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

November 25, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L250a - Tue 25 Nov 1997 / Mar 25 Nov 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR

HEINZ PAUL

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

EDUCATION FINANCING

ORILLIA SOLDIERS' MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

EDUCATION FINANCING

EDUCATION REFORM

GOOD NEIGHBOURS

VISITOR

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAX CREDITS TO CREATE JOBS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ACCORDANT DES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT POUR CRÉER DES EMPLOIS

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TAX CREDITS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

EDUCATION FINANCING

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

CHILD PROTECTION

EDUCATION REFORM

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

ADULT EDUCATION

COURT DECISION

RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION

EDUCATION REFORM

BEAR HUNTING

EDUCATION REFORM

PAY EQUITY

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

BEAR HUNTING

HOSTPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PETITIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Last evening Cornwall city council passed the following resolution:

"Whereas Bill 160 will cause irreparable damage to classroom education;

"Whereas Bill 160 will enable the provincial government to cut up to $1 billion from education;

"Whereas Bill 160 will eliminate up to 10,000 teachers, cut programs and close schools;

"Whereas Bill 160 will mean less time and individual attention for students;

"Whereas Bill 160 will allow unqualified people in our classrooms;

"Whereas Bill 160 will prevent principals and vice-principals from being members of their teachers' federations;

"Whereas Bill 160 will give the provincial cabinet dictatorial powers over education and give parents, trustees and teachers little say over local school programs;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the city of Cornwall council request that the provincial government withdraw Bill 160 and negotiate in good faith with the teachers' federations for quality public education."

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It's with a great deal of pleasure and pride that I rise to announce to the House that the results of the election for the new president of the Ontario Federation of Labour are complete and Wayne Samuelson will be the new president of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

For the people of this province who care about health care, who care about education, who care about our seniors, who care about the environment, who care about jobs for youth and all the other things that this government has attacked and destroyed, just as important as the election of Wayne Samuelson to the presidency of the Ontario Federation of Labour is the fact that immediately after that Paul Forder, the other candidate for president, rose in front of that convention and moved that it be a unanimous decision of all the delegates present at the Ontario Federation of Labour.

The government's worst nightmare has come true. They had hoped and prayed that there would be a divided labour movement because they knew that there was a serious race to follow Gord Wilson, but the reality is that the delegates at that convention know that they're an integral part of defeating this government, of taking this government on and bringing them down, and under the leadership of Wayne Samuelson, supported by people like Paul Forder, you are coming down and the OFL will be out in front.

HEINZ PAUL

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I rise today on a sad occasion. A man whom I'm proud to have called a friend passed away this past weekend after a difficult and courageous battle with cancer. The man's name is Heinz Paul.

As many members know, including our Attorney General, Heinz was the cofounder of FAD or Families Against Deadbeats. Heinz and his people were also the main resource for many of the changes to the government's Bill 82 and changes to the former family support plan. In fact, Heinz was present for many of our debates on this bill.

He was born in Vienna in 1928. A mechanist in the textile industry, he came to Canada in 1952 with his wife Hilde. They had a daughter, Reni, the other cofounder of FAD. They have two grandchildren, Andy and Samantha, abandoned by a deadbeat father.

FAD was born in Bramalea as a result of the experiences of the family. His strong belief in family values and magnetic personality enabled him to build FAD into what it is today: a group of over 200 families, most of them mothers.

We joked with Heinz quite often and told him he was a better contact to the Attorney General's office than we had.

Since being elected, there has been no one who has had such an impact on me as the spirit and the determination of Heinz Paul to do what was right for the children's sake. God bless you, Heinz.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to express the concerns I've been hearing at public meetings throughout my riding. My constituents are very concerned about the provisions in Bill 160 that allow for the violation of our children's rights to privacy and confidentiality of information.

Section 266 of Bill 160 provides for the collection, "directly or indirectly," whatever that means, of personal information on any student in the Ontario education system. The minister will do so through the Ontario education number. Collection, use or disclosure will require the production of numbers for administration, funding, planning and research purposes.

During the Bill 104 hearings, we saw this government compile dossiers of information on people making public presentations before the committee. It certainly makes one wonder about the motives of this government. Why does the government want this information? What will the government do with this information? Who has access to it? Why have they exempted portions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which would allow people to know that information is being accessed relating to their file? Finally, who will the minister appoint as his designate to oversee the collection, use and distribution of this data?

