if you care about the children who are in that school system, you have to get involved to head off this kind of confrontation and intimidation.

Will you do that, Premier? Will you be the voice of reason in this and head off the confrontation that your Minister of Education has escalated everywhere in the province? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: The Minister of Education.

The Speaker: Minister

Hon Mr Snobelen: Leader of the third party, I want you to know that today when we met with the heads of the teachers' unions in what I think was a constructive session, I asked them how to help us get to our mutual goal of having the highest student performance in Canada. I told them we clearly wanted to make sure that our class sizes didn't continue to grow as they did, sir, under your government. I said that we wanted to make sure our students had more time on task, as students in other provinces do. I told them we want to have a protocol for using experts to help teachers in the classroom.

I told them we wanted to make sure that our secondary school teachers met the reasonable request of spending the same amount of time in class as their colleagues in other provinces. I suggested to them that we were open to listening to their suggestions on how to make these improvements.

That's real consultation. That's a real, genuine request for input, and that's a hallmark of this government.

Mr Hampton: I'll go back to the Premier again. You should know what teachers' representatives said coming out of the meeting with your Minister of Education. The Minister of Education would give no guarantees that there would be reinvestment in the classroom. The Minister of Education would give no guarantees that the funding formula would be made public so that people concerned with education across this province would know how much money their children are going to have in the education system.

The only thing the Minister of Education would talk about is how teachers should go back to their communities and find ways to enable this government to get the money out. That's what the whole conversation was about.

Premier, will you show some leadership, leadership that the Minister of Education has failed totally to show? Will you meet with teachers' representatives and talk about the real issues in education, discuss real solutions rather than more ideology from the Minister of Education? Will you do that? Will you meet with teachers?

Hon Mr Harris: The Minister of Education.

The Speaker: Minister

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm glad I have a chance to clear this up for the leader of the third party. I very directly put to the heads of the unions the challenges that face us. We put solutions before the people of Ontario, but we're willing to listen to their solutions.

These are very real issues. The leader of the third party should know that the growth in class size that has happened over the last decade is unacceptable to students and to parents, and we are suggesting a solution to that. We are also willing to listen to the teachers' solution to it.

He should know that the time on task has been identified as something that stands in the way of our students having the best performance in Canada. We intend to address that in the legislation we have before the House. We're willing to listen to other solutions. That's the process of consultation we've invited the teachers' unions to.

I have said today, as I have said in the past, that we're willing to pursue any process they suggest that would have us arrive at a solution. We're willing to listen to theirs.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Premier. I'd like you today to stand accountable for the Harris health system you've created and to deal with some of the consequences.

There are a couple of studies that have come out, one in the recent issue of Canadian Family Physician, which show how much young doctors, the doctors we pay thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of dollars to train, think of the Harris Ontario as a place to practise, a place to care for people. In a recent survey, 48% of the residents in family medicine say they're going to practise in the United States, and that's a jump from 17% before the measures you put into place restricting this health system.

Premier, you need to stand today and tell us and the people who live in Kitchener-Waterloo, in Peterborough, in Windsor, who have to travel long distances trying to find doctors, why the only underserviced area you seem to be successful at helping is the United States. Will you tell us today?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As you know, we concluded successful negotiations with the doctors both to talk about areas of their involvement in health care decision-making and in terms of payment. I don't know if you're suggesting that we should give doctors more control or more money, but please tell us what your answer to that is.

Mr Kennedy: I appreciate it, Premier. We'll be happy to run the Ministry of Health if you want to hand it over. You seem not to have any interest yourself.

Premier, 30% of the orthopaedic surgeons who graduated recently have left. Another 23% say they're actively looking to the US.

You say you've made promises, and you have. You've made promises to communities. You said $5 million for a medical services corps, but not one contract has been signed, not one in the last six months. You talked about globally funded group practices in northern communities, and only one out of 29 communities has signed on to that because what you've come up with is so unworkable.

The Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities says it doesn't want coercive measures. What they want is a Premier and a minister and a government to look after the health system, to keep new doctors in this province and to do, not just talk about it.

Will you stand today and say you'll sit down with the interns and residents and find practical ways to keep them in this country and stop training doctors for the United States, because you won't give us a quality health care system here in Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: Of course we're always prepared to meet with all the professionals and non-professionals, those involved in all our systems, including doctors, and of course including the interns. As you know, the recent negotiations provided incentives for interns to go into underserviced areas. The information I have, and I don't have it in front of me, is that there are actually now fewer doctors leaving for the United States than there were either under your government or under the NDP.

If you think you have a better solution -- I might add, first of all, you say that we're spending too much on doctors, that we gave them too much. Now you're saying we should give them more, I guess. Here is what Darlene Barnes, CEO of Humber hospital, says about the kind of question you asked: "While there are many issues and challenges in merging organizations, consolidating service, impacts on our patients, staff and community members" --

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

Hon Mr Harris: -- "you seem more interested in generating fear within the community around the safety and quality of care provided individuals, regardless of whether or not the facts support" --

The Speaker: Thank you.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the minister responsible for municipal affairs: This is the pile of paper the Minister of Municipal Affairs sent to municipalities today, and there is nothing in it. There is no information in it about the government's so-called transition fund. There is no new information about seniors' housing or social housing and how municipalities are supposed to handle that. There is nothing in it that contradicts everyone's belief that your download is going to be in excess of $1.2 billion a year on to municipalities. There is nothing in this document for municipalities whatsoever.

Can you tell us, are you just inept? Is that why you couldn't provide them with any information? Are you just inept or are you trying to hide the information until after the municipal elections?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): We have provided the municipalities, as we said we would -- on August 6 we said we would give them the breakdown of the numbers on each program. Not only did we give them the numbers on each program, we gave them numbers on each option they would have. We gave them the numbers if they want to distribute the funds from the upper tier to the lower tier by population, if they want to distribute the numbers from upper tier to lower tier by assessment, or if they want to distribute the funds by caseload.

We wanted to make sure the municipalities had the right to select which option best suited their needs. I don't know how much more information they could get. They're probably suffering from information overload: three sets of numbers.

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

Hon Mr Leach: The options are now theirs: how they want to distribute the numbers from the upper tier to the lower tier. The ball is now in their court. When they get back to us with that information we will be able to decide --

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: You could have saved yourself a lot of time. You could have simply stood up and admitted there is no new information here. Virtually every mayor in the greater Toronto area says this amounts to nothing more than a pile of paper. For that matter, all the mayors and reeves of northern Ontario got a note saying you don't have any information for them; you won't have any information for them until later.

