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

November 24, 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

L058a - Tue 24 Nov 1998 / Mar 24 Nov 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

POLICE SERVICES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

HOWARD HARAMIS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ST PETER'S HOSPITAL

VETERANS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

CONTAINER SERVICES ARM

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED ENGINEERING TECHNICIANS AND TECHNOLOGISTS ACT, 1998

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

ONTARIO TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

LIVENT INC

COMMUNITY POLICING

PROPERTY TAXATION

ONTARIO HYDRO

PORK INDUSTRY

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

STATUS OF LEGISLATION

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HOSPITAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

APPRENTICESHIP LEGISLATION

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

HEALTH CARE

ADOPTION

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

GERMAN HERITAGE

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

OPPOSITION DAY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

POLICE SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Today, representatives of police departments from across Ontario have been visiting with members of the Legislature and sharing with them the many challenges facing police officers in various communities and some recommendations designed to enhance and improve police services to the public.

What is clear to any objective observer is that the level of service is directly related to the number of front-line officers available for duty and the quality of training that has been available to those officers. While announcements and reannouncements of funding for additional police officers are made rather easily, front-line police officers will believe them only when they see an additional complement of police in the field, with the emphasis on the word "additional."

The stress and strain of police work can take its toll on officers, particularly when they are too few in number to meet the expectations of the public and the responsibilities assigned to them as officers of the law. Few jobs in our society involve the potential for serious injury and death on a daily basis, yet that is exactly the reality which faces men and women of our police departments as they fight crime in our communities.

What we need in our society is a timely response to calls for help from citizens; a visible police presence in our communities; police concern for all crime, not just violent crime; and police who are available at all times of the day and night.

Police officers have served our communities well in the past. They can only do so in the future with our strong support.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I want to talk about the Ontario Northland bus service in the north. Saving Ontario Northland's bus service is an important issue for people who live in northern Ontario. I want to be direct with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and let him know that this issue will not go away, as much as he would like it to. My colleague Gilles Bisson and I will continue to fight to reverse the decision to axe bus service in my riding of Cochrane North.

Bus service is not just a fringe service that people can go without in northern Ontario. Over the past few weeks, I've received lots of letters from constituents which illustrate the impact and severity of these cuts: a grandmother visiting her family, students leaving Opasatika for the weekend, youths from the children's treatment centre going to visit their family in Hearst.

On November 14, on a frigid afternoon and evening, over 30 people in Kapuskasing came together to demonstrate their support for maintaining bus services in northern Ontario.

I understand the ONTC has assembled a passenger service review committee that will review all land passenger services early in the new year, but this simply does not make any sense. Why would you axe services and then say you're going to review the whole system? Wouldn't it make more sense to conduct a review and then consider what measures one can take in order to protect bus services?

On behalf of my constituents, I urge the minister and the ONTC to rescind this decision and wait till the review process is completed before proceeding with any action on cutting service.

HOWARD HARAMIS

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Today I pay tribute to Howard Haramis, the late mayor of Renfrew, who passed away on November 17. Howie, as he was known by all, was a solid municipal partner, a dynamic leader, a supporter of this government and a close friend. He is remembered as one of the hardest-working and most effective mayors in the Ottawa Valley.

His political career started early. He served as town councillor from 1962 to 1966 and was elected mayor in 1966, the youngest mayor in Canada. He was again elected in 1991 and 1994 and had completed one year of his latest term.

Over those years, Howie left his own unique touch, promoting the town of Renfrew wherever he went. He worked with all politicians of all stripes, so long as they shared his vision of prosperity and progress for the taxpayers of the town of Renfrew and surrounding areas.

He partnered with this government to fill empty industrial space and create jobs. He selflessly supported one-tier government and ardently believed in and acted upon the principle that the best way to help people was to help them help themselves.

The town of Renfrew and the province of Ontario have lost an exceptional leader. Our deepest sympathies to Howie's wife, Wayne, and to his family.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I see that you're here today, Mr Speaker, with a new haircut and a new riding, and all is well with you. I just wanted to congratulate you on your victory at your nomination meeting last night.

I know the Speaker would agree with me on the issue I'm about to talk about, school closures. In his riding, along with ridings right across the old Metro Toronto, which is now the city of Toronto, many schools are threatened with closure. Repeatedly we heard many people talk about the fact that these are community schools. They are the very heart of the community. For many people across this city, they represent the only place they can go and meet with their neighbours and have all kinds of recreational activities and programs that otherwise they would not have. Schools are more than just schools in Toronto.

I think the message is becoming loud and clear that this government has botched it completely. It rescinded its initiative, it has gone back, but no one is fooled by it. Make no mistake, no one believes that this is the end of the story. This stay of execution is just that, a stay of execution. You haven't fooled anyone, and I think at the end of the day the people of the city of Toronto will not forget that this government does not intend to make education a priority.

ST PETER'S HOSPITAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I also add my congratulations on your personal victory last evening.

I rise to again raise the plight of St Peter's Hospital in my riding, a hospital that has been jerked around, quite frankly, by this government from the day they took power.

Let's take a look. Back in July 1994, our NDP government approved a renovation project to the tune of $12 million to replace the south wing, a project that had been ongoing for years and years. In February 1996, the government said, "Yes, we agree with the NDP. We're going to allow that project to continue," and they funded half the cost of beginning the excavation. We now have a 20-foot hole in the ground, the size of a football field, behind St Peter's. Then, in January last year, you halted all the expansion, you halted all the construction, and the hole sat there.

When I asked the minister on February 19, 1997, what he was going to do about it, he said, "We're going to wait till the health restructuring commission makes their report."

The health restructuring commission originally recommended that we close that hospital. Our community stood up and fought back and, united, we saved St Peter's Hospital. The commission in their following recommendation agreed with us and said there ought to be long-term beds that go in that facility. That was their recommendation. Then, when the minister finally had an opportunity to fulfill the future destiny of St Peter's, he stuck it to them. He didn't give them one single bed in that announcement. Speaker, the hitting against St Peter's has to stop.

VETERANS

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Today I would like to talk about the real lessons of Canadian history that we can learn from people in our province. I'm speaking of people like Fred Smith, a resident of Carleton Lodge, from my riding of Nepean. Fred is a 98-year-old veteran whose recollections provide a historical lesson like no other. At the age of 14, Fred was separated from his father, John, who headed overseas to fight in World War I. Longing to see his father, young Fred lied about his age and enlisted in the armed forces. In 1916, he went overseas as part of the 198th Battalion.

Fred met his father in 1917 on the battlefields of Passchendaele. The memories of this encounter are bittersweet for Fred, though. Not long after the brief reunion, Fred's father was tragically killed in battle.

The story of Passchendaele is an important part of Canadian history. It was up to Canadians to capture the elusive Passchendaele Ridge and, by so doing, salvage British respectability. In the end, Canadians overcame both the impassable landscape and the determined resistance to achieve a victory few thought possible. Each year fewer and fewer of our wartime veterans are with us. This sad reality reminds us that the wisdom and insight of our veteran neighbours, like Fred Smith, should be explored and celebrated each and every day.

I would also like to highlight the efforts of Brian McClean, project manager of the Access to History program, and Gord Davis of the Royal Canadian Legion. Brian and Gord are working very hard to help produce and distribute essential Canadian history books which can be used by Ontario students. I am thankful for the leadership Brian, Gord and others with the Royal Canadian Legion have shown with respect to recognizing our collective past.

The peace and security we have enjoyed for more than 80 years came at a very heavy price. Lest we forget.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Yesterday we heard with great fanfare the Minister of the Environment tell us that he's bringing in tough new legislation to go after individuals who don't pay fines or individuals convicted of environmental violations in this province. What the minister, who has overseen the greatest dismantlement of the ministry in the history of this province, failed to tell us is that he has no staff to enforce these regulations. These regulations have been eliminated.

The auditors told us that this minister, who's now heckling across the floor and won't answer questions in the House, has failed miserably in updating regulations, has failed miserably in upgrading standards in this province and in protecting our environment.

Yesterday, Captain Environment came across as a tough guy, "I'm going to crack down," after a 40% staff reduction, after a 35% reduction in the budget. What he has failed to tell us is that this is nothing more than a chest-pounding exercise to make himself feel good and to make up for the sins of the past. The reality is that it is too late; he has no staff left. What he should do is follow the lead that was brought up yesterday by some police departments across this province - install a cut-out of Premier Harris - because there's no staff left outside -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Come to order, member for Hamilton East. You're done.

Member for Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Earlier this morning I hosted a press conference by the Environmental Bureau of Investigation and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. EBI has charged the Ontario government under the Environmental Protection Act for radioactive contamination of the natural environment west of the Deloro mine site. The Minister of Environment is more than familiar with this site. He has even called it "Ontario's most contaminated land." Well, he can talk the talk but he won't walk the walk.

EBI has already taken the ministry to court over water pollution charges at the site. They know that the ministry has carried out an investigation as a result of those charges. They know that a report exists. They've tried to obtain a copy but the ministry will not give it to them.

MOE and the Prince Edward and Hastings county health units are withholding information on the health impacts of the contamination from the Deloro mine site that the EBI has requested through the freedom of information act. The question is, what exactly do they know that they don't want the public and the province to find out about?

Meanwhile, we find out that the Ministry of the Environment investigation staff don't even have a Geiger counter so that they can measure radioactivity. If this government didn't think that their cuts to investigative and enforcement staff in the Ministry of Environment were leading to any problems, let this stand as a warning.

Minister, release those reports immediately.

CONTAINER SERVICES ARM

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize Container Services ARM, located in my riding of Northumberland. Tonight this small business will be receiving a pollution prevention achievement award at the energy and environment awards banquet.

