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

November 20, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L248 - Thu 20 Nov 1997 / Jeu 20 Nov 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LAND TRANSFER TAX REBATE

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM / RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION

CANADIAN WOMEN'S / OLYMPIC HOCKEY TEAM

GLEN PARK PUBLIC SCHOOL

MUNICIPAL ENUMERATION

MAKE A WILL WEEK

PROPERTY TAXATION

GOVERNMENT AGENDA

VANIER CUP FOOTBALL GAME

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

VISITORS

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

EDUCATION REFORM

BUILDING CODE

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EDUCATION REFORM

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

EDUCATION REFORM

COURT DECISION

EDUCATION REFORM

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

ABORTION

EDUCATION REFORM

PAY EQUITY

BEAR HUNTING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAIRNESS FOR PARENTS AND EMPLOYEES ACT (TEACHERS' WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES PARENTS ET DES EMPLOYÉS (RETRAIT DE SERVICES PAR LES ENSEIGNANTS)

The House met at 1102.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LAND TRANSFER TAX REBATE

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I move that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should extend its program for rebate of the land transfer tax for all first-time home buyers who purchase a newly constructed home to include first-time home buyers who purchase a resale home, and extend the rebate program through to March 31, 1999, and increase the $200,000 purchase price ceiling from the land transfer tax rebate through the Ontario home ownership savings plan for buyers in the greater Toronto area, and the Minister of Finance should accept the provisions of this resolution and include them as part of the 1998 Ontario budget.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Mr Newman, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Newman: It's my pleasure to move ballot item 105 this morning with respect to the inclusion of resale homes in the land transfer tax rebate program. Many members across Ontario who are here today know that this program has seen significant new home starts in their areas. But coming from a very urban area, where land is very scarce for new home development, many of the people in my riding who want to participate in this program have to leave Scarborough Centre and move somewhere else. Many of them move to the 905 area, where many of these new homes are being developed.

My resolution today would ensure that when people make the decision to buy that first-time home, it could be a resale so that they could choose to live in Scarborough Centre, for example, where roughly 40% of my constituents are tenants. Many of those who are choosing to eventually enter the home market are literally discriminated against from purchasing a home within, say, Scarborough Centre because there's just not the land available for new homes.

It's something that I think is very important for all of us being part of a government that is bringing about jobs, hope, growth and opportunity for all Ontarians, to consider. This is exactly the type of measure that's needed to create jobs.

When we look at a transaction of a resale home, or any home for that matter, there is about $17,000 worth of economic activity that goes through various fees. There are legal fees -- we're not here to drum up business for the lawyers today by any means, that's not what this is about -- there are land surveying fees; people may choose to buy a new fridge or a new stove or other appliances; there are draperies, broadloom, all sorts of potential spinoffs by having a resolution like this included in the 1998 budget. I think it's very important.

I received a letter on November 11 this year from the Ontario Real Estate Association. It's addressed to me. It says, "I'm writing to you today to offer you the support of the Ontario Real Estate Association and its 38,000 members province-wide for your private member's resolution extending the current land transfer tax rebate to purchasers of resale homes."

They go on in this letter to say that this makes housing affordable for many people. If we look at the $1,725, which I believe is the maximum rebate allowed today, which will run out March 31, 1998, that's after-tax dollars so they would have had to make roughly twice that amount to actually realize that $1,725 -- I guess a little lower than that now, since we've cut taxes in this province.

If they chose to use that as part of the down payment, the savings on that $1,725 over a 25-year amortized mortgage, even at the rates today, if it averaged, say, 9% over a 25-year amortized mortgage, are significant to many people in Ontario. That would be just the kind of stimulus that's needed to ensure they make that jump into the housing market and buy a resale home.

As well, the York Region Real Estate Board sent me a letter. I know real estate boards and many organizations follow what happens here in the Legislature. They said to me:

"Mr Newman, I hope that the enclosed petition will help you in your endeavour to extend the land transfer tax to both new homes and resale homes for the first-time buyer. There has been very positive support from our membership and we support you 100%."

That's signed by Jane Doyle, the chairman of the political action committee of the York Region Real Estate Board. She's here today, I understand. Yes, she is. There she is. They have even come here today to see what we're doing.

Several of the members of their association filled in petitions. Jim Wessel from Countrywide for Huronia writes: "The current rebate is totally unfair and discriminatory toward first-time buyers who don't buy, or more importantly can't afford, a new home. It should be available to all purchasers who qualify under the first-time buyers plan, regardless of a new or resale home purchase." I think this gentleman is right on when he says that.

There were several other people. I think there were several hundred petitions I had received. One of them is actually from a former member of this House. He was the member for Willowdale from 1987-90, Gino Matrundola. He says that it's of vital importance that the land transfer tax rebate program for first-time home buyers go on to include resale homes. So we have a former member of this House of the Liberal Party supporting tax cuts and seeing that they do create jobs for people.

I'm going to be very interested today to see how all members in this House vote, whether they vote in favour of a measure like this which promotes job creation in this province. I see the Liberals are shaking their heads. I know they still haven't read the

article by Patrick Monahan, who worked in David Peterson's office, that showed the taxpayers of Ontario have more money by asking taxpayers to pay less tax. I think they ought to read that article.

It's a very important issue in our riding of Scarborough Centre and right across Ontario. It was brought in in the 1996 budget and extended to the 1997 budget. When you look at the land transfer tax, it constitutes a significant portion of the closing costs for first-time buyers. That's money the government takes for the transfer of property. With the program we have today, it literally discriminates against those people who want to buy a resale home.

When you look at resale homes there are many people who may wish to make renovations to that home. With those renovations come many other jobs that people would want to see happen in their communities. Increasing the limit in terms of the purchase price would allow those people to chose to stay in Toronto. Madam Speaker, I know you would be very interested to know that this would help preserve the urban core within Metro and keep people and young families living here in Toronto. I think that's a very important item to consider.

As I mentioned, yes there are professional fees that are paid to lawyers and appraisers and real estate agents and surveyors, and these all contribute to our economy in a very significant way. As I mentioned, appliances, furnishings, other durable goods, renovations, all these create jobs in every one of our communities. I think we should be standing up today for our communities and for jobs in our communities by voting for this resolution.

It's something I hope the Minister of Finance, whether it passes or it doesn't pass, considers when he is preparing for the 1998 budget --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I suspect he will.

Mr Newman: The member for St Catharines says he suspects he will and I hope you're right that he does consider what people are saying about this resolution, because it is something that is very important, that not only affects rural Ontario, but affects urban Ontario as well, probably in a more significant way in areas where there just isn't the land available to build housing so that people have the opportunity to stay in Scarborough.

We have had new developments in my riding. There are about two of them. They've come since 1995 when the economy picked up in this province. Besides those two, there is really not a lot of extra land available where new housing can go. I'm really doing this for my constituents in Scarborough Centre who are first-time buyers so that they have that opportunity to stay in Scarborough Centre, to be part of a great community and to partake in all the great things that we have to offer.

I would ask all members if they would -- this is private member's business; these are not whipped votes by any means --

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): No such thing.

Mr Newman: " No such thing," the member for York-Mackenzie says, and you're right. On this side, there is no such thing as a whipped vote. You would want to know, Madam Speaker, that this is something on which I hope all members put aside their party allegiances -- I know the leaders of the other parties are probably telling them, "Don't vote for this because it's a tax cut and we can't be seen as being in favour of tax cuts." But I say, put that all aside and vote for this bill. You'll see the benefits in your community. The benefits will come in the increased economic activity and jobs.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bradley: I want to tell the member, first of all, to make him and a lot of people happy, that I happen to agree with this resolution. This resolution makes far more sense than the silly income tax break. You know why this is good? I want to say to the member for Scarborough Centre, it is good because it will have a direct impact. It will prompt people to make a direct purchase.

We will see a direct benefit from this particular tax measure that you cannot guarantee with the income tax cut, which benefits the wealthiest people in our society to the greatest extent because, in real dollars, they are going to get the most back from it. This helps people who are often not the wealthiest people in our society, who want to get into a new home situation -- new for them at least.

This is exactly the kind of targeted tax measure which can have some benefit, unlike the ridiculous 30% income tax cut which is causing the provincial government to close hospitals in this province, to de-fund hospitals, to not provide enough money for home care in the Niagara region, where people are now calling my constituency office and asking, "Where is the service that we expected in home care?" In this regard I want to support the minister responsible for seniors' issues in getting the adequate amount of money from Mike Harris and from Ernie Eves for the program that he wants to implement. That is something we've been looking at.

I would say as well that if the government had followed the member for Scarborough Centre's recommendation as contained in this resolution instead of the income tax cut, then we wouldn't have the government cutting another two thirds of a billion dollars from the education system in this province. Even though they said they weren't going to cut any money from education and they sent all of their members around to the meetings saying, "Oh, Bill 160 has nothing to do with cutting money out of education," a week later, when the Premier said that's what it is about, they had to go back with a new script.

I didn't blame them for not wanting to show up at the rallies and the public meetings and so on, based on the fact that the tune had to change. I was waiting for an invitation from my friend from St Catharines-Brock. He had a forum in Virgil, Ontario, a wonderful place, and he didn't invite me to it. I couldn't believe it. I was available that evening and I could have gone. It probably got lost in the mail, because I know he would have wanted me to be at that forum.

That doesn't have much to do with the resolution, and that's unfortunate, because I'm an individual who likes to speak directly to matters before the House instead of heading into different things. I know that this measure, which is targeted to people and will allow more people to move into what is for them a new home -- the building may not be new but for them a new home -- may have that kind of economic stimulus which would allow more revenue to come in to the government so that they could solve the problem we have in the Niagara region of the heart patients who are sitting in intensive care units waiting to get to Hamilton for an angiogram, because in Hamilton there is a huge backlog.

Perhaps this will stimulate the economy because it's a direct tax measure which can have a positive effect, as opposed to the income tax cut where somebody can squirrel it away in an RRSP or head for a holiday in Aruba or something of that nature. This is targeted, and I'm glad to see that the member has found out that that's the appropriate kind of tax measure that we should have.