Minister, do you not understand what is happening here? You're downloading at least $1.2 billion in new costs on to municipalities. You are forcing municipalities to pick up the cost of ambulances, you are forcing them to pick up the cost of seniors' apartments and social housing, you are forcing them to pick up the cost of public health, you are forcing them to pick up more of the cost of child care, of social assistance.

Reeves and mayors across this province deserve some information they can use. When are you going to give them real information, disclose the real numbers? When are you going to stop trying to hide the numbers?

Hon Mr Leach: We provided the numbers the municipalities need to make the decision on how they're going to distribute the cost between the upper tier and the lower tier. Again, we provided them with more than one number. We provided them with the ability to make that decision themselves. I know the member --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: I repeat that the municipalities have been provided with the numbers they asked for. The ball is now in their court to get back to us and tell us how they want to distribute those funds between the upper tier and the lower tier. Once we know that and we know the effect on each of the lower-tier municipalities, we'll be able to distribute the community reinvestment fund so that every municipality will come out revenue-neutral. It will be revenue-neutral, as we have stated, and the numbers that have been provided are another step in the process of ensuring the municipalities that's going to happen.

I guess it's a surprise to some of the members of the opposition that we're in the process of a municipal election and it suits some local politicians not to be satisfied with anything.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I understand last week you announced your program with students involving local air monitoring. I'm wondering if you would expand on that announcement here in the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I know we'll all want to hear the answer.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know you will.

My ministry is working with schools, teachers, students and some corporate sponsors to bring an exciting new program to our high schools across Ontario called Partners in Air.

Last week I visited Hammarskjold High School in Thunder Bay and met with 30 grade 13 and grade 12 high school students. These students will be participating in experiments to measure the quality of air in their community. In addition to undertaking these measurements, they will be entering those results on a Web site and sharing those with a number of other schools across our province.

This program will engage our students in a brand-new endeavour, a brand-new area of interest in our environment; that is, the quality of our air. They're going to participate. They're going to understand how valuable this resource is and how important it is to protect it.

Mr Danford: It's great to see that government and students and corporate sponsors cooperatively can participate in a program such as Partners in Air. What I'm wondering is, what other communities and companies --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Hamilton East and Ottawa West, I want to be able to hear the question. It's difficult.

Mr Danford: The question is, I'm wondering what other communities and companies are involved in this process and how other communities could become involved in this endeavour.

Hon Mr Sterling: We presently have contacted 12 different high schools across our province. Besides Thunder Bay, high schools particularly interested in environmental studies in Sudbury, Huntsville, Ottawa, Scarborough, Etobicoke, Hamilton, Windsor, London, Cobourg, Sarnia and North Bay will all be involved. I want to tell you, the teachers and the students in these schools are very excited about this program.

In addition, the best part of this whole program is that it not only brings together my ministry with young people across this province, but it also brings together large corporations that are concerned about our air quality. They are stepping forward at a very rapid pace to become involved and sponsor these individual schools across our province. I think it's a tremendous program for our students, for our corporations and for this government.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is for the Attorney General. It deals with a young woman who was found dead in her bed in February 1993. Cara Taylor was 17 years old. She was savagely beaten, raped and murdered. She was found with duct tape over her mouth, shot in the head.

There was an arrest made very quickly thereafter and Cara's parents were informed that the crown wanted to proceed with a plea bargain of nine years, which as we know would see the accused out in as little as three years in what was a very vicious crime. The family refused; the accused went to trial. He was found guilty, but a new trial was ordered.

The family has been trying to meet with you, Minister, over the last two years because they are concerned about the potential for a new plea bargain. They are worried that their daughter's interests will not be protected and that they will not be involved in the decision-making. Will you not meet with the family? They've already suffered so much. Give them some peace of mind.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): These are obviously very important questions, and I appreciate the question from the member. I can tell you that crown counsel, in these kinds of cases, are involved at the most senior levels. They will be involved in this case, assuredly, at the most senior levels. They will no doubt be dealing directly with the family, to keep them apprised of every step that's being taken. We'll consider the wishes of the family and work with the family in terms of the prosecution.

Ms Castrilli: I agree with you that this is a very serious matter. You yourself have known about this matter for some time. I have in my possession a letter from the Premier, when he was leader of the third party, to Mr Taylor indicating that he was referring this matter to the justice committee of your party, of which you were a member. We also have a letter from the member for St Catharines, who has asked you as well to meet with the family because all other avenues appear to be exhausted.

Your record on plea bargaining is not good. We've asked you time and time again to draft some clear guidelines to ensure that families are consulted. We've seen a deplorable result in the Homolka case, in the deal with the devil which has outraged people all across the country. You have made tremendous cuts to your ministry, which allow very little time for crown attorneys to deal with these cases and prosecute them to the fullest extent.

You have an opportunity now to do the honourable thing: to meet with the family, to draft some clear guidelines and to prevent another travesty of justice. I ask you, will you not do that?

Hon Mr Harnick: As I have indicated, senior crown counsel have been meeting with the family and will continue to meet with the family. They will continue to consult with the family. That's exactly what the member has asked and that's the proper approach.

In terms of how cases are dealt with, they're dealt with by professional crown attorneys, senior crown attorneys who are very experienced in dealing with these matters and appreciate the need to deal with families of victims of crime and work with them. That's what's happening in this case, that's what the general protocol is, that's what the Victims' Bill of Rights provides, and that's exactly what's happening in this situation.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Premier, we read last week in the October 2 edition of Eye magazine, a widely distributed Toronto weekly, about your family values caucus. One of the members of that so-called family values caucus said, "We're anti-faggot." Premier, why do you tolerate and condone that language and the views it represents, and what are you going to do about it?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Of course I don't condone nor will I tolerate that language. The only place I've seen it is in some tabloid and from you today.

Mr Kormos: Premier, please, I'm not sure you understand how serious this is. Nigger, kike, faggot -- it's all the same. This is language of violence, it's language of bigotry, it's language of hatred. It's language that breeds violence, bigotry and hatred. Your family values caucus has acquired a notoriety here in Ontario. Will you please determine whether or not it indeed was one of your backbenchers who would use such language and promote such views, and take appropriate action.