Container Services ARM is indeed worthy of such an award. The company's primary business is the cleaning, reconditioning and recertification of intermediate bulk containers, often called "totes." So far this year, Container Services has reduced its use of sodium hydroxide, which is used in the tote cleaning process, by 11,000 tonnes. This was accomplished by the installation of a closed-loop recycling system.

In addition, plastic containers which are no longer suitable for transporting goods are shredded and granulated for recycling. This is a 100% diversion of plastic from the landfill sites and is a positive example of resource recovery.

The pollution prevention awards program, sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, is a way of recognizing businesses which find ways to reduce pollution and protect the environment.

Mr James Routh, principal of Container Services, will be attending tonight's awards ceremony and will be receiving an award from the small facilities category. Container Services of Colborne is an example of how small business can work to develop environmentally acceptable practices through innovation.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED ENGINEERING TECHNICIANS AND TECHNOLOGISTS ACT, 1998

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists.

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

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 95(g), requirement for notice be waived with respect to private member's ballot item number 37.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): She's apparently just outside. If you want to stand it down, you can go to your second question.

Mr McGuinty: No, I see she's here, Speaker.

Minister, you will know that a very important report was released today by the United Way. It's called Freedom from Violence: Helping Abused Women and their Children. It describes in some detail the pain and suffering being experienced by women who are abused and their children. Most importantly, it says that you and your government must assume responsibility for placing these women and these children at even greater risk. The United Way is saying that you and your government are making matters worse for abused women and children in Ontario.

Will you now stand up, Minister, and admit that your policies are making a bad situation worse and commit to a complete turnaround, both in attitude and in policy?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I will admit no such thing because that is not the case. In response to his supplementary, I know my colleague the minister responsible for women's affairs can talk about the good things and the positive things we have been doing to help women who find themselves in difficult circumstances.

Mr McGuinty: Let's listen to some of the stuff the United Way put out today. The United Way says: "The...reduction to welfare has made it more difficult for these women to escape violence. After the reduction in 1995, 66% of Ontario shelters reported women were returning to or remaining with abusive partners because they could no longer afford to leave." What's more, this report says: "Abused women and their children are staying longer in women's shelters due to the lack of affordable housing.... Because of this, there is a shortage of shelter beds for new arrivals."

Tell me, Minister, how is that you can find $47 million for your political advertising, but you can't find any money to help women in Ontario and their children who are the subjects of abuse?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'd like to refer this question to my colleague the minister responsible for women's issues.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Obviously some of us had not had the opportunity to read the report. Violence against women is everyone's -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We asked that we have a copy of this, which was Purolatored down early this afternoon. I haven't read the report. That may be a weakness on my part but it was just given to me. I will say that I have been busy and have been talking to the council of women who are here in the audience today. There have been other things happening today. The council of women for Ontario have been here speaking to us and they also are concerned about stopping the violence.

With regard to the United Way of Greater Toronto, we are absolutely so pleased to have them involved as one of the partners for communities across this province in solving problems to assist abused women and their children.

We know that in the last five years this government has a coordinated approach across nine ministries. We are spending over $100 million more than the previous two governments. We have extensive programs in response to a major report that was put out in 1995. We are doing our very best, but we have more work to do.

Mr McGuinty: This is an objective report from the most credible of authorities. This report says that you and your government are making matters worse for women in Ontario, who are being abused at the hands of men, and their children. That's what this report says. You should stand up today and say that you are ashamed of the fact that your government is contributing to a lack of safety and security for women and children in Ontario. I want you to stand up now and tell us why you have determined that it is a greater priority to spend money on a political advertising campaign than it is to protect the welfare and safety of women and children in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This government, the people of Ontario, are absolutely committed to stopping violence against women. It takes every single person in this province, throughout households, neighbourhoods and communities, to commit themselves to assist people who are in difficulty. This government has shown leadership, and will continue to do so, by providing programs for our young people in prevention and also in education. One of the most important pieces, I'm sure, that will come out here is that people must know what's out there, what's available to help them get through the system.

The member from the third party who asked that question obviously should take a look at his own government's violence-against-women prevention programs, which are key to a program that will be adopted by governments across this country - every province and the territories - in putting out a framework to stop the violence against women.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Three and a half years ago to the day, in fact, Mike Harris promised one and a half million Ontarians with disabilities that he would introduce and pass in this Legislature a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Not only that, he promised to work with the ODA committee to draft and implement that act.

After two resolutions in this House and much foot-dragging, and given that there is an election on the horizon, you decided that you had to do something, that you had to do anything. So yesterday you introduced in this House an Ontarians with Disabilities Act that is gutless, toothless and worthless. Would you please stand up and tell us why it is that you and Mike Harris have broken your promise to introduce in this Legislature a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I say that we have introduced a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act and we have kept our promise. In fact, I am proud of the bill that we are introducing because it does what no other bill has done for the disabled in Ontario. You, Leader of the Opposition, could have done it in your term in office and you did not do it.

Mr McGuinty: Just so all members are clear on what we're talking about here, this bill consists of two pages. The first page is nothing more than the

preamble. The second page provides that there's going to be recognition of existing legal obligations. There are no new rights created and no real new responsibilities created for anybody who has dealings with the disabled community in Ontario. Two pages. This is gutless. It is toothless. Please stand up and tell us why it is that you've let down the disabled community of Ontario, 1.5 million strong, who were specifically promised that your government would introduce a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Hon Ms Bassett: I would say to the honourable member, you of all people should say size doesn't matter because you yourself introduced a bill, the very first bill you introduced in September 1995, which was a measly three paragraphs long. It is Bill 2, 1995.

Our proposed act would mandate the systemic review of all legislation. It is a step forward. You say the act guarantees no rights. Read the

preamble to the bill. The rights of the disabled are guaranteed in the Human Rights Code. As for timelines, each and every single year, every ministry will have to report in their public business plans their progress on preventing and removing barriers to the disabled. This is, I guarantee you, a systematic plan to move the agenda forward for the removal and prevention of barriers for the disabled.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you had the opportunity to consult in a meaningful way with the disabled community and you did not do that. Furthermore, there was a precedent set in this House. A resolution was introduced by one of my members, Dwight Duncan. It specifically provided for a number of provisions that ought to be incorporated in a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act. That resolution was supported unanimously. In fact, 25 Conservative members in this Legislature supported this resolution.

The last provision in this resolution reads: "The Ontarians with Disabilities Act must be more than mere window dressing. It should contribute meaningfully to the improvement of the position of persons with disabilities in Ontario. It must have real force and effect."

Not only have you broken Mike Harris's promise, not only have you not lived up to the commitment made by the Conservative members who voted in favour of this resolution, but you have dishonoured the disabled community here in Ontario. Again, why have you broken your specific commitment? Why are you failing to honour that promise made by Mike Harris to support -

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

Hon Ms Bassett: We have honoured the promise made by our leader. We are moving the agenda forward by bringing in an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. When you bring up the resolution, I hope all members of this House would support the intent of a resolution to move forward on an agenda for removing and preventing barriers for the disabled.

We, on the other hand, did not want to bring in an expensive quota system, which is implied in the resolution. We did not want to set up another expensive review process. We already have the Ontario Human Rights Commission there. The resolution is pushing for that kind of thing.

All members of the House want to see the removal and prevention of barriers for the disabled and we certainly are doing that with this bill. I would remind the honourable member that the Liberals voted against employment equity, so to come on now for political reasons with something like that -

Interjections.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question for the Minister of Citizenship. It's about her cynical treatment of disabled people in Ontario.

Yesterday, you introduced this two-and-a-half page nothing and you tried to call it an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, an incredibly cynical move on your part, Minister. But what's even more cynical is that two months ago you boasted to my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine, and I quote, that you had sent your discussion paper to more than 7,000 interested parties, that you had consulted with 283 groups in eight communities and that you had received submissions from more than 240 individuals, and this sorry piece of cynical garbage is all that disabled people got.

Minister, admit what you're really up to. You got an order from the Premier's office, "Produce a bill, any bill at all," so that the Premier won't be embarrassed by his failure to live up to his promise. Admit it. That's the cynical strategy.

Hon Ms Bassett: The Premier is sticking to his promise and I am proud of the bill we are bringing forward.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You really are rich.

The Speaker: Hold on.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Shame on you, absolute shame. The audacity to stand there and say that.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa West.

It won't happen overnight. It will happen in time. This is a systematic plan that no one else has brought in, let alone your government when your very own member, who was disabled, did not bring it in.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Minister, that is not only shameful; your performance here is despicable in terms of what you are saying about people with disabilities and what they are demanding in this province. You are putting out a red herring that they are talking about quota laws. They have never asked you for a quota law. They have asked you for a law to remove barriers.

You know what they said about your Premier today? They said that this is a slap in the face to persons with disabilities, that the Premier has punched them in the stomach, that he has totally betrayed them. How can you stand here and say that you are proud of this? They don't want to deal with you any more. They want to deal with the man who is making the decisions.

Minister, will you facilitate a meeting between the persons with disabilities, the Ontarians With Disabilities Act Committee and the Premier so they can tell him face to face that this bill doesn't merit the name the Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Hon Ms Bassett: I would say to the honourable member that I am proud of the bill I have brought forward. ODAC has been helpful to us. I would expect them to be angry if they do not get everything that is on their agenda.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Bassett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank ODAC for their input. If I were looking for a lobbyist for any cause, I would hire David Lepofsky of ODAC. He's been absolutely admirable in pushing forward his agenda, and so he should be. But my role as a legislator is not the same as his. We, as the government, have to balance the interests of all sectors of our society, and that's what we have done.