If the member can persuade the government now to abandon its millions of dollars of blatant partisan advertising on behalf of this government, particularly attacking certain segments of our society in Ontario, like the teachers who must deliver front-line services, if they would save money from that, they wouldn't have to worry about the short-term consequences of a little bit of revenue loss they would see as a result of this measure. So I support it and I think the member should inform the Treasurer of my views on this, and his.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise this morning to address the issue brought before the House by the member for Scarborough Centre with some disappointment and concern that we in this House these days do not seem to have the kind of time that is required to address some of the major initiatives of this government that are going to affect the everyday lives of ordinary citizens in a way that is going to be in some instances very dramatic; in other instances perhaps not so dramatic, yet it will have an effect on them, on their families and on their children.

It disappoints me to come here each Thursday morning in the context of the world that we in Ontario live in today, which is becoming more and more disconcerting and confusing for many people. There is a level of anxiety in my own constituents, and as I travel the province and walk the streets of Toronto from time to time to see what's going on and talk to folks that I meet, a level of anxiety that is unprecedented, a level of fear by people who have been caught up in the vortex of a system that is less and less supportive of people and families and by people who are afraid that within a very short period of time they themselves will be caught in that.

I see the kind of initiative that is being brought to us to debate by the members across the way that really has nothing in it to address the very serious concern that faces everybody. If you attack the very core of a society, the people whom that society is built around, the people whom that society is developed to serve, you come close to deteriorating it in a way that causes the whole thing to collapse.

To have a piece of legislation such as the piece that we have before us today here, which is obviously not going to do anything to address that serious issue, the issue of, for example, homelessness in the province in a way that will see more quality homes being built and provided and presented to the people who need them most, concerns me.

So today, in my few moments of comment on this bill, you will note that I will be referencing the larger context within which this bill is expected to unfold. I will be referencing very clearly a piece of legislation that will be coming at us in the next week or two -- before Christmas, I might add, a time of year when all of us should be feeling a sense of generosity, a sense of caring that is different than any other time in the year. That we would be entertaining the passing of Bill 142 at this time of year, that it will have such a dramatic and negative impact on those most vulnerable and most at risk in our society is what I will be --

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: With all respect to the member, and I'm not being trivial, this is private members' hour. It's a very important hour for members who aren't ministers, in fact, or critics --

The Deputy Speaker: Could you get to your point of order.

Mr O'Toole: I would prefer if the member would comment specifically on the private member's resolution before us. There is a time and a place, and I respect that, for your messages.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: If you would, Madam Speaker, please ensure the speaker comments with respect to the resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. It is a point of order. I would ask the member for Sault Ste Marie to come back to the private member's resolution at hand this morning.

Mr Martin: I certainly will, but before I do that I want to comment on the fact that the member did get up in the House here this morning and challenge me re my right, my ability to speak in this House as compassionately and as forcefully and as caringly about those things that concern me most and into which pieces of legislation such as the one that's presented to us this morning must fit.

It actually helps me make the point that I was about to make before the member stood up. If you'll remember, earlier this week I was standing in this House to make a point of concern that was brought to me by my constituents, and a member of the governing party told me to sit down. What we're finding here in this House these days, particularly we in the third party, is that we are getting less and less time to talk on those things that concern us most.

For example, in the last two or three days we've had two pieces of legislation that have gone through this House that are of major concern to the question of housing in the province. We in the third party yesterday didn't even get to speak because the rules of this place have been changed, and with the time allocations that you have brought in in order to ram through your legislation so that we don't get a chance to have a look at it, to speak on behalf of our constituents to it, to put on the record in this place our concerns so that the people of Ontario might understand how this is going to ultimately impact them directly once it comes into effect, we don't get a chance to speak on that.

The Deputy Speaker: Could I ask the member for Sault Ste Marie to come back to debating the resolution at hand this morning.

Mr Martin: Well, Speaker, I hope you're not --

The Deputy Speaker: No, member for Sault Ste Marie. I give all members some leeway in debate, but you have not come to the resolution at hand at all this morning and I would ask you now to do that.

Mr Martin: You're making it very difficult for me, Speaker, and I hope that you're not --

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, come on now. I've asked you twice and it is a legitimate point of order. Would you please speak to the resolution at hand. As I said, I always give members lots of leeway, but you must at some time during this discussion speak about the bill. I would ask you to do so now.

Mr Martin: This is private members' hour, Speaker, and I'm led to believe that it is a time when we can free-wheel a bit and talk and put on the record some of our comments, because this resolution, this piece of business that we're dealing with here this morning, will have a major and dramatic negative impact on the people that we over on this side of the House are most concerned about when it comes to the question of housing and homelessness.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry. Member for Sault Ste Marie, I would ask you --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Member for Sault Ste Marie, I would ask you to speak to the resolution, please.

Mr Martin: I tell you, Speaker, I am trying desperately to speak to this resolution, but the members opposite, actually supported by yourself and your rulings, are not letting me speak to this resolution.

I've already lost at least three or four minutes in this absolutely useless exchange that we've had because the members of the government are afraid in this House, consistently over the last few days, to face the truth. We are not allowed any more to speak on pieces of legislation that come before us here. Over the last three days we've had three major bills go through this House that we have not had a chance to put on the record our thoughts and comments on.

This morning, in speaking to the resolution that's before us --

Mr Klees: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member fully knows that his leader was kicked out of this House and that's why he didn't have an opportunity to speak further. That's why --

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order. Member for York-Mackenzie, take your seat. This is getting out of hand. Let's remember this is private members' hour. I would ask again the member for Sault Ste Marie to come to order and come back to the resolution at hand.

Mr Martin: To get back to the resolution just ever so briefly so that I might have a right to put on the record my concerns re this piece of legislation, or this piece of work or resolution, and how it indicates a complete lack of sensitivity by the government about the issues that are concerning most of the folks out there today, we have a province that is in total chaos and yet we get this kind of resolution that, yes, has some significance for some folks, I agree, in this province.

In fact we have a letter that I keep raising here sent to the member bringing this piece of work forward by the Ontario Real Estate Association, an organization that has certainly some credibility and has done some very excellent work in my community.

I would like to see them at least once in their time here and with the time they have bring a letter forward by a poverty activist group out there, by somebody representing the ordinary middle-class Ontario resident out there re some of the initiatives they bring forward. All of the initiatives that they have brought forward in the last two and a half years while they've been government, and no less in the housing sector, have created a situation now where we have homelessness in our province. If that's not connected in some way to this piece of work this morning, I'll eat my hat. Homelessness in this province is at a 30-year high.

The member for Sudbury has just given me a statistical piece of information. In Sault Ste Marie, the actual housing starts have gone down by 29% in October of this year. If that's good news or if that's something that this government wants to prop up or roll out there as some kind of public relations spin re the economy that's beginning to take fire and ignite in the province, then I'm sorry, I've missed the point. I don't understand.

To suggest for a minute that the piece of work that we have in front of us today in any way enhances the public good out there -- which is what government should be about, putting in place regulations and rules and a framework within which a society can evolve and develop so that all of us who consider that that particular piece of the country or province that we live in our home -- I think they're not acting in the way that government was expected to act when it was first developed.

Speaker, the reason I am so concerned and upset and speaking in this way and challenging you in the chair and the members who keep heckling and raising points here about my points is that I attended at 10 o'clock this morning a press conference down in the media studio where a group of anti-poverty activists from the Niagara region spoke very eloquently and compassionately and clearly about the effect and the impact of Bill 142 on them and the people they speak for.

They were saying that because they don't have the kind of resources behind them that the government obviously does and that groups like the teachers' federations in the province have in their fight against this government re the question of Bill 160, which is an important fight to have, they cannot get their voice heard.

So stretching the parameters here this morning, I am taking just a moment to express on their behalf the real concerns we have as a party re the impact of Bill 142 on those in our community who are most vulnerable and most at risk when it comes to any diminishing of the social safety fabric that we've all worked so hard, over a long number of years in Ontario, to put in place so that those who find themselves in that situation are protected, and those of us who are afraid that within a matter of weeks or months we may find ourselves in that situation, have something that will catch us and help us through that transition.

This morning, to have to come once again before this House as the third party, so concerned about the impact of the initiatives of this government on those out there for whom we speak probably most often in this place, the poor and the vulnerable and the marginalized and those who find themselves in need of assistance -- it's just not talked about, and we're not going to get a chance. Bill 142 will be before us here within the next week or two, and if the trend continues as we've seen this week, we will not get a chance, because of the changes in the rules, because of the time allocation motions in front of us, to actually put our thoughts on the record.

This morning I say to Mr Newman, please go back to your constituency and talk to those people whom you also represent who are going to be affected negatively and drastically and dramatically by Bill 142.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Further debate, the member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: On a special side note, Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for your consistency in your rulings with respect to this place -- very fairminded.

It's a pleasure to have been asked by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Centre, Mr Newman, to speak on his resolution this morning. Very specifically, for the viewers today, it is: "That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should extend its program for rebate of the land transfer tax for all first-time home buyers who purchase a newly constructed home," which is something we already do in Ontario. But Mr Newman has gone one step further to serve the people of his riding, indeed all Ontarians, to include all first-time buyers of resale homes.

He's explained in some elaborate detail the important ripple effect or multiplier effect in the local economy, indeed in the economy of Ontario.

Let me make it perfectly clear: This government is working with small business and those people on the front line trying to create jobs and hope and opportunity in this province.

Really, in honesty, when Mr Newman asked me to comment on his resolution, I was more than pleased, because I know a number of members who probably could have done a more than adequate job, but we work together.

What we're always looking for is not to interrupt the balance of the market. The market is a very sensitive balance between supply and demand, and of course a number of factors influence that, such as the land transfer tax cost. That's a cost, a discretionary charge, that could be considered a barrier to growth. But you have to look at the interest rates, you must look at the brokerage fees and you must look at the GST-PST implications of all transactions in our economy.

