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

September 28, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L034a - Mon 28 Sep 1998 / Lun 28 Sep 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROPERTY TAXATION

ARTHRITIS

RUBY CONWAY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FUNDING

CRAWFORD SMYTH

NELSON MANDELA

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROPERTY TAX DEADLINE EXTENSION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE PROLONGEMENT DE DÉLAIS APPLICABLES À L'IMPÔT FONCIER

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE RETOUR À L'ÉCOLE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

SPECIAL EDUCATION

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

PETITIONS

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

PROSTATE CANCER

ROYAL ASSENT/ SANCTION ROYALE

ORDER OF BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSTRUCTION TIME: MINIMUM STANDARDS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES HEURES D'ENSEIGNEMENT : NORMES MINIMALES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE RETOUR À L'ÉCOLE

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): When homeowners across Ontario received their property tax bill they were very much surprised; unable, in fact, to understand their tax bill.

We in Toronto, especially, were not just surprised but shocked at the inability of this government to ensure not only that this tax bill was easy to understand but that the residents and homeowners would be ensured justice and fairness in the tax structure. The Conservatives passed the first tax bill, which was supposed to settle it. Then, of course, we know the second tax bill had to be introduced to fix the first tax bill. Then, of course, the third tax bill had to be introduced to fix the second one and the first one. In terms of property taxes, chaos was the result.

Today the Liberal Party, under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, has made a very clear indication to the government and that is, let's move on this as quickly as possible and extend the appeal period.

You have agreed to it, even though we know there was confusion even in terms of the appeal period. The Premier got up one time and said, "I'm not quite sure there should be an appeal period."

After public pressure and many demonstrations that not only forced homeowners on to the street but forced small businesses on to the street - there were thousands of them demonstrating on St Clair, on Bloor, on Dovercourt, east and west across the city, and certainly also in other places in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. You'll notice the clock's counting up, so you've got to a minute 30.

ARTHRITIS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On September 23, the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Ontario released a report entitled Patterns of Health Care in Ontario: Arthritis and Related Conditions.

The report is very clear that there is a lack of equity among the arthritis services that are available in Ontario. Areas like the north and southwestern Ontario, for example, have very few services compared to other parts of the province. This is completely unacceptable to us when we know that arthritis is one of our most serious conditions.

The report suggests that by the year 2020, as we age, more than three million people in Ontario will suffer as a result of arthritis and related conditions. The report says that arthritis is a highly prevalent disease, with enormous economic consequences for society in terms of health care utilization, disability and lost personal income. In 1994, the estimated societal cost of arthritis in Canada was $5.8 billion.

The report calls upon the Minister of Health to develop a management strategy for arthritis and related diseases. I call on the minister today to take action immediately on this matter. We know that in order to coordinate services to ensure that primary health care professionals are aware of arthritis, we need a concerted effort. This minister should take the lead in ensuring that we have that management strategy in place.

RUBY CONWAY

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I am pleased to rise today to honour Ruby Conway, a distinguished Canadian, noted journalist and community leader from Port Colborne in my riding of Niagara South. I am most pleased that Ruby is here with us today, seated in the members' gallery.

As a student at Steele Street school and Port Colborne High School, Ruby's teachers knew that she would contribute to her community in the most extraordinary way. They were right.

As a lifelong resident of Port Colborne, she has worked tirelessly for an impressive number of worthy causes and charities, including the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the sea and air cadets, the Red Cross and the Port Colborne Historical and Marine Museum, to name a few.

For over two decades, Ruby has been an important voice in her community. Her award-winning columns in the Port Colborne News and the Welland Tribune have been enjoyed by people of all ages.

She is a woman of abiding passion for local history and heritage. Most recently she was awarded with the Ontario Heritage Foundation achievement award for her dedication to preserving the rich history of our lakeside community. In 1994, she wrote Tales of Tennessee, a vivid account of the social happenings on Tennessee Avenue at the turn of the century.

Even Premier Harris has encountered Ruby's expertise and insight. She recommended, at a Premier's round table at Niagara-on-the-Lake not so long ago, a 24-hour seniors' hotline, which has been taken up in our rural health reform. So she has given us good advice here in the province and we welcome her here today. Thank you very much, Ruby.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The Mike Harris hospital closing commission is meeting in secret behind closed doors to determine the future of hospitals in the Niagara Peninsula. The commission is poised to swing its notorious axe in the near future despite the promise by Mike Harris during the last provincial election campaign that he had "no plan to close hospitals."

Having already closed or forced the amalgamation of 35 hospitals in Ontario, Mike Harris's commission has its eye on Hotel Dieu, Douglas Memorial, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Port Colborne and West Lincoln Memorial for either closure or drastic alteration in their role.

What Mike Harris and his hand-picked hospital closing commission must be aware of is that Niagara has the largest percentage of senior citizens of any municipality in Ontario and that seniors tend to require more hospital care than others in our communities.

Instead of cutting hospital funding by over $40 million, the Harris government should be increasing funding for the operation of our hospitals. We need more funding for nurses, facilities, medical and non-medical staff, and the general operation of our hospitals. Let's restore our hospitals in Ontario and in Niagara to their previous excellent state. We require Mike Harris to keep his promise to do so.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Remember when John Snobelen, the then Minister of Education, got caught on video telling Ministry of Education staff how to create a crisis in education in order to set the climate to make changes to the education system to save money? Well, they've created the crisis now and today they will introduce back-to-work legislation for those schools that are out, but we all know that this legislation won't fix the crisis.

Mike Harris could solve the strikes and the lockouts today by restoring adequate funding to our education system. We all know they've taken out a billion dollars. But what are they doing instead? They are pitting teachers against boards and claiming absolutely no responsibility for the crisis they admitted to creating.

What else are they doing? This government has spent up to $1.68 million on education advertising, on education propaganda during the first two weeks of school. That's happening while class sizes are actually getting larger in many schools. There are no longer education assistants and special assistants to help teachers. Teachers have more students to teach and less time with each of them. That is the reality of what's going on in our education system today.

We call on the government today to fix the real problem and put the money back.

CRAWFORD SMYTH

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to pay tribute to a constituent, Mr Crawford Smyth, who passed away July 15 on his 80th birthday after a lengthy battle with cancer.

Last June Mr Smyth was awarded the Ontario Medal of Good Citizenship by the Lieutenant Governor in a special ceremony at his home, a ceremony which I was honoured to attend. Unfortunately he was too ill to attend the investiture ceremony at the Legislative Building.

Mr Smyth served gallantly overseas during World War II, and upon his return devoted his life to community service work. In war he fought to protect the liberties and freedoms that we enjoy today; in peace he fought to assist those less fortunate. In doing so he made Scarborough a better place for all of us.

In 1957, Mr Smyth began a 41-year association with the Canadian Cancer Society. In the years following he held virtually every position in the organization, from canvasser to president. He started the strawberry social volunteer appreciation evening to recognize the important contributions that volunteers made to the cancer society.

As a member of the Scarborough Kiwanis Club he was instrumental in setting up the Kiwanis Music Festival and their efforts in supporting the Salvation Army's Red Shield Appeal some 25 years ago.

During the celebrations marking the centenary of Canada, Mr Smyth found time to chair both Scarborough's events and also the Ontario Centenary Music Festival. As well, he was a director of the CNE and president of both the Federation of Canadian Music Festivals and the Canadian Bureau for the Advancement of Music. In 1968, then-Mayor Albert Campbell appointed Mr Smyth to the TTC.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

NELSON MANDELA

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On Friday, September 25, over 40,000 students witnessed history in the making. President Nelson Mandela was in town. The SkyDome saw this most impressive figure telling students how important they are to peace and the betterment of our planet. Mandela, the legendary figure, is acclaimed as a world hero, a symbol of hope.

Jim Coyle of the Toronto Star said it so well in his article: "Courage and commitment, dignity and grace, selflessness and endurance. It is possible to empty a dictionary and still not do justice to the man. But children know how," know so well how important it was. We sometimes take for granted how much they know and how sensitive they are and important to our population.

Mandela thanked Canada for being there for South Africa when apartheid was rampant in his country. We in Canada honoured him or in fact he honoured us by receiving the Order of Canada. He also, in his very busy schedule, had a business luncheon and a very impressive dinner that night. Although unable to attend because of exhaustion, he came back and gave a wonderful speech.

The children have spoken so well. It was of course unfortunate at times when they did not greet the Premier in the way we thought the office should be respected. However, we want to thank this great man for being such a great hero to us all.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Shortly after the election of the Harris government, the Minister of Education promised he was going to create a crisis in education in this province, and that's one promise they have kept in spades. Just take a look at the actions. It started with Bill 104, when they stripped away any ability for boards to find local solutions to local problems. It was followed by Bill 160 where they changed all of the rules that affected what used to be done in collective bargaining, and that was followed by a funding formula which stripped much-needed dollars out of our classrooms.

Take a look at what they've done in the last month. They terminated all collective agreements in the province on August 31, just a handful of days before the kids were due back in school. Then they threatened to legislate. Then they threatened not to legislate. Then they sent a letter to clarify, which interfered in bargaining. Then they said, "Don't pay any attention to our letter." Then they threatened to legislate again. Last Wednesday they said, "We won't legislate until we have an ERC ruling." Thursday they said, "We can't wait any longer." No wonder people out there don't know what's going on.

No wonder boards like the Catholic board last night decided to keep those kids out of the classroom and the teachers out on the street, because they're going to wait for the government legislation.