We listened to over 283 groups during our consultations in the summer and we heard certain key messages that we have answered, maybe not in the way that members of the opposition would want us to answer, but we share the same goal of moving the agenda forward for the people who are disabled. We are doing that and you are going to see improvement, and I can say that with a pure conscience to the people who are disabled.

Ms Lankin: Minister, it's not a question of not giving them everything they wanted. You didn't give them anything that they asked for, that they demanded and that they are entitled to in this province. It is a shameful day to hear you stand there and give that kind of patronizing answer to the persons with disabilities in this province and to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee.

They spoke very clearly about the principles that needed to be achieved to remove barriers to access. Your bill doesn't even begin to accomplish that. Your parliamentary assistant, who went around this province, is shamefaced in terms of what you have come forward with.

Minister, I can't think of anything else to say to you but resign, get out of the way, and have the Premier meet with these people face to face and defend his lack of action and his complete betrayal of people with disabilities in this community.

Hon Ms Bassett: I would say that we are taking steps to remove barriers for the disabled. Our proposed legislation will mandate government to review all its legislation, practices, programs and services. In an orderly, systematic way each year, what has been proposed and what has been reviewed will be submitted to Management Board. It will be open to the public, and the public will see what is happening. The fact that it is mandatory is going to move the agenda forward.

This government is keeping its promise made to the people of Ontario to introduce legislation that is going to help prevent and remove barriers to the disabled, and you are going to see changes occur because of it.

ONTARIO TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Citizenship again: As you know, the Trillium Foundation has done excellent work in Ontario for 16 years, since 1982, on a very non-partisan basis. But now we find out that you're going to change all that. You're now going to appoint 400 political appointees to decide how the Trillium Foundation will work. It's not enough that there are 125 good community volunteers, it's not enough that there's a good, professional staff; you want to make 400 political appointments to the Trillium Foundation.

Minister, can you tell us why all of a sudden the Trillium Foundation has to have 400 political appointees to decide what community organizations get some of that grant money?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I would say that during our consultations we heard from local people that they wanted to have decisions made at a local level, and that is exactly what we are doing. The grant review team, when it is up and running, will be distributing millions of dollars. That money will be going to local areas, to local projects, and the people in charge of that will be people who are involved in the community.

Mr Hampton: The fallacy of this is that there are already 125 long-serving community volunteers across this province who have ensured that the Trillium Foundation and the way it operates is completely non-partisan and a community service. No one called out for 400 Conservative political hacks to be appointed to the Trillium Foundation to now decide how the money is going to be handed out.

So I ask you again, Minister: Why do you need 400 Conservative political appointments, 400 Conservative political hacks, to interfere with the good work of the Trillium Foundation?

Hon Ms Bassett: As we divide up the $100 million -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Just a minute. Let's get some order in here, please. Thank you. Minister.

Hon Ms Bassett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said earlier, local people make local decisions, and this is what the people in the areas, when we travelled across the province, told us they wanted to do. There is going to be $100 million given out, which is 10 times more than charities had before. I've written to key charities, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities, MPPs and community leaders, inviting them to recommend individuals for the grant review team. All members in the House have done that. Some of those people are being appointed to the grant review team.

We feel this a fair and equitable process that is going to do the best possible for the people of Ontario. We are answering exactly what they said they wanted to see happen. That's what we're doing.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, member for Ottawa West.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Very few New Democrat MPPs in this Legislature received your October 30 letter, neither at their office at Queen's Park or at their constituency office. If that's not revealing enough, Minister, your letter gave a deadline of 20 days to receive applications for membership on the grant review team. By anyone's measure, that's hardly enough time to canvass the relevant community.

The people in Ontario have a right to know that the $100 million of their money is being granted on the basis of merit and not political connection. Minister, I ask you to stop this program of political appointments and let the Trillium Foundation carry on its work without political interference from your ministry.

Hon Ms Bassett: As you know, the Chair of Management Board announced that the Ontario Trillium Foundation and the province would consult with charities and not-for-profit organizations to develop the framework for distributing future casino revenue to charities. I'm taking you back over the process. Honestly, the honourable member doesn't seem to know what the process -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Bassett: We held consultations, and during those consultations in eight communities across Ontario charities were asked for their views and advice on the process this would take. We arrived at our conclusions based on what they said, and on November 2 all the letters were out.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week I received a response to a freedom of information request I had made to your ministry. According to this response, in 1995-96 there were 17,000 students in receipt of social assistance while attending full-time post-secondary studies. You will know that the next year you and Mike Harris decided to force these individuals off social assistance.

Any individual who was on social assistance who wanted to go to college or university was cut off from the assistance that your ministry provides and was forced to go on to student assistance and into debt. In fact, according to this response, in 1996-97 your ministry transferred some $100 million to the Ministry of Education and Training to cover loans to these students. Those are the facts, according to your ministry response.

My question is, will you tell us exactly how much Andersen Consulting was paid for those 17,000 individuals who were forced off social assistance rolls and into debt?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I don't know why the honourable member needed to do a freedom of information inquiry to get that information. We had it in our press release the first fall that this information was out in terms of the change, because we think individuals who are in financial need for welfare should be getting that. Those who are going to school and need financial support get that through OSAP; in many cases it can be a more generous allowance than they can have from the welfare system. It meets their educational needs much better.

I'd also like to state to the honourable member, who also I believe should know this, that Andersen Consulting had absolutely nothing to do with it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary, member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): We know that Andersen Consulting is getting its money from you, $180 million to a private company, as the welfare rolls are reduced. We know that 17,000 students were reduced, not because Andersen did something so clever but because you changed the rules.

I'd like to send a copy of this memo over to you, which is your direction to people at local offices who collect the statistics on people who leave the welfare rolls. Very clearly in this memo you have told the local offices, when they collect data on why people leave the rolls, "Do not use self-initiated job finds." That tells us that the only thing they have left to select on their screen when they close a file is people who were on the workfare program, and that bolsters the workfare numbers - not because people found a job by themselves.

My question is, you found every manner to increase the number -

The Speaker: Question?

Mrs Pupatello: - that looks like you've managed to change the welfare rolls because you've done something well, or Andersen has, and you are directing them to change the way they collect their data.

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, I really wish she would be clear in what she's talking about, because yet again she has not understood what is happening. The policy changes in terms of the decisions we're making around Ontario Works, for example, are savings which accrue to the taxpayers. As she knows full well, Andersen is only paid from savings that result from the Andersen project. The project has to do with changes in the technology and how the program is delivered. There are $2.8 billion of savings to date that we have achieved for the taxpayers of Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Ecker: If she'd stop heckling, we could all hear ourselves think. I would like to remind the honourable member that when her government was in power they did not think the question of where people go when they leave the welfare system was very important. We think it is, and that's why we have done -

The Speaker: Thank you.

LIVENT INC

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Culture. The people of Ontario have been hearing a great deal about the multi-million dollar failure of Livent productions, and now it looks as if the CIBC, which has been making quite a lot of money - $1.5 billion this year - will push Livent into bankruptcy within the next 30 days. This is a situation that is going to affect over 1,000 musicians, actors, stagehands and theatre crews who will lose well-paying jobs; stable jobs, I might add.

Jobs like these are few and far between, and these people are going to be left out in the cold because they are stuck in the middle of two big giants. It's going to leave a gaping hole in the economy of Toronto and I dare say Ontario.

If the Premier of Ontario is ready and willing to go down to New York and hobnob on behalf of Stratford, what are you going to do right now and right here to help these artists and the businesses that are affected by this and depend on them? What are you going to do to help them out?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I cannot, as you know, speak about Livent, since it's before the courts, but I can say that this theatre community in Toronto, with or without Livent, is absolutely booming. You only had to be at the Lieutenant Governor's awards the other night. I missed you, by the way; you should have been there, honourable member.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Bassett: To pick up where I left off, what I want to say is that theatre in this city is absolutely booming. I am proud that so many companies that were facing financial problems a few years ago are now increasing their audiences by the hundreds, they are in the black, they are moving forward and they are becoming more self-sustaining. We are coming into the forefront more and more in this country as the theatre capital.

Mr Marchese: I'm glad to hear the minister say that with respect to this particular problem she's got nothing to say, and with respect to the rest of the cultural world out there she's saying everything is fine, don't worry, even though they've cut millions and millions of dollars from the cultural sector. Perhaps to the next supplementary you might be a little more helpful, you and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations perhaps.

This morning, one of my staff people phoned Ticketmaster because Livent has already cancelled several of its shows at the Ford Centre in North York, and this is the recorded announcement we heard:

"To the best of our information, all Livent performances will be taking place as scheduled. We will update this message as additional information becomes available. For any information concerning Phantom of the Opera, shows at the Ford Centre or any other Livent productions, please call Livent directly."

So we did, and we were told they had no information and that the Ford Centre was still deciding what to do.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Marchese: Minister, the city of Toronto is considering a rescue package to help these people. What are you and the other minister going to do to cease their sale of tickets -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Ms Bassett: I will say that of course I support in any way I can theatre in this city, but the matter regarding the tickets at the Ford Centre is a matter for the board and the city of Toronto to decide. It's not something I can interfere in.

COMMUNITY POLICING

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. Constituents in my riding of Niagara South have consistently told me that they take the issue of community safety very seriously, with good reason. Under the NDP, the number of front-line police officers in the region declined significantly. I understand, Minister, that you and the Premier made an announcement today that's going to reverse that trend.

Earlier this year, the Crime Control Commission held a forum in Port Colborne, and the consistent suggestion from the people of Niagara South was that an increase in police visibility would help keep the community safe. Could you inform the House how today's announcement will address these concerns and promote public safety in the community of Niagara South and the Niagara region?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I want to thank the member for Niagara South for his question. I know he's long been a strong advocate of community policing, and like him, I've heard similar concerns across the province for many years.