Hon Mr Harris: I thought I made it very clear that I find that language offensive. It is not to be tolerated and will not be tolerated by me. Other than some allegation in a tabloid magazine, if you have anything else, other than that and the words I've heard from your lips, I've never heard of it -- and I have checked into it -- nor have any of the caucus members, to the best of my knowledge. If you have information other than some tabloid allegation, an unnamed source, please pass it on to me instead of trying to use your rhetoric to inflame the situation.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a question for the Minister of Education. I read recently with great interest a report that was commissioned by the Waterloo region and written by an assistant professor of economics at the University of Waterloo, Dr Larry Smith. The report points out that since 1990, all the new jobs in our region have gone to skilled labour. Dr Smith states that in order to prepare individuals for the skilled workforce, we need to have a much-needed sense of employers' views of what are essential skills.

In response to the report, the president of Conestoga College, John Tibbits, has stated that there is a shortage of skilled labour to the point that a number of major companies in our region question whether they can continue to expand in our area. We have a terrible shortage of tool and die workers. Our industries are having to go to England and Germany to get these highly qualified individuals.

How important do you as the Minister of Education consider the development of the higher technical trade skills training in our schools?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Kitchener for the question. I believe it's obvious that the skilled trades are very important to the future of our province and the future of your region. Therefore, attention must be focused on training and skills development in Ontario. That's why we've taken on the reform of the apprenticeship system in Ontario, an apprenticeship system that's governed by

an act that's older than many of the apprentices in our system. As part of our reform of apprenticeship, we've gone out and asked industry, employers and employees for their opinion on how we can reform our system. In fact, we've surveyed many hundreds of people involved to find out what they would do to improve the system.

At the end of the day, we want to make sure our new system of apprenticeship in Ontario has a lot more input from employers and employees, because they have the information that will allow us to identify very quickly what the demands of our changing economy and our changing workplace will be and to meet those demands. So I'm pleased to inform the member for Kitchener that we're well under way with an apprenticeship review and reform in Ontario that will benefit all the people of Ontario.

Mr Wettlaufer: The Education in Waterloo Region report raises two points I think are both very important and interrelated. As well, according to the dean of technology of Seneca College, Dr Tony Tanner, 50,000 skilled workers in the Ontario auto industry are going to retire. The auto industry faces a very real possibility of a shortage of skilled labour in the near future. The report points out that high school students who don't pursue a post-secondary education are destined to be in and out of deadend jobs.

At the same time, the report points out that the principal role of secondary schools is to prepare the student for post-secondary education, not to prepare the student directly for the labour force.

I find these findings very disturbing from the standpoint that the entire secondary educational system appears to be geared to a feeder program to the university system. Students who are not interested in following a university path may in essence be viewed as second-class students. What steps have you considered to elevate the importance of technical trades skill training in our schools in order --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Kitchener, thank you.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I thank the member for Kitchener for the excellent, if somewhat long, question. The point that's raised by the member is a valid one. One of the great opportunities for secondary school reform is to address the 60% or 70% of our students who do not immediately go on to college or university but turn to the world of work or training. For those students, our system of education simply hasn't been up to the same level of standards and service that it has been for those students who go on to college and university.

The opportunity before us now in doing secondary school reform is to address that group of people to make sure their needs are met. That's been a central part of our putting together a new program of secondary school education in Ontario and again one of the great possibilities that we have as we move with people through the reforms to that high school system.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE APPEALS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The current public hearings into Bill 142 are giving people a chance to air some extremely important concerns about this legislation. Last week the committee had a chance to hear from the Ombudsman of Ontario. From the beginning, the Ombudsman's office has been the last resort for people who felt that government had done them an injustice.

Ms Jamieson's remarks supported the concerns of people who feel that the appeal mechanisms in Bill 142 are an unprecedented erosion of their rights. The closure of the Timmins Ombudsman's office today further erodes the last resort of appeal for all Ontarians. Minister, I'm sure that is not your intent. Would you please explain?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm sorry, to the honourable member, I didn't hear the last part of his question, but I will respond to what I heard at the first part of the question regarding the Ombudsman's comments.

First of all, and we have clarified it in this House before, we are not removing the right of appeal for people on welfare in the social assistance legislation. It is still there. It's a very important legal foundation, as I understand law, in this country. Secondly, what we are doing is improving the appeal process by adding a new fast-track, if you will, informal process at the beginning, because what has happened is that many individuals on welfare have found the current appeal process to take many, many months and be a very legal process that they sometimes have great difficulty dealing with.

We want to have an appeal process, but we also want to see if we can fast-track and give them some answers within days with the more informal process at the front end of that appeal process.

Mr Morin: Perhaps, Minister, you didn't understand what I was saying.

The committee did say that it was their intent; nothing is in place. You must also not forget that the Ombudsman's office is a court of last appeal, last resort. In other words, you're taking away the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. My concern: What is next to have its wings clipped, the Human Rights Commission, freedom of information, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner?

My question is this: Bill 142 passes on responsibility for administering social assistance to arm's-length municipal agencies over which the Ombudsman's office has no jurisdiction. The appeals process in Bill 142 is extremely complex and unforgiving for people who are already vulnerable. You are creating a paper chase and a blind-alley maze to rival any in government. The appeals tribunal, with limited powers, will function according to the policy directions of the party in power. Will you make the needed change to create a fair and transparent system? Will you protect the rights of people in need for an independent --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the honourable member is well aware, municipalities have been involved in the delivery and the decision-making process of welfare for many years in this province. They will continue to be involved in that. When we talk about delivery agents, that's who we are referring to, the municipalities, and that has been working extremely well. If there are any issues of concern that the Ombudsman has raised that cause legal questions about appeal rights to people who are on social assistance, I'm quite prepared to look at that.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): In the absence of the Minister of Health, I have a question for the Premier.

The towns of Valley East and Rayside-Balfour have been declared underserviced for physicians' services for a long time, but this situation became a crisis for both communities when one of the physicians died and two others departed the community. In response to the crisis, the Centre de santé communautaire de Sudbury, which is a francophone CHC, diverted some of its global budget to fund a doctor two days a week in Rayside-Balfour and another doctor 1.5 days a week in Valley East. They serve primarily a francophone senior population.

Both doctors want to work full-time in the communities under the CHC model, so the centre applied to the Ministry of Health for funding, and this was denied. At the end of October the centre will stop funding these two physicians in these two communities because the board has decided they cannot run in a deficit position.