Until we have such answers to these critical questions, how can anyone in this House in good conscience support such a violation of basic human rights and the norms of protection of privacy?

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have with me here a very small sample of the enormous number of petitions that have been forwarded to me and to other members in opposition to Bill 160. These petitions are signed by residents of Mississauga, Elliot Lake, Newcastle, Peterborough, Etobicoke, Toronto and many other communities across the province, by thousands of residents who care about education.

Many of these petitioners of course are parents of students in our education system who are concerned about the future of education under the centralized approach the government is proposing in Bill 160. They are concerned that the real purpose of centralization is for the provincial Conservative government to gain control over the funding of education and the taxation for education in order to ensure that the government can remove another $1 billion over and above the hundreds of millions of dollars the government has already removed from classroom education.

The Tories made a commitment in the last election campaign that they would not hurt classroom education funding. They have broken that commitment. They are now ensuring that they will be able to get even more money out with Bill 160.

ORILLIA SOLDIERS' MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am proud to congratulate Soldiers' Memorial Hospital in Orillia for winning the Canada Award for Excellence. The staff, management and board members were recognized by the National Quality Institute on October 29 for outstanding work in creating and implementing quality and innovative patient care programs. As one staff member said, "Practising the art of nursing and treating individuals with kindness is an important part of care delivery."

Due to growth of information and modern technology, Ontario's rural health care system is being pressured to meet new demands for hospital, at-home and long-term care. Administer Glen Penwarden described it best when he said, "Eventually, people are no longer content to be average -- they want to be the best."

With a positive leadership attitude, former Health Minister Jim Wilson invited Soldiers' to apply to the Canada-Ontario infrastructure works program for funding assistance of a $3.6-million redevelopment project. Final approval has been given for approximately $3.6 million in assistance from the province, the federal government, the city of Orillia and the county of Simcoe. The official announcement is expected shortly.

Soldiers' adopted a flexible attitude, encouraging new partnerships and new approaches to expand services, add programs and present a balanced budget. I join my constituents in Simcoe East in extending my congratulations to Soldiers' Memorial for this outstanding achievement of excellence in health care.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): From day one, the Mike Harris government has argued that cuts could be made to education by streamlining administration. That was the argument when the Harris government forced school boards to permanently absorb the $425 million in "temporary" social contract cuts. It was the same argument used when the Harris government slashed provincial funding for education in 1995 and 1996 by $533 million.

When it was revealed that costs resulting from school board amalgamations would cost boards a minimum of $350 million, they were told that streamlining administration would offset the cuts. At the same time as these funding cuts, the number of students in the system has increased as much as 86,000 over the last five years. How were school boards told to handle the $350-million at minimum in the increase? Right on. Streamline administration again, they were told. Now the government wants to cut an additional $667 million.

So in

summary we have $425 million for social contract losses, the increased enrolment of $350 million, budget cuts of $533 million, amalgamation transition costs of $350 million and next year's proposed $667 million. Next year the Harris government will have overseen reductions to education that will amount to well over $2.3 billion. How can the Premier believe that the quality of education will not --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements, member for Beaches-Woodbine.

EDUCATION REFORM

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I always feel such great pride and honour being elected to represent the community of Beaches-Woodbine. It is an amazing community to live in. It is an amazing community to be a neighbour in, to share with people, to work together, and I have always described it as being like a small town in the middle of a big city.

This last few weeks, that has been underscored for me again, as I have seen parents come together with their concern for the future of the education system and form a network of parents who are actively fighting Bill 160 and this government's agenda for reform. The East End Parent Network, which is comprised of parents in the riding of Beaches-Woodbine and the riding of Riverdale, joined myself and my colleague from Riverdale, Marilyn Churley, on Saturday as they kicked off the petition campaign calling for this government to hold a referendum on the withdrawal or the repeal of Bill 160.

I am so proud and so amazed by the energy and the commitment of the people of our communities and have been so honoured to work with them on this incredibly important fight.

One of the people who was there said to me, "Our community has lit a small spark and that spark has turned into a bonfire across this province." Thousands and thousands of people are joining in this petition drive to call on this government to hold a referendum. The people don't want Bill 160 and they want an opportunity to tell you about it. Hold the referendum.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I rise in the House today to speak about the Bradford West Gwillimbury Good Neighbours committee and its ongoing public awareness campaign to encourage individuals to take personal responsibility for their community. This group was started in 1994 and organizes events and programs including a food drive where firefighters fill the role of Santa and police officers take pictures while children and their parents donate items for the food drive, and a buddy system for seniors in apartment buildings. This program encourages elderly neighbours to watch out for each other and to be aware if one of their buddies might need help.