All those represent an opportunity for all the stakeholders, whether it's the real estate brokers or other agencies involved, lawyers, to look at their fee schedules to see if they can make the cost of doing business more competitive. Keep the eye on the customer; most customers are our constituents.

You must be careful not to interfere and to overstimulate the market either. My understanding today is that in my riding of Durham East there is certainly a very active market and new home sales are very active -- a lot of migration to the Durham region, an excellent place to live, to work, to enjoy your life and to raise a family.

Mr Bradley from St Catharines mentioned that it is a direct stimulus when you intervene. When a sector is struggling, whether it's the auto sector -- at times, the governments have looked at the interest rate in that sector or other stimuli, tax reductions. This is one other option that Mr Newman is bringing forward to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I support the theme and thrust behind this. I want that arsenal of tools within the hands of the minister to exercise, to make sure that very important part of our community and our whole economy is there at his beck and call.

Respectfully, I want to start by recognizing that we as a caucus have been kept informed by many of the hard-working, front-line people in the real estate sector, not the least of whom is Jane Doyle, from the York board, who is here with us this morning in support of this resolution as the way to do business in this province. We also have Jerry England, from the Toronto Real Estate Board, and Robert Storring, from the Ontario Real Estate Association.

But to me, I have to work with the people locally in my riding of Durham East. Lucien Lambier, who is the president of the Durham Region Real Estate Board, a very positive part of our local economy, working with small business. Indeed, what Mr Newman said is true: All his transactions result in other people being employed.

That's an important part of the economy in every one of our ridings. I'm surprised that the member for Sault Ste Marie doesn't realize just how important this is, for the very reasons you suggest. The best plan for helping someone is a job. That's the best plan.

In my riding I deal with Walter Frank, a very widely recognized, leading person from Clarington with respect to real estate; Ken Hockin, a long-time, well-known, well-respected businessman creating many jobs and opportunities for people; George Van Dyk; Keith Puckrin; Cliff Crowell.

Other people in my area: Betty Morrison is a long-time citizen who has come out of another career into the real estate market, just loves it, works with people, new home buyers and first-time home buyers, to find their home. That's an important aspect of our community. Murray Patterson is another person who's continually calling me and saying, "John, we've got to make sure our economy is working," and he's not in any selfish way looking after himself. He sees the importance of small business, of those real estate people and other servants of our community to try and create jobs, hope and opportunity.

Bill Daniels, Bob Hahn and other members of our community are important contributors to this economy. They create jobs, opportunity and hope. I think Mr Newman's resolution goes a long way to saying our economy is on track.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm pleased to rise and share a few ideas and points with regard to this resolution. Let me say from the outset that I'm going to be supporting this resolution because I think it's a very good direction to be moving in. I have a few concerns about a few of the givens in the resolution and I'm going to address those. But underlying all those concerns is the fact that I am going to be supporting the resolution.

The first given I have is with regard to the creation of jobs. I would be concerned if I were on the other side, the governing side, when I look at statistics which say that the number of people unemployed now is greater than when your government took over. There were 494,000 people unemployed; there are now 504,000 people unemployed. That's a given I would be concerned about. You promised 725,000 jobs. If you are to create 725,000 jobs as promised during your mandate, at this point in time you should have created 336,000 jobs. You are 130,000 jobs short of that number. I would be concerned about that fact as well.

On a more parochial level, I'm very concerned about the effect it's having on my community of Sudbury, where the unemployment rate has grown to 9.1%. That's higher than the Canadian average of 8.2%. I'm suggesting to you that you can do a lot more with regard to job creation. In fact, I don't think you should be publicizing how proud you are about ensuring that Sudbury and northern Ontario have such a high unemployment rate.

But having said that, let's move to another given I have concerns about, and that's with regard to the given that says the current land transfer tax rebate program discriminates against first-time home buyers of resale homes. I agree with that, and that's why I'm supporting this resolution, because there shouldn't be discrimination.

Yet within the resolution -- and I know it's not intended, because I asked the member why northern Ontario wasn't included in the lifting of the ceiling of the land transfer tax rebate through the Ontario home ownership savings plan, other than the greater Toronto area. He honestly suggested to me that northern Ontario wasn't part of the original resolution. I hope it's only an oversight; if not, I have to suggest that the resolution is discriminatory against northern Ontario, and God knows we live that only too often as we go through the mandate of the Harris government.

I'll give you some boring Sudbury statistics, but they're important statistics I'm using for my rationalization of the fact that I am supporting a resolution from the member of the government side. Paul Prosperi, the market analyst for CMHC, says, "Until sustained increases in housing demand begins to whittle away at the current supply of housing, new construction activity will remain slow." This is a very tangible way to ensure that we whittle away at the resale market we have out there.

We haven't been very successful in residential construction in Sudbury; we're down 23%, Sault Ste Marie is down 29%, from January to October in Sudbury we were down 17%. I would suggest that since we have homes on the resale market, let's provide as much stimulation as possible to ensure that they are sold so that hopefully we can create construction jobs. This may be a positive way of doing it, so I'll support the resolution.

There is also a stimulus in here for the move-up buyer to become interested in increasing the square footage of the home he presently has. For example, now there is a stimulus to move from the 1,200-square-foot home to the 1,500-square-foot home to the 2,000-square-foot home etc, and that's why I think it's essential that you lift that $200,000 ceiling for all people in Ontario, not only in the greater Toronto area.

Finally, I suggest that the 1.5% of the cost of the home, which is the land rebate tax, is very crucial to the young buyer who is just starting out. He or she can use that towards the down payment and not be saddled with debt.

I will be supporting the resolution even though I feel there are some weaknesses in it.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't believe I've had the occasion to congratulate you on your new position, so I'd like to do so: the first woman Deputy Speaker, and indeed the constituents in Riverdale must be very proud of their new Deputy Speaker.

I'm also pleased to commend my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre for his ongoing commitment to the plight of working families in his community. The incredible tax burden they face because of a whole host of taxes at all levels causes him great concern, as I know it causes many of my colleagues equal concern. We simply have got to stop the taxing war on the middle class in this province, and I certainly share that with him.

I was extremely interested, as I know all members were, to hear one of the Liberal members opposite state that tax cuts stimulate the economy. This is a remarkable achievement, that two and a half years into the time of this Parliament and after all the tax cuts for small business, for working families, for new home buyers, we're finally seeing that the message is starting to resonate over in the opposition benches, where one member actually suggested that tax cuts stimulate the economy. I hadn't heard that from the Liberal Party since about two weeks before the election, so it's good to see that they are beginning to follow through on those issues.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): They're starting to realize that the voters like it.

Mr Baird: The member for Kitchener says that the voters like tax cuts. They like tax cuts because it creates jobs. He's very right.

On the specific issue that my colleague has raised in his resolution, I wanted to provide some important background to the land transfer tax refund. In last year's budget the government extended the refund that was first introduced in the 1996 budget. The program was designed to assist first-time home buyers in the purchase of a newly constructed home and to help create jobs in the building, furnishing and equipping of newly constructed homes. The original time limit of the program was designed to encourage a more immediate response to the refund and a faster stimulus to the new housing sector.

The construction and real estate sectors are leading employment growth in the province. There are 250,000 net new jobs, and it has been led by the construction sector, particularly in residential homes. So far this year, we've seen an average of 55,000 home starts, and that's impressive. When you look at the charts contained in last year's budget, 36,000 new homes were started in 1995, this year it's up to 56,000, and by 1999 it's scheduled to rise to 65,000. That's some very solid economic growth. The new home construction market is a central part of the province's job creation strategy.

I have some thoughts to put on the record for each of us to reflect on in relation to the resolution my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre has put before us. There was a decision taken in the 1996 budget, and then confirmed in the 1997 budget, to focus the program on newly constructed homes. That was a very strategic decision. There's a substantial economic spinoff from both new and resale homes. As the member for Scarborough Centre mentioned, there's $17,000 worth of economic spinoffs to the economy on a resale home.

As considerable as that is, there's even more on newly constructed homes, with 2.8 years of work for every newly constructed home in the province. That's substantial, because those jobs are desperately needed right across the province. So the decision to go for strategic investment in new homes was an important one. In my riding, we're seeing a lot of new homes go up in Longfields, Davidson Heights and Chapman Mills.

I think there's substantial agreement that extending the program to resale homes might be akin to pushing a wheel that's already going down a hill. Look at the condition of the resale market. Last year, there was a 30% increase in resale homes. The tax cut in my riding, once completed, will add about $170 a month to the average family in Nepean's pocket. That's almost akin to the cost of lower interest rates. So the $170 off the cost of carrying a house from lower interest rates and the $170 off the average home in my constituency on income tax for working families is a considerable amount more money in their pockets. The interest rates are at a 30-year low, back to 1965 levels.

Prices have fallen too. In 1989 the average price was $196,000; in August 1996 it's $160,000. Prices for resale homes are of course already demonstrably lower than those of newly constructed homes. Some 75% of first-time home buyers prefer to buy new homes. This change could potentially reduce that choice and more people could go into the resale housing market, and that could potentially cause harm to the job and economic growth we've seen in new home construction, which is something that would cause us to reflect.

Also, through the land transfer tax refund, we want to provide an incentive for prospective purchasers to act quickly and thus solicit an immediate response and immediate injection of economic activity into our economy. This skid may not need any grease.

Having said that, the solid housing rebound in recent years and the 30% increase in resale home sales last year are examples that the housing sector is doing well. The debate this morning is certainly something that will be extremely helpful to the Minister of Finance as he begins consultations on the preparation of the budget he'll present next year.

With that, there are some concerns members may want to reflect on as they undertake consideration of this resolution brought forward by my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I am pleased to join the debate on the resolution of the member for Scarborough Centre. I'd like to say at the outset that I'm in support of the resolution as well as the content of the resolution itself, for a number of reasons, some of which have already been addressed by previous members. It's not only the economic benefit, as has been mentioned, but I think it makes good common sense, if I can put it that way, for the members across. This is a fatherhood or motherhood issue, and I think we should be doing everything possible to make it attractive, especially for new home buyers.