My question to you, Premier, is, will you ensure that your Minister of Health will fund physicians in these two underserviced areas in the Sudbury region?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'd be happy to ask the minister to look into it, yes.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary; member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): My supplementary is to the Premier. What he suggests has been done; we have approached the minister, and we're getting no satisfaction whatsoever.

I want to assure the Premier that no precedent would be set if this happened, because earlier this spring in the community of Merrickville, in the Solicitor General's riding, a physician left. The mayor and the CHC, the health centre, went to see the parliamentary assistant, the member for Huron, who told them, "No, we can't increase your budget because there's a ceiling on that, a freeze on that, and we simply can't do it." Lo and behold, they went to see the Solicitor General, their MPP. He intervened on their behalf with the Minister of Health, and guess what happened? They were funded. They got enough money to fund the physician.

This matter is urgent. Will you guarantee the same deal for the people of Valley East and Rayside-Balfour that the people in Merrickville got because of the Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Harris: I indicated I would be glad to have the Minister of Health look into it, and the Solicitor General maybe will talk to him and maybe they can all work on it.

We work cooperatively here in all ways to provide services. Thank goodness, I might add, that we've massively increased health care funding so we can help out in these situations.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I understand that you've just returned from several days of meetings with the nation's social services ministers. I have no doubt that a number of very important issues were raised, but in particular, could you advise this House if you dealt with the national child benefit, and if so, could you update the House on the status of that issue?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Yes, I'm very pleased to do so. We had another excellent meeting with the national social services ministers. There has been, I would suggest, quite remarkable cooperation on this initiative between the federal government and the provinces.

As you know, earlier this year the federal government committed additional funding for a national child benefit. The provinces, including Ontario, agreed that that additional funding would be spent to help promote getting families off social assistance into the workforce, and second, to try and focus support in high-risk families.

What we did this week was to agree that another new step, the next step in implementation of this, is a new accountability framework so that the public in all our various provinces will see how this money is being spent, and the measurement for that will start April 1 next year.

Mr Shea: Minister, that was a very helpful and positive response. I'd like to go to another subject, though, on the same issue, that may flow from the minister's meetings. Can you advise the House if the topic of services for the disabled was dealt with, and if so, what was the outcome of the conversation?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): This is not a different subject, I take it; it's a supplementary. You can't go to a different subject.

Mr Shea: I prefaced it that as a result of that meeting, out of that meeting as well probably flowed another issue --

The Speaker: No, you didn't preface it that way, but I will continue. Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the additional topics that was on the agenda did deal with services for the disabled. Ottawa has agreed to extend the vocational rehabilitation program which we share 50-50 to spend for services for the disabled. We approved this week the framework for negotiations so that we can continue that program. That's a very important program that funds many services for the disabled.

The other interesting thing is that because we've heard the message from people with disabilities that they want better-focused supports for employment, the name of that program, the focus of that program and the negotiations will be very much oriented towards employment and assistance to employment, because many people with disabilities can work and want to work. They need the employment supports to make sure that happens.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): In the absence of the Minister of Health, my question is to the Premier. As you know, the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended in Ottawa that two and half hospitals be closed -- the Grace, the Riverside and a large part of the Montfort -- and that some $128 million should be spent on capital renovations on the remaining hospitals. However, the district health council estimates this figure may be well underestimated by some $50 million to $80 million.

The commission has directed that for those hospitals slated for closure, admissions should halt starting in May, which is only eight months away, yet the funding formula to pay for these necessary renovations has yet to be confirmed by the Minister of Health. This is an important detail, holding up the commission's already aggressive time lines. Can the Premier confirm today that the funding formula will indeed be 70% provincial and 30% local, or 50-50 as currently rumoured?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me, since it's my first opportunity formally in the House, congratulate the member on his recent election, representing the citizens of Ottawa West.

I'd be happy to take the specifics of the question up with the Minister of Health, but I can assure you of this: The general direction of the government is that where capital restructuring costs have been agreed upon by the restructuring commission -- and clearly if there is a disagreement with the district health council, the ministry will want to work that out -- the 70% funding formula I think is the one that's been involved, if indeed the project falls under that.

I can also assure the member, since he may want to ask this, I don't know, by way of supplementary, that the inference is that decisions will have to be made on ensuring that equal or better services and facilities will be provided before any others would be phased out.

Mr Cullen: I'd like to thank the Premier for his assistance in this regard. However, it's been nine months since the restructuring commission issued its initial report, and two months from its final report, and yet we're going to see admissions being stopped at these hospitals in eight months' time.

Even at a 30% local share, based on current estimates, the local contribution to these capital costs will be somewhere in the order of $40 million to $50 million, which is beyond the capacity of the local hospital boards to fund-raise. Will the Premier make a commitment today that local property taxpayers will not be asked to fork over property tax dollars to pay for the province's restructuring costs in Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon Mr Harris: I have information that there will be an announcement on capital shortly. As you know, we have allocated $2 billion for restructuring costs. Certainly I don't think all $2 billion will go to Ottawa, but the appropriate portion will come forward to ensure that Ottawa is treated as fairly and, I might add, better than they have under any previous government.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it concerns Bill 160.

"Whereas education is our future; and

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

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

"Whereas we cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers want reinvestments in education rather than reductions in funding; and

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

"Therefore,

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

"Further,

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

I affix my signature to the petition.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition from Bawating Collegiate and Vocational School in Sault Ste Marie. A number of students have signed it. It says:

"Whereas the students and staff of Bawating Collegiate and Vocational School and the people of Sault Ste Marie are gravely concerned about the direction of the education policies of the government of Ontario;

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

"That Bill 160 be withdrawn immediately."

This was given to me for presentation by Sean from Bawating, and I want to thank him for all the work he's done.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 240 people.

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

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Bill 160 violates the democratic values upheld in our schools and society by granting ultimate power to the Minister of Education and his or her cabinet to override any collective bargaining rights or agreements with unchallenged regulations; and

"Whereas Bill 160 grants the Minister of Education and his or her cabinet control of school boards' finances, leaving school boards in the very difficult position of trying to bargain with their employees without jurisdiction over the funds upon which many of the agreements depend; and

"Whereas Bill 160 will lead to more strikes by school board employees (under the present Bill 100, 96% of collective agreements have been settled without the need for striking; under Bill 160 settlements will be extremely difficult to reach due to government control of funds); and

"Whereas the cuts in funding expected under Bill 160 will result in fewer qualified teachers, fewer resources, unqualified teachers in the classrooms, larger classes, which will necessarily lower the present excellent quality of Ontario education; and

"Whereas Bill 160 will result in the demoralization of teachers by the swift, severe and undemocratic cancellation of their contracts and all they have fought for during the past decades to improve the profession; and

"Whereas given the above, Bill 160 will destroy the excellent quality of education that Ontario students now enjoy and benefit from;

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

"Please repeal Bill 160 entirely."