You have created a crisis all right. It's a crisis that's going to affect our kids' education for a long time to come. Your legislation today won't fix a thing.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Of all the tasks of government, the most basic is to provide children with the tools to learn effectively. Last week I attended the family resource centre in Port Hope to help with their celebration launch of the preschool speech and language services program for the counties of Victoria, Haliburton, Northumberland and Peterborough. This program, which will benefit some 1,900 children, will help to identify preschool-age children with speech and language delays and difficulties.

With the help of a $357,000 reinvestment from our government, the speech and language working group were able to establish a new 1-800 telephone number so that parents can call regarding speech and language problems; hire another speech pathologist and communications disorder assistant; and help to form and solidify partnerships with social, educational and health agencies.

Through our reinvestments, this government has demonstrated its commitment to children. Our $20-million reinvestment in speech and language services will help to ensure that children in Ontario will be able to develop effective and long-lasting communication skills.

I applaud the staff at the family resource centre in Port Hope and the speech and language working group for their enthusiasm and initiative in developing this program and expanding the existing services.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on administration of justice and move its adoption.

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

Bill 22,

An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997.

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Thursday, June 4, 1998, the bill is ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that during the recess the Clerk received the sixth and seventh reports from the standing committee on government agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 105(g)(9), these reports are deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROPERTY TAX DEADLINE EXTENSION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE PROLONGEMENT DE DÉLAIS APPLICABLES À L'IMPÔT FONCIER

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 61,

An Act to extend the deadlines for appealing property assessments and for giving certain notices relating to taxes and charges on properties with gross leases / Projet de loi 61, Loi prolongeant les délais prévus pour interjeter appel des évaluations foncières et pour donner certains avis concernant les impôts prélevés et les redevances imposées sur des biens à bail à loyer brut.

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

Any comments, Minister?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Of course, I think this is the fair thing to do for people, to give them more time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Sudbury, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Eves: I assume the opposition will give the same enthusiastic response to the first reading of the bill that the Minister of Education has to introduce.

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE RETOUR À L'ÉCOLE

Mr David Johnson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 62,

An Act to resolve labour disputes between teachers' unions and school boards and to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time / Projet de loi 62, Loi visant à régler les conflits de travail opposant des syndicats d'enseignants et des conseils scolaires et modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les heures d'enseignement.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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 and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

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 and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 74; the nays are 41.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Minister.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Quite simply, this is a bill to get our kids back into the classroom, where they deserve to be. At the same time, it allows the parties to carry on negotiations while the kids are back in the classroom or, if they choose, it allows for an arbitration-mediation process. It also deals with the essential issue of instructional time in these discussions in a definitive way.

I realize that this afternoon there may be different views on this bill. I simply ask that all the members of this House allow the bill to proceed. If the members feel they must vote against the bill, that's one course of action. But vote No quickly, vote No three times, if you must, but allow us to deal with this piece of legislation.

The Speaker: I appreciate that, but that's really not an explanatory note.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I do seek unanimous consent from this House to call the Back to School Act this afternoon and to consider and to vote on both second and third readings of the legislation.

The Speaker: The minister has asked for unanimous consent. Agreed? No.

Introduction of bills.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The government House leader mentioned at his meeting today that the Minister of Education would be rising to bring this matter forward. We have indicated our opposition to proceeding with this bill on three readings in one day. We believe that the debate should commence on this bill, and if the minister wishes the debate to commence, we're ready, willing and able to debate this bill today.

The Speaker: What are you looking for, unanimous consent? Is that the point of order?

Mr Bradley: Yes. I ask for unanimous consent to commence second reading debate on this bill today.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'll get to you right after I put this unanimous consent. Everyone heard the unanimous consent. Agreed? No.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps we can help in this. We've looked at the government's piece of legislation -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I say to the government members, everyone has had their chance for unanimous consent here. I think it's only fitting that the third party be given the opportunity to speak to it.

Mr Hampton: We've had a chance to look at the government's legislation. There are about two pages of this which deal with "back to work." There are about 15 pages which deal with all sorts of other issues. We're prepared at this point in time to sever this bill into two bills: one dealing strictly with back-to-work legislation, in other words, about the first two pages of the bill; the rest dealing with everything else that you've tried to add on and throw in.

We're prepared to deal with the first part here and now. But all the issues that deal with your arbitration procedure, that deal with the changes you propose to the Education Act, we believe they have nothing to do with "back to work." We want those dealt with. I ask for unanimous consent to sever the bill and deal with this -

The Speaker: Okay. The leader of the third party is seeking unanimous consent to sever the bill and that's in order. Is there unanimous consent to sever -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Nepean, I don't want to debate with you. If you're not certain of this, then vote accordingly. All I'm asking you - it's in order to request to sever the bill. You've heard the member say where they'd like to sever it. Agreed? No.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Who said "no"?

The Speaker: Look, I don't have to tell you. I heard a "no."

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice for private members' public business be waived with respect to ballot items 21, 22, 23 and 24; and that notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Mrs Pupatello and Mr Cordiano exchange places in the order of precedence.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Two weeks ago, I met with concerned parents whose children were out of school as a result of a teachers' strike for the second time in 12 months. My message to parents at that time was to wait, to give the process a chance, because we believed that the best solution was for school boards and teachers' unions to achieve a mutually acceptable negotiated settlement. We asked parents to give the system a chance to work. They have waited, and in too many cases their patience has not been rewarded. These circumstances are extraordinary and unprecedented.

Some of Ontario's children have missed up to six weeks of class time in a year, and this is not acceptable to the parents and it's not acceptable to the government of Ontario.

Last Thursday I again met with the parents, and at that time I told them I could not in good conscience allow the strike and lockouts to continue. The government is listening to the parents and students of our province, and that is why earlier today I introduced the Back to School Act, 1998.

The parents of Ontario are anxious that their children get back to school and the children themselves are eager to return to the classroom with their teachers. There are so many positive changes waiting for them back at school. The elementary students, for example, will arrive at school to find a new, more rigorous curriculum, over three million new textbooks and a new and understandable report card.

This legislation I'm proposing today is balanced and focused. It is focused first, and above all, on getting students back to school. If passed by the Legislature, this bill would allow parties to continue negotiating but without any further loss of classroom time. Where a strike or lockout has resulted in a loss of instructional time, the legislation would require boards, in consultation with parents and teachers, to develop a plan to make up for the missed curriculum.

The proposed legislation would provide for either party to initiate a speedy and fair mediation and arbitration process. The mediator and arbitrator would of course be required to ensure that the final agreements permit the board to respect all conditions of the Education Act and its regulations. Until an agreement is reached, teachers' working conditions would be either those set by the school board in compliance with the Education Act or those agreed to by the parties. Salaries and benefits, however, could not be less than those in the previous collective agreement.

The proposed legislation would also further define the standards on instructional time established by the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997. This proposed definition would confirm what has always been the commonly understood definition of "instructional time" and ensure that teachers spend more time teaching students.

Ontario wants to get all our students back to school. We want children in their classrooms, learning and growing, guided by teachers. We want the issues between the boards and teachers to be settled fairly but without further cost to our students. The proposed Back to School Act, 1998, would, if approved by the Legislature, allow us to achieve these goals in the best interests of all parties, but especially of our students.

I say to the opposition parties, we have a real opportunity today to do the right thing for our children of this province: to vote to let the kids get back to class tomorrow. I hope we will all take this opportunity to serve the children of Ontario. In that regard, I would like to conclude my remarks today by indicating that I will be asking again for unanimous consent to proceed with and vote on second and third readings of the legislation this afternoon.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I think it's important at the outset that we just take a moment or two to determine how we got ourselves - you got us - into this mess. There are 200,000 students across Ontario today who are not in their classrooms, and that is a direct result of your complete mismanagement of public education in Ontario.

From the moment you assumed office you set out to create a crisis. You said that was exactly what you were going to do. You did that by taking $1 billion out of our classrooms. You set out in a very deliberate way to attack our teachers and the teaching profession. Never have teachers in this province felt so undervalued, felt that their confidence was so undermined as they do at the present time.

Then you introduced Bill 160. You were quite successful in turning every single child in the entire province outside of the classroom through that debate. Through Bill 160, you wrested complete control over all education; you took it upon yourself, whether we're talking about curriculum or funding. Then, for some reason known only to you, you decided that you were going to rip up 169 collective agreements. We have never seen the likes of that in this province since the social contract.

Then you introduced a funding formula, which has the net effect of meaning we're going to have fewer teachers available to teach our students, we're going to have school closures in Ontario, and from an individual student's perspective, that student will have less contact time with any one teacher.

Then you straitjacketed trustees so that trustees simply lack any flexibility whatsoever to sit down and negotiate in good faith with teachers.

Last week before a business audience, the Premier continued his attack on public education. He extended the attack to our students. He told the business audience, he told employers, that our kids simply aren't making the grade and that they don't measure up. This from the Premier of Ontario.

Parents understand who is responsible for this mess. In fact, so do kids. You may have noticed an informal poll was taken last week at the SkyDome. Some 40,000 children were offered an opportunity to give thumbs up or thumbs down to the Premier when it comes to education in Ontario, and everybody is aware of the results of that particular measurement.

This is all about kids; there's no doubt about that whatsoever. You say you want them back in the classroom. I want to come back to an offer I made last week. I said if you were to introduce a simple, clean, straightforward, honest bill that merely called for teachers to go back into the classroom and for school boards to be compelled to remove the locks from their doors and to provide for a process of fair and binding arbitration, we would pass that bill and kids would be in their classrooms this morning.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): They refused.