I did have the pleasure this morning, with the Premier, to announce the results of the community policing partnership program, which will result in 1,000 new police officers on the front lines across this province - 1,000 new police officers, an unprecedented announcement.

I must say for the member from Niagara, the announcement today -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Ottawa West, come to order, please. Kingston and The Islands.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I know, but I can still hear you. You're out of order, and Kingston and The Islands as well, you're out of order. Minister.

Hon Mr Runciman: For Niagara, that will mean 55 new police officers on the front line.

We're hearing a lot of catcalls from the Liberal opposition. I want to say that if the federal Liberal government would get involved in this program - they're spending estimates of up to $1 billion on registration of long guns for law-abiding Canadians across this country. If they invested some of that money in front-line policing, we could see an additional 2,000 or 3,000 officers in Ontario, if the federal Liberal government would participate.

Mr Hudak: Thank you, Minister. After years of decline under the NDP government, it is going to be well received in the Niagara region that 55 new police officers are coming to the region.

When this program was announced, the police officers I spoke to were thrilled at the prospect of new front-line officers. The one concern they brought forward was that they wanted to ensure that these were actually new front-line police officers. I would like the minister to inform the House exactly how this program works and how we ensure that these are in fact new additional police officers who are going to be front-line, on the beat.

Hon Mr Runciman: I can assure the member that this program was developed to increase the total number of police officers in Ontario's communities. Through this program, our government will match up to 50% of the salary, benefits and other payroll costs of newly hired officers over each of the next five years. Funding will only be provided for newly hired officers who represent additions to the strength of the police service. Hiring due to attrition will not be eligible for this program.

Police services must increase the complement of new front-line officers above the number of sworn-in officers reported for June 15. Services are not eligible if the number of sworn-in officers falls below those June 15 numbers.

The bottom line is that this program will result in new additional police officers to the tune of 1,000 new officers on the streets of Ontario communities.

Once again, I will plead with the Liberal members across the floor to encourage their federal -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order. Member for Perth, it's your day off today.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday the Harris government introduced a new tax called the estate administration tax. That was designed because the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that you were acting illegally in collecting probate fees that -

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: Don't get mad at me; you can get mad at the Supreme Court, but that's what they ruled.

You have done the same thing with property taxes for education, which the courts ruled was illegal. Your Bill 160 says that you will set $5.5 billion of property taxes by regulation. In my opinion, the Supreme Court has ruled that illegal.

My question is this: Are you planning to introduce legislation to correct Bill 160 and make it legal for you to collect $5.5 billion of property taxes?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): There has been a court case with regard to Bill 160. Bill 160 was challenged. Five out of the six major provisions of Bill 160 were upheld by the courts. The sixth matter with regard to the right of the separate schools to tax is under appeal at the present time and it wouldn't be proper for me to comment on that. I will say that in terms of the ability to set taxes by regulation, other provinces have gone that same route and I am unaware of any court decision which invalidates that particular process.

Mr Phillips: The Supreme Court made this ruling on October 22. People in Ontario expect that you and your legal people would have reviewed that decision, would have looked at that matter. It's $5.5 billion. By the way, the public should know we never debate this. This is all set down the hall in the Premier's office by regulation - $5.5 billion. For my business friends, over half your property taxes are done by Mike Harris behind closed doors.

My question to you is this, very specifically: The Supreme Court ruled on October 22. Will you tell the public of Ontario, have you had that case reviewed in light of their decision and will you undertake to bring forward legislation to fix a significant problem that exists in Bill 160? Will you make that undertaking today?

Hon David Johnson: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has alluded to the situation with regard to the probate fees, of which, I might add, well over $100 million was collected by a Liberal government during its jurisdiction. In the case of the probate fees, there is a decision of the court. In terms of Bill 160 there is an appeal that's working its way through the system at the present time. With regard to the separate schools, ability to tax, that is before the courts at the present time. It would not be proper for me to comment on that. That is the only matter that's before the court at the present time.

The approach taken by this provincial government is the approach taken by other provincial governments and has stood the test of time.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Energy regarding an important project in my constituency. As the minister will know, in the early 1990s Ontario Hydro agreed to proceed with environmental studies and consultations around the possibility of completing the Patten Post hydro-electric generating station on the Mississagi River in Algoma district. The agreement at that time was that a decision would be made by 1999, and if Ontario Hydro decided not to proceed, they would pay funds to local communities for economic development instead.

I understand that Ontario Hydro asked the government to be relieved of this obligation in 1996, but as yet has not heard anything from the government on this matter. I'm informed that Ontario Hydro may be renewing that request for relief of the obligation. What is the government's response to Ontario Hydro's position?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I certainly appreciate the honourable member's question. As the honourable member will know, I and my deputy minister met with Mayor Farkouh of Elliot Lake just a few weeks ago on this particular matter. I would say to the honourable member that no decision has been made and that we're listening to his advice, representing his community. But I remind him that some $243 million worth of taxpayers' money, ratepayers' money, has gone into that community already, so much of the commitment made by your government has been fulfilled. We'll continue to gather facts on the dam issue.

The problem, and I want to be honest with the honourable member now, is that we do not want Ontario Hydro to ever again be used as a social agency to bail out communities and we do not want Ontario Hydro to incur any debt. Since this government came to office in 1995, we have not let Ontario Hydro borrow any extra money. It has incurred no new debt. In fact it has paid off $3 billion worth of debt, which I think is a record, over that period of time. So we don't want to incur any new debt or get into any projects that might incur new debt. However, we haven't ruled out fulfilling any obligation that may exist to your community.

Mr Wildman: The minister will know that the agreement made in the early 1990s saved Ontario Hydro and the electricity consumers of Ontario a great deal of money because it was part of the agreement not to extend the very high-priced nuclear uranium contract. That was part of this. It saved the people of Ontario and electricity consumers a significant amount of money.

The minister knows there was a $250-million agreement. The agreement, as I understand it, is that if Ontario Hydro does not meet its obligation by 1999, it would pay $16 million. The question is, by what date in 1999 will we know whether Ontario Hydro is going to proceed, the beginning of 1999, June 1999 or the end of 1999? If the decision is not to proceed, then when will we know how much money, of the $16 million, Ontario Hydro will pay into economic development in the region?

Hon Mr Wilson: Of the $243 million that Ontario Hydro was forced to pay into the region because your government made them buy uranium at several times the world price from Elliot Lake - you forgot the beginning of the story - which they ended up into contract -

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): We are the ones who ended that. It was your government and the Liberals that did that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: I want to correct the record, Mr Speaker. It was the Liberals that made the irresponsible decision to buy uranium at several times world prices, using Ontario Hydro as a social agency. We went from the best energy prices in North America under the previous Conservative government to the third highest in North America under the Liberals and NDP because they consistently abused Ontario Hydro, used it as a social agency, as a social development tool, took it away from its original 90-year mandate, which was to supply power at cost to the people of Ontario.

Since we came in in 1995, there's been no new borrowing, no new debt, $3 billion paid off, superior management put in and now we're looking forward to competition in the year 2000 and all the jobs that will come with that and that have come with that as a result of the legislation.

I want to say to the honourable member, though, that we've made no final decision with respect to the particular matter at Elliot Lake and the dam in question. One of the options we're looking at is can we get other investors interested in the area. That's something I'm actively pursuing. I'll keep the member up to date -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. A week ago I had a meeting with the pork producers in my constituency office in Haldimand-Norfolk - in Brant-Haldimand, pardon me; it's newly Haldimand-Norfolk. There's a very real problem in the loss of the pork industry in Ontario.

The two largest contributors to the Ontario economy are the auto industry and the agrifood business. Both are vital to the economic wellbeing of our province, and the pork industry is a major part of the agrifood sector. This industry contributes 43,000 jobs and $4.5 billion in economic activity to the province.

As you are aware, the price for pork has fallen for reasons that are completely out of their hands. Minister, you showed tremendous leadership during the eastern Ontario ice storm and I'm confident that you will once again demonstrate that strong leadership in this issue. Can you inform the House what you are doing to help pork producers in my riding and throughout Ontario to get through this problem?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank the honourable member for Brant-Haldimand for that question. This government is painfully aware of what our hog producers are living right now: prices that were totally unexpected and absolutely not covering even close the actual cash cost of production.

We're working very closely with my colleague from the federal government, the Honourable Lyle Vanclief. We are working together so that upon his coming out with a policy we will be falling in very quickly. There is urgency in this matter and we certainly encourage participating farmers to draw on their NISA, their net farm income account, which is already funded by farmers and the federal and provincial governments.

We must always remember that the pork industry particularly is a very cyclical one, prices go up and down, but due to the Asian economic problems, we hit the bottom of the cycle at the same time as Asia hit the bottom of their economic cycle. They are major purchasers of pork from Canada, particularly from Ontario. That will return. However, there is major urgency, and we are working on a national disaster fund with the federal minister in order to face these very difficult economic times that our pork producers are indeed facing.

Mr Preston: The pork producers are only producing enough pork to feed Ontario, but with the squeals around here, maybe they're overproducing.

On December l, the pork producers are holding a rally at the doors of the Legislature. I will be part of that rally. We have to do something to help them, something that will not boomerang in trade problems from the States. What can be done to preserve the pork industry in Ontario?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I can assure all members of this House that I too fully support Ontario's pork producers. Indeed, I've had the opportunity of meeting quite a number of them recently, as I'm sure other members have. I know our pork producers, our growers of grains and oil seeds, basically all of our people in the red meat industry are going through some very difficult times. You know that we in this government, farm groups and the federal government are looking at the best ways to address this.