Last Friday, November 21, a number of groups and people in Bradford West Gwillimbury received Good Neighbours recognition certificates. Some of those recognized include Generation Youth, a group of young people that organizes events and coordinates community efforts; Bill Markwick, who was honoured for his efforts to revitalize Bradford's downtown -- he personally grows and maintains the flowers along the main street and in front of heritage buildings; and Bea Poxson, who was honoured for her long-time involvement with minor baseball.

Also honoured were Mrs Annie Cooke, a 90-year-old whose policy of an open door and a cup of tea is a cheerful aspect of the community, and Janet Evans for her work with the physically disabled.

Mrs Sylvia Luxton is the spirited leader of this band of involved individuals. I would like to thank all of the volunteers whose efforts make Bradford West Gwillimbury a good place to live. It is individuals like these who in turn make towns like this a proper place to live.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce in the Speaker's gallery a member from the 35th Parliament, the member for Yorkview, now the member for Ward 6 in the new Metro megacity, Mr George Mammoliti. Welcome.

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 1997 Annual Report of the Provincial Auditor.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAX CREDITS TO CREATE JOBS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ACCORDANT DES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT POUR CRÉER DES EMPLOIS

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 164,

An Act to implement job creation measures and other measures contained in the 1997 Budget and to make other amendments to statutes administered by the Ministry of Finance or relating to taxation matters / Projet de loi 164, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre des mesures de création d'emplois et d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1997 et à apporter d'autres modifications à des lois dont l'application relève du ministère des Finances ou qui traitent de questions fiscales.

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

Mr Eves?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I have no further comment at this time. I'll be making a statement during ministerial statements about the bill.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I would ask for unanimous consent to waive notice to move a motion to appoint the interim Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is there unanimous consent to do so? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Ann Cavoukian, current interim Information and Privacy Commissioner, to act as interim Information and Privacy Commissioner until May 30, 1998, or until the Legislative Assembly appoints a permanent Information and Privacy Commissioner, whichever is earlier."

And that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TAX CREDITS

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Leading up to the 1997 budget, we talked to Ontarians and they told us what was needed to help business grow and to keep Ontario as a competitive jurisdiction. On May 6 of this year, I presented a budget that invests in Ontario's future by building on and strengthening our economy, by investing in children and in families and in jobs. At that time I announced support for child care, small business, research and development, new technology and cultural industries.

Since the budget, we have continued our consultations and Ontarians have provided us with more good ideas. We listened to them and we are responding.

The bill I am introducing today, if passed, not only delivers upon our budget commitments but reflects the enhancements that Ontarians told us would further create economic growth and employment in Ontario. In addition to the budget initiatives, the bill introduces a number of technical amendments, housekeeping measures and initiatives that parallel changes to the federal tax administration.

During the last 10 years, two out of every three jobs created in Ontario were created in the knowledge and technology-based industries. Leading-edge technologies are a key to creating more well-paid jobs for Ontario's youth.

The legislation I am introducing today extends the leading-edge technology component of the cooperative education tax credit to include approved apprenticeships and private sector vocational programs. The legislation also increases the Ontario computer animation and special effects tax credit to 20% from 15%, to further encourage companies in this growing and dynamic segment of the film and television production industry to expand and create jobs here in Ontario. This tax credit will help ensure the talented people trained here in Ontario have opportunities to work here in Ontario.

In addition to these tax credit enhancements, this bill would deliver on our commitment to strengthening Ontario's research and development competitiveness and forging stronger links between the private sector and Ontario's post-secondary research institutions through the Ontario business-research institute tax credit.

The Ontario new technology tax incentive would encourage acquisition and commercialization of new technology by allowing firms to deduct immediately the costs of new technology acquired, as we promised.

The small business sector is the engine of Ontario's economy and an important job creator for our youth. We recognize that and we are enhancing our budget commitment to ensure that small businesses receive the necessary incentives to provide Ontario's young people with jobs. As such, this bill, if passed, will increase the tax credit rate for small business for both the graduate transitions tax credit and the cooperative education tax credit.