Mr McGuinty: You refused. We have been reasonable throughout; you have been unreasonable throughout. Parents understand who is responsible for this mess, students understand who is responsible for this mess, teachers understand, as do trustees.

If you want to be reasonable about this, then let's understand what the offer is once again so you can have the opportunity to reflect upon it and to stand up here in the House today and say: "We accept. We want the kids back in the classroom."

If you amend the existing bill instead of trying to have it all ways and to perpetuate this ongoing crisis, if you introduce a new bill or split the existing bill so that the bill we have to debate is in fact one which merely provides for the return of our teachers to their classrooms and requires that school boards take the locks off the classroom doors and provides for a process of fair and binding arbitration, we could have this bill a done deal in two days at most. That's fair. That's reasonable. If you are genuinely intent on returning children to our classrooms, I see no reason whatsoever why you can't accept that fair and reasonable offer.

If, on the other hand, you are intent on perpetuating an ongoing crisis, one that had its birth at the time you took office, one that you have helped promote and cultivate for the last two and a half years, then you won't accept that offer and you'll pretend that it's really us, the opposition, who are in the way of a fair and reasonable offer here when that's got nothing to do with it.

You can't trust Mike Harris to look after the educational interests of our kids. That's been clear from the outset. It remains clear to this point in time today.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Three and a half years ago, the Minister of Education for this government told a bunch of education officials that he wanted to create a crisis in Ontario's education system. Virtually everyone in the province has seen that on tape: the Minister of Education for this government saying he wanted to create a crisis in education.

Now, three and a half years later, after you've taken a billion dollars out of school budgets, after you've destroyed all of the collective agreements the very day before many students were supposed to go back to school, and after you have poured cold water on the negotiations that have been taking place across the province, you have indeed created a crisis, a very sorry crisis: you, the government. No one else has created this crisis.

You have driven it in the media, you have driven it with your propaganda advertising, you have driven it with your uncompromising legislation, you have driven it by taking over a billion dollars out of our classrooms, and mostly, over the last three weeks, you have driven it by placing obstacles in the path of boards and teachers every time they've tried to sit down to negotiate a collective agreement.

In all of Ontario history, there have been only three major clashes between the teachers of this province and the government. You have the record of promoting two of those clashes within the last year alone. That's what you've done to education in this province. You said you would create a crisis, and you have created a crisis.

I would like to say just a few words to the students who have been the victims of a purely political strategy choreographed by this government, a strategy that intentionally made children suffer so that you could go out there and vilify and attack teachers. The reality is that because your government has cut a billion dollars from public education, each child's classroom is more and more overcrowded and underresourced. The reality is that you as children can't get the attention from your teachers that you need and deserve. I know you want to be back in your classroom.

We want you back in the classroom, but we have a government here that insists on driving this forward, interfering with the bargaining of collective agreements, and now, today, has come here with a similarly uncompromising position.

I'd like to say something to the teachers as well. You know the damage this government's cuts have done to education. You know how much underfunding and under-resourcing of the classroom is happening. You have taken a strong and principled stand against this government's destruction of education in our province. We know you want to be back in the classroom. We want children and teachers back in the classroom, but no one here is going to give effect to a piece of knee-jerk legislation which may well make the situation worse down the road.

I put my offer to the government again. I put my offer to the Premier and to the Minister of Education. If you read this legislation you know that only the first 10 sections - sections 1 to 10 - have anything to do with putting our children back in the classroom. Everything beyond that, from

section 11 on to sections 23 and 24, has nothing to do with putting children back in the classroom. It has everything to do with your attempt to go out there and create yet another crisis. I make the offer to this government once again. We are willing to sever the first 11 sections of this bill which deal with back to work, back to school. We're willing to sever them and we're willing to deal with them here, today, now. This will put the children back in the classroom.

The other sections which don't deal with having the children and the teachers back in the classroom deserve much further debate, much further examination, and that's what we aim to do. I ask the government again for unanimous consent: Sever the first 11 sections which deal with back to school. Leave out the other sections and deal with them later on. The first 11 sections can be dealt with by way of unanimous consent. Children can be back in the school very soon.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I wish to welcome the 16th group of pages to serve in this 36th Parliament, and they are David Armstrong from York Centre, Ava Baker from Oshawa, Jonathan Bassani from Lawrence, Jennifer Belanger from Simcoe West, Christine Clark from Scarborough West, Andrew Cudmore from Cochrane South, Stewart Cummings from Guelph, Alexander Cushing from Grey-Owen Sound, Keegan Hawkeswood from Windsor-Sandwich, Jason Hrick from London South, Roxanna Keshavarznia from St Catharines, Susan Kidnie from Eglinton, Joseph Lace from St George-St David, Kerry McKinlay from Essex-Kent, Latif Nasser from Mississauga East, Mark Palumbo from Yorkview, Jillian Pelletier from Nipissing, Wallis Rudnick from Ottawa East, Yvonne Takacs from Huron and Lauren Wells from Etobicoke-Humber.

Welcome, all of you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you'll be aware of the offer I made last week, which was a genuine effort to facilitate the return of over 200,000 children to their classrooms. You've introduced today a bill that is 19 pages in length. My question to you is very simple: Are you prepared to entertain any amendments whatsoever, any discussion of a splitting of this bill in order to expedite the return of over 200,000 children to their classrooms?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the minister can respond.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): This government is more than anxious to see the students back in the classroom, and we will sever the bill. If the House leaders can sit down and look at this and come to an agreement, we are prepared to look at a severing of the bill. However, I will say that the bill would have to be severed in terms of

part I and

part III being in the bill.

Part II, which deals with instructional time, we're prepared, under the proper circumstances, to see severed from the bill.

This would require all the members of the House to agree today, if we proceeded on that basis, that all readings would have to be accomplished today and that the kids would have to be back in the classroom tomorrow, because that's what the objective is: to get the kids back into the classroom.

Mr McGuinty: It's interesting to learn here today during question period that there is some flexibility there, because that wasn't expressed by your House leader on behalf of your government just a couple of hours ago. Just so I understand it, Minister -

Interjection.

Mr McGuinty: Speaker, if the Premier wants to take the question, then why doesn't he stand up?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I think you can negotiate elsewhere. This is question period. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: What I'm going to ask the minister to do, through the Premier, is to instruct his House leader to meet with mine, and if they're in agreement, with the House leader for the third party immediately; to meet with them -

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It was our idea.

Interjections.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Isn't it funny they didn't ask that this morning at the House leaders' meeting.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr McGuinty: Is there anything to prevent, Minister and Premier, our House leaders from meeting immediately, right now? Secondly, are you telling me that it's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition? You're prepared to do away with

part II of the bill but every other single reference in the bill - parts I and III - is to be maintained? You have no flexibility there whatsoever?

Hon David Johnson: I'm sorry to disappoint the Leader of the Opposition by being flexible. You would think that would be a desirable trait in a government, to be flexible, but the only thing preventing us from having an agreement on this is the inability of the opposition parties to assure us that this bill, if severed, will receive second and third reading today, final dealings today, so that the kids can be back in class tomorrow.

If we can have those assurances from the opposition parties, then the House leader is more than happy to sit down and work out those details.

Mr McGuinty: On a point of order, Speaker: Given the urgency of the situation before us, I am seeking unanimous consent of the House so that we adjourn immediately, that we allow the House leaders an opportunity to meet and to explore -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I want to hear this. Go ahead.

Mr McGuinty: - to explore the possibility that the Minister of Education tells me exists. I'm seeking unanimous consent on that front.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed?

Mr Christopherson: How about we get a question first?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold it. I did not hear a no, so let me ask again just to be sure. I just want to be sure on this. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed? No. I heard a no.

Final supplementary, leader of the official opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Right now we're at the final supplementary on the first question. Leader of the official opposition.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm quite willing to meet with the other House leaders while question period is going on to resolve the matter.

The Speaker: You know what? That may be a point of interest, a point of information, but I don't know how that's a point of order.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That's entirely acceptable to the New Democratic caucus. We'll meet right now.

The Speaker: That's another point of interest or information, but it's not a point of order.

Final supplementary, leader of the official opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold it. Something's coming to me.

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am delighted to continue the meeting I had this morning with the House leaders, where I asked the House leader at the time if he was prepared to split the bill and he said no. I'll be happy to do that.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I am pleased that the government has indicated a willingness to show some flexibility on this front and I'm pleased that the House leaders are going to meet immediately in order to explore the possibility of a resolution of this matter in a timely way.

I think it's important to inject a little bit of levity into this, but the fact of the matter is that this is a very serious situation. There are over 200,000 school-aged children who have not been able to attend their classes, and the reason that has happened is quite clearly because this government has set out from the outset to create a crisis in public education. Now they want to set themselves up as the hero. Now they want to come riding out of the hills and say: "We'll be the saviour. We'll get the kids back in the classroom."

I want to ask you, Minister, are you prepared to admit now that the reason there are 200,000 children who are not able to attend their classrooms is because of your and your government's incompetence and mismanagement of public education in Ontario?

Hon David Johnson: I don't know what the question in all that was, but I will say that in terms of the House leaders' meeting this morning, my understanding is that the opposition parties showed an unwillingness to have this bill dealt with today. If the opposition parties are prepared to deal with this bill today and get the kids back in class tomorrow, then we are anxious to proceed, because at the end of the day that's what it's all about. The instructional time is important because we want our kids to have the benefit of instructional time. But we're certainly flexible here today.

