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

February 27, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L170 - Thu 27 Feb 1997 / Jeu 27 Fév 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TEACHERS' PROTEST / OPPOSITION DES ENSEIGNANTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING / RESTRUCTURATION DES HÔPITAUX

TEACHERS' PROTESTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TEACHERS' PROTEST

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE IN SUDBURY

ST PETER'S HOSPITAL

DEVELOPMENT IN COBOURG

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

JUSTICE SYSTEM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CHARITABLE GAMING

RAOUL WALLENBERG

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING / RESTRUCTURATION DES HÔPITAUX

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

LONG-TERM CARE

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING / RESTRUCTURATION DES HÔPITAUX

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PRODUCE-YOUR-OWN BEER

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

DRINKING AND DRIVING

FIRE SAFETY

GO TRANSIT

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

FIRE SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STREAMLINING OF ADMINISTRATION OF PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SIMPLIFIANT L'ADMINISTRATION EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TEACHERS' PROTEST / OPPOSITION DES ENSEIGNANTS

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I move private member's notice of motion number 41:

That in the opinion of this House, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should demand that union leaders stop their systematic attempt to politicize the classroom and that teachers' fundamental professionalism be left unfettered so that the trust between teachers, parents and students is not violated.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Doyle, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Doyle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I see that you've had your sling removed as I prepare for my arrows.

I'd like to start this debate today by clearly enunciating that the purpose of this resolution is to protect the professionalism of teachers. It's to ensure that the classroom and the education of our children remain above politics and that the classroom ultimately is concerned with the education of children so that they may attain the valuable tools of knowledge and pursue higher goals and opportunities. That is what this debate is about.

The recent OSSTF campaign to use the classroom as a tool for the debate on education politics and to use our children as bargaining chips severely takes away the valuable time of the classroom, not only taking children away from their path of learning on the road to future goals and opportunities, not only betraying the trust of parents who hand over their children to a school system that is supposed to educate, not indoctrinate, but also diminishing the professionalism of teachers by asking them to participate in political debate by a medium that will only cause a reduction in credibility for teachers who participate, but especially lessens the credibility of the leadership that purports to speak on their behalf.

This resolution will also clearly delineate what the boundaries are for legitimate debate as it relates to education matters and how we deal with future disagreements as we move to improve the education system over the next few months and years.

This is not to say there is not room for protest. Teachers' unions have every right to express their views in public ways, and this is exactly what they do. However, the OSSTF should not attempt to use students as pawns; to do so would greatly diminish credibility that the leadership will have when speaking on education matters.

As I have mentioned earlier, I have serious concerns about the OSSTF directing its members to expend valuable classroom time to further their partisan views in an effort to lobby Ontario's elected officials. At a time when test after test indicates that Ontario's students are indeed below average on many international exams, it would certainly be unwise to jeopardize the learning time in the classroom to areas that are clearly political and partisan in nature.

Classroom instruction is key to the future of our students. As recent performance measures confirm, Ontario students continue to perform at below average compared with their colleagues in other jurisdictions. To counter this trend, we should be maximizing our efforts to focus classroom time on teaching students what they should learn. That is why this government has decided to bring about changes in the education system to improve student achievement and accountability and focus resources on the classroom.

Bill 104 is presently before committee and is one of the pieces of legislation that sparked the OSSTF campaign. The OSSTF has concerns over Bill 104. There is ample opportunity to raise objections to any legislation we bring forth and many avenues to voice those concerns, but using our children in this battle is simply wrong.

Let us analyse what this legislation really does: It reduces the number of school boards and cuts the number of trustees and their pay. This is a goal that many if not most Ontario parents agree with.

Why are we doing this? Between 1985 and 1995 school enrollment increased by 16% yet school board spending increased by 82% and property taxes increased by a tremendous 120%. This doesn't seem like accountability to me. Some may think that student achievement went up in those years. Comparative tests with other jurisdictions show that this simply isn't the case.

These changes are nothing new and many other jurisdictions have already adopted similar reforms. With these changes, parents will have a stronger direct voice in education because it will be entrenched in law that every school must have an advisory school council. These changes we are making will improve the quality of education, with accountability to the taxpayer, and cut bureaucratic waste and duplication. It will ensure that resources are focused on the classroom. That's right, we will focus resources on the classroom, which this recent OSSTF campaign would undermine.

It's my belief that school boards, parents and the majority of teachers do not condone this questionable use of classroom and student time. In fact, I'm sure that most front-line teachers have probably outright rejected this idea -- I'm sure of that -- but we must still raise the issue because even though individual teachers in vast numbers reject the politicization of the classroom, the union leadership has failed in representing the views of those teachers by refusing to withdraw their commitment to this campaign of politicizing the classroom and the curriculum.

That is why today I ask this assembly to support this resolution, in that we may be able to make a statement of principle today that defends and protects the special trust between parent, teacher and student.

I'm not alone in my concerns over the attempt to recruit students and to use the classroom in an organized political campaign. Even many media outlets that are quick to question many of our government's initiatives have resoundingly raised objections to this OSSTF campaign, and I'll quote some of the editorial comments.

First, the Windsor Star says, "We can assure Mr Manners many students, parents and taxpayers will find his game plan an unacceptable and unwelcome intrusion in the halls of learning."

From the Chatham Daily News we have this quote: "Whatever battles Ontario's secondary school teachers have with the Harris government...the classroom is not the place to fight them."

The Hamilton Spectator says, "Classrooms are places for learning, not for partisan political debate, and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation should know the difference."

From the Kirkland Lake Northern Daily News we have this quote: "High school teachers in Ontario are taking their feud with the provincial government into the classroom. And that's the wrong place for any feud."

The Kitchener-Waterloo Record states: "The OSSTF has tripped over this line in a misconceived and illegitimate attempt to enlist students as soldiers in its war against education reform. Shame on the union leaders."

The Ottawa Citizen says: "Classroom time properly belongs neither to unions nor government, but to students. We hope the vast majority of Ontario's high school teachers...will resist this campaign."

The list goes on and on, but I will quote only one more. The St Catharines Standard says, "Nor should teaching and learning time be used to advance political views to a captive audience of young people who largely regard and trust teachers as authority figures."

It is this last comment from the St Catharines Standard that truly hits a chord as to why this orchestrated political campaign is so dangerous. Parents entrust the education of their children to the teacher and to the school system. It is often the experience in the classroom as much as in the home that helps to contribute to the mental and character development of our children. The positive influence that so many dedicated teachers have on our children is enormous. To engage in a political campaign with the classroom as the medium is truly a betrayal of the trust between parent and teacher and between teacher and child.

Parents have varying opinions on government policy. Some parents may agree with the initiatives we're proposing and some may disagree. But one thing is certain: Not everyone has the same opinion. This OSSTF campaign not only assumes that it is speaking for every teacher, it assumes it is speaking for every parent, and this simply is not so.

There are many challenges ahead of us as we make changes to our education system: changes that will improve student achievement, changes that will increase accountability and parental input, change that will ensure that we arm our children with the tools they need for the next century. Those tools are knowledge.

I hope that instead of confronting each other, we can confront the future of education together to widen student knowledge so that they can indeed pursue these limitless goals and opportunities.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I rise to speak against the resolution. It surprises me that the member would bring forth such a resolution. We are an elected assembly of common people, elected by the common people to institute and express the will of the people. If we are here as a House of Commons, if you will, then I think it's important for us to ensure that we are governed by the same laws that apply to the people we represent, and this is where I have trouble with this resolution.

The Ministry of Education and Training has politicized the classroom more than once by ordering government documents that verge on propaganda to be sent home by teachers to the students. A recent example of this is Excellence in Education: High School Reform. Principals and teachers distributed the document. Materials on the College of Teachers and a mailing from the Ontario Parent Council also were sent home for distribution.

The Minister of Education himself has chosen schools as settings for his recent announcements. He released his secondary reform consultation document at Northview Heights Secondary School in North York. He took over the classroom and brought media in with him. Obviously the minister felt that education reform was an issue worth bringing into the classroom, even though inviting the media may have suggested to some that he had other motives.

The minister took over the resource centre of Humber Summit Middle School in November to make a non-announcement on new curriculum standards. Several classes of students, as well as the media, were in the audience for that announcement.

The minister made his announcements on Bill 104 at the Enoch Turner Schoolhouse. He held a communications meeting at the Annette Street Public School, barring the parents of the school from the school.

When those who govern consider themselves to be above the law democracy is in trouble. I would suggest that with the passing of this resolution we would be in trouble when it comes to democracy.

Just imagine the ramifications of this. Show-and-tell in kindergarten would be illegal. Current events in the junior

section would be illegal. Civics at the intermediate level would no longer be legal. We would have courses in high school such as law and society that wouldn't be allowed to take place. In fact, the new reform would suggest that every student in Ontario, regardless of ability level, at the grade 10 history level take a course on government. How can you teach government without politicizing the course? It is impossible.

This resolution does not serve the better needs of Ontario students.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to participate in this debate, and I am reminded of an

article in the Ottawa Citizen on February 10 by Heather-jane Robertson, an educator in that community, in which she referred to the great Russian poet Yevtushenko, who in 1951 wrote a poem entitled Lies. In the poem Yevtushenko pleads with teachers to confront their students with reality and to engage with the world in all its complexity. He argues that if we don't do this as teachers, our silence is complicity in errors: "Forgive no error you recognize. It will repeat itself a hundredfold and afterward our pupils will not forgive in us what we forgave."

Yevtushenko has a good idea of what teaching and education is really about. It's about engaging students in discussion and challenging what happens in the real world. It's significant that Yevtushenko was writing in the Stalinist era and he was essentially challenging teachers in the Soviet Union to challenge what they saw as wrong in their society in their classrooms.

Surely, if we have that kind of a challenge given to teachers in that kind of an authoritarian system, a democratic system like ours would appreciate teachers bringing political issues to the classroom to challenge students to think about their society and the issues of the day. Surely we would not accept a Stalinist view that we should not engage students in discussions about political issues in their own classrooms. Frankly, I don't think the ministry accepts this view. I'm glad they don't. I'm sure that Mr Snobelen and his colleagues are not in fact supporters of a Stalinist view of education.

The minister himself has engaged in political discussion in classrooms with students, as have many other MPPs in this assembly. I was myself in Kitchener in a classroom yesterday, talking to students. I think that's something we should be doing as educators and MPPs. Teachers should be inviting political people and people from the community in to discuss issues of the day in the classrooms with the students and exposing them to different points of view so they can make their own decisions.

Surely, as the member for Sudbury just mentioned, ministry guidelines call on teachers and schools to have discussion of current events on appropriate subjects as part of the education of the kids in the classroom.