We must also remember that we cannot find ourselves in a position to be countervailed, and that's another area that we are very concerned about. The federal minister has been in regular contact with me, and on this issue and a number of other issues I expect he will likely be looking for support in the near future. I can assure all members of this House that he has the total and unadulterated support of this government and this minister.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. I was very disturbed to receive a copy of a letter that was sent to first- and second-year science students at Queen's University relating to the enrolment in their biochemistry specialization program. Let me tell you what this letter says. It says that due to budget constraints, the department will only be able to provide 48 laboratory spaces in the third-year core course program for this specialized program. Currently there are 148 registered first- and second-year students in this program.

Minister, let me read to you the last line of the letter: "The government has made limiting the size of our program unavoidable."

What do you have to say to these students who after two years have had the expectation of being able to complete their program but now will be forced into a general science degree? Dr Clark, the head of the biochemistry department, is clear: You have cut back their money. What are you going to say to these students? They thought they'd be able to complete the program. They demand to know why you and Mike Harris have done this to them.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I would say to these students, as I would say to any students, that the operations of the universities come under the jurisdiction of the staff who run the universities. They are independent of the provincial government. We do give funding. I might say that the total funding to post-secondary institutions, to students, will total about $3.3 billion over this next year.

I would say that I share the concern of students who are attempting to get into courses that apparently the university administrations are limiting. That's why we introduced the access to opportunities program, a program which may not be involved with this particular program, but the access to opportunities program opens up about 17,000 new positions in various high-tech programs - sciences, engineering - for students who formerly were turned away from their first choice.

Mr Caplan: I'm not sure you understood the question because now two thirds of the students in this program aren't going to be able to attend.

Minister, you always blame somebody else, you're never accountable, and I wonder why that is. Ontario has the worst funding record in Canada. We're 10th out of 10. We have the highest tuitions in the country. You've been making students pay. They've been in this program for two years and they face tuitions of 20% increase since they've begun their program, and now you say to them, "Sorry, we're going to underfund your program even more, and it doesn't even matter because you're not going to be able to complete it."

I know this was a hard decision for the university. In fact, the course calendar at Queen's University calls this program "The flagship of the biochemistry program." Now you've crippled it. Minister, I'm going to ask you again. Why have you done this? Why have you ensured that students who have good grades are no longer able to complete a program of their choice?

Hon David Johnson: My response to Mr Doom and Gloom opposite is, if you want to put your finger on who is responsible for cutting assistance to universities in Canada, who is it? The federal government. The federal Liberals have cut assistance to universities in Canada.

Notwithstanding the reduction of $2.4 billion to health and post-secondary education, according to the Maclean's list of best universities, we still have four of the top six universities in Canada right here in Ontario. In all categories we have the best universities right here in Ontario, and I say to the member opposite, let's be proud of that.

STATUS OF LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to raise a point of order under standing order 137(

a) and (

c) because I believe it is fundamentally wrong for legislation to stand in this House that is clearly and indisputably in violation of a Supreme Court decision that leaves us no room for

interpretation.

The

section I'm referring to is standing order 137: "The office of the legislative counsel shall:" - it is not permissive, it is a requirement of legislative counsel - "(

a) Prepare and advise upon such legislation as may be required by the executive council or any member thereof and assist and advise members in all matters respecting the drafting of bills." I appreciate the fact that this is no longer in draft stage, but it goes on to say: "(

c) Report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council any provisions in such bills deserving of special attention or that appear to prejudicially affect the public interest or that require amendment."

I am not sure that we have ever had a precedent in this House where there is legislation which clearly stands in opposition to a Supreme Court ruling - if I may just place my point of order before you seek a response, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'm trying to get to the bill that you're speaking about.

Mrs McLeod: It is Bill 160.

The Speaker: Bill 160 is no longer before the House.

Mrs McLeod: I understand that.

The Speaker: OK, I'll hear you.

Mrs McLeod: I don't think there is a precedent that we can refer to in terms of a bill which is already drafted and passed, but where you have a Supreme Court decision that clearly has a bearing on that bill. My question to you is whether under this

section of the standing orders the legislative counsel can be requested to advise on whether or not the Supreme Court's ruling has a bearing on legislation which has been passed by this House.

The Speaker: I'm going to take it under advisement and report back.

Petitions. The member for Essex-Kent.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Essex-South, Mr Speaker.

My friends Rose Kulimowski and May Mussolum from Essex, and others, have put this petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and

"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents and students in the city of Toronto and many other communities across Ontario are calling on the government to stop closing so many of their schools;

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

"Demand that Mike Harris stop closing local schools."

In support of that, I sign my signature.

HOSPITAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition signed by 16,000 people in Ottawa-Carleton and eastern Ontario which was circulated by, among other people, Lowell Green of CFRA radio and Canada First. It reads as follows:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislative Assembly to the following:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission decreed and ordered in 1997 that hospitals serving the Ottawa-Carleton region be amalgamated to form the Ottawa Hospital; and

"Whereas the said restructuring commission did not order that the trustees of said Ottawa Hospital be elected democratically with accountability to the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton; and

"Whereas there was established a hospital corporation under the Corporations Act of Ontario with its head office in Ottawa; and

"Whereas the administration bylaw of February 1998 of said hospital provided for the government and management of said hospital corporation by a board of trustees; and

"Whereas said board of trustees was appointed by demonstrated flawed processes not acceptable in a modern democracy;

"Now, therefore, your petitioners publicly request the assembly to provide for local election to said board of trustees so that the people of Ottawa-Carleton shall acquire and have some inherent right of governing and regulating the internal affairs of said hospital corporation, and that it be stated and declared as a right of the people of the Ottawa-Carleton region that all said board trustees are trustees and servants of the people of Ottawa-Carleton, at all times accountable to them and to the government of Ontario.

"The undersigned, all taxpayers of the province of Ontario, protest the manner in which David Levine was appointed as CEO of the newly amalgamated Ottawa Hospital. Regardless of Mr Levine's technical qualifications, we do not believe that a man who has worked and continues to work to break Canada apart is a suitable person to run our hospital.

"Furthermore, we insist that the present appointed board of trustees be dismissed and a process immediately established to provide us taxpayers the right to vote for the board.

"We also protest the failure of the Quebec government to compensate Ontario hospitals in the manner specified by the Canada Health Act, to which Quebec is a signatory. Failure to pay the full Ontario rate has penalized Ontario hospitals tens of millions of dollars since 1984 and continues to cost the Ottawa Hospital between $15,000 and $20,000 per day."

It's signed by 16,000 people from all over Ottawa-Carleton and eastern Ontario and I'm pleased to submit it to you.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a petition on behalf of parents, children and the entire community of the George Anderson Public School and the Dennis Avenue Community School.

"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and

"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents and students in the city of Toronto and many other communities across Ontario are calling on the government to stop closing so many of their schools;

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

"Demand that Mike Harris stop closing local schools."

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I'm submitting this petition on behalf of my colleague the member for St George-St David. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"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 and/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; and

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

"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; and

"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."

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas there is no dialysis available in the Cornwall area; and

"Whereas this lack of medical treatment forces dialysis patients throughout Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and beyond to drive to Ottawa or Kingston several times each week, even during dangerous winter driving conditions, to receive the basic medical attention and, at the same time, incurring unnecessary stress, cost and inconvenience; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health promised on April 24, 1996, to rectify this medical shortfall by establishing a dialysis treatment facility in Cornwall; and

"Whereas the promise made by the Minister of Health has to date not been kept, resulting in local patients and their family and friends driving to Ottawa or Kingston for treatment several times per week, during the above-noted conditions;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the health minister follows through on the commitment made last April to set up this long-awaited and much-needed health service for Cornwall area residents."

That's signed by many constituents from SD&G.

APPRENTICESHIP LEGISLATION

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition that's signed by hundreds of people like Robert Byrne, Mark Delisle and Thomas Squire. It is in opposition to Bill 55 and it expresses the views of over 250 people who showed up to demonstrate against the government's reforms to the Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act. This is a petition against Bill 55 and I agree with the sentiments expressed in this petition. This is an undertaking that the government should scrap Bill 55 and go back to the drawing board and have meaningful consultation and come through with legislation -

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): This is petition time. Are you reading the petition?

Mr Lessard: - that will benefit those who are affected by apprenticeship -

The Acting Speaker: Petitions?

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I've received more petitions from a group called RATH, Residents Against Tax Hikes. It's entitled, "Freeze Taxes and Restructure Government."

"Whereas the Haldimand-Norfolk region has downloaded a 17% tax hike on residents, without attempting to cut its own costs; and

"Whereas for the past 25 years, there have been meetings, petitions, referenda, and studies calling for a restructuring of regional government; and

"Whereas 80% of the residents did not want regional government in the first place, and in recent referenda, 75% of the residents of the city of Nanticoke, and 60% of the residents of the town of Simcoe voted against retaining regional government; and

"Whereas residents in the region do not want and clearly cannot afford two levels of municipal government;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that provincial legislation be passed to freeze taxes and eliminate regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk, and institute a form of restructured local government in keeping with the wishes and the financial means of the local residents."

I sign these petitions.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition which has been entitled, "Say No to the Privatization of Health Care."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are concerned about the quality of health care in Ontario;

"Whereas we do not believe health care should be for sale;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is taking steps to allow profit-driven companies to provide health care services in Ontario;

"Whereas we won't stand for profits over people;

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

I'm pleased to join a number of people in my riding on Felix Avenue, Sun Valley, Campbell, Redwood, Chapel and add my name to the petition.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have here a petition signed by residents of Nepean, Ottawa, Gloucester, Munster, Stittsville and Kanata. It has to do with their support for Bill 39, the Access to Adoption Information Statute Law Amendment Act. I will simply summarize the petition.