It's signed by some 150 Ontario residents, and I have affixed my signature.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by more than 100 people.

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Women have special medical needs since their bodies are not the same as men's;

"Women's College is the only hospital in Ontario with a primary mandate giving priority to teaching, research and care dedicated to women's health needs;

"The World Health Organization has named Women's College Hospital as its first collaborating centre for women's health in both North and South America;

"Without a self-governing Women's College Hospital, the women of Ontario and of the world will lose a health resource that is not duplicated elsewhere;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the comprehensive model of women's health pioneered by Women's College Hospital through ensuring self-governance of the one hospital in Ontario dedicated to women's health."

I am proud to add my signature.

ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a set of petitions brought forward by the people from Pet Valu in Port Colborne and the Cat Clinic in Niagara Falls that read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas ownership of a domestic animal or pet is a responsibility, not a right; and

"Whereas owners have a responsibility to treat their pet with care and utmost concern for their wellbeing; and

"Whereas cruelty to animals should be punished/

sanctioned with fines, penalties and/or bans on animal ownership; and

"Whereas inspectors of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act should not be obstructed from carrying out their duties to investigate abuse and neglect;

"We, the undersigned, support the amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act."

In support, I have put my signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by parents and teachers from all across northwestern Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas education is our future; and

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

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

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

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

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

"Therefore,

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

"Further,

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

Speaker, if I can beg your indulgence, I want to introduce Sarah Rice-Bredin, page from Thunder Bay who will be leaving us after tomorrow, who's done a marvellous job.

I'm happy to sign my name to this petition.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition regarding the need for a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire in Hamilton.

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

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

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

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

I continue to support my constituents by signing this petition.

ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): A petition from all around the Niagara Peninsula, with probably about 1,000 or so signatures, that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas ownership of a domestic animal is a responsibility, not a right;

"Whereas owners have a responsibility to treat their pet with care and utmost concern for their wellbeing; and

"Whereas cruelty to animals should be punished/

sanctioned with fines, penalties and/or bans on animal ownership; and

"Whereas inspectors of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act should not be obstructed from carrying out their duties to investigate abuse or neglect;

"We, the undersigned, support the amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act."

I affix my signature in support.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 142,

An Act to revise the law related to Social Assistance by enacting the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, by repealing the Family Benefits Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act and by amending several other Statutes; and

"Whereas Bill 142 and its regulations will have a direct and substantial impact on the lives of many people with disabilities and their families;

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

"To urge the government of Ontario to release the proposed regulations related to Bill 142 immediately, so that there can be meaningful public discussion of the changes that will result from this legislation; and to ensure that Bill 142 and its regulations are subject to extensive and public hearings across Ontario so that the people who are affected by this legislation and the related regulations are given adequate opportunity to be heard."

I will sign this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition here from Sean O'Brien in Sault Ste Marie, a student at Bawating Collegiate and Vocational School. He says:

"On Wednesday, September 24, 1997, many students from Bawating Collegiate and Vocational School and other secondary schools in Sault Ste Marie walked out to protest Bill 160. On the day of the walkout we managed to

schedule an appointment with Tony Martin, Sault Ste Marie's MPP. He informed us of our rights of protest and we subsequently made this petition against Bill 160. We obtained approximately 140 signatures from citizens of Sault Ste Marie against this bill. We believe that Bill 160 should not be passed, and if it is, there will be more student protests and walkouts in Sault Ste Marie."

I sign my signature to this as well.

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have another petition here from students in Sault Ste Marie concerned about Bill 160. This has come to my attention via Peter Korab, president of the student council at St Mary's College. He says the following, accompanied by at least 50 letters, some of them handwritten by students from St Mary's College. It says:

"I'm writing this letter to express my concerns over the changes your government is making to the education system in Bill 160.

"Whereas that bill and its effects could be detrimental to the quality of education in this province; and

"Whereas your goal to create a more efficient and cost-productive education system, while laudable, is in direct opposition to the findings of your government's research through the Education Improvement Commission; and

"Whereas I've never heard the exact class size you wish to create, nor has anyone else for that matter, I believe that cutting money from the education system and laying off teachers would do grievous damage to the quality of our educational program; and

"Whereas replacing teachers with uncertified experts also seems to be a questionable decision, because though those people would have the knowledge, they would not have the training to deal with the needs of students and would have difficulty expressing their knowledge to the student; and

"Whereas eliminating preparation time and professional activity days from teachers would prevent them from having an accessible method of upgrading and broadening the curriculum they teach, paying them to stay longer hours seems a dubious method of saving people money, nor does it better the education of those of us who consult with our teachers regularly on our free time; and

"Whereas no teacher of mine has ever said to me that they didn't have extra time in the day to help me or my fellow students with the problems we were having, we feel, however, that your improvements to the education system will create that problem and that every student in Ontario will lose out because of your government's decisions to put profits over personal enrichment. Please withdraw bill 160."

I attach my name to this.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a petition from the St Bernard parent advisory committee. It's addressed to the Minister of Education, Mr Snobelen.

"Dear Mr Snobelen:

"Our children are our future. We cannot allow your government to gut our education system. Education must be protected at all costs.

"Therefore we, as a parent advisory committee, would like to voice our concern with the current bills before the Legislature.

"We, the undersigned, disagree with your massive downsizing plans for the province's educational system."

It's signed by approximately 100 individuals.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas education is our future; and

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

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

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

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

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

"Therefore,

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

"Further,

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

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): I'm sorry, I missed the rotation. I apologize. Further petitions? The member for Hamilton Centre.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness and injury."

On behalf of my caucus colleagues, I add my name to theirs.