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): The key word is "appropriate."

Mr Wildman: The member says the key word is "appropriate." Who is to decide what is appropriate? In the Soviet Union Stalin decided what was appropriate.

I think that MPPs, all of us, have from time to time visited classrooms and discussed the issues of the day, whether they be Bill 104, Bill 103 or many of the issues that present themselves in this Legislature. Many students agree with some of the things that various members of the assembly say; many of them disagree. I think that teachers bring other people from the community into classrooms to discuss issues of the day and to have political discussions. That's part of what education is about. It's about challenging students with new ideas and challenging them to think, to analyse problems and make their own decisions.

I note that the Minister of Education and Training himself has chosen schools as the setting for many of his recent announcements and he has appeared with students to make announcements. He released his secondary school reform consultation document -- a very controversial document about changes at the secondary level, a very political document about the education of our students -- at Northview Heights Secondary School in North York, with a student audience. As a matter of fact, he took over a classroom and brought the media with him into that classroom, and I think he was quite right to have done that.

I think all these issues should be discussed in the classroom. We shouldn't be, as the member who brings this resolution forward is proposing, limiting what can be discussed around political issues, particularly issues related to education, in our classrooms. The minister certainly doesn't accept that. He also took over the resource centre at Humber Summit Middle School in November to make an announcement regarding curriculum standards, a very political document related to his view and the government's view of what they consider to be mediocre results of our education system.

That in itself is a political statement. On that occasion, several classes of students as well as the media were in the audience for the announcement and participated in discussions and debate with the minister.

I think one of the things we have to keep in mind is that many times schools are criticized for not being involved in the issues of the day; for not exposing students to the real world; for somehow keeping students away from discussion and debate about issues that will matter to them as individuals, both now and in the future. Surely the member who is bringing forward this resolution is not suggesting that teachers should be censored, that teachers should not be able to bring issues, controversial issues even, before their students for discussion.

What is important is that the debate be balanced and that there be issues raised on both sides. That is what is important, not deciding what is appropriate or not appropriate for discussion, but rather that the issues and the debates be brought forward in a balanced manner. That is the challenge.

I think the Ministry of Education and Training has politicized the classroom, to use the phrase. I think they should politicize the classroom. I don't think there's anything wrong with politicizing the classroom. We are in a political society, a democratic society that involves citizens of every age, whether they be voters yet or not, in issues of the day, and what is crucial is that the debate be balanced.

If the member were bringing forward a resolution arguing that controversial issues should be brought before students in classrooms by their teachers in a balanced manner, I would understand it and I could support it. But rather, he is suggesting that teachers should not bring these issues before their students. That is not acceptable. It calls into question the very purpose of education and the purpose of teaching.

As Yevtushenko said in 1951 in the Soviet Union, teachers must denounce what is wrong in their society. Teachers must stand up for what is right against what is wrong. They must do that as role models for their students. If teachers see issues being brought forward in such a way as to endanger the education of their students, then it is incumbent upon them to "forgive no error, for it will repeat itself a hundredfold and afterwards our pupils will not forgive us what we forgave."

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I believe the intent of this resolution is clear, that along with the Honourable John Snobelen, the Minister of Education and Training, and my colleague from Hamilton, from Wentworth East, what we are respectfully requesting is that the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation end their campaign to use classroom time to inform students about their current lobbying efforts.

The issue is one of respect. I believe the federation's position does not show due respect for the young people in Ontario classrooms. Certainly the professionalism of Ontario's teachers is not in question, but they have a stake in this issue because it is unfair to place teachers in the position where they are forced to decided whether or not to use precious classroom time to present their union's message to their students.

The crux of the issue is that the federation wishes to use its time, through its teachers, to present a one-sided message, which amounts to providing the union with free publicity. We are not talking about a two-sided argument, as the member for Algoma indicated. There is no dispute that a two-sided argument is appropriate in our classrooms. It's the one-sided argument that is in dispute here and I suggest should be condemned.

A balanced presentation is what is essential and what is required in our classrooms. The federation's intent to use classroom time to present a one-sided viewpoint is, I suggest, not appropriate. It's advertising and not debate.

In addition, there's the issue of democratic fairness. The federation proposes to present ideas shared by some teachers and by some of the students' parents. In a fair, democratic environment, students should expect to hear from many and all sides.

I want to be very clear that I'm not opposed in any way to bringing the outside world into a classroom or into this Legislature either. No one can dispute that it's a necessary and valuable part of our children's education. We want our children to be well informed about current events. However, we do not want our children to be subjected to one-sided lobbying presentations from any side, and we do not want to allocate time to advertise for one group or another.

As our children learn to participate in the democratic process, it is important that they learn to assess information, weigh arguments and learn how to come to a decision on their own without undue influence. Perhaps some of them could be MPPs one day.

Members in this House who have read the editorial comments in the Ottawa Citizen, the St Catherines Standard, the Windsor Star, the Sault Star and several other newspapers will have noted recent editorials specifically addressing this issue. The view expressed in these journals is unusually consistent, that while the federation has every right to disagree with the provincial government's agenda for education, it has a vested interest in this dispute and should not be using classroom time to encourage students to take sides.

I'd like to read a few sentences into the record. From the St Catharines Standard editorial of February 14: "We have no argument with teaching them," high school students, "about the democratic process.... However, using classroom time to recruit students to the OSSTF's political cause is an abuse of position."

The Windsor Star, February 7: "The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation has every right to disagree with the provincial government's agenda for education, but it is irresponsible for OSSTF president Earl Manners to suggest that the battle should now be taken to the classroom floor."

February 7, the Stratford Beacon Herald editorial: "It would have been inappropriate for the local OSSTF to enlist students and parents in its quarrel with education minister John Snobelen. The teachers have a right to mount whatever political action they choose, but they have a vested interest."

Two more editorials. On February 7, from my home town, the Hamilton Spectator, the editorial stated: "Classrooms are places for learning, not for partisan debate, and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation should know the difference." Finally, February 10, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, the editorial there states: "There is a clear line between teaching politics and preaching politics. Between teaching children and indoctrinating them. The OSSTF has tripped over this line."

The member for Sudbury referred to the document entitled Excellence in Education, the secondary school reform document. This was a consultation document. The government wanted to consult with all the stakeholders before implementing any type of reform, and in fact we received 23,000 submissions. It is, I suggest, right to ask all the stakeholders, to ask for a consultation. I applaud the member for Algoma for saying that it's fair and right, in his usual fair and objective manner.

I congratulate the vast majority of classroom teachers of this province who, unlike Mr Manners, understand what is appropriate and what is not. They know that while he is responsible for their federation, the teachers of our province have a far more important and challenging job, and that is to educate our children.

They also know, as professionals, that to use students for political purposes would undermine their own professionalism. Their reaction has been what this government has expected of teachers of this province: an understanding that while in the classroom the teacher's own interests take a second priority to providing students with a sound education, free of crass and heavy-handed attempts at enlisting students in their own cause.

I ask members to join me and Mr Doyle in requesting that the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation let the children learn how to think for themselves and drop their request for classroom time to advertise their views.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I consider this resolution to be both unnecessary and offensive. Teachers are, in my view, professionals. They are not going to politicize the classroom, and they are most certainly not going to exploit their students. They are concerned about what this government's actions in education are going to do to their students in the future.

This government has caused them to want to try and make the case for public education, but it is equally true that teachers across this province are making it absolutely clear that they are going to raise any concerns outside the classroom, that they are making a very clear distinction between their political action and what they believe to be appropriate and legitimate curriculum.

Having said that, I want to tell you that I am absolutely, totally fed up with the cynicism and the sheer hypocrisy of this government. This is a government talking about trust. This government is about to wipe out local governance for education, and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education says it is because trustees universally, across the province, in their view, have mismanaged education. This is a government that talks about trust?

I can tell you that for parents what this government is doing is a matter of trust. Parent group after parent group and individual parent after individual parent who have come forward to our committee holding hearings on this government's Bill 104 have said loudly and clearly who they trust. They trust their local trustees. They trust local decision-making for education. They do not trust this government to make good decisions about education for their children.

The hypocrisy of this government is absolutely unbelievable. This is a government that is forcing private citizens, as well as other elected representatives, into court. They're going to do it time and time again, because they are so determined to bring forward legislation which is completely undemocratic and unprecedented in this province. They refuse to stop being autocrats, and then they challenge what has to be spent in the courts to defend democracy, while they spend $746,000 on a television ad trying to convince people that they are improving education. As the member from Sudbury pointed out yesterday, $746,000 is enough to provide textbooks for 1,000 classrooms. Talk about hypocrisy.

I deplore the cynicism and the hypocrisy of a government that misuses figures the way the member for Wentworth East has misused them today. I respect the member for Wentworth East, and I understand that the misuse of that information is not totally attributable to him. There is no question that he and every member of the Conservative caucus are being fed this kind of misinformation by a Minister of Education who is determined to convince people that there is a problem in education that he must fix, there is a crisis in public education that only he can deal with, a Minister of Education who then ignores all objective evidence of how wrong his actions are.

He wants to amalgamate school boards. He refuses to look at any of the evidence that there are no cost savings from amalgamation, that every study that has been done on amalgamation says big boards are less cost-effective than smaller boards. He misuses his own report, when it shows that you can only get $150 million from amalgamating boards, and refuses to acknowledge the fact that of that $150 million, $9.9 million is coming directly out of the classroom. He refuses to pay any attention to the objective evidence of what his cuts have already done to classroom education.

In the last four days of hearings here in Toronto, we have had teachers, trustees, parents and students, all those people the member for Wentworth East talks about building trust between, come to us and tell us of their very deep concerns, their distress, their fear about what this government has already done to education through its cuts, what's happening to the classrooms and their very profound fears of what will happen to classrooms in the future, what this government, which is so determined to convince people that things are wrong in education in the province of Ontario, will do to classrooms.

I suggest to you that it is no wonder people are looking for every forum they can possibly find to try to make this government listen. I can only add my pleas to the members of the government who are here today to speak to a resolution that has been brought forward to try to launch some sort of counterattack because for four days they have had people coming in and saying how disastrous their policies are, so the government wants some sort of counterattack; I can only plead with them to listen to the very real concerns that are being brought forward and to the fears of those teachers, parents and students about what they are doing to public education.