They are in support of legislation that would allow access to birth registration and adoption records for an adult adoptee's birth parents, adoptive parents and other relatives; implement a no-contact notice option; recommend optional counselling; offer access to other information and acknowledge open adoptions.

I sign my name to it.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Provincial government Bill 99:

"With regard to this Bill 99, we do not agree with the decision to remove compensation from volunteer workers. Living in the country, as most of us do, we are particularly concerned with the volunteer firefighters who give so much to their community. We understand them having to withdraw from the volunteer firefighters. We would most likely feel the same way if we knew that there was no protection for us if we were injured while providing a vital service to the community. We would like to think that the government will be able to come up with a solution which will be in everybody's best interests.

"The undersigned members of the Hawkstone Women's Institute will agree that there should be changes made to Bill 99 to enable these volunteer workers to continue to serve the community without worrying about the possible consequences of being injured."

I have signed that on behalf of those people.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region;

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology;

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services;

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres;

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I am in complete agreement.

GERMAN HERITAGE

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have yet another petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of German descent have been a part of Ontario's history since the days of pre-Confederation; and

"Whereas the German culture has always been an integral component of the cultural mosaic of Ontario; and

"Whereas we wish to demonstrate official recognition of the positive contribution of German heritage in the province of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass the bill entitled the German Pioneers Day Act and we respectfully petition the government of Ontario to designate the day following Thanksgiving Day as the date of the annual German Pioneers Day."

This is signed by over 100 people from Toronto and I affix my signature.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas heritage is vitally important to the social and economic health of Ontario communities and Ontario residents; and

"Whereas community museums, galleries and heritage organizations work hard to protect, promote, manage and develop our provincial heritage resources; and

"Whereas the provincial government has a responsibility to the people of Ontario to promote the value of heritage and heritage conservation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has abdicated their responsibility for heritage by cutting support to community museums, galleries and heritage organizations; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not implemented a new heritage act that would give communities the ability to provide better protection for heritage sites; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not undertaken meaningful consultation with Ontario's heritage community;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide stronger support to Ontario's heritage institutions and organizations and to work with the people of Ontario to establish a new heritage act."

This is signed by many people on Baby, Peter, Bouffard, Dugald and many other streets in my riding. I'd like to ask Brendan to come in here and get on the television so his mother can see him. He's going to bring this petition over to the Speaker's table.

OPPOSITION DAY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I move that, in the opinion of this House, since Dalton McGuinty has been talking to children like Carlos who was afraid that his little sister was going to lose her daycare, and Amanda who is making bracelets to try to save her school, and Anne who asked why Mike Harris is being so mean and closing her school; and

Since Mike Harris has refused to consult with parents on the future of their neighbourhood school; and

Since Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

Since Mike Harris short-changed school boards by over $150 million, making it impossible to keep schools open; and

Since Mike Harris is now blaming school boards and using them as scapegoats for his government's disastrous and chaotic funding formula; and

Since Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely;

Therefore, the Mike Harris government should stop closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Mrs McLeod has moved opposition day number 4. Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: I'm pleased we're going to have some debate in this Legislature today around this absolutely disastrous school closure policy which has been foisted on the province as a result of this government's decision to take over 100% of the control of the funding of education.

I suspect that when the government members rise to speak today they will want to - I don't know if you can talk about trumpeting the sounding of the bugles of retreat, but I think they're certainly going to want to say: "Well, you know, we made some movement last week. We've changed some of the ground rules." I think it's important that we have this debate today to make it absolutely clear that the government did not do what it proudly announced about a week ago. It did not do what the Premier said it would do: ensure that no school in Ontario would close.

I wish that were the case, I wish the government had taken those steps, but that is clearly not what took place when the government made some changes in its policy about a week ago.

What the government did was clearly to buy, or attempt to buy, some political peace until after the next provincial election. Parents know that. School trustees know that. Anybody who has been watching knows how rigidly the government stuck to its disastrous formula until they were forced by public pressure to at least take some step backwards, not because they were concerned about students, not because they heard the concerns of children like Carlos, Amanda or Anne, not because they recognized that their policy was a disaster, but simply because they got a bad poll result.

They discovered that they weren't going to be able to simply bully this through, let the chips fall where they may, take their money and run, because when they ran in the next election, they would be defeated on this issue, so they decided they'd better take a modest step back in order to protect their political hides until after that election campaign could be fought.

But there was something interesting in what the Premier said when he made this announcement, when he in fact rushed back from Thunder Bay, where he was supposed to be making announcements about all the wonderful jobs the government has supposedly created, even though we know they're well short of the number of jobs they promised to create. He rushed back from Thunder Bay to make this announcement, and what was interesting about it was that the Premier of Ontario finally acknowledged that it is his government's funding formula that was indeed forcing about 600 schools across this province to close.

It's the first time that he has been forced to acknowledge that it was the funding formula. You'll remember that in every question that has been asked in this Legislature, the minister and the Premier have been at pains to say: "We're not closing schools; it's school boards. Our formula has nothing to do with this." We all know that was so far from the truth that it was not to be believed by anybody, and finally the Premier himself acknowledged that they had created a mess which they then had to fix.

I think it's important that we remember the reality of what this government was doing. I still find it almost inconceivable, so to remind us of what they set out to do last spring seems almost to be unreal, but it's fact. They brought out a funding formula that basically dictated that hundreds and hundreds of schools across Ontario would have to shut down. They simply weren't going to be funded; the spaces weren't going to be funded. The government cut the maintenance budget so that the spaces weren't going to be funded.

That was, in and of itself, something of a shocker. But what was even more unbelievable was that this government wanted all of those so-called empty spaces to be shut down by last June 30. This was April. The boards didn't even know how much surplus space the government was going to tell them they had, but they wanted all the surplus space shut down by June 30. That was in the written statements that came out when the funding formula was released.

If anybody has ever been involved in the closure of a school, you know how much anguish that creates for parents and students. Every school board that has carried out a school closure - indeed, I think every school board has had to carry out some school closures because of declining enrolment or a shift in the population. They know how difficult it is. There is at least a year built into every process for the closure of a school - a year for every school.

The way this government had set out the process, it looked as though there were going to be about three schools closing a day, with no opportunity for any kind of consultation with parents or students. Parents and students clearly said that they weren't going to stand for that, and we knew they wouldn't stand for that.

But let there be no doubt that what this government's formula was forcing was the closure of over 600 schools. It was all in theory, it was all bottom lines, but all you had to do was take the government's own bottom lines, their figures that showed how much surplus space each board had and divide it, and you knew how many schools were going to have to close. We said at the time that they couldn't close that many schools. Boards couldn't do it, the public would not stand for it, boards would not wreak that kind of havoc on their students and on their school system, so the boards would not do it.

We saw board after board say: "We are going to defy what this government is requiring that we do. Even if it costs us, we're going to defy this government, because we will not shut down all of these schools in all these communities."

What this government wanted was to have every school 100% full, a child in every corner. It would have created an overcrowding situation which is beyond imagining. Not only did they want every single space filled, but they didn't want to allow any space for things like art rooms in either elementary or secondary schools, they didn't want to have computer studies rooms, they didn't want family studies rooms, they didn't want any science laboratories; they thought there should be at least 22 students in a science lab taking classes every moment of the day. They didn't want music rooms.

Maybe that fits with what this government thinks is important in terms of a classroom education. Music rooms and art rooms and family studies rooms certainly weren't part of what was going to be allowed as space for students - not part of their definition of "classroom."

Then the government said: "No, community use doesn't count either. You can have some child care. Maybe we won't force you to close the spaces that small children are now in, in their daycare settings, but if you want to keep those daycare settings open, you're going to have to charge them full market rent, because we're not going to pay the boards anything to heat and light and clean the spaces where they have the child care." That effectively shuts child care down - still does. The government didn't make any changes in that last week.

They didn't make any changes in whether they were prepared to provide extra maintenance costs so that there could be community use of schools of any kind. They've simply said no to community use of schools.

In fact, there is some polling they're doing right now, because this government runs on polls, and one of the questions they're asking is, "Do you think it would be all right, if you want your school used for community purposes, to charge the municipality, to get the municipality to pay to keep your school open for community use?" That, mark my words, is this government's next step, but it won't come until after the next election. Let's hope they're not in a position to implement the next steps in this incredible agenda.

The government extended from June 30 to December 31 their deadline for closure of all these schools, to have a plan in place and have the schools closed by next June. It's important to remember, though, that although they extended the time, they didn't extend the funding to keep them open. This is very much like what the government did to hospitals. Remember when they took the $800 million away from hospital budgets before they had done any restructuring in the hospital system?

They were basically forcing hospitals to restructure because they had already taken their funds away, creating a crisis that necessitates a response, exactly what they were doing to school boards. As of September 1 this year, they took out all of the maintenance funding for these extra spaces, forcing the school boards into a position where, whether or not they thought it was good for their kids, they were going to have to close schools or run a deficit situation.

That did not change with this government's announcements last week. Boards are still not getting funding to maintain their school space. There's some flexibility built in: You don't have to have them 100% occupied now, only 80%, and that is a small step in the right direction. But you've still got to shut down the schools, because you're not getting any money to heat, light and clean what this government has decided is non-essential or extra space. There is no question that schools are still going to have to close.

This government would now like to believe that they've set up a situation where, because Mike Harris has said that no school will have to close, any school board that is forced to close a school by the funding formula will be at fault this time, because after all, Mike changed the disastrous rules they had in place at first and he said, "No school will have to close." Therefore, if a school closes, it must be the board's fault. Wrong.

The funding formula is still going to drive school closures, because the maintenance money to keep the spaces open is not there, because there's no money for community use of schools unless they can find some community agency or Brownie group or Scout group that can actually pay market rent for the use of the school space.