OPPOSITION DAY

EDUCATION FINANCING / FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I move that:

Whereas the Minister of Education and Training has said that the provincial government intends to take a further $1 billion away from the education of Ontario children; and

Whereas the Mike Harris Conservative government appears determined to provoke a work stoppage by Ontario teachers, thereby disrupting the education of Ontario students; and

Whereas Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, removes the right of school boards to raise revenue for the purpose of funding local schools and meeting local students' needs; and

Whereas the Minister of Education and Training has stated that the future role of school boards will be limited to negotiating teachers' salaries and benefits while the provincial government limits boards' funds; and

Whereas the Mike Harris Conservative government has created uncertainty about the level of funding that will be provided to school boards for the purpose of educating Ontario children;

Therefore

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario calls on the Mike Harris Conservative government to withdraw Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act; to restore the right to local school boards and teachers' federations to negotiate local, quality learning conditions for Ontario students; and to make public the new funding formula and the exact dollar amounts to be allocated for educating students across the province.

Speaker, I will be dividing my time with my leader and the member for Sudbury East.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): I have just been informed the time is split equally among all the parties, so you can use it how you wish.

Mr Wildman: The reason that we have moved this motion today is because we face a very critical situation with regard to the education of Ontario students. I must say that, considering the importance of this motion and the serious situation we face potentially where the disruption of classes may in fact occur within a number of days in this province, I think it is most unfortunate that there is such a dearth of members on the government side. In particular, the Minister of Education and Training is not present.

I know it's not in order to mention that, so I would not normally have done that, but I find it most inappropriate that the government appears to be giving short shrift to this important debate this afternoon.

Repeatedly since the minister was appointed, since the Conservative government came to power in this province, the minister and his colleagues have indicated that the government believes there is a lot of money wasted in funding education in the province; that in fact billions of dollars could be removed from education funding without affecting classroom education. Of course that shows a complete ignorance or perhaps a deliberate ignoring of the facts. We all know that approximately 70%, on average, of school boards' budgets in Ontario go towards salaries for teachers and education workers -- 70%.

So when the government last year took $400 million out of education over a four-month period -- on an annualized basis close to $1 billion -- it was impossible for those savings to be achieved without adversely affecting classroom education for students in Ontario.

School boards, in response to that, did a number of things. They cut back on junior kindergarten funding. They discontinued daytime adult education programs and shifted adult education simply to continuing education. They cut back on supplies for classrooms and on special programs. Particularly at the elementary level, programs in things like music and art were hurt.

Of particular concern to me, as a parent and someone who is interested in education, is the fact that special education programs were cut. We all know that the law in this province requires school boards to provide special education to students with special needs in Ontario, yet boards found themselves in a situation where they had to cut back. Some boards did not do that. Some boards, instead of cutting, increased taxes to make up for the drop in grants that they receive from the provincial government. This government reacted very angrily to that. It said: "No, that's not what we want.

We don't want school boards to increase taxes." As a result, the minister then levelled his guns at the boards and said, "We're going to take the power of boards to raise taxes away from them so that this won't happen again."

The minister has indicated repeatedly that he intends to take another $1 billion out of education. If, on top of the cuts that have already occurred, the minister intends to take another $1 billion out of education, that means he must cut teachers. There is no other way to do it. The minister himself has admitted that he intends to cut by a little more than 4,000 the number of teaching positions in Ontario. The minister repeatedly says that he is interested in the quality of education for students. He has yet to explain how, by cutting the number of teachers who teach our students, we are going to increase the quality of education.

He has also said, initially at least, that he would replace a number of those teachers who are out of work as a result of his moves with people whom he calls "experts." These are people who could perhaps teach, or have some expertise in music and art, physical education, computers, those kinds of things. He would put those people in the classroom, even though they aren't certified to teach and they've had no pedagogical training, to replace teachers. It is beyond me how this is going to improve the quality of education for students in the province.

He has made it very, very clear that he believes that early childhood educators with diplomas from community colleges should be able to replace junior kindergarten and kindergarten teachers, despite all the studies that indicate the importance of good pedagogy at that level for the success of students throughout not just their educational careers, but through their whole lives. Of course, when the teachers then raised objections to these kinds of plans, the minister also levelled his guns at them, and that's why we face the possible confrontation in this province today.

The fact that we had Bill 160 before the House and then the government introduced a time allocation motion cutting off debate on Bill 160 at second reading indicates to me that in fact the government intends to provoke a confrontation. It appears to me that the only group that wants to have a strike by teachers in Ontario disrupting the education of students is the Tory caucus in this place. The introduction of that time allocation motion was a provocation. It was intended to further demoralize the teachers, make them angry enough that they might take precipitous action.

The minister has said that it's not right to use students as pawns in a political dispute. In fact, he is doing exactly that. He is trying to turn the public against the teachers by saying that if the teachers take action it will hurt the students, ignoring the fact that the teachers intend to do everything they can to protect the students against the actions of this government, against the desire of this government to take $1 billion out of the system to fund a tax cut which will benefit 10% of the population who don't need it.

Bill 160, as a result, constricts the scope of collective bargaining, takes away the rights of teachers to bargain their conditions of work and the learning conditions of their students and takes all power away from local boards to negotiate these matters. It gets rid of local accountability and local governance and control over education. It gives less input to parents and ratepayers about the education in their communities and centralizes all control over education in the Ministry of Education here at Queen's Park. This, from a government that claims to be interested in local autonomy and getting government close to people.

How is it that any ratepayer is going to have any influence over a government where all the decisions about education funding, curriculum, the organization of the schools are made by faceless bureaucrats in this Queen's Park complex? Nobody elects those bureaucrats. They can't be held accountable by local ratepayers. They can't be defeated at the next election if the ratepayers disagree with what they did. It's a complete denial of what this government says it really stands for, that is, local control over government services.

School boards and teachers will only be able to negotiate salaries and benefits. They won't be able to negotiate issues related to quality of education, they won't be able to negotiate issues related to the organization of schools, the size of classes, the number of students per teacher, the number of hours teachers spend in the classroom, the number of hours teachers have for preparation. All these matters will be decided by regulation under Bill 160, decided behind closed doors by the Minister of Education and then rubber-stamped by the cabinet behind closed doors. There will be no input, teachers will not have a say, trustees will not have a say, and there will be no local control.

Of course, the teachers are particularly upset about the fact that this government threatened to take away their right to strike, their right to withdraw their services in a dispute with their employer. The minister has said: "I don't know why the teachers are upset any more. We said we might take away the right to strike," as well as removing principals and vice-principals from the bargaining units and perhaps the requirement that teachers be members of federations in order to teach in the province. "We threatened to do those things, but then we said, `No, no, we wouldn't do that,' and we didn't do it in Bill 160. So why are the teachers mad?"