I am afraid they will follow the direction of the minister, who has shut out the concerns of the very educators and parents the member for Wentworth East claims to speak for today. Exactly who is it who is destroying trust in our education system? Any orchestrated campaign of teachers or any other group, as referred to by the member for Wentworth East, cannot compare to the campaign of this government that is being carried out at considerable cost in dollars and the loss of democracy and a threat to public education. I only ask that the members of the government understand the depth of the concern.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I come to the debate on this motion from this perspective: I know the member for Wentworth East is a very honourable member, a member with much integrity, and maybe some of the newer members elected on the Tory side, as he himself is, should take a look at him because I think he is a very honourable member. But I'm very concerned about what this motion is all about.

In this motion, when you look at it and read it, you're saying to us as legislators and to people across the province that you want this Legislature to adopt a policy that is more suitably found in totalitarian states, where the state decides what it is that will and will not be said in a classroom when it comes to current affairs issues or political issues.

That is really dangerous, especially in a society like ours that is based on democratic rights, a society in which politics in the Legislature and the House of Commons plays a very integral role in what happens in our life. I believe fervently and strongly, and I can't affirm it any other way, that one of the things that has to happen in our classrooms for certain is that I don't want to see politicians putting their hands on the classroom by way of motions, dictating what teachers cannot talk about in the classroom, because what they talk about there prepares the kids for when they come out into the workforce later.

If anything, I have a complaint that possibly not enough discussion about politics is happening in the classroom. We have been seeing a huge change in our society over the last 10 or 20 years, how politics has become much more complex because of the media of television and radio. People are able to open the television or listen to the radio and find out immediately what is happening in our land and what is affecting them, as it relates to what's happening both at the Legislature and the House of Commons.

One of the complaints I get a lot from people is that they sometimes don't quite understand what is going on because they don't have a good basis of what our political system is all about and how it works, because it is not taught in the classroom to the degree it needs to be.

As the member for Algoma mentioned earlier, many of us as legislators are invited on a regular basis to go into the classroom and talk to the students about what happens here in the Legislature. They invite us in as New Democrats, Liberals and Tories because some teachers want to make sure those kids get a basing in politics and understand that we have a political system, that it is a political one and that it is party politics that goes on in this place.

I believe not enough of that goes on.

What we should be trying to do within the classroom is to make sure we don't only prepare children to become adept at being able to make the transition into the workforce so that they know how to read and count and work the machinery of industry, but we should also be preparing our kids for life, letting them know what our political system is all about, letting them know how it relates to them, letting them know about current affairs issues so they can come to decisions on their own, presenting to them all the points of view, not just the points of view of New Democrats or Tories but all the views, so they themselves as individuals are able better to decide what should be their belief and where they would like to go and what they would like to support and not support.

I would just say this to the member opposite: If I have one complaint as a New Democrat about what happens in the classroom in regard to teachers -- let me take this a little bit differently; I'll get in trouble saying it that way -- it is that the member needs to recognize that if you were to pass a motion like this and this were actually to become government policy, a vast majority of teachers tend to be fairly right-wing and you're going to be stopping them from having the ability to speak in the classroom about what is important to them when it comes to the politics of this province.

If I have a complaint it is that I think there are not enough New Democrats in the teaching profession to give our particular point of view.

Je dirais très directement au gouvernement que la motion que l'on a ici aujourd'hui est très dangereuse. Ce que le membre essaie de faire, c'est de nous dire ici à l'Assemblée que l'on doit passer une motion qui va dire aux maîtres et aux maîtresses d'école à travers la province qu'ils n'ont pas le droit d'aller dans la salle de classe et parler de politique et de ce qui arrive couramment chaque jour dans la politique en Ontario. C'est très dangereux.

Il est très important que les élèves de la province prennent l'opportunité de savoir ce qui se passe dans la province, ce qui se passe avec le gouvernement conservateur, ce qui se passe avec le Parti libéral et avec le Nouveau Parti démocratique. Ils ont besoin de connaître toutes ces questions-là parce qu'ils vont venir au point où ils auront le droit de vote et où ils vont devenir les chefs de notre société dans les années à venir.

C'est très important que ce développement politique se fasse à un jeune âge, qu'ils ont la chance d'avoir toutes les formations qu'ils peuvent avoir, avant d'entrer dans le marché de travail et avant de commencer l'âge de vote, afin de pouvoir regarder les points de vue de tous les partis politiques et regarder toutes les questions qui nous touchent ici en Ontario, afin d'être capables de se faire leurs propres idées faisant affaire avec ces questions qui nous touchent dans notre société.

Je dis au membre de Wentworth-Est, et je le connais comme étant un membre très sincère dans ses travaux ici à l'Assemblée, pensez-y deux fois : ce que vous nous demandez de faire est quelque chose qui a été vu plutôt dans une société comme celle de l'Allemagne des années 30 ou de l'Union soviétique avant les années 90, où le gouvernement disait aux écoliers et à la société ce qui était acceptable et ce qui n'était pas acceptable comme vue politique dans les classes et dans la société en général. Ce n'est pas quelque chose que nous, dans une démocratie, devons faire pour donner une direction à nos salles de classe de la province.

I will not be voting for this motion. I just say this very last thing: I find this motion somewhat hypocritical when I see a government spending how many millions of dollars on advertising on television to get its points of view to Ontarians every day, and they have a problem with teachers talking about what happens about this in the classroom.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure today to rise in support of Mr Doyle's resolution. The member for Wentworth East has gone on record as being opposed to the politicizing of the classroom, and who out there could not support that view? Those who would argue we should politicize the classroom have really gone too far.

Education must, first and most importantly, be focused on the needs of the student and we all know that those are as various and as different from grade level as they are within a grade itself. Each individual student needs special attention and we need to pay attention to that.

There's a partnership in education. It's often referred to that it takes a whole community to educate a child. They must be exposed to all elements within society which, with the multimedia society we live in, they are exposed to today. On the outside you listen to the news, you watch the newspaper and you see all these things about mega this and mega that. There's plenty of politicization outside the classroom.

But there's a trusted partnership arrangement between the student, the teacher, the parent and the community. It's that trust I want to focus on. To breach that trust is a breach of the contract or relationship between the teacher and the student and the parents. We've extended the trust based on the high regard and high respect for the role of the professional teacher in the classroom. I think the individual teachers I've met and spoken with are very much conscious of not wanting to bring all their particular union baggage into the classroom. Many of them are very concerned about being fair and honest within the classroom.

I specifically have to look at a couple of comments from the press. There's a lot of press on this issue and I'm just going to quote a couple at random. These aren't selected. "We hear the concerns that they, the teachers have, but those kinds of activities should be kept outside the classroom and our schools. That isn't the place for them. Classrooms are not going to become debating situations for the politics of the day" -- Ray De Rosario, director of education, Sault Ste Marie public school board. It was in the Sault Star on February 7. That's generally reflective, and there's the director of education. I completely agree with that type of professionalism and that attitude.

If we're invited into a classroom, I think we should be responding, as we all do. As members we have a duty to respond in an attempt to educate in a fair and reasonable way.

Before I wrap up -- I want to share my time with another member who has another point of view on this -- I want to bring to your attention that I'm invited tonight, and I'm just looking at my

schedule here, to the school advisory committee and parent council. We know the composition of that council involves educators, parents, hopefully students and also community personnel. Here are the topics for the debate tonight: Bill 103, which is the Toronto city bill; Bill 104, which is the appropriate bastion of education changes; and Bill 106, which is the finance bill. So they're discussing everything, which is fine, but that's what's actually happening in the classroom.

I took some liberties and inquired with a couple of people. Each teacher and each student is being encouraged to circulate a petition which is not just dealing with education, it's dealing with all of the Harris changes, as they call it, within that petition.

I think we've gone overboard. We've broken the trust with the students, and I think we've pressured teachers, who don't want it, through union organizations, into a situation of either being on side with the union agenda or offside, and not really being allowed to care for the children entrusted to them.

I'm sharing my time with Mr Smith. Thank you very much.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What we are seeing with this resolution is yet another attack on educators and in particular members of the teaching profession by the government of Mike Harris. It is an attack which I'm sure must embarrass the former critic in the field of education, the Honourable Dianne Cunningham, who did, I thought, a very good job as critic and would not be part of this kind of nonsense. In addition to this, it must embarrass Elizabeth Witmer, now the Minister of Labour, who was, I thought, a good chair of the board of education in the Waterloo area.

The member has obviously been put up to this. This is not his nature. The member I know for Wentworth East is not the kind of person who is a vicious or malicious person at all. I believe the Premier's office or the Minister of Education's office has suggested that this should be the topic of conversation, that it should be --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Mr Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr Bradley: Sit down. Don't take up my time with that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Nepean on a point of order.

Mr Bradley: I'll fix you then. You want to take time --

Mr Baird: Will you agree to hear my point of order?

I think the member opposite is impugning the motives and integrity of the member for Wentworth East. I believe it's strictly against the standing orders to impugn the motives of an honourable member in this place.

The Acting Speaker: I was listening carefully to the member for St Catharines. I would like to hear him out.

Mr Bradley: Having been interrupted by somebody who obviously knows that what I'm saying is true in this House, that your government is up to this kind of campaign against educators -- you know that. That's why you're reacting.

The MPP has put forward this resolution which is, as I say, designed to discredit members of the teaching profession, in my view, yet the government of Ontario is spending three quarters of a million taxpayers' dollars to have the Premier come on the television set reading a teleprompter message that is clearly designed to put forward a government position. It is unquestionably government propaganda, the worst kind of partisan propaganda, using taxpayers' dollars, and this government has the audacity to attack people who want to put before the students the issues and have those issues debated.

I'm sure those students are going to be debating them successfully. They're going to want to get all points of view, and that's going to be important. Teachers have the kind of integrity that ensures that those viewpoints are going to be put forward. I know many people in the teaching profession. They're going to bend over backwards to ensure that's the case.

It was all right for the Minister of Education to show up at some high school to make his announcement, a big grant announcement for the television cameras, with all the news media there. That's all right, but if anybody else wants to put any other point of view forward or have it discussed in the classroom, this government is going to condemn that.

MPPs have an opportunity from time to time to visit schools. I'm sure they put forward a point of view which is their point of view and one which can be challenged.

This is part of an orchestrated campaign against public sector employees. You have declared that anybody who is in the public sector, regardless of what kind of service they provide, is going to be the enemy of this government. The ads add up to $749,878 in total. I think it is an absolute disgrace that you're engaging in this kind of attack on people who are working very hard in the system to deliver education to our students.

It's a very challenging job. It's not the 1950s, and apparently many people on the government side are stuck in the 1950s. These people face new challenges. There are far more children from dysfunctional families who show up in the classroom now with challenges of a social nature than was the case in the 1950s. We have people from other countries coming who require special services within the system. We now have those who have disabilities integrated into the regular school system. All of this requires a lot of hard work.