I have a couple of points, because I only have three minutes left. Number one is, yes, we should extend the benefits that first-time home buyers are enjoying now. We should extend that. We should include resale homes as well, especially when you mention the city of Toronto where you can only get a condominium or maybe a semi-detached two-storey or stuff like that for less than $200,000.

Especially in the city of Toronto where we are trying to concentrate a residential community in the core of the urban area, where we have spent billions of dollars building facilities, community centres and art centres, where all the amenities are, I think it's important we maintain that residential component in the core in the city of Toronto. It's important as well that we don't put a ceiling, that we don't put a limit, a cap, on the $200,000. We should go beyond that.

There is a buyer for every house. Therefore, if they resell it in a city or town or downtown Toronto, people have to move on either to another resale or to a new home in the outer regions. It makes sense that we extend the benefits to first-time home buyers of resale homes. As I said before, and as others have said, the benefits are many. We can think of the construction spinoffs, of the additions. It's quite normal that purchasers, especially first-time buyers, move into a resale and there are a number of things they want to change. They want to adapt that home to their needs.

They may add a kitchen or a bathroom. They may remove walls. They may want to put in a garage or a number of things. I don't have to tell you the economic spinoffs that would go along with that. It's also important because that existing community has all the amenities in place. It's got schools, so it would attract new families; it would attract younger families with kids as well. It does make sense.

With respect to the limit, it's something that should improve the situation all over the place. I would tell the member who has introduced the resolution that this is something that could be and should be done immediately. I don't think the minister needs to wait until 1998, or has to include it in the budget. It is something the minister can do now, by resolution, without coming to this chamber. That would be a big boost, as we can see from the response the member has received from the various organizations. That would be a big boost, not only for the home buyers but for the industry in general.

In congratulating the member, I would urge that he bring this to the attention of the minister and say: "Look, don't wait until you bring in the budget some time in 1998. You can do it now by resolution, telling the entire community out there that we can do it now and that we are offering it." I would urge the member to bring it to the attention of the minister, and do it now.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak to this issue today. I'd also like to thank the member for Scarborough Centre, Mr Newman, for bringing this resolution forward. As the honourable members of this Legislature are aware, Oshawa and the region of Durham are growing at a rapid pace. In fact, it's one of the fastest growing regions in the province. Much of this growth comes from young families who are looking for their first home.

The current land transfer tax refund, which has been extended to March 31, 1998, has helped a large number of young families. Over 11,000 refunds have been issued to first-time home buyers in Ontario. This initiative has been highly successful in assisting young families in the purchase of their first home.

The land transfer tax refund has not only benefited young families; it has also, along with other initiatives to reduce government red tape, stimulated housing starts in the region of Durham, and Oshawa, as well as the entire province. Housing starts in the area are the highest they've been in the last 10 years. This is certainly encouraging from a construction industry that accounts for nearly 10% of the local labour force. Since August 1996, Ontario has led the country in job creation in the construction industry with over 29,000 jobs.

Over the first eight months of 1997, housing starts in Ontario were up by over 33%. In addition, there is an economic benefit to the real estate industry and other components of the service sector.

I meet with many of the local industry stakeholders, such as the Oshawa-Durham Home Builders' Association and real estate and property management groups, on a regular basis to discuss issues surrounding the housing industry. I am often told during these discussions that more needs to be done to assist young families starting out and trying to purchase their first home.

As my colleague from Scarborough Centre indicates in his resolution, first-time home buyers buy a significant number of resale homes. This resolution not only calls for the extension of the rebate program through to 1999, but it also calls for the rebate to be extended to first-time home buyers who purchase a resale home.

A rebate on resale homes would assist young families starting out and looking to purchase their first home. A saving of $1,228, which is the average refund return to date, is, for a young family starting out, quite significant. For the many of my constituents who are seeking to purchase a first home in the city of Oshawa, a rebate on a resale home could be an important consideration in the decision about the type and location of the house they choose to purchase.

Within the heart of the city of Oshawa, opportunities for new housing starts are limited by an already developed urban centre, so a young family must look for their first home in the outlying parts of the city in order to take advantage of the land transfer tax refund. Extending the rebate to include resale homes would support young families by allowing them to take advantage of the rebate wherever they choose to purchase their first home.

The success of the land transfer tax refund in terms of its benefit to local economies in Oshawa and Durham is clear. This same initiative has seen the average young family have $1,228 more in its pocket after the purchase of a first home than it otherwise would have had.

The benefits from extending the land transfer tax refund to the local economy and to the finances of a young family starting out for the first home are significant. I support the resolution brought forward by my colleague Mr Newman, from Scarborough Centre.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Newman, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Newman: I want to thank all the members who are here today to listen to the debate, especially those who participated in the debate on this resolution.

I'd like to thank the member for St Catharines. I will inform the Treasurer of this province that he is in favour of the resolution.

I thank the member for Sault Ste Marie for his comments, although they had nothing to do with this resolution. I listened very attentively for four words: "land transfer tax rebate." I didn't hear them, but I appreciate his comments, although they had nothing to do with it.

I always appreciate the comments of the member for Durham East, whom I've had the good fortune of sitting beside for two and a half years. I've enjoyed sitting beside him.

I appreciate the comments from the member for Sudbury, and his support. I thought he might have wanted to say that there are some 250,000 more people in this province who have jobs today than in June 1995. When he works on his numbers, he might want to see that there are more people coming to this province. They're coming to the province because it's a province of hope, growth and opportunity.

Over the 10 years from 1985 to 1995, we've seen taxes increase 65 times, and the debt increase by $70 billion. But since we've been in office there have been 30 tax cuts, and the province is definitely getting in order. There's no intention of excluding northern Ontario, because I have many friends in northern Ontario and I'm sure they would be the first ones to tell me.

The member for Nepean, and also the member for Yorkview -- I appreciated his comments. He said it was common sense, and this is a resolution, so therefore he's in favour of a commonsense resolution. I appreciate that. He had some very good views on the strong urban core and the jobs aspect of what this resolution would do.

The member for Oshawa -- I always appreciate his comments. I've enjoyed sitting in this block of three seats since June 1995 with him. He talked about the effect it would have on young families, and making a decision on where they live.

I would encourage all members to vote for this resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

Mr Newman has moved private member's resolution number 105. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I now leave the chair, and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1201 to 1332.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, I have a message from the Administrator of the government signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The Administrator of the government transmits supplementary estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1998, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM / RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): If there is one positive thing that could be said about this government's bullying tactics to make Bill 160 the law of the land, it is that it has provoked an unprecedented level of protest which has crossed all boundaries of our society.

In my community of Thunder Bay the battle to fight Bill 160 rages on, with teachers, parents, students, citizens of all ages and all political stripes working together to stop Mike Harris from destroying our public education system.

Bill 160 is not just flawed; it's anti-democratic, probably unconstitutional and certainly very dangerous in its clear goals of ripping funding from our classrooms and centralizing complete control in the Premier's office.

I want to thank the people of Thunder Bay for not giving up this incredibly important fight -- like the 700 students at Hillcrest High who yesterday held an information rally outside their school on a cold November day; the 52 parent councils in Thunder Bay that publicly stated their strong opposition to Bill 160; the parents who launched the green ribbon campaign in our community; and to the organizers of the Flashlight March to be held tonight in Thunder Bay. They know we just can't back down.

Let me finish my remarks by quoting from Eileen and Gordon Scott, two Thunder Bay seniors who marched on the picket lines with the teachers and who continue to fight this bill:

"Many of us fought a great war for democracy and freedom -- not for a dictatorship that threatens us now. This bill threatens the freedom that we fought for."

Shame on you, Mike Harris. You're not fooling anyone. Mr and Mrs Scott are upset and so are all of us here in the Liberal caucus, and all of us across the province.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): This morning a number of students from the école secondaire Renaissance were here in Toronto to bring a special message to the Premier and to the Minister of Education about how they feel about Bill 160.

The students at that school, along with students at other francophone high schools across Ontario, have gathered a different kind of petition-signing. They've picked up broken pens, pencils, rulers, school benches, school supplies that are in bad condition because of the money that is not being spent in our system of education, and have signed those particular items as a way of protesting to the government the attack this government is having vis-à-vis Bill 160.

I want to thank Tina Landers, Natalie Hamelin and Natalie Michaud from l'école secondaire Renaissance from the city of Timmins, who have come down here in order to bring their opposition to this government directly as to what they are doing with Bill 160.

Quand on voit les étudiants de la province de l'Ontario qui se joignent à ce qui se passe dans cette province quand ça vient à l'opposition à la Loi 160, ça nous dit que le gouvernement a encore manqué le but ; encore il n'écoute pas. Il n'écoute pas les parents, il n'écoute pas les étudiants, il n'écoute pas les contribuables. Le moindre que le gouvernement puisse faire, quand ça vient à la question d'éducation, c'est écouter les élèves, ceux qui sont supposés de bénéficier de notre système d'éducation. Si le gouvernement ne veut pas le faire, on se demande, sont-ils engagés quand ça vient à l'éducation ?

CANADIAN WOMEN'S / OLYMPIC HOCKEY TEAM

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House to wish the Canadian women's Olympic hockey team success at the 1998 winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan. The 1998 winter Olympics will be the first time that women's hockey has been included as an Olympic sport. These ground-breaking young women hockey players know the importance of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. They are the best in Canada. We think they are the best in the world.

It is crucial to mention the debt women's hockey owes to the late Rose Cherry, the wife of hockey legend Don Cherry. Rose was instrumental in helping women's hockey grow as a national sport. She believed in the equality of gender for all sports. Every person should have the chance to play Canada's national game. Rose was a quiet inspiration, mostly behind the scenes. Rose and Don Cherry have done great work for women's hockey. They have continued to promote female hockey and are great supporters.