As I said last night, it's a bit like someone coming along and threatening to bomb your house and then subsequently saying: "No, I won't bomb your house. I'm just going to throw a rock through your front window. I'll just break your front window, so you shouldn't be unhappy any more. I didn't bomb your house, I didn't destroy your home, I just broke your front window."

Teachers believe and we believe as a party that all workers in a democratic society have the right to remove their labour in a dispute with their employer. We believe that all workers in a democratic society have the right to strike to try to win in a contract dispute. We don't advocate strikes, we don't advocate lockouts, but we believe that workers should have the unrestricted right to remove their labour in a dispute. Of course, they have the responsibility then to take the consequences when they do that: the loss of pay, the loss of benefits and so on.

Overall, though, we are particularly concerned about the fact that this government has created so much uncertainty about the level of funding. We have before the House Bill 160, which makes enormous changes in the education system, but the central question is not answered in that bill, and that is, how much money is there going to be for the education of students in Ontario? The government has intentionally not told the school boards, the teachers, the parents, the students and the ratepayers how much money there's going to be in education.

We've repeatedly in this House given the minister and the Premier the opportunity to make it clear that this government will not take any more money out of education, not one more cent; that they will reinvest any moneys they save because of school board restructuring back into education in the classroom for students. Repeatedly, the minister and the Premier have refused to make that commitment. They just completely reject that. They just over and over say, "We will spend what's necessary," which basically means, "We will take money out of the system and we will decide what is necessary," and that will be less than there is now.

Kids' education in Ontario has been hurt by the cuts of this government already. Further cuts in education in the realm of $1 billion will hurt education in the classroom. It will be disastrous for the future of our kids in Ontario. It will mean the end of junior kindergarten, the end of many programs that parents and students want and need to gain the skills they'll require to achieve well going into the 21st century. Teachers know that. That's why teachers are so angry and concerned.

That's why teachers are prepared, if necessary, to disrupt the education in the short term for their students to protect the long-term future for their students. Teachers care about students, they care about learning, they care about learning conditions, and they're prepared to take action if necessary.

It's up to the government now to make the moves, to try to cool the situation, to pull back, to make a commitment that there won't be more money taken out of education, to talk to the teachers and to work out changes that will be beneficial to the students, that will protect the rights of teachers so we can get on with improving the quality of education for all the students in Ontario.

I call on the members of the assembly to support our resolution and to give a message to the Minister of Education and Training and to the government that it's time to work with teachers, with trustees, with parents and all interested in quality education, particularly with students, to improve the quality of education.

The government must withdraw Bill 160, must restore the rights of local boards and teachers to negotiate learning conditions for Ontario students, and above all, the government must make the funding formula public so that we all know exactly how much money this government is prepared to spend on the education of our students in Ontario. I call on all members to support this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): It's my pleasure on behalf of the constituents of Brampton South to join the debate this afternoon on what indeed is a very important issue.

I think it comes as no surprise to any members of this House who are in contact with their constituencies that this is an issue that has been the subject of numerous telephone calls, communications via fax and e-mail and face-to-face conversations. Any of us who have had any connection with our constituencies at all would know that this issue definitely is on the radar screen with our constituents.

What I find interesting, actually, is that this is nothing new. For the past two and a half years since I've been elected, this issue has been I would say at the forefront of the minds of many of my constituents, and I'm sure I'm not speaking alone on this. Making sure that health care is available to all in their time of need and ensuring that our streets and our homes remain safe I think are priority issues for Ontarians. Those are the ones that they tell us time and time again they want to see the government see as priority issues.

That's the mandate this government received. People understood that government was not working for them, that government was trying to be all things to all people. They wanted government to make some real changes in how it did things, but they said the priorities have to be better delivery of health care services, of education for our kids and the way our justice system works to make sure that our streets and homes are safe. So those have to the priorities of any government that is worth its salt, and certainly that is the mandate of this government.

But at the same time, parents in particular have been asking me and my colleagues a number of questions: Why is our student performance not better? It's not the worst in the world by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not the best in the world. It's not even in the top three by any of the indices that are used and generally acceptable in the pedagogical community.

Why are our costs higher than those in other provinces? This goes back to the point that this isn't necessarily about costs per se. I think we all know that parents and taxpayers are willing to pay for a quality education. What they object to is paying near the top of the OECD average, when it comes to per capita spending on education, yet the results are not the worst, but they are middling; they are mediocre. They are not the best for our students when they have to compete around the world for jobs and opportunity.

Why do our students spend less time in terms of educational instruction than high school students elsewhere in Canada? Our proposal on this I think is a fairly reasonable one. Add half an hour a day of instruction time --

Interjection: Eight minutes a period.

Mr Clement: Eight minutes a period, a colleague reminds me, perhaps stretch out the day or the length of time of an average school day, eliminate some professional development days and ensure that as per the Education Improvement Commission report our children spend as much time as is possible in the classroom receiving instruction, having that interaction with the teachers. I think that's a fair question.

All of these questions have come up, at least in my experience, over the last two and a half years. People are not saying that someone is to blame, that the teacher is to blame or the student is to blame or the parent is to blame. Nor are we saying that, and let me repeat this point: I don't think any of us on this side of the aisle are saying that the public enemy number one is teachers. That is not what we're saying at all. In fact, teachers are the victims of this system just as much as students are the victims and parents are the victims.

We've got a system that isn't working as well as it should, given the amount of money we are spending on the system. We've got to change that. I'm not saying it's a dollars-and-cents thing. It is a quality-of-education question. I have talked to a number of teachers. I've visited a number of schools in my riding, not only at school council nights, not only on special nights like that but also in classrooms in the high schools, in the elementary schools, in the middle schools in my riding. I know the frustrations that teachers are experiencing day in, day out in their professional lives.

This didn't start on September 22 with the introduction of Bill 160. This was here. This was building up year after year and indeed over a period of perhaps a decade or a decade and a half, I dare say. As a result of those frustrations, I think teachers are the first to say that we've got to do a better job of qualitatively making sure that our children receive the best-quality instruction imaginable in our system.

By virtue of their profession, certainly, they are not the cause of this problem. They're not. The parents, many of them double-income families, not by choice but because that is what that family has to do to survive, are doing what they can. The students, by and large, want to learn. There are always exceptions, but I think we can safely say that in Ontario the students want to learn.

That begs the question: If all those essential aspects to the education system want it to succeed, the problem is the system itself, the system that has evolved over a period of time, a system that has a lot of resources. Fourteen billion dollars a year is not somehow a low number. That is a very large amount of money on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario.