What you are doing is systematically destroying the morale of members of the teaching profession. This kind of resolution is designed to do that and is designed to attack them.

Why don't you simply engage in the proper kind of debate in this assembly and elsewhere? If members of this assembly wish to visit schools and be part of a discussion, let them do so, and I'm sure they would be most welcome to do so. But to engage in this is simply to engage in the kind of teacher-bashing, educator- bashing that we're seeing consistently from all the members of this government and I think it's a provincial disgrace to see this happening. It does not build a consensus that we need.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure as well to join in and speak in support of my colleague's resolution this morning and add some comments to those already made by the member for Durham East, who I know brings a great deal of passion to the issue of education, as well as the member for Wentworth North.

I read with interest the correspondence that the member circulated with his particular resolution and I found interesting the two stated goals that were contained in that piece of correspondence, the first being to protect and defend the professionalism of teachers in this province, and the second being that the focus of education reform should be on the classroom and not politics.

I would differ substantially with the comments made by the member for Cochrane South. I think we have to differentiate between the art of teaching political system versus the art of teaching partisan politics in the classroom.

I think there should be no mystery whatsoever in terms of the government's clear intentions to fundamentally reform education in this province. The intentions are very clear about bringing positive changes to school governance, funding and curriculum, changes which are necessary and changes which I fully understand will bring a range of responses, both positive and negative. No one is under a false illusion to that effect.

When the member for Dovercourt questioned Mr David Cooke at the government agencies committee during his appearance for his appointment, I thought it odd and interesting from that perspective in his comments that Mr Cooke responded to the member for Dovercourt by saying:

"Some things that are being done here are close to what we were going to do. Even some of the decisions that the government has had to make, that it will be making, in terms of the new financing of school boards and how dollars will be distributed, those are things that no matter who would have been elected, there would have had to be some decisions on."

I think that's a very important perspective that Mr Cooke brings to the debate, not only from his previous capacity as a senior minister in the former government, but as a co-chair of the Education Improvement Commission.

I find it somewhat difficult to be extremely critical of the member for Fort William or the member for Sudbury because, as I have sat in committee with those individuals, they have a unique blend of politics and passion for education in this province. But as we sat there and listened to the comments that the Liberal opposition members were making, I opened up the Liberal book and saw the very statements about school board reform, about education reform. It's important that we reflect on those comments and realize that the issue of education in this province is not isolated to the government of the day.

It's an issue that has been addressed not only by a former Minister of Education but by a party that had clear intentions in the previous election of addressing education reform as well.

I thought of, as my colleague has alluded to, the comments that appeared in the Lindsay Daily Post. Those comments stated, "Ontario teachers have every right to protest provincial changes that they feel are going to damage education, but that opposition should stop at the classroom door." I fully endorse that position, and it's a position that, by and large, many constituents in my riding have made very clear to me in the conversations we've had.

By comparison to the member for Fort William, I think the classroom campaign as proposed by the secondary teacher executive is an insult to the many hardworking secondary teachers in Middlesex.

In conclusion, I would only emphasize that all efforts should be made to direct our efforts towards the classroom, avoid the politics and get on with the task of fundamentally reforming education in this province.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Wentworth East.

Mr Doyle: I thank all my colleagues who spoke in support of my resolution here today.

To conclude, I would just like to say that nowhere in my resolution did I argue against political discussion in the classroom. I think it's extremely important that there is political discussion in the classroom. However, I'd like to point out that there is a great difference between political discussion and political indoctrination. This is the thing we are concerned about. I'm certainly concerned about that. Certainly nowhere did I intend to attack the teaching profession or public sector employees; that was not at all the truth.

What I am trying to do is point out that politics have to be kept out of the classroom, though issues of the day in politics are certainly a topic for discussion by teachers.

I'd like to sincerely urge that all here today vote in favour of this resolution so that we may protect and defend the professionalism of teachers and maintain the integrity of the classroom.

As a conclusion to our debate, I'd like to end by reading portions of the

preamble to my resolution that sum up many significant points as to why we must pass this resolution.

Whereas the province of Ontario is responsible for the schooling of our children in the public school system; and

Whereas the Ministry of Education recognizes and respects the dedication and professionalism of teachers who have in their charge the education of our children so that they can attain the highest goals and pursue limitless opportunities; and

Whereas teachers are placed in sacred bond of trust between parents and their children to ensure their intellectual development is allowed to progress without interruption; and

Whereas school boards are required to ensure that all curriculum is based upon guidelines supplied by the Ministry of Education and Training; and

Whereas the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation has launched a campaign to bring its protest into the classrooms of Ontario in violation of that trust between teacher, parent, and student; and

Whereas the OSSTF is planning to use up valuable classroom time to pursue union politics and to exploit children in the classroom for its campaign --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Doyle: As I mentioned, Mr Speaker, in the opinion of this House, that should not be done.

As I mentioned, there are many challenges ahead, and I hope we can all move forward together to improve our education system that in the end will enable our children to face the new century with the confidence and knowledge they will need to prosper and succeed.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING / RESTRUCTURATION DES HÔPITAUX

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I move private member's notice of motion number 42:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should stop cutting base funding of hospitals and allow communities to determine how to restructure their hospital services and find efficiency savings based on their needs;

Should ensure that community services are in place before hospitals are closed since the Health Services Restructuring Commission has begun its work of amalgamating, merging and closing many hospitals across Ontario, in both urban and rural communities;

Should reinvest savings achieved through the restructuring process into local community services since the withdrawal of millions of dollars of hospital funding from those same communities is occurring without the commitment to reinvest those dollars into community services in that community;

Should ensure that hospital funding must be equitable and based on a formula that reflects demographic and regional needs; and

Should ensure that health services, including emergency and urgent care services, are available to all Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member has 10 minutes.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Speaker. I can tell you that I've waited for some time to have the opportunity to bring forward a private member's resolution that would make a difference, not just for people in Windsor, Essex county, southwest Ontario, but indeed for all of Ontario.

My resolution today, as you've just heard, deals with health policy according to the Mike Harris government. All I can say, in particular to Conservative MPPs who are here in this House or who are in their offices at the moment and who I know will be coming into the House by noon to vote on what I view as probably one of the most important issues that we will face as legislators ever in our term here with the Harris government -- I know they are listening because they are experiencing what we are in Windsor, in Essex county, where health services are concerned.

This began because the moment Mike Harris became the Premier, $1.3 billion was being removed from hospitals. This is a $1.3-billion cut over three years. What we looked for was reason in the policies of Mike Harris. We haven't been able to find reason. Repeatedly over the last several months we have brought our concerns into the House and we have been met with a wall. We have been met with a health minister who has not been prepared to listen to the real stories of people in Windsor, people from Atikokan hospital, people from Lakehead hospital, the people who are seeing the devastating effects of cuts to their base funding of hospitals with community services that are simply not in place.

We've heard many times the health minister on his feet here and the health minister has always said, "We are reinvesting more than we're cutting." So ladies and gentlemen, legislators in this House today, I have to ask you to listen sincerely to my colleagues who are advocating on behalf of this resolution. I have to ask you to listen sincerely to the stories you are hearing.

In the case of Windsor, we feel that our health services are suffering. We have report after report: "Bed Shortage Takes Toll." We have story after story. I have file folders like this in my office of letters from families who've had experiences in our hospital system or who have had experiences with the health services that simply have not been adequate. My office spends more time on one issue and that is health, and good quality health, than any other of the issues combined. We spend more of our time trying to ensure that the people in my riding of Windsor-Sandwich get good quality health care.

I know that all the MPPs in this House are striving to ensure that their residents have good quality care and what that means today is that while you can, during private members' hour, vote your conscience, not your party. This gives you the opportunity to stand up for the people in your constituencies, the people who have already written to you, the people who have sent you petitions. We know that's happened in Lanark-Renfrew; that's happened in London North; that's happened in Niagara. It's happened in Brampton South, Guelph, Niagara South, Rainy River.

There are Conservative MPPs in this House who have received petitions. Those petitions read almost verbatim what our private member's resolution is today, and that says that we are gravely concerned about the cuts to hospitals. We feel that health services are suffering. The government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting that money in those same communities.

We have current situations in Bruce, in Grey county. There are individuals there, their local representatives, who are in the House today. I will be watching with a close eye, as will your constituents, to see how you will be voting today, because we expect during private members' hour, when you have the one opportunity to vote, not with your party but with your conscience, you know what is the right thing to do.

I will give you example after example that the reinvestment simply is not happening. Let's take the case of Windsor-Sandwich. We have an emergency ward which services the west side of Essex county. There are people here today from my riding who left Windsor at a quarter to six to be here today to watch how all of us as MPPs are responsible to see that emergency services will continue to be provided to the people all over Essex county, not just if you happen to live around Metropolitan's site or around Hotel Dieu, but that if you happen to be in LaSalle, Amherstburg, Anderdon or River Canard, you too will have access to emergency services.

That service is scheduled to close on April 18. What has not happened yet? Not a dollar has been flowing from this restructuring, amalgamating, merging that has allowed the other sites of emergency to be built up to take that overflow. That, friends, is a fact. I have brought the press to those emergency sites. They have seen it with their own eyes. This is something we cannot politicize. You have to know the fact and we expect you not be political today when you're voting on this resolution.

You are aware of the story of a Peterborough man who died in a hallway after spending hours overnight in emergency because there were no beds. Within days of our leader, Dalton McGuinty, bringing that message into this House, the health ministry announced that it would reinstate 15 beds in Peterborough, but they're short 20 to 30 beds on a regular basis.

What we are seeing is that there is no clear mission of the health minister. What we see is that there is no consistency to what he is doing. If we happen to bring the issue up in the House, suddenly we see something happen. We were supposed to have the report on restructuring from Lambton county today. Somehow that's been put on hold. Why? Because now the health minister wants to talk about a rural hospital policy. Why did they announce the closures in Pembroke if that was the case? We are finding example after example of no concrete plan.

What I am asking members in this House today is to help us tell the health minister, your health minister, that what is happening is wrong, that people are suffering.

I want to mention too the numbers of people who have contacted me. These are people who are not necessarily from my riding but who knew that we would be debating this today. Naturally, we've let them know that we want their voices heard, so when we talk about the people from London North, the people from Niagara, the people who are truly concerned -- we've been learning as we travel around Ontario that the Niagara region has the most senior population in Ontario. For them, when they watch what happens in health and in hospitals, they know that if they don't have problems today, they are going to have problems in 10 years.