Rose encouraged her husband to tell the public that women should be treated fairly in our national game. To honour Rose Cherry, all the Canadian female hockey players at the 1998 winter Olympics will wear a rose on their sweaters. I encourage all female hockey teams to do the same. To the members of the 1998 Canadian women's Olympic team, may the spirit of Rose Cherry be with you.

GLEN PARK PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to bring to the attention of the members of this House yet another achievement of our educational system. I know that other members of this House, like former teacher Brenda Elliott, former teacher Julia Munro, former trustee Bert Johnson and former teacher John Hastings, will understand the significance of this honour.

I am pleased that Glen Park Public School of North York has been named a winner of the Canada Award for Excellence from the National Quality Institute at their conference held October 29. The national awards recognize private and public sector organizations for their outstanding achievements in quality service, customer satisfaction and continuous improvement.

Glen Park is the fourth North York public school to win an NQI award in the last three years. In fact, when two schools won last year, the now-deputy Minister of Education, Veronica Lacey, stated, "These accomplishments serve to remind us that despite the challenges, today's school system can still meet the highest standards of service, quality, continuous improvement and accountability." I want to echo these words and add my congratulations to the school for their increase in student achievement and their focus on student leadership and high levels of participation.

I hope all members, especially those who were at the public consultations on Bill 160, will preserve these qualities and the kind of input and accountability that Bill 160 removes from our schools and from our system. I hope that all members will oppose Bill 160.

MUNICIPAL ENUMERATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I would like to congratulate the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Finance, and American Express for preparing what appears to have been the worst voters' list in the history of the city. Because door-to-door enumeration was not done in order to save money, over 100,000 people had to be registered at the polls on November 10 out of a total of approximately 350,000. Many people simply gave up and did not vote because of the long wait. People were deprived of their democratic rights because the list was so inaccurate.

Let me give you an example in my riding. There's a small block of flats on King Street which contains 12 units, Minister of Municipal Affairs. There were 22 names on the list for this building. Of these, five actually live there; three were dead; 11 had moved; one was the former, not the current, owner; and two names were duplicates. Multiply this across the city and you have a good idea of the accuracy of the list.

This situation, in my view, is inexcusable, especially in view of the fact that an updated voters' list existed from the recent federal election. Sydney Baxter, the Toronto city clerk, has laid the blame for this fiasco squarely on the province. He said on CBC Metro Morning: "I have come to the conclusion that they simply do not care." I go further and say this government has bungled it completely.

MAKE A WILL WEEK

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I am making this statement on behalf of the member for Brant-Haldimand, who just took ill.

It is my privilege to rise today to inform all members of the House that this week is Make a Will Week in Ontario. Make a Will Week is a campaign to raise the public's awareness of the importance of making a will. This unique initiative in Ontario is based on the successful model in the United Kingdom.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario and the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario division, the campaign's charitable sponsors, and the Law Society of Upper Canada assisted in creating the program's conceptual framework.

The goals of Make a Will Week are to encourage the public to make a will, to educate the public on the benefits of a lawyer-prepared will, and to motivate lawyers to educate the public about the importance of wills.

Highlights of the public campaign include free initial consultations with a lawyer through the law society's lawyer referral service. The cost for being included has been waived by the law society. In addition, there is a dial-a-law tape program, estate planning seminars and an advertising campaign to raise public awareness.

I want to congratulate all those who have contributed to Make a Will Week and encourage all members of the public to make use of the programs and other educational tools that are available to help us protect our families and loved ones, now and in the future.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): "Hey Mike, show us the real numbers."

Earlier this week this large one-page ad ran in Ontario newspapers protesting against the provincial government's downloading of responsibilities and costs on to municipalities. They're the ones that start with the words, "The province of Ontario is taking actions which will drive up property taxes on homes and businesses."

In the government's power-mad rush to grab control Ontario's school system, their disentanglement plans will dump at least another $670 million in extra costs on to municipalities, causing local property taxes to skyrocket not only in the short term but also in the long term.

Elected officials and citizens across the province, and backbench Tory MPPs too, want more than a pinkie promise from the Premier that this whole exercise will not raise taxes in their municipalities.

Municipal leaders and citizens want the actual, solid information. They want the real financial impact numbers from the province, numbers that include everything: the elimination of municipal support grants, the cost to municipalities of taking over responsibilities for roads and assessment reform, the value of each property.

Once you see these numbers, you see that the exercise is not revenue neutral. It is time that the government wakes up to the reality before it's too late, before this bill becomes law, that it's a fundamental mistake to put the cost of soft services such as social housing and welfare on to property taxes. It's a disaster waiting to happen to our municipalities.

GOVERNMENT AGENDA

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): On Saturday, September 13, a coalition of labour, social justice and faith activists sponsored a Black Saturday Rally in the heart of downtown Parry Sound. The purpose of the rally was to draw public attention to the cost-cutting agenda of the Mike Harris government and to focus on how devastating these cuts are to the very fabric of our communities.

Several hundred people gathered to express their concerns regarding cuts to hospitals, to classrooms, to child care, to social assistance recipients, to hands-on care for seniors in long-term care facilities, to public services like transportation, over and above the very negative impact these cuts are already having on our communities.

Speakers emphasized how the Mike Harris download would also result in cuts to local services and higher property taxes, or a combination of both. It was made very clear that another big cut to education transfers would not only devastate special education, early childhood education and adult education, but would put at serious risk our publicly funded education system itself.

There was broad and strong recognition of the value of public services and public sector jobs, and huge support to protect these, despite the Mike Harris attack on both.

I was pleased to participate at a Black Saturday Rally in March and I was impressed by the turnout in the home town of the finance minister. Congratulations to the organizing committee. As requested, on behalf of the West Parry Sound Women Teachers' Association, I'd like to present this T-shirt to Ernie Eves, Mike Harris and Dave Johnson.

VANIER CUP FOOTBALL GAME

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): It's with a considerable degree of pride that I rise today to address the 33rd Vanier Cup game, which will be hosted here in Toronto at the SkyDome this Saturday. The Vanier Cup is emblematic of Canadian university football supremacy, and this year eastern Canada is represented by the University of Ottawa Gee-Gees.

The University of Ottawa is the largest bilingual university in North America. Its many graduates serving with distinction in every field of endeavour across this great nation is its proudest accomplishment. I recognize our own Minister of the Environment, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party in this House as members of that august group.

This is the Gee-Gees' fourth appearance in the 33-year history of the Vanier Cup, which they last won in 1975. Coach Larry Ring, a member of that 1975 team, joins a select group of coaches: Matt Anthony, Ace Powell, Don Gilbert and Jim Daly, one of a handful of Canadians who has coached in a Grey Cup final.

I call on this assembly to join with me in wishing the Gee-Gees bonne chance.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that yesterday the Clerk received the 46th report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 105(g)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to remind all members that today is the deadline for filing ballots for private members' public business. If you have misplaced your form, you're out of luck. You'd better find it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Okay, if you've misplaced your form, the clerks would be happy to provide you with another one.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 152,

An Act to improve Services, increase Efficiency and benefit Taxpayers by eliminating Duplication and reallocating Responsibilities between Provincial and Municipal Governments in various areas and to implement other aspects of the Government's "Who Does What" Agenda.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Laughren, Floyd

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 58; the nays are 31.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 16, 1997, this bill is ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on public accounts and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Audit Act.

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

Bill 74 is ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on estimates and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Mr Kennedy from the standing committee on estimates reports the following resolution:

Resolved, that supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the following ministries and offices be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998:

Ministry of Health --

Interjections: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Dispense.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): As minister responsible for children, I rise today in honour of National Child Day.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child aims to ensure the health and wellbeing of children everywhere. It recognizes children's rights to survival, protection and development.

Today, people across Canada are celebrating our children through special activities and events. They are taking special time to listen to children, to respect them, to marvel at all they have to offer and to rejoice at the special meaning that children bring to our lives. They are taking special time to remember that our children are the most vulnerable members of our society. Everyone in our society has a shared responsibility for the care and protection of our children. They are our hope and dreams for the future.

I am honoured that Premier Harris has demonstrated our government's leadership and commitment to children in the most tangible way possible. The Premier's decision to appoint a minister responsible for children confirms the priority this government is giving to children.

I'm very excited about my new portfolio, which provides me with a unique opportunity to champion the government's actions for improving the wellbeing of Ontario's children. As a mother of three children and a grandmother of five, I am especially pleased with my appointment. Never has there been such a strong political will to put children first. Never has there been such consensus on the public policy agenda for children. Never has there been so much concrete action to help children realize their full potential.

Because it is National Child Day I would like to put my government's commitment to children on the record. A key objective to National Child Day 1997 is to increase understanding of the many factors that affect children's health. We know that one of the most important factors affecting children's health is early intervention and prevention. Our government believes strongly in intervention programs. These programs help children at an early age and help prevent problems later in life. That is why the government allocated $45 million in this year's budget for collaborative early intervention and prevention programs. These include:

Ten million dollars to Healthy Babies, Healthy Children. This universal screening assessment and lay home visiting program, administered by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health, will support expectant parents and families with children from birth to age six.

A $20-million investment in preschool speech and language services for children, another joint effort between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

A $4.6-million ongoing commitment to the Better Beginnings, Better Futures program, which combines the efforts of three ministries, communities and volunteers.

A $10-million grant to the Invest in Kids Foundation to enhance professional training, research and public education and awareness programs.

That is why our government introduced Making Services Work For People. It is a framework that will guide our work as we redesign social services so that children will be able to more readily receive the services they need in their own communities. That is why our government fully participated with the coroner's office and Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies in the Ontario Child Mortality Task Force. The Ministry of Community and Social Services welcomed the comprehensive and constructive recommendations it made in July of this year.

The government continues to address these recommendations, and that is why the Minister of Community and Social Services recently announced that a panel of experts will review child protection issues in the Child and Family Services Act. We are working towards a focused approach to protecting our children.

We know through research that investment in the early years is the foundation for lifelong achievement. This government has already intensified support for preschool children. We want to ensure that support continues for children entering school and in the early grades.