If the House leaders can come back with an agreement so that all three parties are prepared to deal with this today and get the kids back in class, and if we're not going to quibble about that, then fine. Let's get the kids back in class and let's proceed with the severance.

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

Mr McGuinty: It will be to the same minister, Speaker.

Minister, if you're so intent on bringing about a speedy resolution of this matter, why did you introduce a 19-page bill? You could have introduced something so much more simple which was designed simply to get teachers back in the classroom. Why did you do that? Why is it that when confronted with this in the light of day inside this Legislature, you suddenly decide: "Maybe it's time for me to rethink this. Maybe I'd better back away from the edge. Maybe I'd better show a little bit of flexibility"? Why did you include an amendment to the Education Act in the first instance? Why is it essential that this be included in this bill?

Hon David Johnson: This bill protects standards that are important to us in the education system. This bill deals with the standard of the length of the instructional program, for example, at 300 minutes per day for our students. We want that protected. That's an aspect of this bill, to ensure that any award that's given respects the fact that our students deserve 300 minutes per day.

These are all dealt with in this particular bill. They're all important and if we don't deal with it at this point in time, then I've given notice that we will have to deal with it in the very near future, even if we do sever it. It's important to this government to protect the standards of quality of education, and that's what we will do, either through this bill or at some future point.

Mr McGuinty: Putting kids back in the classroom, those 200,000 who are not there today, has nothing to do with standards. For those 200,000 kids, instructional time is zero; class size is zero. Why did you complicate it? Why did you make it harder? Why did you make it unreasonable for us to expedite this, except and unless you wanted to put us in some kind of hole and paint yourselves as the heroes? If you were genuinely intent on returning those 200,000 kids to the classrooms, why did you put forward an unreasonable bill?

Hon David Johnson: The leader of the official opposition may consider it unreasonable to protect standards for our kids - standards in our classrooms, standards for our students - but this government considers it to be fundamental.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon David Johnson: This government considers it fundamental to protect the standards of education that are alluded to in this bill. This government considers the other aspects of this bill, such as the makeup time for the time that's lost, to be very fundamental and of deep concern to the parents and to the students, something that should be dealt with. This government considers the definition of "instructional time" to be not only important to students, but fundamental in terms of the negotiation processes that are underway at the present time.

But we are prepared not to quibble. I'm asking the opposition parties to say the same thing, that you're not going to quibble today. If we sever out that section, are we going to get your unanimous consent to deal with this bill today?

Mr McGuinty: You never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. You had the occasion, you had the opportunity here today to introduce a bill that was -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I don't grade the quips. It's been a long time since I graded the quips.

Mr McGuinty: From one perspective this is very complicated, but from another it's very straightforward. You've got 200,000 kids who are out of the classroom. What do you have to do to get them back into the classroom? You put forward a bill and the bill simply provides that teachers have to go back into the classrooms and school boards have to stop locking teachers out and to provide for some kind of a system of fair and binding arbitration, and that's it.

You could have done that in two or three pages. You went on for l9 pages and you tried to sneak in this component dealing with instructional time, which you well recognize is very, very controversial.

Again, if you were so intent on returning students to the classroom at the earliest possible opportunity, why did you introduce a complicated, controversial bill today?

Hon David Johnson: I don't think this bill is very complicated, and I do consider that instructional time is an important element, not only for the eight boards in question but for all the other boards that are undergoing the negotiation process.

But we've said that we will take that part out of the bill. So I say to the Leader of the Opposition, we've said we will sever that part. Now, are you willing, with that flexibility, to give us your consent? I'll ask the same question to the third party. Are you willing to give us consent to deal with this bill today, all three readings today, to get the kids back in class? Yes or no? Will you give us that consent?

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party

Mr Hampton: I want to bring some clarity to the issues. I want to tell both the Premier and the Minister of Education that we are quite prepared, here and now, to sever sections 1 to 11 from the bill and proceed with them today: first reading, second reading, third reading. That will get the children back in the schools as soon as possible, possibly even tomorrow.

Everything after

section 11 deals with something else, so I want it clearly from the Premier or the Minister of Education: Are you prepared, in the severance, to allow us to debate sections 11 through to the end of the bill? All it would take is perhaps one week. You, yourself, say in the legislation that the appointment of an arbitrator doesn't have to happen for 30 days, so your own deadline is sometime over the next 30 days. All it would take is one week to go through these sections of the bill. Are you prepared to do that?

Hon David Johnson: We have indicated what we're prepared to do. We're prepared to sever the second part out of this bill. The first part deals with the back-to-school legislation.

It's a very simple situation. Will the third party deal with the first part, which is the back-to-school legislation, if the government agrees to sever the second part, concerning instructional time, and deal with it at another point? Will the third party agree and deal with the rest of the bill, which hasn't been severed, in its totality, second and third reading today, and let the kids get back into school tomorrow?

Mr Hampton: Minister, this is your legislation. I'm going to read it to you.

Section 4, "termination of lockout": We'll deal with that, no problem. We'll also deal with "prohibition re strike" and "prohibition re further lockout." We'll be happy to deal with the offence section. We'll be happy to deal with the deeming provision, terms of employment etc. All of these things deal with legitimate back-to-work issues, back-to-school issues.

All of the material about an appointment of an arbitrator, the arbitration process isn't going to begin until later on, the processes that the arbitrator must follow, the time limits the arbitrator must follow, the constraints on the arbitrator, judicial review of the arbitrator, all of those things that have nothing to do with getting the children back into the classroom tomorrow - we think we should wait on those. We think they should be subject to further important debate.

Minister, we're prepared to agree to passage right now, first, second and third reading, of all of the provisions which deal with back to school. But those that deal with arbitration -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: Clearly, all those sections that the leader of the third party has indicated beyond

section 10 are important to the process of getting the kids back in class, of resolving this whole matter.

We've made an offer. Is the third party going to quibble? Is that what we're faced with?

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: We have put forward a reasonable position. In the first instance, the bill is a very reasonable bill. However, having listened to the concerns of the opposition parties here today, we are prepared to have flexibility because our number one goal is to get the kids back to class.

We have put forward a very reasonable position in terms of how to sever this bill, and I'm asking you today, yes or no, are you prepared to deal with the rest of the bill beyond that, the part that isn't severed, and get the kids back in the class tomorrow?

Mr Hampton: I find your response a bit confusing, to say the least. If you read the legislation, the first 11 sections are all about getting teachers and students back in the classroom and the conditions under which they will go back into the classroom. We agree with those. We'll support those; first, second and third reading today.

Everything after that deals with an arbitration process. In your own legislation,

section 15, you say that the mediation arbitration proceedings shall be within 30 days. All we want is a week to discuss these things. Your own legislation says there's 30 days. Why this artificial constraint?

We can have the children back in the classroom tomorrow. We'll deal with the first 11 sections here and now. By your own admission, the sections that you want aren't going to take effect for 30 days. We can debate those this week and next week. What do you say?

Hon David Johnson: I would say that we have given a very reasonable offer.

Part I is the resolution of the back-to-school issue,

part II is the resolution of the instructional time and

part III has to do with the

short title. We have said that we will take

part II out, sever

part II. That is a reasonable offer that leaves the other two parts that can be dealt with this afternoon. If there is good intention to get the kids back to school, to deal with those two parts this afternoon and get the kids back to school tomorrow, this can be done. This has been done before; this can be done today. It only requires your goodwill to proceed with this.

I ask you, will you give us your consent to proceed with parts I and III today and get the kids back to class?

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

Mr Hampton: To the Minister of Education again: Read your own bill. The first 11 sections deal with getting the teachers and the students back into the classroom. We'll vote for that today. We'll pass it into law today.

The other sections that you're talking about, the arbitration mediation sections, even your own timeline says 30 days. You may not need this, and you probably won't need it, for 30 days. We can debate that material, those provisions, over the next week to 10 days. You'll have them in plenty of time. Are you interested in getting the children back into the classroom tomorrow or are you interested in pushing some of this other material through that has nothing to do with getting the children back into the classroom tomorrow? Which is it?

Hon David Johnson: We're here today because we are interested in getting the kids back to class. We have put forward a fair proposal to deal with this. The leader of the third party apparently won't accept this and is holding the kids hostage for whatever reason, for whatever political reason.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I've said several times here today that we're prepared to proceed with parts I and III today.

Part II we can initiate tomorrow and have debate on that tomorrow, but parts I and III will get the kids back into the schools and will clarify the process of resolving this matter of the negotiations. That's a very reasonable position and I ask the leader of the third party to reconsider and put the kids first and allow them to go back to school.

Mr Hampton: The Minister of Education is really confusing. I want to read

section 15 of his bill.

Section 15 says, "The mediator-arbitrator shall begin the mediation-arbitration proceedings within 30 days of his appointment." By your own timeline there is a 30-day procedure here. Then it says he's got 90 days, that he shall make an award 90 days after the appointment. By your own bill you could easily sever this material and you could very easily have the children back in the classroom tomorrow. We could debate some of these controversial sections and deal with them. You could appoint the arbitrators next week - next Monday, next Tuesday, next Thursday - whenever you want.

Why do you insist on having these provisions when, if you read these provisions, it's clear that you don't need them right away? You can have them sometime in the next 30 days. Why won't you compromise on this?

Hon David Johnson: We have put forward what I think is a very fair and reasonable compromise in this matter, because the definition of "instructional time" is very important as well to the negotiations that are underway. It is a key and central issue in many of the negotiation processes. But we've said: "Fine, if that's your concern, in an effort to get the kids back in class tomorrow we'll set aside that debate until tomorrow. We'll deal with that debate starting tomorrow, but today we'll deal with parts I and III." I don't know why you won't see that we have to get the kids back in class. Have you put some sort of philosophical theory before the need to get kids back into the class?