All of the people who are being sent out on this charge, Duncan Sinclair included -- the head of this hospital closing commission himself has said that he's been put up to this by the health minister. He himself is on record as saying that he will not be a party to the hospital closing commission if he doesn't see reinvestment happening in those communities because he knows it's the right thing to do.

Members, I ask you again most sincerely: The way that your health minister is sending through this health policy of making cuts to hospital funding at the same time as forcing amalgamating, merging, closures, is making them find savings in addition to the cuts. It is an impossible situation for hospital administrators to find ways to find the savings while they're being cut, while they're being merged and amalgamated. What happens is that people have only a couple of choices: They don't provide the service or they provide the service.

Unfortunately, what my files tell me, while we're being buried in paper in the offices across Ontario, is that our constituencies -- I know they are, from story after story -- are not getting the service. Friends, that is just not acceptable. It's not acceptable to me, to the people of Windsor-Sandwich, Grey county, Bruce county and Niagara Falls. These are the people who have been calling us and saying, "Help us change the health policies of this government." All I can say, friends, is please vote in favour of this today.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: Excuse me. Stop the clock. I would like to remind those who are visiting us today that there are absolutely no demonstrations in the galleries. We appreciate your being here. We'd like you to go by those rules.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's indeed appropriate that I stand today as a private member from London to talk about this resolution because of course yesterday the hospital restructuring commission came down with very devastating news for our community.

Let me preface my remarks by making it very clear that all of us in our party support restructuring our health care system. We want it to become a health care system instead of the illness system it is at the present time, and we want that to happen in an orderly fashion that does not endanger the patients who rely on the health system for their care -- and that's all of us. This issue involves all of us and all of our families and all of our constituents.

Let me make it clear that I come from a community that has been working on restructuring extraordinarily hard and that was acknowledged in the commission's report yesterday as having moved ahead a lot further than other communities in terms of trying to cope with the new realities brought to us by technology, brought to us by changes in the delivery of health care in many different ways. That acknowledgement was very valuable.

I was so proud as a representative of London to sit in the news conference with the various health care provider agencies yesterday and hear them clearly commit to work together on behalf of the patients in their areas and clearly say that although there were terrible problems in terms of human resource issues, they were prepared to try and work together to ameliorate those problems as well as possible.

We're not talking about wholesale resistance to change in my community, but the most devastating aspect of this whole plan is the closure of two psychiatric hospitals in our area -- not one, but two. Our community had worked very hard over a long period of time to try and recognize that, given the way in which new treatments for those who were psychiatrically disabled had allowed them to return to the community, it was unlikely two Ontario psychiatric hospitals within a 40-kilometre radius would be allowed to stay open.

But to hear that both of those hospitals will be closed by December 31, 1999, throwing a minimum of 1,300 people out of work in the combined communities of Elgin and London-Middlesex, was a devastating piece of news.

Let me speak first about what it means for the patients who rely on those two hospitals. The commission made it very clear it was making this recommendation with the condition, and it's very clear, that it will only work if all $46 million that is going to be saved as a result of the closure of those hospitals goes back into the community to provide services, and its expectation was that those services would be up and running and available to patients before those hospitals close.

There are a few logical difficulties here, because the major community service that assists those who are psychiatrically disabled, chronically psychiatrically ill, is homes for special care. What has this government done? They've downloaded homes for special care on to municipalities 100%.

It is our estimate that if indeed this government goes ahead with what is now quite clear from the closure at Thunder Bay, the closure at Brockville and the closure at St Thomas and London, destroying the psychiatric hospital system entirely, we will need at least 2,000 units of housing across the province that is going to help these people to be as productive as possible, as healthy as possible and as safe as possible. Yet this same government, of course, has downloaded responsibilities for both social housing and homes for special care on to municipalities. This is a formula for disaster, quite frankly.

It is possible to deinstitutionalize. In fact, our party has very clearly said we believe it is a more humane way to deal with chronic psychiatric illness -- we've been very clear about that -- but only if those supports are there in the community. Yet this government, at the same time it is closing this hospital, has taken other measures that make it almost impossible to ensure that those services will be available in communities at prices those communities can afford. Believe me, you cannot support an appropriate support system for the psychiatrically disabled on the property tax. It simply won't happen.

We have a situation, faced within a very small community of Elgin and London-Middlesex, where 300 beds of chronic care for psychiatric illnesses will be lost. We have no assurance of where those people will go and we have no assurance of how they will cared for.

The second issue, of course, is the issue of who is going to look after them. In the whole process of deinstitutionalization which has been taking place over a long period of time, the assumption was that we wouldn't lose the expertise of the people who have been working in those institutions, that we would retrain those people and help them to move into the community aspect of care. But we have a problem.

If those beds are still open and the staff are still required to work in those facilities, how can they apply for and get retraining for the jobs in the community at the same time, particularly when the recommendation of the report is that nobody be discharged into the community until those services are up and running? There's a logical inconsistency here that's very difficult.

When we look at the economic impact -- and I'm going to speak here for the member for Elgin, because he's an independent and doesn't have time under our rules at this time. The economic impact to a rural area of Elgin county of the closure of St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital is enormous, yet we have, with the influence of the Conservative members of this place, a minister announcing a halt in the closure to rural hospitals because of economic impact. It didn't make any difference in Elgin county, where the member doesn't happen to be a Progressive Conservative member.

It is going to have a devastating affect on Elgin county, on its economic ability to maintain itself as a community, because of the heavy reliance there has been on that institution to provide jobs, to provide the spinoff for supply in that area.

The economic effect will not be quite as devastating within London, but we are a health care centre. Not only will the staff be unable to work at the psychiatric hospital, but this change in configuration, taking acute care away from St Joseph's Hospital and moving everything to the London Health Sciences Centre, will also have an enormous impact on jobs and an enormous impact on our community, on our ability to maintain our property tax status, on our ability to maintain our local businesses.

This is all happening at the same time that there are many other shoes left to drop. We do not know in our community, nor do others, what the final issue is going to be around the beds available in long-term care. When you close a psychiatric facility, when you change the configuration of services, when you deal with an issue of moving people out of acute care hospitals into some kind of convalescent phase, you automatically involve home care issues. Yet the decisions around home care, around long-term care, have yet to be made.

We are seeing all these changes accelerating faster and faster without all the pieces being put into place. What becomes very clear is that this government's health policy is not about restructuring health care. This government's policy is about cutting costs. This government's policy is about cutting costs without having done the impact studies, without understanding what the long-term and short-term and medium-term effects of their actions are going to be. The people who are going to suffer are those who are most vulnerable: the patients. That is the real problem we face.

We have a government that speaks one language when it comes to how much they care about the needs of patients in the health care system and then does something quite different. This minister and this ministry have shown they are not managing this change well, that they have not been aware of the gaps that are forming and the problems that are forming. When we ask a question about cardiac care, the minister scrambles and says, "We'll flow some cash so those waiting lists will go down."

We shouldn't have to raise these issues in this place. This system, if it's restructuring, should be being managed well by the minister and the ministry, but it's not. Every single one of us, as members in this House, knows of the instances where this is the case. We all have examples in our offices and we all know that the mismanagement of this minister is a big part of the problem.

This minister says we're fearmongering. The fear is not coming from us; the fear is there in the patients and their families, who are experiencing the very real gap between the fine words of the minister and the reality they face when they go to their local hospitals.

We will be voting for this resolution and supporting very much the sense it brings to this Legislature, and we call upon the Tory members to do the same.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'm certainly pleased to join in the debate on this resolution brought by the member for Windsor-Sandwich, but I must confess that the resolution sounds very similar to the one put forward last week by the member for Renfrew North. I'm almost tempted to give the very same speech I did last week, but there's so much evidence in the resolutions of misinformation and conjecture that I really don't have to; there are other things to address.

I believe it was Mark Twain who once said that you should first get your facts straight, then you can distort them as you please. That is why this morning I'm going to discuss facts on the health care restructuring issues here in Ontario.

There is a certain irony to both these resolutions, because they are chastising the government for doing what the previous governments really failed to do. The previous governments recognized the desperate need for hospital restructuring in Ontario but they failed to tackle the problem.

That led to a situation where millions of dollars were wasted every year: millions wasted on administration, on maintenance and on overhead, millions just keeping up empty hospital wards closed by the previous government. In fact, the NDP government closed over 8,700 hospital beds in the province, and the closures of hospital beds really started with the government before that, the Liberals, who closed some 1,200 beds. That is over 10,000 beds closed by the previous two governments, equal to approximately 33 good-sized hospitals, yet all the bricks and mortar are still there, being paid for.

What a colossal waste of our health care dollars, to continue paying for the administration, the maintenance and the heat and hydro when this money could have been better spent on front-line patient care.

That is the reason the hospital services restructuring commission was set up in January 1996. It has a mandate to improve the efficiencies of our hospital system, eliminate the waste and help us to put health care dollars back where they are needed the most, in caring for Ontario's sick and injured.

I would like to focus on a particular aspect of the member's resolution today, that is, the part about reinvesting the savings achieved through the restructuring process and reinvesting them back into community health care services.

Over the last year, we have already found some $365 million in savings in our health care system by eliminating redundancy and waste, but at the same time we've reinvested some $683 million in front-line community care services. That's almost double reinvestment of what's actually been saved.

That is because we as a government have a vision for health care: putting patients first. Getting the right care at the right time in the right place is what hospital restructuring is all about.

Our vision incorporates these key issues of access and quality care, because that is what is important to the people of Ontario. They want a health care system that is there when they need it. Making sure it is there when they need it has taken many forms, particularly for rural Ontario. I am fortunate to represent a largely rural riding, Northumberland, and I know how important access to quality health care really is.

To date, we've reinvested some $15 million in providing sessional fees to help recruit and retain physicians. We've done that to ensure that there's adequate emergency room services in small rural and northern communities, and nearly 90% of all eligible hospitals have used this program to support emergency services in rural Ontario.

We have also reinvested more that $15 million in paramedic training to benefit northern and rural communities. This program has now been introduced to a number of base hospitals and will undoubtedly save lives that previously may have been lost. In the medical profession, that is what is referred to as outcome-based medicine, and it means doing what provides the best outcome for patients. Quite simply, all of the advanced medical technology and all of the new instrumentation available at the hospital is of no use if the patient dies before arriving at the hospital. This program will indeed ensure that more patients arrive alive.

But we are not stopping there. Along with that substantial reinvestment in the training of paramedics, we're also adding some 400 defibrillators to ambulance services across this province. We've put $170 million into long-term care and community-based services for seniors, such as nursing care, personal care and physiotherapy. We've put some $23.5 million into community-based mental health care services, and we've put $14.7 million into the northern diabetes health network. We've put $16.7 million into new immunization initiatives aimed at protecting seniors and children with communicable diseases.