With our new education curriculum, our children will be helped to read, write and spell at an earlier age. Our standard province-wide report card will allow parents to clearly see how their children are doing in school. It will enable parents and teachers to identify learning problems early so that steps may be taken to help.

We also know that when children go to school hungry, they cannot concentrate. When they cannot concentrate, they are unable to learn. That is why our government is providing up to $5 million in startup funding for children's breakfast programs. Already over 26,000 children have been assisted by almost 440 local child nutrition programs.

On the national level, the creation of the national child benefit, a joint federal-provincial initiative, provides Ontario with an opportunity to reinvest resources in children's services. It illustrates that federalism can work and is working. As well, it is a testimony to the power of our shared vision for children. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers have agreed on the design of the national child benefit and are presently working towards an implementation date of July 1, 1998.

All of these initiatives reinvest in our children's futures. What is particularly exciting to me is that every one of them incorporates a unified and coordinated approach to policy development, planning and service delivery, ultimately improving the lives of our children in Ontario.

As minister responsible for children's issues, I will bring together partners in the public, private, voluntary and community sectors to support children's development. I will also coordinate outreach to children, families, representative groups and service providers.

Our government will continue to look for new ways to improve and promote children's healthy growth and development and to keep children safe on National Child Day and on every other day of the year.

In closing, I would like to thank the parents, educators, volunteers, community organizations, corporations and public sector partners that already do so much to support Ontario's children.

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about the very important issue of wife assault prevention. As you know, on November 4 I marked the beginning of Wife Assault Prevention Month. Making sure women are safe and free from violence is a priority for the Ontario Women's Directorate and for this government.

Wife assault continues to be a pervasive, terrible problem for thousands of women and their children. Sadly, almost every day we hear of still more women who are abused and even murdered by their husbands or partners. In fact, a 1993 report of the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women showed that 27% of women had experienced physical assault in an intimate relationship. In 25% of those relationships, the women's partners threatened to kill them.

Women must be safe. Wife assault is a crime. As political leaders, as citizens of this province and as neighbours and friends we must act to end violence against women by their partners. This government is committed to our goal of stopping the violence and making sure women are safe in their homes and in their communities.

Just over two weeks ago, I announced this year's Wife Assault Prevention Month while visiting the Barbra Schlifer Clinic in Toronto. We were very pleased to contribute $69,000 to the excellent work being done at this clinic.

I am pleased to tell you that earlier today, I and members of the Partners for Change Network launched two excellent television productions aimed at educating children and teens about violence prevention.

One production, called You Oughta Know: Teens Talk About Dating and Abuse, is a half-hour documentary focusing on teen dating. It describes how teens can recognize abuse and what they can do about it. This show was produced in partnership with Woodlawn Communications and the YTV television network and it will first air on November 24.

The second production is a series of short features called Peace Break. It was facilitated by NextMedia and produced with TVOntario. These segments are geared to eight- to 12-year-olds and give young people advice and suggestions on how to deal with difficult situations, such as bullies in the schoolroom. The productions will be available on cable in the classroom and a teaching guide will accompany them.

These initiatives are a very important part of our wife assault prevention month agenda. We need to involve everyone in wife assault prevention: the women who are being abused, their family members, work colleagues and neighbours. We also need young people to know early in their lives that violence is simply not acceptable. Young people also need to recognize violence and abuse early in their lives and they need strategies and ideas on how to cope and respond.

As part of my own

schedule during Wife Assault Prevention Month, I visited Ernestine's Women's Shelter in Rexdale, the Scarborough Women's Centre and joined a round table with a group in Peterborough to discuss its excellent YWCA Week Without Violence.

We have many more announcements and events to come before the end of Wife Assault Prevention Month. My colleague the Attorney General and I will be opening new domestic violence courts in upcoming weeks. The six new courts will deal exclusively with domestic abuse cases. These courts will ensure victims have appropriate support as they go through the justice system and that perpetrators are accountable for their acts of violence.

Of course, our efforts to stop violence against women and wife abuse don't end with these activities. The Ontario Women's Directorate coordinates some 30 programs across nine ministries, programs that include shelters where women can find refuge from violence against women, programs for children who witness violence in their homes and programs to educate people about wife assault and how to become involved in preventing it.

In July we announced our Agenda for Action, a strategy that builds on the government initiatives of the past and makes sure programs are coordinated and effective. The agenda focuses on three fronts: safety, including crisis intervention and support; justice, so victims are supported and perpetrators are held accountable; and prevention, trying to stop the violence before it starts.

I want to assure you that this government will continue its efforts to improve community safety and to continue work to keep women free of violence in this province. I know all members of this House will join us in recognizing the many women who need our support and the many dedicated professionals and volunteers who work in, and often devote their lives to, this effort. I'd like to urge everyone to accept personal responsibility to work towards ending violence against women and their children.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I'm going to take the opportunity to address the statement made by the minister without portfolio responsible for children.

First of all, I want to congratulate the government for appointing this minister. But secondly, unless -- and there's always an "unless" -- and until this minister recognizes what this government is doing to Ontario children, she will not be able to lend them any real assistance. I want to help her in that regard right now.

First of all, with respect to education, Minister, you should know that with your government's abandonment of our province's commitment to education so far, 60,000 four-year-olds have been deprived of junior kindergarten. We all know that in a knowledge-based global economy, we absolutely need junior kindergarten. It's as simple as that.

We also know that your government has been making cuts to special education, and I just happen to have here a copy of a letter received from a teacher which reads in part as follows:

"In my class of 32 grade 5 and 6 students, I have five at-risk and special-needs children. Due to Mr Harris, I have lost an educational assistant, teacher-librarian and special education resource teacher. But our numbers have increased. Without a resource teacher, my special-needs children are not getting the education they did a mere three years ago."

That's what your government is doing to children in Ontario, Minister, and it's important that you understand that.

The other thing you've got to recognize is that one in five children in this province are growing up in poverty or are the subject of abuse or neglect. Kids are poor because their parents are poor, and parents are poor in part at least because you have cut welfare rates. It turns out that about half of the people in this province who are relying upon welfare are children: half a million children growing up in poverty in Ontario.

I have recounted in this House before how I have had the experience of visiting a young mother who used to receive $1,400 a month in welfare. That was reduced to $1,100 a month. She's a single mom. She has three little girls. She pays $800 a month in rent. She doesn't have a phone. I asked her on the 11th day of the month if I might look inside her fridge and if I might look inside her kitchen cupboards to find out how much food she had in there. I can tell you that if you looked inside that fridge and those cupboards, you would say what all parents in here would say: "We've got to go shopping. There's no food in the house."

That's happening in your Ontario. You'd better open your eyes to that and you'd better stand up in cabinet and say: "Listen, what we're doing today is causing terrible pain to our children. They are our future. We owe it to them and we're not going to let it happen."

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I too welcome this new Minister Without Portfolio responsible for children and look forward to working with her to bring real change for children. I applaud the government on that appointment.

In response to Wife Assault Prevention Month, our party needs to just outline for the people of Ontario the government's record so far in dealing with women who suffer abuse: shelter funding slashed; second-stage housing slashed; welfare rates slashed; eligibility for legal aid funding down by 63%. All those who have to deal with violence in the family, particularly women, know they have to have access to the legal system in order to get out of these issues. They also know that the biggest issue for women who face violence has everything to do with economy and control of finances.

I look at this minister and say we are disappointed so far by the performance of this government on this issue that impacts not just women but women and their children, their entire family.

We would like to see that these two ministers, both the one responsible for children and the one who spoke today regarding assault against women, should be working together instead to see that overall the entire implementation of policies by this government has done nothing to help women and in fact has only made it more difficult for women to get out of situations of violence. We would look forward to positive impacts by this government.

Finally, you released a video today to stop bullies in the classroom. I hope your emergency caucus meeting this morning had everything to do with 82 Conservative members --

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

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): It's traditional to congratulate ministers on their first statement in the House, so I congratulate the new minister without portfolio. But I have to say that if today's statement from this minister is the indication of what her new tenure is going to bring to this government, it's a complete waste of time and a complete waste of taxpayers' money, because what we are seeing here in terms of this government's priority is nothing but continuing empty rhetoric.

When this minister says their priority is to put children first, that they have such a strong political will to put children first, yes, we are happy about the initiatives the minister has outlined, many of which were there under our government, which we are happy to see continuing. But what marks this government are not those particular initiatives, as important as they may be; what marks the actions of this government, what marks the priority of this government when it comes to children, is a whole array of cuts, a whole array of destruction of supports to children.

The list is endless: cuts in the area of childhood education; cuts in the area of education; cuts in the early years programs; cuts to junior kindergarten; the cuts to education that we are debating here through Bill 160. Where is the priority with respect to children? There are the cuts to child care; the $40 million they played around with for two years and still haven't spent in the area of child care; in fact, their direction to privatize child care rather than support children in a publicly funded child care system in this province.

And how can we forget, today of all days, the 22% cuts to social assistance? I know this minister wants to forget about that, I know government members want to forget about that, because it's convenient for them to forget about the fact that over 40% of the people on social assistance are children, I say to the new minister with responsibility for children. When families have trouble putting food on the table, that should be your first priority, Minister, and that should be the first priority of your government.

I look forward to other statements from you in this House. I hope to God that they are very different from the statement you have given us today, which is nothing but rhetoric and has nothing to do with prioritizing kids except to continue the cuts that your government has started.

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm responding to the minister responsible for women's issues. November is almost over and finally the minister is getting on her feet today to talk about the prevention of violence against women. I asked twice on Monday for consent; I asked again on Tuesday; I asked again on Wednesday. The government members said no, including the minister responsible for women's issues one day. They were forced to come forward today and make this statement.

I can tell you that the government House leader wanted an agreement that we wouldn't get political, that we'd remain non-partisan. Let me say to the government, as soon as they stop the vicious cuts and policy changes they have consistently made since they took over government that have directly hurt women and kids in this province and that are making it harder for women who are victims of violence in their own homes to escape, they might not have to worry about the opposition getting political. Their record shows a shocking lack of principles and compassion for vulnerable women in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Stop the clock.