It's very simple: We're prepared to deal with parts I and III today. Is the NDP prepared to deal with parts I and III today or are they going to hold up our kids and not allow our kids to get back to class? That's the question.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: For the benefit of the House, I would like to ask the minister if he can clarify his answer.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mr Sergio: May I say something?

The Speaker: Clarifying an answer is not a point of order.

Mr Sergio: Can I please -

The Speaker: Tell me what your point of order is.

Mr Sergio: The minister keeps on saying that he's willing to split the bill -

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. Final supplementary, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I think you owe it to people to give an explanation. It's very clear from a reading of your bill that the first 11 sections will have the teachers and the students back in the classroom tomorrow. Everything that follows after

section 11 deals with arbitration and mediation that may happen down the road, and even this bill that you've brought in here says the mediation probably won't start for 30 days and doesn't have to terminate for 90 days.

So I don't understand. You can have the children back in the classroom tomorrow. We will vote for sections 1 through 11, first reading, second reading, third reading, here and now. Why are you so insistent on getting something today that you don't need for 30 days and which will go on for 90 days? Please explain that to the students, explain that to the parents, and explain that to the teachers.

We will vote to have the children back in the classroom; the arbitration process -

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: - can wait until next week. What's your answer?

Hon David Johnson: My answer is the same. This is not confusing; this is very simple. Mediation-arbitration does not need to start 30 days from now; it may start much sooner than 30 days from now. Boards and unions want and need these matters to be clarified.

There's no rocket science here. I think it boils down to, has the third party painted itself into a corner or is the third party concerned about the standards that are important in this particular bill? Are they concerned about having this process of resolving the strike get going or are they more concerned about quibbling about where in a particular bill, after what particular clause, and holding the kids hostage as a result and not allowing the kids back in class?

I ask you, leader of the third party, to stand up here today and say you will give your consent on the severing that we propose and allow the kids to get back in school tomorrow.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): A question to the Minister of Education. As a result of your Bill 160 and regulations under Bill 160 issued by your ministry, you're requiring the Toronto Catholic District School Board to consider the closure of 29 Catholic elementary schools here in Toronto. The students, parents and teachers of these 29 schools have been given a very unreasonable deadline of November 15 to decide the future of their schools.

Mr Minister, will you be reasonable and give these parents and students and teachers enough time to respond, beyond this November 15 deadline?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, as the member opposite knows only too well, the Ministry of Education is not requiring any board anywhere in Ontario to close any schools. The Ministry of Education, through the funding formula, is providing adequate funds for the accommodation of the students, and in fact is requiring that if boards are looking at closing a particular school anywhere, they do so in consultation with the parents.

The Ministry of Education is requiring that by the end of this year, if boards are intending to have schools count in their inventory, they notify the Ministry of Education. It's as simple as that. But all the decisions that are made in terms of school closures are made by the local board.

Mr Colle: At the public meetings that are being held in Toronto, the board is saying they are doing these closures because of you, your cuts in Bill 160 and your funding, or your lack of funding. Minister, you now have complete control over all aspects of education in this province as a result of Bill 160. We have never had schools close in the city of Toronto, Catholic schools. Now you're asking them to consider 29 schools being closed. Will you stand up on your feet and say you will not allow any of these 29 schools to be closed while you are minister?

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite indicates that a certain board has never had schools close. I don't have the precise statistics here before me today with the new House book, but rest assured I will at the next question period. But I do know that under the Liberal government there were literally well over 100 schools that closed in the province between 1985 and 1990. When the NDP were in office, again there were a number of schools that were closed across Ontario each and every year.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon David Johnson: I'll apologize if I recall incorrectly, but my recollection is that there were nearly 150 schools closed between 1985 and 1990.

The province of Ontario provides adequate funding for school boards for all purposes. There will actually be more money spent in the 1998-99 school year at elementary and secondary than ever in the history of the province, more money spent on elementary and secondary over the next year. Within the context of that increased funding, most of it directed into the classroom, the boards make the decisions on which schools to close or not to close.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Education: Minister, I'm confused by your position today. I want to read to you a memorandum from one of your own ministry officials which is equally confusing. It's dated September 14 and it's a memorandum to directors of education from Michel Robineau of the Ministry of Education. It says, "Attached please find an update of the following reports which outline the status of teacher negotiations as of September 10."

Then it goes over to the Sudbury separate school board and it says - this is the board's position - "Meetings terminated. Will wait for back-to-work legislation." This is September 10, and that was the board's position.

Minister, can you tell us what you did to get the board back to the bargaining table between September 10 and now?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I don't know what the member opposite is alluding to. I have had no involvement in any of the negotiations between the boards and the unions. The responsibility for negotiations rests with the teachers' unions on the one side and the school boards on the other side. That's a process I'd very much like to see work.

That's why this particular legislation that's before us today is geared only to those eight boards which have been on strike for some considerable period of time, because there seems to be evidence that the negotiation process in these particular boards is not leading to a favourable resolution. Beyond that, the matters are between the boards and the unions, and they need to make their own determination.

Mr Hampton: What's puzzling about this is that this is an internal ministry document which says the ministry knows that the board has terminated bargaining as of September 10 and that the board is waiting for back-to-work legislation. I am asking the minister, did you do anything at all to get them back to the bargaining table to help resolve this?

I've got plenty of evidence. For example, this is from Don Folz. He's the education director for one of the boards affected by your back-to-work legislation, the Peterborough area Catholic board. Mr Folz sent a letter to you just over a week ago. He told the minister that the two sides were "on the cusp of an agreement. Then you issued your statement and your statement made it impossible."

That's from a director of education. He says that you, the minister, destroyed their bargaining relationship.

I put it to you again, Minister. We've got this legislation. We are prepared to pass right now, today, first, second and third readings of the sections which deal with getting the teachers back into the classroom. The arbitration stuff and some of the material that follows on the arbitration issues can wait until next week. Will you take that offer?

Hon David Johnson: Since we are today reading our internal memos or memos of whatever nature, I also have a memo here from the chair of the Toronto Catholic District School Board:

"The chair of the Toronto Catholic District School Board announced today that the board is planning to open its schools as soon as an agreement is reached with the secondary teachers' union or the government's back-to-school legislation is passed. Naturally, if no agreement can be reached with the teachers' union, the board expects Mr McGuinty and Mr Hampton and the Liberal and the NDP caucuses to vote in favour of the legislation so that students can be back in the classroom as early as tomorrow morning."

It's probably not a great surprise that I get quite a number of letters from various school boards, from various people, but this government has listened in particular to the parents, and the parents have taken quite an interest in the situation. The parents have come to me on more than one occasion, obviously in an organized way and through various means, and have said, "Enough is enough; we need to get the kids back into the classroom."

We have a piece of legislation, I say to the leader of the third party, that will do that today. We'll sever out the second part, and if we do that we're simply asking for your OK to go ahead, get all three readings today, and then we can get the kids back into class. Surely that's what we all want to accomplish here today.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): My question today is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. My riding of Guelph has a very diverse and interesting arts and culture sector. I know the minister herself is familiar with the Guelph Spring Festival, the Guelph Jazz Festival, the Hillside Festival, and recently she personally she visited the River Run Centre. It too is thriving.

My constituents were pleased to see the finance minister last May announce the creation of a $25-million arts endowment fund to match and invest money for participating arts organizations. I think this is an exciting opportunity here for partnerships among businesses, the government, the community and the culture sector.

Minister, would you please tell my constituents, the arts organizations in my riding and in other ridings across the province how they can access this new arts endowment fund and what the benefits will be?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Certainly this is a very exciting initiative and my ministry is already in the process of communicating how various arts groups can communicate and can access the fund. We have been in touch with all of the arts organizations already and bulletins will be out there.

It is a wonderful way for arts groups to form partnerships. It shows how government can help arts groups, as a matter of fact, form partnerships with businesses and the public, as you mentioned, by matching funds that they raise together. This will lead to more and much greater donations. This has been proved by many such funds dealing with arts and universities. The government is going to match on a dollar-for-dollar basis money raised by not-for-profit arts groups right across the province.

Mrs Elliott: Thank you, Minister. Would you please specify which organizations are eligible to access this fund and how they will go about doing it?

Hon Ms Bassett: Because it's important for us that all arts organizations, large and small, will have access to this fund, we have made sure that all organizations right across the province, of all sizes, will be eligible for the fund if they are not-for-profit professional arts groups. The program recognizes that the needs of different arts organizations differ and we've made the program flexible enough to ensure that smaller organizations will be in a good position to participate and benefit from the fund.

Monies raised will be matched. For example, if you raise $25,000, $25,000 will be added by the government; it'll get to $50,000. This will then generate a certain amount of money every year for operating funds. Anybody involved with arts organizations knows how important it is to have operating funds on a regular basis every year, and that's the idea behind it.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, we are all acutely aware of the fact that we are three weeks, and in some cases four weeks, into the school year and public attention has understandably focused on those students who are out of school because of lockouts or strikes. In the meantime, there are some very vulnerable students who are either out of school or in class without the supports they need to be able to function in their class because you can't get your act together.

We have heard from parents and teachers who are extremely concerned about the fact that, three and four weeks into the school year, the special education dollars that you have committed to support special needs students in our schools have not actually reached the school boards.