These are but a few of the examples of the reinvestment that we're making in community-based health care services.

A few minutes ago the member for London Centre commented on the two psychiatric hospitals being closed in London. She omitted to mention the new one that's being created in St Thomas, some 65 beds, and overlooked the 50 extra beds we're creating in Windsor and some 47 extra beds that are being created in Waterloo.

I think it's important --

Interruption.

Mrs Boyd: That's not extra beds.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for London Centre.

I want to caution those in the gallery. There can be no noise from there. I realize you've come a long distance; it would be extremely counterproductive to have me clear the gallery. Please, there's no demonstration and no noise.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): But it's pretty hard to take.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, I don't need your help. Thank you very much.

Mr Galt: I applaud the concern the member for Windsor-Sandwich has for providing appropriate and dependable health care services across Ontario, but in drafting her resolution she has failed to recognize the substantial reinvestment this government is making in health care services. There are few in the health care community that would say changes aren't needed. In fact, our dedicated health care providers have led the way to a more efficient system and, as we speak, they are making our health care system better all the time.

But they can't do it alone. They can't address the systemic problems of duplication, redundancy and waste. That takes leadership from the government of the day and, sadly, that leadership was not forthcoming under the two previous governments. That is a shame. But this government is setting out to put things right. We are taking the steps necessary and making reinvestments we need to improve Ontario's health care system and to make it the best health care system in the world. That's an attainable goal and this government is up to the challenge. That is why I cannot support this resolution today.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I'm pleased to rise on the resolution today to address five lines that contain more vision on health care than we've heard from this government in its whole term in office. The whole idea that before indiscriminate cutting of hospital services there would be a plan in place, the services to replace the cuts would be in place before you cut the hospitals, is elementary logic to everyone except the members opposite.

We hear from the members opposite a lot of ministry bafflegab, but the people in their ridings know. They know in Northumberland that the hospital in Cobourg has been cut and they know that cut of $1.1 million means less services. No amount of rhetoric in this House is going to provide those services to those people in those emergency wards. There are fewer nurses, there are fewer procedures taking place, there is less care in health care thanks to the Harris Tories.

The same thing happens in Orillia. The member for Simcoe East will surely be aware that $3.2 million has been cut from that single hospital in his riding; 10% taken away not by a previous government -- these are Harris hospital cuts.

Similarly in Bruce, in Owen Sound, $7.4 million lost irresponsibly, a 15% cut enacted by this government that doesn't have the courage to admit when it's making mistakes. It doesn't have the courage to listen to its own experts.

We revealed this week, for the benefit of the audience out there, a confidential document which shows that the Minister of Health, a year and a half after making $1.3 billion in cuts, had a study group trying to come up with ways to make them.

This study group of the best experts he could find came back to him and said, "These cuts can't be done." All the members opposite may or may not be aware that that group said even last year, even this year that's unfolding right now, "Hurt has happened." The ministry's own model said that $130 million of the $365 million in cuts is coming, and there's no way to put this delicately, "out of the hides of patients." You can't do it with clinical efficiencies, you can't do it with administrative efficiencies, you're doing it by hurting patients.

In the seats over there members are sitting, members who are supposed to represent their ridings, the health care and the health and wellbeing of the people who live in their ridings.

We know the member for Lincoln must be aware of the $844,000 cut in Grimsby, an 8% reduction.

The cuts are taking place in Kitchener, where I had the honour to talk to the people from St Mary's who are trying to hold on to their hospital, but that hospital has been cut by 11%, by $4.3 million, and people do not have the replacement.

As we look at what's happening next week here in Metro, we know places like Queensway are going to be faced with the same irresponsible, unplanned cuts. They're looking, as we're looking, for the members opposite to admit their mistakes and to stand behind a resolution like the one we have today.

M. Bisson: Je prends cette occasion pour parler directement à la motion que le député de Windsor amène à l'Assemblée aujourd'hui. C'est vraiment à propos que aujourd'hui, on a ces discussions, parce que justement lundi de cette semaine, la commission de restructuration des hôpitaux à Ottawa est venue avec ses recommandations faisant affaire avec la fermeture des hôpitaux à Ottawa. Et contenu dans toute cette paperasse qu'ils nous ont amenée se trouve la décision de fermer l'hôpital Montfort dans la communauté d'Ottawa. Je veux dire à travers ce débat, dans les minutes que j'ai, que le gouvernement a besoin de vraiment reconsidérer la décision qu'ils vont faire à travers ces recommandations.

Le gouvernement a besoin de comprendre que l'hôpital Montfort ne dessert pas seulement la communauté francophone d'Ottawa, mais qu'il est très important pour la communauté francophone à travers tout l'Ontario. Par exemple, je veux vous dire, et je dis au ministre de la Santé, au premier ministre et, spécialement, au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, qui est tombé endormi dans cette mission, que l'hôpital Montfort dessert toute la province dans beaucoup de manières.

Premièrement, il y a un partenariat entre l'hôpital Montfort et l'Université d'Ottawa quand ça vient à l'entraînement des médecins partout dans la province de l'Ontario. Dans le comté du député de Cochrane-Nord, de mon collègue M. Wood, dans mon comté à Cochrane-Sud, à Nickel Belt, à Timiskaming, à Windsor et autres communautés en Ontario, on a besoin de médecins francophones pour desservir notre population, parce qu'il y a beaucoup d'entre nous qui ne parlent pas l'anglais et qui ne peuvent pas aller chercher les services en anglais.

Où est-ce qu'on entraîne ces médecins-là ? C'est à travers l'Université d'Ottawa, le seul programme dans lequel on entraîne des médecins francophones dans la province, et où font-ils leur stage ? À l'hôpital Montfort.

Le gouvernement doit comprendre que l'hôpital Montfort n'est pas seulement un hôpital qui dessert la communauté d'Ottawa ; il dessert toute la communauté de l'Ontario dans des endroits très importants.

Je veux dire, dans les secondes qui me restent, que vous aurez une opportunité, dans les 25 jours prochains, à faire une décision, le Cabinet de l'Ontario, ou d'influencer une recommandation à la commission de restructuration des hôpitaux d'Ottawa, de renverser cette décision et de réétudier comment on peut mieux desservir la communauté francophone, et que cela n'inclue pas la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort, et le gouvernement a besoin de renverser sa décision.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I always like Thursday mornings when you can get an opportunity to get up and speak on issues that are very important to the people of this province. This resolution today is one of those:

"That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should stop cutting base funding of hospitals and allow communities to determine how to structure their hospital services and find efficiency savings based on their needs;

"Should ensure that community services are in place before hospitals are closed, since the Health Services Restructuring Commission has begun its work of amalgamating, merging and closing many hospitals across Ontario, in both urban and rural communities;

"Should invest savings achieved through the restructuring process in the community services since the withdrawal of millions of dollars of hospital funding from these same communities is occurring without the commitment to reinvest these dollars into community services in that community;

"Should ensure that hospital funding must be equitable and based on a formula that reflects demographic and regional needs; and

"Should ensure that health services, including emergency and urgent care services, are available to all Ontarians."

The resolution is well put together, and first I would like to thank the member for Windsor-Sandwich for the careful and thoughtful planning that went into this resolution. She's obviously capitalizing on the fears of those in the community who have not yet grasped the whole picture of how this government is reshaping hospital services to best suit the needs of individual communities.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Ask Bill Murdoch about the fear and worry in his riding.

Mr McLean: The changes are being made. The government is shifting dollars from the hospital sector to community-based care. It is the word "change" that creates uncertainty. It is the word "change" that allows fears to be used as a tool when it's applied to something as important as health care.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Cochrane North, I'm warning you to come to order. Members for Cochrane South, Windsor-Sandwich and Hamilton East, I want to give you fair notice that I've warned you to maintain control and stop heckling the member. Member for Simcoe East.

Mr McLean: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This province can no longer afford the present system of health care. New technologies make our outdated ideas of health care standards obsolete. Procedures which once required several days in hospital can now be completed in day surgery. For some time now, hospitals have not needed the same number of patient rooms that were needed 15 years ago. Technology has allowed departments to be established which can be shared by several hospitals or communities, and the Ontario Hospital Association has stated publicly they share the government's quest to make Ontario hospitals more efficient.

The vision we all have for health care in the province is putting patients first. Restructuring will create better management, more coordination and effective hospitals. In many areas, the communities are already involved in making the changes. Hospital boards have been amalgamated and hospitals themselves have shifted their services. For example, in my riding the district health council and the boards of directors of the Huronia District Hospital in Midland and the Penetanguishene General Hospital have successfully shifted the focus and restructured their services to better care for their communities.

This community recognized the need to restructure in 1992 and began plotting a new course at that time. The decision to form the North Simcoe Hospital Alliance was defined as follows: "The purpose of the North Simcoe Hospital Alliance is to develop a mechanism by which the two institutions will be able to plan to maximize the use of existing and new health care resources available to the area and to provide the best quality of hospital care to the residents of north Simcoe."

The news release at the time indicated the two hospitals will see health programs concentrated on long-term care and rehabilitation, together with primary care and outpatient clinics. One hospital has mainly chronic care, the other has acute care; one administration. That's what's going to happen across Ontario. Some amalgamations will take place and therefore we'll save a large amount of dollars.

The government has a fundamental commitment not to let the health care funding fall below $17.4 billion. In actual fact it is currently $17.7 billion. For the member for York South to indicate that $3.2 million -- over how many years was he talking about the $3.2 million that was being taken out of the funding going to the Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital? I want to see that hospital maintained in its capacity to serve the community at large.

We have also what we call the community care service centres that are being established. We have one now that is proposed for Simcoe county. We now have people appointed to that board. We have Bob Morton, the past administrator of the home for the aged in Midland, who is now the CEO of this new community care centre. Bob, with his past experience, is an excellent choice, and I'm sure he will work with the district health councils.

When the member talks in her resolution with regard to communities to determine how restructuring the hospitals takes place, is that going to be with the community care people? Is it going to be with the district health council? We want to see that happen. We want to see the people in the community involved, and we want to see the hospitals maintained.

As far as I'm concerned, in rural and small town Ontario there will be some amalgamations. I do not anticipate that the hospitals will be closed down. There may be some, but very, very few. They will be used for chronic care and they will be used for acute care. Overall, I think the plan that these community care access centres have will work.

We have people in the county of Simcoe from Perkinsfield, Tottenham, Barrie, Elmvale, Penetanguishene, Orillia, Beeton. These people are all appointed to that community care centre. These are the people I hope she's referring to in her resolution who will have input into the community, through these people. That will make the hospital work more efficiently and it will help the government to be able to direct where they feel is the most important area for their costs to go to.