Member for Riverdale?

Ms Churley: Cuts to welfare; second-stage housing gone; social housing commitments gone; rent control going; the family support plan in complete disarray; child care spaces cut; under the so-called education bill, child care spaces in schools gone; pay equity gone.

All these policy changes and cuts are hurting women, particularly vulnerable women. You still don't get it and you're still not listening to the people of this province. We're talking about real people here. The Solicitor General and others can yell at me and say it isn't true, but we've got all the evidence before us.

You should read the OAITH documents about what your policies and your cuts are doing to the vulnerable women of this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. We understand there was a second emergency caucus meeting held by your caucus today, and this is a result of the cracks that have appeared on the Bill 160 front, cracks you could drive a truck through at the present time.

We all know that public opinion is against you on this one, teachers are against this, students are against this, trustees are against this, all friends of public education are against this, your back bench is coming out against this, and several members of your own cabinet are against this. What is it going to take to convince you that the right thing to do, given that public opinion is clearly against you on this front, is to withdraw Bill 160?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): There's a fair amount of dreaming and wishful thinking going on here by the Leader of the Opposition. I will read from the Globe and Mail editorial today:

"We believe that, a few years down the road, the majority of Ontarians will look back on Bill 160 and conclude that it was the right decision. We also believe that, despite the sturm, drang and prognostications" --

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: I guess they don't like to hear that the Globe and Mail says we're "merely following a path already well worn by other provinces."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon David Johnson: Perhaps a parent in Ontario, a parent who says, "I raised five children...chair of a board of trustees...spent a number of years teaching in a community college apprenticeship program," a parent who says, "I fully support the implementation of this bill."

Year after year, decade after decade, frankly, parents have been asking for better quality and taxpayers have been asking for better value. That's exactly what we're going to deliver in our total education program and through Bill 160.

Mr McGuinty: I wish the minister would pay as much attention to the quotes from members of his own caucus as he does to the Globe and Mail. Maybe I'll just remind him of a few things they've been saying.

The member who sits to your immediate left, Minister, the Minister of Health, said this: "One issue of concern is that principals and vice-principals are going to be taken out of the bargaining unit. I would hope that we will look at whatever opportunities there are for compromise."

Toni Skarica, your colleague the member for Wentworth North, said, "I have a problem giving any one person, whether it be Premier Harris or anyone else, control over the whole system."

Trevor Pettit, the member for Hamilton Mountain, said, "I have a big problem with giving all the power over education to not just this Premier but any Premier that may follow."

Minister, I understand you've been doing a lot of scraping the bottom of the barrel to find out who it is out there who supports this bill, but tell me, why aren't you paying any attention to the members within your own caucus who are speaking out against your bill?

Hon David Johnson: Perhaps I should quote another member of this provincial Parliament, a gentleman by the name of Dalton McGuinty. According to the paper I have, in a radio show on October 29, 1997, the leader of the official opposition said: "Everybody, I think, believes you can find room for improvement in education. You can probably even find savings."

On Focus Ontario on October 18 the leader of the official opposition said, "I don't think anybody in the system, teachers included, believes the status quo is acceptable."

I agree with the leader of the official opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Scarborough East, come to order. Thank you. The member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): He's got nothing on you, Dalton.

The Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon, come to order, please.

Mr McGuinty: I want to thank the minister for quoting me so exactly. I am proud of those statements. There's no doubt that there's room for improvement. If you want to know what I believe on this front, there's no doubt that there's room for improvement, and there is no doubt that savings --

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: There is room for improvement and everybody agrees to that effect, including all the teachers. Teachers even agree that there are savings to be had, but they insist, as I do, that they be redeployed in the classroom, for the benefit of students.

You have already taken $1 billion out of the system. It's irresponsible, it's unconscionable to take another $700 million out. That's where we differ. Everybody understands now that public opinion is against you on this one. That is very, very clear, and if you don't believe me, listen to the people at your constituency office. Every member here can just phone the people who work at their constituency offices and do a tally of the telephone calls and letters that are coming in. Once again, students, parents, teachers, trustees, your own members and members of your cabinet are against this bill. Why --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite indicates that there's no doubt there's room for improvement, and I agree with him. Some members of this House wonder, to the member opposite, if there's room for a strike, because he seems to flip-flop on that particular issue.

There's just one other quote I want to bring to the attention of the House. It's from Focus Ontario and certainly answers the question. The Leader of the Opposition says, "We don't have any specific policies right now." I'm here to tell you that the government does have policies, policies to bring excellence and quality to our education system, policies to give, hopefully, our taxpayers a break, policies to bring accountability into the education system. We have those policies. We're going to improve the system and we're going to move ahead with Bill 160.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I have a question to the same minister. You cannot be blind to the fact that we have received, and you have undoubtedly received, tens of thousands of letters, faxes and e-mails as a result of this issue, and a great majority of those are against you on this front.

I have a particular letter here and I want to quote from it in part. It reads as follows:

"I am writing this letter as the daughter of a man who very proudly carried the banner for the provincial Progressive Conservative Party in Essex county in two provincial elections. For Mr Harris, Bill 160 truly marks a return to the 3Rs, repressive, reprehensible, representative of a draconian ideology.

"In conclusion, I thank God that my father has passed on to his eternal reward and was not here to see his beliefs and dreams for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario crumble behind the walls of the politburo in Queen's Park."

You know in your heart of hearts, Minister, as do all of your fellow members, that Bill 160 is wrong for education. Will you --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I guess we could wage a war of letters. I have a letter here: "We're parents of two school-aged children. Let it be known we support the government and not the teachers' union on this issue." Another letter: "I want to lend my support to your efforts to forge ahead with the passing of Bill 160."

We can go on and on all day, but in my heart of hearts what I know is that the parents and the people of the province want to see reform in our education system. They want to see our children have more instructional days. They want to see that our class sizes should not consider going up, that the number of children in the average class size should not continue to increase. They want to ensure that our students have the ability to have qualified individuals to assist our teachers in bringing quality into the classroom.

They want reform of the taxing for the education system so that taxes don't continue to escalate. These are the kinds of reforms that are contained in Bill 160, and these are the kinds of reforms we intend to implement.

Mr McGuinty: Everybody wants reform, but you want it by asking for the surrender of our teachers. We don't need their surrender, we need their help, and there's a world of difference. Here's a letter from a parent:

"My eldest child has moved to the University of Toronto in his second year of performance music. His love of music was fostered in elementary school by a young teacher who, when nothing else seemed to be going well for my son, asked him how things were going in music. Well, things started to go well in music, then and now.

"Your bill has alienated our teachers. These are the people who face our children every day. Ask yourself, Minister, if ramming this legislation through against the will of teachers instead of working out a more successful solution with those directly affected is a smart thing to do."

I want to ask you that question right now on behalf of Andrienne Kirkness from London, Ontario. Is it a smart thing to do to try to bring about change in education without the goodwill of our teachers?

Hon David Johnson: I do want to make it clear that this government values, has always valued the role of the teacher in our education system. They are central. They are the front-line workers. They are critical to the future of education in the province of Ontario. I assure you that this government will be working closely with the teachers to ensure that the reforms that parents have been asking for, the reforms that many teachers have been asking for for many years will be implemented to best advantage to serve the students of Ontario.

That would be my response to this individual and to other people. There is a great deal of concern across the province. We can all work together. We can all make a better education system in the province of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: I want to quote again from that letter from the woman whose father ran on behalf of your party in two provincial elections:

"An ability to listen to his constituents was the hallmark of my father's successful 37-year career in municipal politics. He never shied away from difficult decisions. However, he did respect and honour the opinions of those who placed their trust in his leadership."

What I want to ask you, Minister, is, will you honour the opinions of our teachers, of our students, of our parents, of our trustees and even of those members of your own caucus who have spoken out and those members of your cabinet who have spoken out? Will you honour majority opinion in the province of Ontario and kill Bill 160?

Hon David Johnson: The members of this government over many years in their walks of life have listened to parents, have listened to the people of the province of Ontario asking for reforms. This is not just a process that's begun recently. Recently the process of consultation has been much more focused and intense, but people representing this government and indeed I'm sure representing the opposition parties have listened for years to people asking for reform.

Through the public hearing process, a mother of two indicated, "The reason I support the government's efforts and changes to our educational system is simple: I do not believe in mediocrity."

Another parent: "I pay a lot of school taxes and I still do right now. There's too much administration and frankly I'm fed up with paying. I have to commend this bill for finally starting to address a lot of the inefficiencies in the education system, and I'll tell you, there are a lot there."

Another parents says: "I would encourage the ministry to hold fast on taking control of class size." On and on it goes.

People have asked for reform. This government is going to respect that and proceed with education reform.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. It's interesting that the minister would quote from a couple of letters. I think most of his caucus is thanking their lucky stars for the postal strike. They've turned off all of their fax machines so the faxes are coming to us because they don't want to get them.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: Thank you, Speaker. The fact is that this issue about Bill 160 goes beyond the issue itself in the education system this government is taking so much money out of. It's gone to the point now of the basic belief in democracy in this province. The vast majority of the population in this province opposed Bill 160, yet the government continues to go through.

There are provisions within Bill 160 that are very, very disturbing. Yesterday the minister could not explain why his government is determined for the transitional period, which he won't define, to set property taxes for education behind closed doors by regulation rather than doing it normally through debate and legislation. The only reason he could give was that it is more convenient for the Ministry of Finance. Does the minister truly believe that convenience for the government should override the most fundamental principle of no taxation without representation?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): That issue did come up yesterday. On checking into the situation, we have found that in Alberta, 49% of the education tax is actually raised --

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I am sure in Albania it's even more impressive.

Interruption.

The Speaker: Order in the gallery. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: Some 49% of the education dollars in Alberta are raised through regulation on the property tax. The member asked, what about Albania? Let me tell you about one other province, British Columbia. Does that ring a bell, the province of British Columbia? Does that have any particular significance? Would it be the fact that there's an NDP government in power in British Columbia? In British Columbia, 30% of the education dollars are raised through a regulation on the property tax.