The questions are, how is that $14 billion spent? How do we construct a system that allows for more instructional time, allows for our children to get the quality and the benefit of teacher instruction which should be second to none? How do we ensure that testing and curriculum are such that our students are given benchmarks and are given goals and encouraged to meet those goals?

That is what we want for our children and that is the system that parents are demanding, not me as a politician standing here in a place in this chamber, but it's what the parents are demanding. It's what the students are demanding. They know when the system is shortchanging them through lack of proper instructional time, through lack of a proper curriculum. They know that and they are willing to work within a system that will allow them to have that curriculum, have that instructional time.

Some of the members opposite say, "Why are you rushing?" Studies and commissions galore have been done. In my lifetime alone -- I've done a little bit of research on this -- there have been 24 separate reviews, 10 commissions and committees, two fact-finding reports, two panels and innumerable meetings to discuss education reform.

As I've said, this has been on the agenda of the public for a good number of years, I would say over the last 10 to 15 years, and now is the opportunity for the government to respond to those demands from parents and students and to act not on behalf of the political class, not on behalf of one particular segment of our society. If I can believe the rhetoric, that is what everybody wants, what the opposition wants, what the teachers want, what the parents want and certainly what the students want, which is better quality education. Our plan was drawn up with that in mind.

Studies are not any substitute for action. We need a new, revitalized curriculum with rigorous year-by-year standards, not fuzzy goals that may or may not be met.

I've read through in its entirety the curriculum proposed by Minister Snobelen on grades K to 8 and I can tell you that in each and every year of that curriculum there is a plan of action for each and every student to obtain the goals that parents would like to have set in the system. We need province-wide testing and we need standardized report cards that will let parents and the students themselves see clearly whether their children are meeting the standards we have set through the curriculum.

All of that is necessary, and we need the Education Quality Improvement Act. That is the next step and is part and parcel of the comprehensive plan to put quality and achievement back in our educational system. How does it do that? If this bill is passed by this Legislature, it will do it by improving the governance of our schools.

An honourable member opposite said that we wanted everything to be decided by this governmental level, by the province of Ontario level. Nothing could be farther from the truth and I want to set the record straight right now.

We want schools to have more say in terms of the application of the curriculum; we want schools to have more say in terms of ensuring that the school is a safe place for our children and for our teachers; we want schools to have more say in the direction of education in that individual school; we have to increase the involvement of the parents, not because we want to give them more things to do but because parents are demanding more of a say in their children's education; and we've got to simplify the financing of our education system.

I need not remind the members opposite -- they were struggling with this when they were in government -- that the funding formula this province imposes upon our education partners has no rhyme or reason. It has been encrusted like barnacles to a ship -- 40 years of decisions, individual decisions perhaps based on individual circumstances. Now the result is that we in Ontario cannot guarantee an equal access to a quality of education for every single student in the system.

I think that is a moral abomination. If we cannot stand up in this House and say that at least we have formulated a system that strives to that goal, an equal access to a quality education, I think we are remiss as members of this chamber. That is why the financing reform has to occur, coupled with, member for Algoma, a funding formula that makes sense. He put it well. That has to be part of the package as well and I join him in anticipating that funding formula as soon as is practicable.

Sometimes we are criticized, Madam Speaker -- I know this will come as a surprise to you -- in this House for acting too quickly; now we are criticized for acting too slowly, because we want to get the funding formula to be a correct funding formula, a funding formula that makes sense for every single student who is currently in the system and will be in the system in the future. I want to make sure, as my colleagues do, that funding formula is the right funding formula, a funding formula we can be proud of. So we anticipate it in the weeks ahead.

This bill will allow the government to set standards for quality -- what a concept: standards for quality -- as demanded by the parents and the students in the system. This includes the amount of instructional time our children receive.

I was talking to a constituent this morning. This is an individual case, I know, and it certainly is not indicative of every teacher in the system, but she said that her child -- she admitted the child was not a very outgoing person, didn't like to speak a lot -- had got through an entire grade, grade 8, and the teacher had not spoken to this child once. My constituent was in tears. She was in tears because the system hadn't worked for her.

This is not an indictment on teachers at all; this is an indictment on a system that has not worked for a parent, and when it hasn't worked for the parent, it hasn't worked for the child as well. I think we can do better than that. I think we must do better than that for that individual case.

We want to have a bill that will promote improved student access to professionals with special expertise, not to replace the teachers, as the rhetoric has it, but to supplement and add to what teachers do so very well in the classroom. In fact, they do it so well we want them to spend more time in the classroom doing what they do well. We want to have specialists in computer technology, the arts and career guidance who will enrich our children's education and broaden their horizons.

My colleague the member for Brampton North, Mr Spina, had a career as a businessperson, but he was also an instructor in the community college system. He also helped our community college students in their goals of understanding not only the academic rigours, but also the rigours of real-life experience. Gee, wouldn't it be nice, not necessarily in an instructional environment, to have the advantage of some of those experiences in the classroom prior to community college or university? I think so.

I think we've got to create a system, and this bill does this, to make sure the system is more accountable to parents by making it mandatory to establish advisory councils in every school. We're not saying every parent has to be involved in the minutiae of every single decision in the school, but wouldn't it be nice to allow parents the opportunity to participate in the school's governance? The principal is there as the manager; we know that. She has the advantage of vice-principals and the staff and department heads. But wouldn't it be nice to ensure that our students and parents have that opportunity as well to be part and parcel of the school environment?

The bill would give the province, not the school boards but the province, the responsibility for setting all educational property taxes via the mill rate or via taking half of it off and putting it on income tax and sales tax revenue generation.

Time and time again we've had a situation, in all our ridings, where funding decisions are bifurcated; that is to say, they are split between the school boards and their budgetary process and the province. Perhaps we're all guilty of this; maybe I can stand at the front of the line.

The fact of the matter is politicians of all stripes have engaged in this process, where a constituent phones up and says, "I'm not happy with some of the choices that have been made at my school in terms of what is funded and what isn't funded." We say: "Oh, well, gee, we don't really make those choices at Queen's Park. We write the cheque, but the choice is made by your school board." Then the hapless voter goes to the school board trustee and says, "I don't like some of the decisions that were made in terms of the funding in the school." They say: "I don't know why you're talking to us. It's the province that writes the cheque." You've got politicians buck-passing.

A system cannot work unless a politician is accoun