When we have the district health council in Grey-Bruce determining that hospitals should close, I think that's wrong. I think it's the commission's job. They were established to do it, and I'm sure that when the time comes --

The Speaker: I thank the member. Further debate?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I want to begin by congratulating my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich, who, as always, is representing the interests of her constituents in a strong and forthright manner.

I want to address the government on the whole question of hospitals and health care. You are cutting health care. You are cutting hospitals and you are not putting in place services to replace them. You are doing a disservice not only to this province but to your constituents by not recognizing the fact that there are not proper community-based services in place and that our hospital resources are taxed well beyond any reasonable limit as it is.

Thousands of nurses will lose their jobs. Thousands of health care workers will lose their jobs. Hospitals will close indeed, but there will not be new services put in place to help deal with the fallout.

Let's take Windsor, for example. You have cut the Sandwich Community Health Centre at the same time you're eliminating emergency service in the west end of Windsor. That is an absolute shame. Your original proposal, the document that our community agreed to -- and I say to the Tory members who are looking at reconfiguration in their communities, when the minister and the government tells you they will invest, don't believe them. Our document said "two centres of excellence." We're left with two hospitals that are barely able to cope and no emergency services in the west end of the city of Windsor.

Our document said we'd get an MRI machine before any of this happens; we don't have it in place yet, although the functional plan is moving on. Our document talked about better use of resources, but it certainly didn't contemplate long-term-care dollars being downloaded to municipalities and on to the property tax base.

To the members of the government, I say this: Stand up for your constituents today; stand up for a universal, accessible, affordable health care system. You voted down previous private members' bills to protect Ontario's interests in the Canada Health Act, to continue to have the kind of health care we deserve.

That's not to say the system is perfect, but it is to say it's better than the alternative, and it is to say that your alternative is indeed no alternative; it's an alternative that eliminates services and leaves people dangerously exposed, people like my constituent who has had to hire a private nurse at night because her son, who was injured in a car accident -- they can't trust the hospital. They're afraid to leave him alone at night because they can't get a nurse.

The members opposite will find this out: They're not restructuring health care; they're cutting money out of the system for your tax cut. The people in your ridings will realize that when they go into emergency rooms. They will realize that when they try to access health care throughout.

I applaud my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I'm proud to stand with her. I'm proud to vote against you. The people in my community and the people across this province know what your agenda is. Your agenda is to undermine publicly affordable, accessible health care. You ought to be ashamed and you ought to start dealing with the real issues.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich for this excellent resolution. If you read what the resolution says carefully, it really outlines what you promised to do in the Common Sense Revolution; it really outlines what you promised to do from day one. It talks about ensuring that there's a plan in place for reinvestment of those dollars you take out of hospital care into community based care. The reality is, though, it has not happened. What we have seen has been cut after cut across this province.

We have seen the steamrolling, appointed, lackey commission of this government go across Ontario and blindly close hospitals without giving a damn about people, without caring how it affects people's lives. That's all we have seen to date.

In two years $57 million has been cut out of hospital care in my own community, in Hamilton-Wentworth. Two weeks ago, $8.5 million was cut out of community care, out of seniors' residences, Macassa Lodge. Where are the reinvestments? I challenge members of this government to show me where the $64 million or $65 million reinvestment in Hamilton-Wentworth has been. It is a fraud; it is a hoax.

This government is continuing day after day to create a crisis in health care. They're doing it simply to satisfy one goal, and that is that promise of the 30% tax cut to their rich friends. You have a greater concern in delivering that tax cut to your corporate friends than you do in quality health care across this province.

People across the floor have spoken and said how well this is working. We saw examples the other day where people have died in hospital waiting rooms. People have died in emergency waiting rooms because there was no one there to take care of them. I had a constituent who died two hours after she was released from an emergency room because they were overcrowded and she could not be looked after. She was sent home and died of a heart attack. That is the reality of Mike Harris's Ontario; that is the reality of your health care cuts.

You can run around, you can try to fool people, you can spend millions and millions on television ads, you can put Mike Harris in hockey arenas, tell us how wonderful the province is, but you're going to pay one hell of a price for your health care cuts. People in Ontario may forgive you for cutting welfare benefits, although it is wrong. People in Ontario may forgive you for gutting their education system, although it is wrong. But I can tell you that people in Ontario are not going to forgive and forget what you have done to the health care system.

I would ask the Tory members, don't vote the Tory line. Forget the hacks and the whips in the Premier's office. Vote your conscience. Vote your constituents on this resolution. Think of the people in your riding who need hospital care. Think of the senior citizens. Think of someone who has a child at 3 o'clock in the morning and needs an emergency room to take that child to because the child is sick. Think of those folks when you vote on this resolution.

I can tell you, come the next election, in your own riding you're going to have to defend this. When you knock on a door and you explain to someone why they went to an emergency room at 3 o'clock in the morning with their child and it was closed, Mike Harris is not going to be there to prop you up. The hacks and flunkies in the Premier's office are not going to be there to give you the speaking notes. You're going to have to look those folks straight in the eye and tell them why you have done this to the health care system.

Your cuts to health care are going to bring you down. Your cuts to health care are going to destroy your government. Your cuts to health care are going to be the end of the Comic Book Revolution come the next election.

Interruption.

The Speaker: I just want to say to those in the gallery that you're welcome here but you can't clap, you can't speak, you can't make any demonstrations. If you do, the guard will come down to escort you out. I'd appreciate it, and I'm sure you would, if you didn't participate in that fashion and there will be no trouble. Thank you.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Only we are allowed to make noise.

The Speaker: Yes, that's absolutely true.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to first of all commend the member for Windsor-Sandwich for bringing forward this very timely resolution, and for once again placing before the Legislative Assembly the important issue of hospital closings and the deterioration of health care in this province.

In the Niagara region we have been confronted with a cut of some $44 million still to come in our hospital funding. We've already had substantial cuts in hospital funding which have caused hospitals to lay off nurses and other individuals who work in those hospitals and who play a very significant role. This is simply unacceptable.

If you talk to the people of this province, they will tell you that their highest priority is health care in this province. I think that crosses gender, that crosses economic background, that crosses social background. This is exceedingly important to the people of this province.

We have under the gun at the present time the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby, which is providing an excellent service to the people in that area. We have the Port Colborne General Hospital, the Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie, the Niagara-on-the-Lake General Hospital and the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines, all under the gun.

Now, the local restructuring commission -- or as I call it "hospital closing commission" -- in our area has been dealt a card which says that they must take into account a $44-million cut still to come in hospital funding. What we need in Niagara instead is a $25-million increase in funding, because if you compare us to other parts of the province we are underfunded.

People who go to hospitals today know they cannot get the same level of service they used to get. Not because the hospital staff is not dedicated, they're extremely dedicated, but they're totally overworked. Hospitals aren't as clean as they used to be. The kind of service that is provided is now only available if one has a friend or a family member there. So we've seen that deterioration of service.

We in the Niagara region have an older-than-average population, and as people become more elderly they naturally require more acute care and chronic care in our hospitals. What the province should be doing is adding on to the services that are available in the Niagara region and in other parts of the province, not subtracting from that.

I well recall on May 18, 1995, that Robert Fisher of Global TV, on a panel during the leaders' debate during the election, asked the then leader of the Conservative Party, Mike Harris if he planned to close hospitals. His answer was, "Certainly I can guarantee you, Robert, it is not my plan to close hospitals." Well, there are people all over this province who know now that the Premier is not keeping that promise.

I hear the government members say, from time to time, that they keep all their promises: "One thing you can say about the Conservatives is they kept their promises." This is one of the long list of promises to the people of this province that have been broken.

I think you're going to find out, as you go from community to community closing hospitals, no matter where they happen to be, that people are going to be revolting against this, as you cut health care so you can feed that silly tax scheme you have that is going to provide the richest and most privileged people in our society with huge amounts of money back from that tax cut, while you allow our services in this province, and most acutely health care services, to deteriorate significantly. I think that's totally unacceptable and the people of this province are beginning to tell that to you.

I now see some signs that the Minister of Health may be in retreat. That is mildly encouraging, but what we have to see is a complete rethinking of these closings on the part of the government. The people in Port Colborne, Fort Erie, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Grimsby, St Catharines, and over the Niagara region, will simply not accept the Premier breaking his solemn promise not to close hospitals.

We want our hospitals, we want good health care in the Niagara region and the rest of the province. It's up to this government to do so and I'm glad the member for Windsor-Sandwich had the intestinal fortitude to bring this forward. I hope the government supports it.

Mrs Pupatello: First, I want to thank the people who decided to come down today to Queen's Park to watch, to listen to what we have to say about health care in Ontario. There are people here from Grimsby, from Kitchener, from Queensway hospital, Bill and Ruth, who have been long-time advocates of Queensway. I want to thank the people who got up at 4 o'clock this morning to get on a bus at the Caboto Club at 5:30 in the morning to drive up the 401 so they could come here and listen and wonder which one of us is telling the truth. How many people here honestly believe that all these stories, all the services we are not getting, are not true? That's what I want to know.

Why do I get letters from the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary wishing they could be here today and advocating, thankfully moving it to a level I have yet to reach because they are praying for us too?

Members, today is the time you do not have to be political and support your political party. Today is the day you can support a resolution that will guarantee good-quality health care in Ontario.

Let me remind the members of this House that the ridings which have representatives from Sarnia, Simcoe East, Bill Murdoch, Halton North, Rainy River, Niagara South, Guelph, Brampton North, Niagara, London North, all of these ridings have submitted petitions to their MPPs to be read in this House in support of this resolution.

Today is the day you have to do that for your residents at home, because we will continue to fight, whether it's today or whether it's tomorrow. We deserve good-quality health care and we are going to get it.

The Speaker: I know all the ridings, but I don't know the one named "Bill Murdoch."

TEACHERS' PROTESTS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Private member's notice of motion number 41, standing in the name of Mr Doyle: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Private member's notice of motion number 42, standing in the name of Mrs Pupatello: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. It's a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1205 to 1210.

TEACHERS' PROTEST

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): All those in favour of private member's notice of motion number 41, please rise and remain standing to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Grimmett, Bill

Parker, John L.

Bassett, Isabel

Guzzo, Garry J.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Beaubien, Marcel

Hastings, John

Ross, Lillian

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Bert

Sheehan, Frank

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, W. Leo

Skarica, Toni

Danford, Harry

Kells, Morley

Smith, Bruce

Doyle, Ed

Leadston, Gary L.