Minister, why has the money for special needs students that you have promised to those individual students not actually reached the boards so that teachers and assistants can be hired for their support?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The key word there is "promise," and we will live up to that promise. For the first time a government has protected special education funding. Never in the history of the province has special education funding been protected before, and we have done so to the tune of over $1 billion.

Notwithstanding that we have protected it by over $1 billion, there was the odd report coming back that in a board here or there special education students who had received services last year might not get the same services this year, so we said: "We won't allow that to happen. We'll ensure that every special education student who has been receiving services continues to receive them. As a result, we have gone through an audit process this summer with the various boards. That audit process is coming to a conclusion. There will be at least another $40 million over and above the $1 billion put into special education, and the boards will be receiving that money very shortly to ensure -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Here is the real face of a Tory promise: Talk a lot about all the money you're putting into special education, but almost a month into the school year and our most vulnerable students are not seeing the benefits of any of those dollars. This is absolutely inexcusable. It appears to be widespread across the province. We have heard from parents from Essex to Toronto to Thunder Bay and Rainy River. Those boards made their submissions to you months ago. They have been approved. The problems seem to have been ironed out. They're told there is supposed to be enough money.

The money has been promised and it is not flowing. Those kids are sitting in classes or at home because they can't get the support you keep publicly promising and haven't delivered, and this morning your ministry officials were on the phone reassuring boards that the money would indeed be coming.

Will you guarantee that school boards will have the money for special-needs students by tomorrow morning so they can hire the staff that's needed to support our most vulnerable students?

Hon David Johnson: This government is committed to special education. This money is flowing through the pipeline. It will all be at the school boards in the very near future. The school boards know this money is coming. All that is happening is that the exact amount is being fine-tuned according to the needs of the individual students and the individual schools.

An independent audit has taken place through the summer to determine the precise amount of money for each board. That is being wrapped up. This government, again, is the first government which has protected this money for special education students, and this money, the first in history to be protected, to be directed solely to special education students, will be announced precisely in the very near future.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Education: I think we would all agree in this Legislature that it is quite unusual for a piece of legislation to receive first, second and third readings in the same day and then be passed into law that day as well. That only happens in emergency or extraordinary circumstances. I agree with you that having children back in the classroom now is an extraordinary situation. That's why I've said to you that all of the sections of this bill, 1 through 11, which deal with getting the children back into the classroom tomorrow, we will pass here and now, one, two and three, first reading, second reading and third reading, today.

What I don't understand is the arbitration measures, which you yourself say are going to take place sometime between the next 30 and 90 days: Why are they an emergency? Can you tell us why they are an emergency? They're not going to happen for the next 30 to 90 days? Why would you want to ram those through? Why is that for some reason an emergency for you? Can you explain that?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, the arbitration proceedings don't necessarily start 30 days from now; the arbitration proceedings could start much quicker than that. I think the leader of the third party knows that. He's making a certain

interpretation which he knows is on the far end of the scale.

Secondly, over the years there have been a number of cases of back-to-school legislation before this Legislature, quite a number of pieces of legislation, which have been dealt with in the same day; all three readings in the very same day. There are any number of cases and I'm sure the leader of the third party knows that. Indeed the NDP, during their stay in office, had at least two pieces of legislation which were introduced to the House. So this is not unusual in this kind of circumstance. It's very simple. All it needs is the co-operation of all the members of the House.

Mr Hampton: Again we don't get an answer from this minister. Your own bill provides that even after teachers are back in the classroom and students are back in the classroom there will be time for further negotiation. I haven't heard out of you at all this afternoon why you have to have these arbitration provisions, the arbitrations which don't have to begin for 30 days and continue on for 90 days. I don't understand your position. I don't understand the urgency for this. You've given no reason.

You can have the children back in the classroom tomorrow by passing sections 1 through 11 here and now, today. Why won't you do that, Minister? Why won't you take up that offer? Pass them now. Have this through the Legislature. Have the children back in the classroom tomorrow. Why won't you do that?

Hon David Johnson: It's very simple. Through the years this House has entertained any number of pieces of back-to-school legislation. Many of those have been dealt with on the same day. Why is the leader of the third party holding the kids up for ransom? Why are you holding the kids hostage today?

The third party, when it was in office, introduced back-to-school legislation. There's nothing unusual about this. It simply deals with "back to school" and the process for resolving the dispute. Nothing could be simpler. You had this bill over the weekend. You had the opportunity to see it. I simply ask for your support today.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Recently the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board had good news for a number of businesses in the Peterborough area: 43 greater Peterborough area companies received cheques totalling more than $200,000 for collectively improving their workplace health and safety performance. Minister, could you please expand on the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's safe communities initiative program and its benefits.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I thank the member for Peterborough for the question. As the Minister of Labour, I am extremely proud of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's safe communities incentive program. It's a program that works and it's vital for occupational health and safety and the future of health and safety in the workplaces of Ontario.

The program is a community-based health and safety experience rating program designed to help small business improve health and safety and reduce their compensation costs. Under the program, the companies gain access to an expert health and safety consulting team and new training programs and resources. Participating firms join a group policy. The group then receives 75% of any savings resulting from combined improvements in their health and safety performance. The program is consistent with the Ministry of Labour's goal of encouraging greater self-reliance in the workplaces of Ontario.

Mr Stewart: I was at the meeting they had to give out these cheques and I can tell you that the companies that received them were most impressed with what they have done and what their staffs have done in workplace health and safety.

Minister, can you give this House more detail on how this program has indeed paid off for the city of Peterborough, one of three in Ontario?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The 43 Peterborough area companies received the cheques for their efforts to improve workplace health and safety performance as a group. The participating companies in the Peterborough area reduced their collective costs by more than 60%, but the program also saves lives. The participating companies can boast of an increased level of health and safety in their workplaces. They can be proud of their efforts in making their workplaces among the safest not only in Ontario, not only in Canada, but in the world.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's new mandate is to ensure that Ontario's companies put efforts into the prevention of accidents and into becoming self-reliant in their approach to health and safety. I am encouraged by the results of this program and I'm looking forward to its expansion in the next few months. The Ministry of Labour is committed to Ontario's workplaces being among the safest in the world.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. On August 5 a truck carrying 40,000 pounds of explosives was involved in an accident which caused horrific damage, both personal and property. You have continually refused to call a public inquiry into this as Minister of Transportation. Today will you answer this question for me? Will you confirm what one of your staffers told us at a briefing meeting, that the company carrying the 40,000-pound bomb was under investigation, to quote his terms, "for a variety of issues" before the crash, at the time of the crash and after the crash? Will you confirm that today?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I'd be happy to confirm to this House that the Ministry of Transportation is working 24 hours a day, seven days a week with Transport Canada. As the member well knows, under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, which is a federal piece of legislation, the federal government has the sole jurisdiction to deal with the transportation of dangerous goods. I've made that abundantly clear to the member on several occasions, and yet he insists on wanting provincial bureaucrats to trip over the feet of the federal bureaucrats.

That will not get us to the truth, as the member should know. We are committed to getting to the truth in a full and fair investigation.

Mr Bartolucci: The minister should know that the Public Inquiries Act as amended gives you the jurisdiction to call a public inquiry. You have refused my request for a public inquiry. You have refused the request of the town of Walden and the people of Nickel Belt for a public inquiry. You have refused the regional municipality of Sudbury's request for a public inquiry. You have refused Frank Madigan's request, the Liberal candidate in Nickel Belt, for a public inquiry. Will you now accept the fact that 1.85 million people from 104 municipalities across Ontario are requesting a public inquiry by you? Will you now listen to the 1.85 million people across Ontario who want a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Clement: To the honourable member, I'm listening to the law, and the law of this land makes it abundantly clear that there is one person in this country who has the power to order a public inquiry, the federal Minister of Transport. If the member has a problem with the federal Minister of Transport, a federal Liberal, I suggest he talk to that federal member. I want this Legislature to know that Transport Canada is conducting a full investigation. The Ministry of Transportation is working with our federal colleagues.

I think there's a bit of showboating going on. Kirkland Lake council says, "This guy's making political points and we're not here to help him." They're referring to you, Mr Bartolucci, the member for Sudbury; they're not referring to us. Maybe this question wouldn't be asked in two days' time.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have 104 municipalities that say it's you who's responsible.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's not a point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: No, that wasn't a point of order. You're absolutely right.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We've tried to get the Minister of Education to tell us why he will not sever the first 11 sections from his bill and let those proceed, but the minister seems to be quite hidebound about this, so I'm going to ask for unanimous consent that parts I and III of the bill be severed, that we debate those until midnight and we be permitted to go to committee of the whole to put amendments to them. We agree that we'll have first, second and third reading by midnight, but everything in

part II is severed from the bill and the debate on everything in

part II will not be until sometime later. This will get children back into school tomorrow. I ask for unanimous consent on that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's a good point, actually. Why don't we seek unanimous consent so you can move a motion, because it's a very complicated request you're making and I can't really get it straight. Why don't you seek unanimous consent first off, so you can move a motion for that particular bill? Is that OK?

Mr Hampton: I'm asking unanimous consent to move a motion which will help us deal with the issue at hand.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, it's non-debatable.

Agreed? Agreed.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I know it's tough. I know it's very difficult - OK, now he's agreed. He can move his motion. You can still say no to his motion, but now he gets a chance to move his motion.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I think I am in the middle of a point of order. That's the difficulty right now.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If this will help with the impasse, I ask for unanimous consent. This is a motion that we will debate parts I and III until midnight. That gives us approximately three sessional days to debate those, and we go to committee of the whole so that amendments can be put on those sections within that time frame. We agree that we'll have first, second and third reading by midnight. But

part II of your bill is severed and will not be dealt with and we will not deal with that until sometime in the future.