We have indicated that through this transition period there is a need to ensure that this process works smoothly. We have also indicated that this government will institute a legislative process at the earliest opportunity, perhaps even as early as a year from now.

Mr Wildman: I would suggest that the earliest opportunity is right now.

The minister is talking about setting $6 billion in taxes behind closed doors by regulation and he says that the government has a commitment to freeze the property taxes, despite the fact that there's going to be reassessment and property taxes for many will go up. I wonder if this commitment is similar to the government's commitment not to cut any funding from classroom education. Why doesn't the government, if it has a commitment, put it in legislation so it can be debated by the public, debated in this Legislature, and passed like every other tax measure in this province?

Hon David Johnson: The House leader for the third party has indicated that we've committed to a freeze and he's right. This government has listened to the people in the province of Ontario; listened to the business community, for example, right here in Metropolitan Toronto where we are today, where they issued a report three or four years ago entitled Killing the Golden Goose, wherein the main concern was the escalating property tax for education purposes, driving business out of Metropolitan Toronto. That was the number one concern of the business community in Metropolitan Toronto.

Homeowners, senior citizens, families struggling to pay their property taxes have said, "Please do something for us."

The previous Liberal government would not come to grips with it. This government is coming to grips with it. This government is reforming the education property tax. It is going to make sure that the escalating increases do not occur in the future and give protection to our taxpayers.

Mr Wildman: This government is attempting to trick the population in this province. They want to hide a tax increase behind reassessment. That's what this is about. They also want to hide cuts in education behind this bill. Well, people know what this bill is about. You want control of the education system so that you can cut another $670 million from education. Why won't you allow these issues to be debated and passed the way they're normally done in a democracy? Bring a bill into the House that deals with property taxation for education. Will you do that?

Hon David Johnson: Members on this side find it somewhat interesting that a member of the NDP would talk about cuts to government when during the expenditure control program and the social contract they cut almost $600 million out of the education system in Ontario. If there is another crime being perpetrated on our children in our communities, it's the fact that there's that huge debt and the deficits which were passed by the NDP government on to the shoulders of our young people, a burden that they are going to have to bear in future years.

This government, through Bill 160, through other reforms, is committed to instilling a quality education program with a higher degree of accountability, but at the same time to bring fiscal responsibility to the whole education system. That's what our whole program is about.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would to just take this opportunity to introduce in the Speaker's gallery a contingent from Quebec, here on a parliamentary committee meeting with their counterparts in Ontario. Welcome.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have another question for the Minister of Education and Training. I suppose the minister defines fiscal responsibility in terms of borrowing billions of dollars to provide a tax cut to the wealthy.

I want to return to the question of basic democratic rights in Canada and the way they have operated historically in Ontario --

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Social contract.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Ottawa-Rideau, I'm not going to warn you again. If I do, I'm going to name you. Member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: Thank you, Speaker. We have already seen that the government is not prepared to commit to the basic democratic principle of no taxation without representation. I'd like to turn to one other matter under Bill 160. Under this bill, democratically elected trustees to school boards in this province can be fired by the minister if the minister believes that they are not following the directives sent out by the minister. Surely, these people are elected locally to represent the concerns of the public about education in their own local area.

How is it the minister will believe that he should be able to fire an elected representative of the people because he won't follow the instructions of the minister?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I must be misunderstanding the member opposite because -- and I know this appeared in an editorial somewhere, but this has been clarified many, many times since -- this power, which has existed since 1935 in the Municipal Act, only pertains to situations of default in boards. It has been applied in very rare occasions since 1935. What is simply happening here is that it's being transferred from the Municipal Act to the Education Act, where it has belonged all along.

This has appeared in any number of newspaper articles over the last number of days, saying this in fact is no change whatsoever. In fact, I could quote from the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association. It's always been there. It says: "The only situation in which this can happen is when the school boards have been taken over by the minister because of financial default. This is not new legislation, but presently is incorporated in the Municipal Act. Bill 160 does not change the powers of the minister in connection with defaulting school boards." That's what it's all about.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Lake Nipigon. Member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: The government is running roughshod over local decision-making in this bill. Bill 160 takes away from local trustees the power to make decisions around curriculum, the flexibility to meet local needs, the ability to determine how the money should be raised and distributed to meet the local needs of the community. This government is determining that they must centralize control here at Queen's Park for one reason and one reason only, and that is your desire to take almost $1 billion out of the education system. The public knows that and it's clear that the public is opposed to it.

Why won't you listen to the majority in Ontario and back off of this legislation and respond to the real needs of education and kids and students across the province? Back off of Bill 160 and listen to the public; listen to the majority in Ontario.

Hon Mr Johnson: I will listen to the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association. The member opposite has asked about the power of the trustees. The Catholic school trustees association poses that very question. They say, "Is it true that under Bill 160 the minister is given new power to establish policies and guidelines respecting the roles and responsibilities of board members?" The opinion of OCSTA's legal counsel is that nothing in such policies or guidelines established by the minister can override or supersede the authority expressly given to trustees in the Education Act or in the regulations.

This shows the problem we face. There are so many myths, so many situations that aren't factual about this whole bill that have been growing in leaps and bounds. I don't know where to point to, where they came from. This bill respects the role of the board members, the school councils and the various schools. They all have an important role to play. I just would commend the member to read this kind of material.

Mr Wildman: This is a basic argument that the government has yet to hear. The public in this province has made it clear that they are very concerned about Bill 160. They're very concerned about the desire of the government to take another $1 billion over the $800 million that you've already taken out of classroom education in this province. They're very concerned about your desire to lay off somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 teachers in this province. They don't want Bill 160 rushed through this Legislature. You are determined to move it forward despite their concerns.

Why is it you want to concentrate so much power among the great pooh-bahs here at Queen's Park rather than leaving it to local people to make their own decisions about the education of their kids the way we have historically in this Canada?

Hon David Johnson: I'm glad that the public is concerned about education. That's good; that's a healthy sign. But we know here today that the public unfortunately is being fed a number of myths and a number of situations that aren't factual. That is raising the concern in an unhealthy way. The member has indicated himself that he thought, up until this afternoon, that the government, at the drop of a hat, could take over school boards, could fire trustees, could fire officials. We know that's not true. We know that's only in the case of a financial default, gross mismanagement. His own member to his left indicates that's true.

There is a fear that the government has given itself absolute power during the transition period for example to override any act or regulation. That's known as the King Henry VIII clause. All the members of this House know that occurred three times in the bill; they're all gone. They've all been voted down at the committee; not one of them is left; not one of those powers is left in the bill.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is for the Minister of Education. I think the public should recognize what the minister said today, and that is that within a year the government plans to bring in amendments to the bill. The government admitted today that it has to change the bill within a year. That just shows how sloppily and how badly put together this bill is.

You indicated that what I call the Mike Harris property tax bill will be set by regulation. You indicated that businesses in this province will have to pay well over half of their property tax to fund education. You have indicated that residents in the province will pay exactly the same rate no matter where they live. I'm asking this on behalf of the business community, because in five weeks they will be paying the new Mike Harris property tax bill. Is it the plan of the government that no matter where your business is in the province, you will pay the same Mike Harris property tax bill on education?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, I remind the member opposite that the approach taken in Ontario will be the same approach as taken in Alberta and in British Columbia with regard to funding the education system.

The business community will be pleased, because the business community for many years has expressed concern about escalating property taxes for education purposes. We have indicated that with exactly the same taxpayers in the business community, they will pay, in total, the same amount of property taxes for education as they did in 1997, so there will be a freeze in that regard. In total, the existing business community will not pay more taxes in 1998 than they did in 1997. That will be good news for the business community of the province.

Mr Phillips: You're going to have to actually answer the question, Minister. You may be tired and you may have difficulty in understanding the question, so I'll repeat it for you.

The business community wants a straight answer on this. What is your plan? The reason I raise this is that we have no opportunity to debate this. You are going to set this with the stroke of a pen -- no debate in the Legislature, no bill in the Legislature, no opportunity for the business community to respond to it. I say again, we want a simple answer, because five weeks from now, for businesses, over half of their property tax will be Mike Harris. Is it your plan that businesses, no matter where they are in the province, will be charged by Mike Harris the same mill rate on education? Yes or no?

Hon David Johnson: I'm reminded by a note that has come in about the commercial concentration tax implemented by the Liberal government, so one wonders at the expertise of the Liberal Party in the area of taxation.

I don't know how I can make it more clear. We have indicated that the business property taxpayers who are here today in Ontario in totality will not pay more taxes in 1998 than in 1997. That is the answer. That is the commitment we have made, and the business community has been waiting for years, during the various regimes of the NDP and the Liberals, escalating property tax for education purposes over a 10-year period. This is good news. Their businesses taxes in totality will be frozen.

EDUCATION REFORM

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Yesterday my leader announced that our caucus is joining with the East End Parent Network of Metro Toronto in launching a petition campaign to force a referendum on Bill 160.

Your own standing committee report on referenda says that if 10% of the voters of this province sign a petition demanding a referendum within 180 days, the government should have to put the question to the people and abide by the result. When the report was released, the member for Brampton South, who is now Minister of Transportation, said that he was "proud that we in the Harris government are living up to our commitment to bring issues vital to our province to the people for their input and allow their voices to be heard."

I can't think of an issue more vital to the province than the education of our children. Does the government now reject referenda and repudiate the report of its own MPPs?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I also can't think of a more vital component of our society than education; I agree with the member opposite. Because I agree with that and I recognize that this item, this issue of education, has been studied to death over the years -- we have the report of the EIC in The Road Ahead; the member opposite, during her term in government, will remember the Royal Commission on Learning --

Interjections.

The former Minister of Education for the NDP government, a co-chair of The Road Ahead, says we should get on with it, that it's time for reform. The former government commissioned the Sweeney task force, a former Liberal cabinet minister: another report. I have another report here which lists the Honourable Sean Conway as the minister.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, plea