When Dalton McGuinty travelled across Toronto and other parts of the province visiting schools, he came back and said, "I didn't see a single space that wasn't full." It's not as though all of these spaces were empty. They had students in them. Sometimes they weren't as full as the government thinks they should be, but they had students using the space and they had community groups using the space. This government doesn't want to make any allowance for that. If it doesn't fit the formula, it's got to go.

This government has also created a situation in which they are pitting parents and students in one area against parents and students in another area, and that did not change with this government's so-called retreat from a disastrous policy. It is a simple fact that if a board has any space which the government considers is extra space, they've got to get rid of all of that space across all of the new amalgamated boards.

They've got to get rid of all of that so-called extra space before this government will allow them to build a single new school or create a single new space for students in another community where there may be increasing enrolment. This is creating truly unfortunate situations.

If the government was really going to listen to the concerns of parents that have been voiced to an unbelievable level over the last week, surely they would have understood that what they had to do was uncouple the decisions about how much space they would pay for to keep clean and the need of school boards to create new spaces in communities where there is enrolment growth. In fact, this government's not prepared to flow a single cent of money to any board for the creation of any new spaces in any community where there's increasing student enrolment until all the schools have been shut down that this funding formula is going to force to close.

School closures are difficult at any time. They are an anguish. I personally have been involved in the closure of some 12 schools. There wasn't a single one that didn't create anguish for the parents, for the students and indeed for the school trustees involved. But at no point were those school closures being driven by an arbitrary, inflexible funding formula that was developed in Queen's Park and imposed on school boards across the province. We weren't dealing with huge amalgamated boards where it was quite clear that the needs in one area were going to be totally different from the needs in another area.

This is a very different kind of school closure being driven by Queen's Park and no place else, totally unresponsive to the needs of a local community or the students in a particular school. It is being driven by a cost-cutting agenda pure and simple.

This government's agenda was, first of all, to cut money out of education. That's why they wanted control of the funding. When public pressure said: "We don't want any more cuts. What happened to your promise not to cut classroom education?" they said, "All right, we won't cut any more money. We'll keep the funding stable for three years, except that over the next three years there will be 85,000 more students being funded with that same amount of money, less money for every student."

What does the government do? They cut money out of maintenance because they consider it non-essential. I would like to say loudly and clearly today that having a heated, lit, clean, safe space in which to learn is an essential part of providing a classroom education to a student. You can't cut the kind of giant corners that this government wants to cut and claim you're providing a quality education.

The government may have hoped to buy political peace for a year, but I don't think it's going to work. That's why 300 people were out at Weston Memorial school last night to say they don't believe this government is really going to put in place a formula that allows their school to stay open. They don't trust this government. But at least there will be some deferrals. Boards were already doing that, deferring it in the hope that after the next election there will be a new government and a sane policy put in place. I'm glad there can be deferrals until after the next election campaign.

I'm glad the government feels it's necessary to buy some political peace for at least a year, because at least it means that all those schools will not be shut down.

This government's agenda, we know, is to do as much damage as possible and to make it as irreversible as possible so no future government can undo what they have done. That has been said publicly and clearly. In this case, they were stopped by an aroused, concerned public - a small step for democracy. Let's hope that we can change the government so that we can have sane, responsive policies that really do show a concern for students' needs and for the need of a school in every community.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I rise today to join in this debate on this opposition day motion presented by Mrs McLeod on behalf of the Liberal caucus and to express my support and that of our caucus for the motion. Essentially the motion, while I would have liked it to go further than it does, indicates very clearly that the Mike Harris government should stop closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario. We certainly support that notion.

We have seen across the province, Speaker - I have seen it in my own west-end Toronto community and I know you have seen it in your part of the city of Toronto in the Riverdale area - the many schools that have been, and still are, under threat of closure directly because of the new funding formula that Mike Harris and his government have imposed upon school board after school board across this province. We have seen a situation, as I was saying, right across the province. In my own community, 22 public and Catholic schools that were going through the review were on the chopping block.

I suspect a number of them will still be going through the review and under threat of closure, because although there has been a suspension of the immediate threat of those schools closing as a result of the steps the government was forced to take, at least on the Catholic side, the overall threat is still far from gone.

Over the last number of weeks, Speaker, I have been, as I know you and others have, to many meetings across our own areas and across the city in which group after group of parents was beginning to understand - not just beginning but is finally understanding - what the impact of the Harris funding formula means. Many of those people have not been dissuaded or persuaded by the second-line attempts that Mike Harris and his government have made to come in and seem like they're rescuing the situation from the decisions of the school boards.

I think the school boards, both public and Catholic, certainly here in the city of Toronto, have acted very responsibly in telling people what would happen if the Harris funding formula remained as it was and what is going to happen if it still remains as it is.

While there has now been a suspension on the Catholic board side, saying, "We don't have to make decisions over this next year," even there, there hasn't been a clear decision taken by the board yet with respect to saying what will happen two years from now or a year and a half from now. Certainly on the public board side, we know there will be at least 30 schools that will still potentially be on the chopping block. People may say: "It used to be 127 and that's gone down to 30.

Isn't that great?" Well, it's better, but when you have 30 schools in a city like Toronto that are still in danger of closing, I don't know what the government has to be proud of. In fact, 30 schools will mean that 30 neighbourhoods, 30 communities will lose a vital part of the services that we provide to our young people and, as I said, to the rest of the neighbourhood.

As parents across the city and in my own riding of Dovercourt have said, they don't want to see any of these schools close. I think the government has to understand that and they've got to find whatever way they want to find to continue to back off this incredibly stupid and harsh funding formula that takes money out of the classroom. It does exactly what the Harris government said they were not going to do: It takes money out of schools, money out of classrooms, and it forces school boards to have to close schools.

We need to have this discussion be about services, be about children, be about students, be about the many other people who receive services from our schools. But at the end of the day, this discussion comes back to a discussion around money. We know that at the heart of what Harris and what his government are doing is the taking out of our system of education of hundreds of millions of dollars, just as they have done out of our health care system.

That money in large

part is going to fund an income tax cut that makes no sense whatsoever if you are among average middle-income or working-income families. It makes a lot of sense, I suppose, if you're earning $100,000 or more. Then you're getting some benefit. But if you're like the rest of us, if you're like that vast majority, that 94% of people across the province who make less than $80,000, then what you are seeing as a result of the Mike Harris actions is cut after cut in some of our most vital services. Today we are addressing one of those: our school system and our schools and our children and our students.

It behooves all of us who stand here in this House and say that we abhor what Mike Harris and his government are doing with respect to education funding to also be clear about what our commitment is if we were the government. That's why I'm proud of the position that we as New Democrats have taken, which is not just to oppose what Mike Harris is doing. If you have any sense of what's going on in our system, how could you not oppose what Mike Harris is doing? That's almost the easy part, to stand up and say you disagree strongly with what Mike Harris is doing. The more difficult

part is to talk about what you would do instead.

I want to say to my Liberal colleagues that when they, like us, talk about what they would do, I still need to hear very clearly where it is they would come first of all with respect to a clear commitment to provide the funding that needs to be made. Let's not be fooled.

We are asking parents and others not to be fooled by the interim changes Harris has made, to say, "We're going to put in a bit more money now into the system." We have no guarantee that those additional funds they are putting back are not simply there as a way to patch them through to the next election, hoping they'll get re-elected and then can reintroduce those cuts. That's what many parents out there are fearing.

It behooves those of us in the opposition who want to replace the Mike Harris government to say to people that not only is our commitment clear, sharp, simple, that we will put back into the education system the money that Mike Harris has taken out, but it's also incumbent on us to explain very clearly to people where that money is going to come from. It's not going to fall from the skies. It's not going to just magically materialize out of money that will come out of growth in the economy. Undoubtedly there will be some if the economy continues to grow, but who can guarantee today that that will be the case?

That's why I am proud of the position we have taken as New Democrats. Not only will we put the hundreds of millions of dollars back into the education system that Mike Harris and his government have taken out, but we would roll back that portion of the tax cut that goes to people making over $80,000, that 6% of taxpayers who get a billion and a half of the benefit of that tax cut. Twenty-five per cent of the value of the tax cut goes to that very small portion. We would put that money back into our education system, back into our health care system, because that's the way in which we are guaranteed that that money can be there and that the commitment we are making actually means something.

I want to say to my Liberal colleagues, it's great to hear them ranting against what Mike Harris is doing and it's great to hear them opposing what Mike Harris is doing. It's also time they come forward with ways in which they are going to put the money where their commitment is and explain to the people of Ontario how these commitments are going to be paid for.

We've done that. We're going to continue to do that and we're going to continue not only to oppose what Mike Harris is doing, but to talk very clearly and in clearer and clearer terms about what the alternatives are because the alternatives are there. We're proud and firm in our position in terms of how we would change not only what Mike Harris is doing, but in fact put the money back that has to be put back and put that back in a way that benefits all of us and not just simply the wealthiest citizens in our province.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to speak on behalf of the government with respect to this opposition day motion brought forth by the member from Thunder Bay. I'd just like to say that I'm proud of the job this government has done in education, and continues to do.

One of the focuses of this motion speaks about dollars for the education system, about the funding formula and classroom spending. It's obvious that this government is spending more money than it ever has with respect to the education system. The amount of money going into education is going to be close to $15 billion.

I know the minister has been working very hard, and I think he has done an excellent job with respect to managing the ministry, in not only trying to make it responsive to the needs of the public but also trying to shape it in such a manner that what we're going to have is an education system that is not only accountable but also brings forth the provincial standards in education that I know, as a parent, I want for my children.

I know that people out there with school-age children want provincial standards. They want provincial involvement to make sure that the system is not only functioning in terms of their being heard but also that it's a very good education system in terms of what we're trying to accomplish.