The Speaker: I think I got that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's not really negotiable. It's not debatable either.

Hon Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm in a point of order. I can't very well do this. The difficulty I have is that I'm in a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: All right. Fine. I'm going to hear the point of order from the government House leader if that's agreeable. Is that agreeable? Point of order.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I think we're in agreement with the general thrust of this. Perhaps if the leader of the third party could put it after petitions, which is about 20 minutes, so that we can put this down in writing and get it straight, if that would be agreeable.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it's reasonable because it's the agreement that the three House leaders had just a few minutes ago back there.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: No. I think the members should know, and I think the government House leader will confirm, that this is essentially what was already agreed to back there and I was under the impression that the government had agreed to that. Essentially, that's what it was.

The Speaker: OK, let's agree to put this after petitions. Agreed? Agreed.

PETITIONS

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas a tractor-trailer truck carrying a variety of explosives was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Highway 17 west, near Sudbury, causing an explosion which destroyed a 100-foot

section of the highway and created a crater 15 feet deep;

"Whereas a shock wave resulting from the explosion broke doors, windows, frames and soffits on houses, causing significant personal and property damage;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what emergency plans are in place when dangerous cargo is being transported on our highways;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have a right to know what protections are in place for residents who live in close proximity to vehicles carrying destructive materials;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what restrictions and precautions the Ministry of Transportation places on companies who haul dangerous cargoes;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government call a public inquiry into this accident in order to make recommendations that will ensure this type of horrific accident does not happen again and to answer the many questions the people of northern Ontario have."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition presented to the Minister of Health, the member for Waterloo North, who of course is unable to present petitions in this House and has asked me to do it. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards;

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs;

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences;

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral;

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences;

"Whereas health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

It's signed by quite a number of constituents from the Waterloo-Wellington area.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas a tractor-trailer truck carrying a variety of explosives was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Highway 17 west, near Sudbury," in the riding of Nickel Belt, "causing an explosion which destroyed a 100-foot

section of the highway and created a crater 15 feet deep;

"Whereas a shock wave resulting from the explosion broke doors, windows, frames and soffits on houses, causing significant personal and property damage;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have the right to know what emergency plans are in place when dangerous cargo is being transported on our highways;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have a right to know what protections are in place for residents who live in close proximity to vehicles carrying destructive materials;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have the right to know what restrictions and precautions the Ministry of Transportation places on companies who haul dangerous cargo;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government call a public inquiry into this accident in order to make recommendations that will ensure this type of horrific accident does not happen again and to answer the many questions the people of northern Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have."

I affix my signature to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by 7,225 residents from the greater Cornwall area.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission recommends two sites, two boards and two administrations for Cornwall and area hospitals;

"Whereas the HSRC recommends the closing of hospital lab services in Cornwall;

"Whereas the HSRC recommends building upon a site that has no room for growth beyond the year 2003 and will be unable to meet the community's future needs;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to instruct the Health Services Restructuring Commission to consolidate all hospital services at the Hotel Dieu site, which offers 28 acres of property for future development, with one board and one administration."

I have also signed the petition.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas a tractor-trailer truck carrying a variety of explosives was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Highway 17 west, near Sudbury," and near Nickel Belt, "causing an explosion which destroyed a 100-foot

section of the highway and created a crater 15 feet deep;

"Whereas a shock wave resulting from the explosion broke doors, windows, frames and soffits on houses, causing significant personal and property damage;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what emergency plans are in place when dangerous cargo is being transported on our highways...;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what restrictions and precautions the Ministry of Transportation places on companies who haul dangerous cargo;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government call a public inquiry into this accident in order to make recommendations that will ensure this type of horrific accident does not happen again and to answer the many questions people of northern Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have."

I will sign this petition.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "Whereas a tractor-trailer truck carrying a variety of explosives was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Highway 17 west, near Sudbury," in the riding of Nickel Belt, "causing an explosion which destroyed a 100-foot

section of the highway and created a crater 15 feet deep;

"Whereas a shock wave resulting from the explosion broke doors, windows, frames and soffits on houses" in the riding of Nickel Belt, "causing significant personal and property damage;

"Whereas the residents of" northern "Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have the right to know what emergency plans are in place when dangerous cargo is being transported on our highways;

"Whereas the residents of" northern "Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have the right to know what protections are in place for residents who live in close proximity to vehicles carrying destructive materials;

"Whereas the residents of" northern "Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have the right to know what restrictions and precautions the Ministry of Transportation places on companies who haul dangerous cargo;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government call a public inquiry into this accident in order to make recommendations that will ensure this type of horrific accident does not happen again and to answer the many questions people of northern Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have."

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I too have a petition similar to the one just read about a very important issue that's taking place in the riding of Nickel Belt. It states, and I'll just read it once again:

"Whereas a tractor-trailer truck carrying a variety of explosives was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Highway 17 west, near Sudbury" - Nickel Belt - "causing an explosion which destroyed a 100-foot

section of the highway and created a crater 15 feet deep;

"Whereas a shock wave resulting from the explosion broke doors, windows, frames and soffits on houses, causing significant personal and property damage;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what emergency plans are in place when dangerous cargo is being transported on our highways;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what protections are in place for residents who live in close proximity to vehicles carrying destructive materials;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what restrictions and precautions the Ministry of Transportation places on companies who haul dangerous cargo;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government call a public inquiry" immediately "into this accident" in Nickel Belt "in order to make recommendations that will ensure this type of horrific accident does not happen again and to answer the many questions people of northern Ontario," and Nickel Belt, "have."

I've signed my signature to this as well.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a similar petition which greatly impacts the people of Nickel Belt, and there is a great deal of concern. It goes as follows:

"Whereas a tractor-trailer carrying a variety of explosives was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Highway 17 west, near Sudbury," in the riding of Nickel Belt, "causing an explosion which destroyed a 100-foot

section of the highway and created a crater 15 feet deep;

"Whereas a shock wave resulting from the explosion broke doors, windows, frames and soffits on houses, causing significant personal and property damage;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what emergency plans are in place when dangerous cargo is being transported on our highways;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have a right to know what protections are in place for residents who live in close proximity to vehicles carrying destructive materials;

"Whereas the residents of Ontario have the right to know what restrictions and precautions the Ministry of Transportation places on companies who haul dangerous cargo;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government call a public inquiry into this accident in order to make recommendations that will ensure this type of horrific accident does not happen again and to answer the many questions the people of northern Ontario have."

I sign my signature to the petition as well.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This week is Prostate Cancer Awareness Week in Sudbury, and the following petition is to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario in 1996;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, which is prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Ministry of Health" and the Minister of Health "to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

I affix my signature to the petition.

ROYAL ASSENT/ SANCTION ROYALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her office.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour did assent:

Bill 15,

An Act to cut taxes for people and for small business and to implement other measures contained in the 1998 Budget / Projet de loi 15, Loi visant à réduire les impôts des particuliers et des petites entreprises et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures contenues dans le budget de 1998.

Bill 26,

An Act to promote public safety through the creation of community safety zones / Projet de loi 26, Loi visant à favoriser la sécurité publique par la création de zones de sécurité communautaires;

Bill 28,

An Act to permit the Collection of Personal Information for the Payment of the Ontario Child Care Supplement for Working Families / Projet de loi 28, Loi permettant la collecte de renseignements personnels en vue du versement du supplément de revenu de l'Ontario pour les familles travailleuses ayant des frais de garde d'enfants;

Bill 31,

An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi visant à promouvoir le développement économique et à créer des emplois dans l'industrie de la construction, favorisant la démocratie en milieu de travail et apportant d'autres modifications aux lois ayant trait au travail et à l'emploi;

Bill 36,

An Act to amend the Election Act and the Election Finances Act, and to make related amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la

Loi sur le financement des élections et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois;

Bill 37,

An Act to designate a week of recognition for Ontario's Farmers / Projet de loi 137, Loi désignant une semaine de reconnaissance envers les agriculteurs de l'Ontario;

Bill 44,

An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 44, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la cité de Toronto;

Bill 51,

An Act to amalgamate Sunnybrook Hospital and Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital and to transfer all assets and liabilities of Women's College Hospital to the amalgamated hospital / Projet de loi 51, Loi fusionnant les hôpitaux nommés Sunnybrook Hospital et Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital et transférant l'actif et le passif de l'hôpital nommé Women's College Hospital à l'hôpital issu de la fusion;

Bill Pr15,

An Act respecting The Corporation of the City of Kitchener;

Bill Pr17,

An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College;

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College;

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent;

Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting Canadian Information Processing Society of Ontario.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I guess we have unanimous consent at this point to move a motion without notice.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do we have unanimous consent to move a motion? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move:

(1) That Bill 62,

An Act to resolve labour disputes between teachers' unions and school boards and to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time shall be modified by deleting

part II under the heading, Amendments to the Education Act, and that this modified Bill 62 go forward for consideration of the House;

(2) That the House be permitted to sit beyond its normal adjournment time, but no later than 11:45 pm, for the purposes of considering the modified bill;

(3) That notwithstanding any standing order relating to Bill 62,

An Act to resolve labour disputes between teachers' unions and school boards and to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time, when Bill 62 is next called, three hours shall be allotted to the second reading stage of the bill;

(4) That at the end of those three hours the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill and the bill shall then be referred to committee of the whole House for immediate consideration, and that up to two hours be allotted for consideration of the bill at that stage;

(5) That at the end of that period, up to two hours, the chair of the committee shall without further debate or amendment put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House;

(6) That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

(7) That the order for third reading of the bill shall then immediately be called and one hour shall be allocated to the third reading stage of the bill.