Spina, Joseph

Elliott, Brenda

Martiniuk, Gerry

Sterling, Norman W.

Fisher, Barbara

Maves, Bart

Turnbull, David

Ford, Douglas B.

McLean, Allan K.

Vankoughnet, Bill

Fox, Gary

Munro, Julia

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Froese, Tom

Murdoch, Bill

Wood, Bob

Galt, Doug

Newman, Dan

Gilchrist, Steve

O'Toole, John

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing to be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Gerretsen, John

Miclash, Frank

Bartolucci, Rick

Grandmaître, Bernard

Morin, Gilles

Bisson, Gilles

Kennedy, Gerard

Patten, Richard

Boyd, Marion

Kormos, Peter

Pupatello, Sandra

Bradley, James J.

Kwinter, Monte

Sergio, Mario

Castrilli, Annamarie

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Silipo, Tony

Conway, Sean G.

Lankin, Frances

Wildman, Bud

Cordiano, Joseph

Martel, Shelley

Wood, Len

Crozier, Bruce

Martin, Tony

Duncan, Dwight

McLeod, Lyn

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 40; the nays are 28.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): All those in favour of private member's notice of motion number 42, please rise and remain standing and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Kennedy, Gerard

Morin, Gilles E.

Bartolucci, Rick

Kormos, Peter

Murdoch, Bill

Bisson, Gilles

Kwinter, Monte

Patten, Richard

Boyd, Marion

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Pupatello, Sandra

Bradley, James J.

Lankin, Frances

Sergio, Mario

Castrilli, Annamarie

Leadston, Gary L.

Silipo, Tony

Conway, Sean G.

Martel, Shelley

Vankoughnet, Bill

Cordiano, Joseph

Martin, Tony

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Crozier, Bruce

Martiniuk, Gerry

Wildman, Bud

Duncan, Dwight

McLean, Allan K.

Wood, Len

Gerretsen, John

McLeod, Lyn

Grandmaître, Bernard

Miclash, Frank

The Speaker: Those opposed, please rise and remain standing to be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Galt, Doug

Parker, John L.

Bassett, Isabel

Gilchrist, Steve

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Beaubien, Marcel

Grimmett, Bill

Ross, Lillian

Carroll, Jack

Guzzo, Garry J.

Sheehan, Frank

Chudleigh, Ted

Hastings, John

Skarica, Toni

Danford, Harry

Johnson, Bert

Smith, Bruce

Doyle, Ed

Jordan, W. Leo

Spina, Joseph

Elliott, Brenda

Kells, Morley

Sterling, Norman W.

Fisher, Barbara

Maves, Bart

Turnbull, David

Ford, Douglas B.

Munro, Julia

Wood, Bob

Fox, Gary

Newman, Dan

Froese, Tom

O'Toole, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34; the nays are 34.

The Speaker: The ayes are 34; the nays are 34. I have to vote and I will vote in favour of the resolution.

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1216 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE IN SUDBURY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The Minister of Health must let the people of Sudbury and northeastern Ontario know what his reinvestment plan is for our community.

There are currently over 227 heart patients waiting for surgery in northern Ontario. The equipment and the world-class staff already exist at the Sudbury Memorial Hospital, which you plan to close. I recommended to you last October that this site would be an excellent world-class heart and thoracic institute. You have a responsibility to the heart patients.

Will you ensure that you commit funding to Sudbury's YMCA Centre for Life, a community project that promotes prevention as a way of curbing costs? When will you make that announcement?

I encouraged you last October as well. You also have a responsibility to the cancer patients of northern Ontario. Will you commit funding to the northern Ontario community cancer care program? You have been aware of this program for a year and a half.

Finally, as I've said in the House before and I will continue to say, the system you are recommending for Sudbury is too small. It doesn't have enough beds. It doesn't have enough reinvestment dollars. We want to know how many dollars you are going to reinvest in Sudbury. We want to know when you are going to fund these projects that the Liberals have been telling you to fund for a year and a half now. Act now.

ST PETER'S HOSPITAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Last week I rose and asked the Minister of Health about the plight of St Peter's chronic care hospital in my riding. There's a hospital that has a south wing that has deplorable conditions, a 70-year-old wing with 80 beds. Our government, the NDP government, had approved the replacement of those 80 beds. This government had agreed with that plan, allowed the first phase to take place, which was the excavation of the land, and indeed paid 50% of the cost of that. Now, on January 28, the hospital was informed that they have to stop all construction, halt immediately and wait for the commission.

In addition to putting the patients in jeopardy, given the condition of this building and the fact that it doesn't meet any building code or fire code standards as they now exist, the fire department allowed things to continue knowing that the funding was going to flow to build that new wing. Then, when they stopped it, we not only have the worry of the patients and the staff in this unsafe building but there's now a 20-foot hole in the ground the size of a football field that is jeopardizing the neighbourhood children.

Our community and St Peter's Hospital cannot wait until the commission finishes its work. That could take months, it could take a year. You're putting too many patients at risk, too many of the staff at risk and too many of the children. I say to the minister, if somebody gets hurt in that hole that you've allowed to be dug in the ground, are you going to take responsibility?

DEVELOPMENT IN COBOURG

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise to recognize the fine efforts of the Cobourg Economic Development Commission. The economic development office works to foster growth, prosperity and employment opportunities for the people of Cobourg. As a result of their hard work and dedication, I'm able to share the following successes with the House today.

I'm honoured to report that the latest employment statistics issued show that the town of Cobourg has regained all of the over 900 manufacturing jobs that were lost in 1991-92 because of the recession. This is a huge accomplishment which indicates that they are set on the path to prosperity.

Congratulations to the town of Cobourg for its recent successes at the Ontario Marketing Awards competition held by the Economic Developers Council of Ontario. As another indication of its efforts, Cobourg received five awards for excellence in the economic development marketing material division.

Cindy Symons-Milroy, director of the Cobourg Economic Development Commission, in its recent press release, stated, "This town has a lot to offer prospective employers, including a first-class workforce, superb quality of life and a host of recreational and cultural amenities." I cannot agree more with Ms Symons-Milroy, and I encourage all members present today to visit this community and see first hand the successes it has achieved.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement today is directed to the Premier. This past Monday more than 150 residents attended a town hall meeting in Dryden. The meeting was called to discuss the unprecedented downloading your government has imposed upon local taxpayers throughout the province. To say the least, local residents in Dryden and throughout northwestern Ontario are concerned and disturbed with what they are witnessing from this government.

Dryden residents were told by the town treasurer that the Harris dumping of provincial responsibility will result in a 75% increase in residential taxes. We also heard from the director of the local hospital, who told the gathering that if he is forced to make any more cuts to his budget, his hospital could potentially become a first aid station.

This government promised during the last election that if elected, "We will work closely with municipalities to ensure that any actions taken will not result in increases to local property taxes." Now that municipalities and hospitals throughout the province have demonstrated that they are unable to handle your dumping policy and your cuts, you have decided to ignore their cries for help.

Premier, you also stated in the revolutionary document that you would "sit down with municipalities to discuss ways of reducing government entanglement." You also stated that you wanted to stop "unfair downloading." You have not done any of these things and the people of northwestern Ontario deserve better.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Chief Justice McMurtry and Chief Justice LeSage have been consistent in warning this government that a shortage of funds is backlogging both the civil and criminal justice systems. We see Askov rearing its ugly head again as serious charges are thrown out of court as a result of lengthy delays that are a result of this government's mismanagement of our courts and this Attorney General's very specific mismanagement of his ministry.

How does the Ministry of the Attorney General respond to these comments by two esteemed jurists in this province? I'll tell you what the ministry said about them: "All they have to do is burp, fart or belch and it's on the front page. I think they believe they are trying to help, but they're not." What does the Ministry of the Attorney General have to say about these two esteemed jurists? "I have three words for what the chief justices are doing: out of touch."

That's simply not the case. Charlie Harnick, the Attorney General, is out of touch. He mismanaged the family support plan and left thousands of women and their children penniless while he bungled and fumbled what had been operative and working until he shut down eight regional offices and dismissed almost 300 staff people.

He's mismanaged our court systems, inviting more and more serious charges to be tossed out because he as Attorney General has displayed nothing but incompetence, and now he displays disdain for the messengers. I suppose it's a good thing that justices McMurtry and LeSage are judges, otherwise --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much, Member.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I rise in the House today in what has been a historic week in the province of Ontario. The government-appointed Health Services Restructuring Commission has announced a bold new plan for hospitals in three cities. We're now finally seeing some real change in the way health services are delivered rather than simply talking about it, as previous governments did.

Ontario spends more per person on health care than almost any other jurisdiction in the world. That money has not always been spent wisely. Hospitals must be, and are, at the forefront of the changes currently being made. Between 1989 and 1995, 8,700 acute care beds were closed without a single building being shut down. We continue to support the administration and overhead costs of these vacated areas.

With this week's announcements, we're embarking on the final road towards a more efficient system, putting patients first. We're embarking on a system to reinvest savings back into the health care the community needs.

Change is difficult to accept. The district health councils and community care agency committees have to work together to make some recommendations to the restructuring committee to make these changes take place. We all know we need more health care in the communities. We need more nursing homes. We need more homes for the aged.

Reinvestment has taken place in several medical areas, such as the Ontario breast screening program, kidney dialysis and cancer treatment. These are necessary decisions. Restructuring is necessary. We've got to make the tough choices for Ontarians.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Here's a quick quiz for the members of the House. Who said, "What really disturbs me is the fact that there has been literally no consultation. We've been excluded from the whole battle, and that raises some serious questions about the credibility of the results," and what was that person referring to?

You'd be correct if you answered the Honourable Bob Runciman, Solicitor General, commenting on the government's process used to close the Brockville Psychiatric Centre. You see, even members of Mike Harris's own cabinet admit that the process, the approach being used to restructure the province's hospital sector, is seriously and fatally flawed.

We saw more evidence of that this morning when members of the government voted in support of the member for Windsor-Sandwich's private member's resolution urging the government to reconsider what it is doing in the hospital sector.

Ontarians have lost confidence in the restructuring process and in this government. They fear the lack of local consultation. They grow ever more worried as evidence comes in that hospitals are being closed before community-based services are in place and that it's hurting patients. Daily we're hearing horror stories of sick people in hospitals being neglected because nurses have been laid off due to the budget cuts.

During the 1995 election debate, Mike Harris told voters: "I guarantee that it's not my plan to close hospitals. I don't see services being diminished." Those words have come back to haunt the Premier.

We in the Liberal Party think the government is being reckless and is hurting the people of Ontario on a daily basis. This is not good-quality --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): You will know that the government last week made an announcement ab