Those provincial standards, which I see no mention of in this opposition day motion - because quite frankly it's obvious that the Liberal Party and even the NDP accept the principle that there should be provincial standards in our education system - those provincial standards that we've brought forth are based on a standardized curriculum where your child can be in one part of the province and, if you have to leave to go to another part of the province for whatever reason, they're not going to be put behind the eight ball in terms of their learning capability.

We also have standardized testing which allows us to get feedback not only on how we're doing from a parent-child point of view but also on how we're doing school board against school board across the province and how we're doing on a provincial basis against the rest of the country, and also on an international basis.

What is the problem with respect to having standardized testing, making sure that we have provincial standards to know where we're going with our education system? The bottom line is, no matter how much money you spend on education, you want to make sure that you're getting a valued product, you want to make sure that you're getting a good education for the people who are a part of that education system.

We also brought in a standardized report card, we brought in equal funding - that's a big area, equal funding per student across the province - and I also want to speak to special education funding.

The bottom line is, in a riding such as mine, Simcoe Centre, which is one of the fastest-growing areas across the province, it is critical that we get fair funding because we have the need in terms of increased student population and also the need to have more elementary and secondary schools. That's the big debate in my riding: Are we going to get a fair funding formula from the province to recognize the needs of this growing area? I believe this province has answered that need.

It's obvious that in terms of what our funding per student was before the change in the funding formula, we were far behind, for example, the Metropolitan Toronto school system. I'm talking thousands and thousands of dollars per year per student. Quite frankly, as a parent, I can't see why every student in this province isn't given the same opportunity in terms of monetary support for them to get an education.

This equal funding that we've brought forth is a tremendous equalizer across the province in providing a fair and equitable education system. That, coupled with our provincial standards, puts in place an education system that not only is fair but also is consistent across the board. I think in terms of education we have to have those criteria of provincial standards and also equal funding across the board.

Also speaking in terms of the fairness of funding, now we see that the Catholic school system has equitable funding in comparison to the public school system. One thing that was brought in when Bill Davis was in government and now has been brought forth through this government, through Bill 160, is equal funding for the separate school system. That has certainly been welcome news. This government, through the Bill Davis years and through this present government, has always been fair to the separate school system. Obviously, I can't say the same for the other parties.

But I will say that the government's focus has been to put people first in terms of how we've gone about fixing government. With respect to education, what we have done is put students first. When they talk about classroom spending, what we have done is made sure that classroom spending goes into the classroom. You can't shift around in terms of saying, "We're going to move funds from this account into that account." What we have mandated is that there is spending that goes into classroom spending and non-classroom spending.

But also we've made sure in terms of the funding that we've provided for special education, which is $1.2 billion, that that funding cannot be taken away and put into administration. Because that's the big argument that we face and that we've heard from parents, saying: "You know, if you're going to put money into education we want it to be in the classroom, we want it to be in special education. We do not want to see it continuing to be put into administration."

It was very interesting when last week we had a big discussion in Simcoe Centre about the need for high schools. We have a tremendous need for high schools in the city of Barrie and the town of Innisfil. What we're trying to accomplish is, because of the tremendous growth through our funding formula, we're looking to fast-track the building of schools in areas that need them.

As I said, we have a tremendous need, and I was very pleased to see last week that the public school board has approved the location of two new high schools, one in the city of Barrie in the Holly area and one in the town of Innisfil located in Alcona Beach. There is a tremendous need for that type of building, and I am going to do my best as the member for Simcoe Centre to make sure not only that those schools are built but that they're built in the most expeditious manner that they can be built.

The bottom line is that the tremendous growth that's being experienced outside of Metropolitan Toronto has to be given the same time in terms of the debate. We cannot continue to focus on Metropolitan Toronto in terms of their needs versus the needs of the rest of the province. From what I understand, in Metropolitan Toronto they have at the public board level 330,000 student spaces and the number of students who are actually in the system is roughly around 200,000, so obviously they have excess capacity. The challenge to the boards is to deal with that.

My challenge as the member for Simcoe Centre is that we don't have enough schools. We have excess number of students because, quite frankly, people are moving out of Toronto to come up and live in my area, and I don't blame them because it's a tremendous area to live in. But that's the reality which has been happening for the last 10 years.

I would say that what we're looking at is a fairness in terms of equity for all the regions. In terms of my area, in the last two weeks we've opened three new elementary schools, two in the separate system and one in the public system. Those schools are almost at capacity right now. So we can't look with tunnel vision in terms of, "What are Toronto's problems versus the rest of the province?"

Let's look outside of Toronto in terms of the problems in other areas. For too long, in my area we've been getting short-changed in terms of fairness in education dollars. That's why bringing in provincial standards in terms of the building of schools with respect to equal and fair funding by students, and not by the area you live in, is going to provide equal opportunity and fairness to the residents of Simcoe Centre.

Putting more money in the classroom, taking waste out of administration and focusing on clear, high standards for our children and our schools is exactly the kind of change Ontarians asked for in the election. I can remember running in 1995 and having meeting after meeting with parents, saying, "We have to fix our education system. We have to make sure we have the schools available when we need them. We have to make sure the parents have some input in their child's education." People wanted provincial standards. That's what we gave them.

I'd like to ask the Liberals once and for all to stop promoting misconceptions about this government's policies and stop trying to provoke the public. That's essentially what they're trying to do. They've been working very well with the trade unions in trying to accomplish this goal with the disruptions that have been occurring throughout not only York region, but Simcoe county and in Metropolitan Toronto.

This government has not closed one school. This government is spending more money on education than ever has been done in the history of this province. That is the Liberal Party that for the first time ever voted against back-to-school legislation. They say they are fighting for students, yet they voted against allowing them back to school, even though they've always supported such legislation in the past.

They put forth as one of their major platforms that they want to get rid of Bill 160. What does that mean? Are you going to make sure that the Catholic school system is not going to have fair and equitable funding? Are you going to take away parents' rights to be involved in parents' councils? We've enshrined that in legislation. Are you going to get rid of provincial standards in terms of making sure class sizes are at a certain level? Are you going to get rid of provincial standards in terms of having teachers spend more time in the classroom? What are they going to do? Are they going to basically break the framework of providing provincial standards in education that all people want?

We have to wait to see what they want. It's easy to say, "We're going to get rid of the bill," but when you have no platform to say what you're going to do to strengthen and improve education in this province, and what it's going to cost in terms of disruption to the system - I think it's up to the Liberal Party to explain what they're about.

Not too long ago, the Liberals were proclaiming that we were going to fire 10,000 teachers. Not only was this completely not true, but now schools can't seem to hire enough teachers. That's what I've heard throughout my riding: "We need more teachers." That's attributable somewhat to the tremendous growth that's happening in my riding, but it's also attributable to the fact that a number of teachers who were of retirement age took advantage of it. That was their right, to take advantage of early retirement. You can't blame them because the teachers' pension plan is obviously one of the richest in the province.

Who wouldn't want to retire at age 55, making a significant amount of money in excess of $50,000 a year towards their pension? That's a good lifestyle.

Why has the Liberal Party taken the stand it has with respect to the education reforms? We put in place limits on average class size, and as a result boards need to hire more teachers. Then they claimed that 600 schools were going to close - a number picked out of thin air - and again the Liberal Party was wrong. In fact, funding is being provided for up to 200 new schools in the next three years. This is not a number picked out of thin air; it is based on grants the Ministry of Education is providing to boards and the ability for this money to be leveraged so that schools can be built when they are needed.

Yes, there are challenges when you move from one formula to a new one, especially when it has decayed since the last update to our education finance system. I know the Liberals would have done nothing. It's easy to put off the tough decisions, but that would have made the problem worse, so the Premier announced some changes to make the funding formula more flexible, to allow it to take into consideration the specific circumstances of rural Ontario and of old schools with special design features, and to give boards some more time to implement the changes properly.

The funding formula is based on the idea that every student deserves an equal chance at life. I think this is a noble idea. To me, it's common sense.

Based on this principle, we have developed a funding formula in which funding follows the children, not the buildings or the staff. That's equal funding for each student. We believe that having funding follow the student is the right thing to do. It's a very straightforward, simplistic way to deal with it. It gets away from the politics of it. Obviously, the members from Metropolitan Toronto would love to make sure they keep all the funding in Metropolitan Toronto, to the detriment of my constituents in Simcoe Centre. Why? Because they've always had it that way.

But things have changed, and the bottom line is that people are moving out of Metropolitan Toronto to live somewhere else. If that's the case, let's even the playing field and allow the locations where people are now living to get fair funding for their education system. As I said, we believe that having funding follow the student is the right thing to do.

Within this formula, we have recognized the special circumstances of small and rural schools. Grants for remote and rural schools have more than doubled to $90.1 million this year, and $56.2 million has been allocated for small schools in cases of sparse population.

The Premier's changes confirm that no school will need to close as a result of the provincial funding formula. Various boards across the province made suggestions on how to improve the formula and make it more flexible. I know the boards from my riding were involved. It would have been nicer if the boards had worked with us in the first place. We tried to work with them to make sure we addressed their concerns. They are the ones who know the system on the ground level. But some school boards didn't want to work with us. Instead, they just fought the changes.

Now that some suggestions have come forward, we have responded with long-term solutions to ensure that no school will need to close as a result of provincial funding changes.

We have brought in a 20% funding top-up for school maintenance budgets. This recognizes the difficulty of keeping all schools at perfect capacity. When funding follows the student, schools which are slightly below capacity would get slightly below funding to maintain the school. The 20% top-up solution removes this concern and will allow many schools, particularly rural schools, to remain open. For example, a school at 89% capacity will get 100% fund