(8) At the end of that time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

(9) That in the case of any divisions relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes and that there shall be no deferral of the vote pursuant to standing order 28(h).

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Mr Sterling: Before calling the bill which has just been introduced today, I would ask for unanimous consent to revert to introduction of bills so we can introduce a bill relating to

part II of the bill.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSTRUCTION TIME: MINIMUM STANDARDS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES HEURES D'ENSEIGNEMENT : NORMES MINIMALES

Mr David Johnson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 63,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time / Projet de loi 63, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les heures d'enseignement.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Carried.

Minister of Education.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): No comments at this time, Mr Speaker.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just for the information of the House, I think we all recognize that the

long title of Bill 62, if and when we get to debate it today, as per the motion passed with unanimous consent, will have to change as per the bill that has just been introduced by the minister.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE RETOUR À L'ÉCOLE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Orders of the day.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Bill 62,

An Act to resolve labour disputes between teachers' unions and school boards and to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: That's exactly the one raised by - the titling of this second reading debate. The bill has now been changed. It no longer includes an amendment to the Education Act on instructional time. I don't want to prolong this, but maybe it's necessary to make an immediate change to that name in order to introduce this revised bill.

The Speaker: I think it's true that they can amend that at committee of the whole today. I'm sure they have that on the table to amend at committee of the whole, don't you? Okay.

Mr Dave Johnson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 62,

An Act to resolve labour disputes between teachers' unions and school boards and to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time / Projet de loi 62, Loi visant à régler les conflits de travail opposant des syndicats d'enseignants et des conseils scolaires et modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les heures d'enseignement.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm delighted to be able to speak to this bill this afternoon and to congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the House, because this really is an issue that doesn't involve politics. This is an issue that involves kids. It involves getting kids back into the classrooms, which I'm sure we all agree they should all have been attending right from the very beginning.

The bill, if it's passed by this House today, will reopen the schools that have been closed unfortunately by either strikes or lockouts over the last several weeks, denying our children the right to be in the classrooms that they so much deserve.

The bill would achieve that goal and would achieve it in a manner that's fair, I believe, both to the school boards and to the unions. Those are the same bodies which unfortunately have encountered an impasse in so many of their negotiations over the past few weeks.

The bill would also ensure that there is a consistent application of the provincial education standards through this process. Those education standards are most important. Some of them have been alluded to during the question period here today and perhaps during the statement period by the members, but those standards, as one example, involve the maximum size of the classes.

We've indicated through Bill 160 that the class sizes would be capped at 25 at the elementary level and at 22 at the secondary level to ensure a quality of education in Ontario. Unfortunately, I might say that those class sizes have been increasing.

People talk to me about the class sizes and they say, "Minister, there's not necessarily a correlation between the average class sizes and the quality of education." There are various academics, for example, who hold this opinion that there isn't any absolute proof in a study somewhere that there's a precise correlation between the average class size and the quality of education. To them I say, ask the parents. Ask the students or the parents about -

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Ask the teachers.

Hon David Johnson: You're absolutely right, ask the teachers. Ask the principals, ask the people who are there in the classroom, who have a stake in the classroom, and they will tell you that the average class size is important.

Unfortunately, what's happened between 1991 and 1997, as one example, is that the average class size at the elementary level has gone up each and every year. It's time to put a stop to that growth in the class sizes.

Some people say to me, "There still will be classes of 35," or "There still will be classes of 40." But you know what? If we didn't put the cap on the class size, they'd be even greater still. The smaller classes get bigger, the bigger classes get bigger, the average classes get bigger. They all get bigger, but we've put a stop to that. For the first time in the history of education in Ontario, we have said that cannot carry on. We must stop the growth in the average class size in Ontario: 25 at the elementary, 22 at the secondary.

It's interesting that some boards are having to work to meet those standards because their average class sizes are higher and they have to bring them down. They've negotiated some of those, as my colleague has indicated, with the teachers, with the unions during that period of time, and those negotiations and those contracts -

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): Social contract.

Hon David Johnson: -social contracts as a case in point, have resulted in some higher class sizes. I don't think we want to see that. So we've, for the first time, put a halt to that.

But what's happening now is that some of the boards are having to work, because they're having to make more classes, smaller classes, hire more teachers. Isn't that great? The money is based on those class sizes and it's protected. It's based on those class sizes, so they have the money to do it, and that's just great. That's one of the standards that we're very concerned about in education.

Another standard, I might say, is the number of days that our students have: 190 instructional days in Ontario. At the secondary level, that includes 10 days of examination time, but those days for the first time recently give our students the same number of instructional days as students in other provinces. It reflects perhaps not kindly on us, on the government of Ontario, on the Ministry of Education, that we had let this slip over the years so that our students were getting fewer days of instructional time than students in other provinces at the secondary level, our students receiving 10 days below the average of students across the rest of Canada.

Then what happens is that the students from Ontario participate in international tests, they participate in national tests, and the results are not what we would want to see. The results, unfortunately, are that the students from the province of Ontario do not score as well as students from Alberta or British Columbia, and frankly too many other provinces, in mathematics, in science.

Is it any wonder? Has it been any wonder in the past? If our students don't have the opportunity for the same number of instructional days, if they don't have the benefit of lower class sizes, if the class sizes keep increasing, they're not given a fair opportunity. Our teachers are not given a fair opportunity.

The Premier last week in a speech said we have excellent teachers in the province of Ontario but the system needs to be changed. That's what he was referring to: the system. The system is such that our students did not have the advantage of the same number of instructional days as students in other jurisdictions, and the system was such that the average class size continued to grow year after year. That's what we have changed, and that's what we need to protect.

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: Thank you to my colleague across.

Through this bill, we are insisting that those kinds of standards be protected and that the resolution, the arbitration process, not be able to impinge on those kinds of standards which we have set in the province and which we think are most important.

We have listened very closely to the parents. The history has been that governments traditionally listen to the Education Relations Commission before legislating back to school. The Education Relations Commission has been involved, if my statistics prove correct, in about 11 other circumstances over the past 20-some-odd years. There was a circumstance under the Liberal government in Wellington, I believe; in Lambton and East Parry Sound and Windsor with the previous government. You may recall those circumstances, as a government, that required legislation.

Perhaps in one case the legislation actually was proclaimed but didn't come into effect because the matter was resolved, but nevertheless there were a couple of other cases where legislation was required and was passed.

This is a matter that comes up from time to time and requires considerable thought. The Education Relations Commission has often given advice to the government on when legislation should be brought into the House, but the reality is that the Education Relations Commission generally takes a considerable period of time. I don't have the precise average number of days. I believe it's up into 30-some-odd days, somebody calculated, on average. Those are school days, 30-some-odd school days, on average, before the Education Relations Commission said: "This school year is in jeopardy. Our advice would be that legislation be considered." That's too long, in our estimation, this time.

We have listened to the parents particularly from the region of York, who are affected both at the elementary and the secondary level through the separate school system. They have shown remarkable patience but they have come to us and said that it is time to proceed. It is time to proceed for the sake of the children; it is time to proceed for the sake of their education.

Of particular concern are those students in their last year of secondary school who will be going on to post-secondary education, who will require that grounding in their last year to be competitive and to take the best possible advantage of college or university or as they go out into the workforce. For those students, all the students, it is time for us to act. I am heartened by the reaction up to this point that the members of the Legislature are behind, I believe, the resolution of this matter today.

There will be the matter to consider which has been severed from this bill. This government has shown great flexibility in being able to deal with essentially half of the bill. The other half of the bill, I might say, is most important. The other half of the bill deals with the definition of "instructional time," which was the topic of debate last year during Bill 160.

This government understands what the definition of "instructional time" is. The definition of "instructional time" is teachers teaching our students in the classroom. It's as simple as that: teachers teaching our students in the classroom. Parents understand that definition of instructional time. But some of the negotiations have taken place and have pushed the bounds of that definition, which, while we understand it, while parents understand it, was not contained within Bill 160.

As a matter of fact, instructional time has never been defined. The NDP government, the Liberal government, all previous governments, previous Progressive Conservative governments, have not ever defined the term "instructional time," nor have they defined the term "pupil," for example. These are words that I guess -

Mrs McLeod: We left it to the bargaining unit. We didn't have chaos.

Hon David Johnson: - the critic from the Liberal Party says it was left to the bargaining process. Unfortunately now the bargaining process is pushing the bounds of the definition and is including activities which clearly are not classroom activities within the definition of "instructional time." Parents and this government understand that while these activities may indeed be worthwhile - monitoring cafeterias, for example, is worthwhile; hall monitoring is worthwhile - they're all worthwhile activities but they are not instructional time and they shouldn't be treated as instructional time.

Bear in the mind that the secondary school teachers in Ontario traditionally have had three and three quarter hours of classroom activity, but the remainder of the day is outside of the classroom. I'm sure they have a myriad of functions that they must accomplish. Perhaps cafeteria supervision and hall monitoring are part of those activities, but we simply say that those non-classroom activities should not be part of instructional time.

By defining "instructional time" in that way, I believe we are enhancing the quality of education for our students and we are setting a framework for more successful negotiations. Removing one issue, apparently, where there is some shadow of a doubt in the minds of either the unions or the board, removing t