To help small businesses get greater access to financing, we listened to stakeholders' advice on making the community small business investment fund more attractive.

This bill would provide further support for small businesses by enhancing and simplifying the small business investment tax credit for banks, trust companies, credit unions and caisses populaires that allow these financial institutions to earn back their tax when they invest in or lend to small businesses.

This bill recognizes the important contribution of our domestic film and television industry to our economy. Not only am I pleased to tell you today that this bill implements the 1997 budget proposal to increase Ontario's domestic film and television tax credit rate to 20% from 15%; I am also pleased to announce that legislation will be introduced in the future to expand eligible genres and remove caps on size of production and credit totals. These changes would significantly expand the amount of eligible Canadian content production that will qualify for Ontario's tax credit and help ensure that Ontario continues to be a leading film and television production centre in North America.

Furthermore, we will be consulting with the federal government on the 48% cap on qualifying expenditures for the domestic film and television tax credit in an effort to work in concert as we harmonize Ontario's film tax credits with the federal system. In addition, Ontario will also be reviewing existing caps under the computer animation and special effects tax credit.

This bill proposes further support for Ontario's cultural industries by expanding the book-publishing tax credit to include educational textbooks and the first-time illustrators of children's books.

To help Ontarians take advantage of opportunities opening up around our province, the bill also supports lower-income working families who are not benefiting from the current child care funding by implementing our budget commitment for a child care tax credit. This tax credit would be a new investment of $40 million to support lower-income working families and their children. About 90,000 families and 125,000 children would benefit from the 1997 tax credit.

We remain committed to ensuring that Ontarians receive high-quality services in a cost-effective way. If passed, this legislation delivers on our commitment to reduce costs and make sense of the division of provincial and municipal responsibilities by returning property assessment to municipalities where it can be done more efficiently.

After a quarter of a century of the province running this local tax base, local governments would control and manage it. With the completion of the province-wide assessment, there is no better time for this action than now. These measures are part of the government's plan to make Ontario the best place in the world in which to live, work and invest.

These 1997 budget initiatives build on the many initiatives we have already implemented to create a climate where investment and initiative are rewarded in an atmosphere of confidence and hope.

We came to office just over two years ago knowing that the private sector was the primary economic engine of Ontario and that it was our responsibility to motivate entrepreneurs to invest and create jobs here. This is what we are doing by cutting taxes, eliminating barriers to growth and very simply providing the private sector with the tools it needs to invest, compete and create jobs for the people of Ontario.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): The real purpose of the bill is to set up the assessment corporation. I would just say that here we are, five weeks before the start of a new year, the Ontario assessment system is changing like never before and, in typical Harris fashion, we still don't have the corporation set up, the organization set up that's supposed to handle this. So today, finally a bill comes forward, but the municipalities are going to pick up $120 million of costs that used to be handled by the province; they now will be on the property taxpayers.

It's introduced five weeks before this corporation is supposed to begin working. It's like setting up a huge organization five weeks from now and you've just finally introduced the legislation.

I would say to the minister, it's mismanagement. The municipalities should have seen this months ago. They're going to want to have some input and some discussion.

Hon Mr Eves: It's their proposal.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Finance doesn't like to hear this, but you should have --

Hon Mr Eves: It's their proposal.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Finance, come to order.

Mr Phillips: There he goes, he's yelling now, but you should have brought this forward. It's mismanagement. I used to be in the private sector and the private sector is laughing at you when you set up an organization in five weeks.

The second point I'd make is the public is now aware that Mike Harris wants to set $6 billion of property tax with the stroke of a pen, by regulation; no legislation, nothing. What we have today, and I think the public understands it, is a bill designed to deal with probably about $30 million of taxes. So no bill, no legislation on $6 billion of property tax, no opportunity to debate it, but something that will cost the taxpayers about $30 million in taxes. We have this, and that's good, that's how we should deal with tax measures, through legislation.

But no, Mike Harris doesn't want to give the public any input into $6 billion worth of property taxes. We could not have had a more dramatic demonstration. Two days from now Mike Harris will want to force through Bill 160, ram it through here, giving himself the power to set $6 billion worth of taxes by regulation, and yet two days before, there's what we're dealing with, that bill. We must debate that bill. People must have a chance for input. We should have a chance to vote on it, and that's right.

But what more dramatic illustration of the reason we should be dealing with Bill 160 tax measures through legislation than the government itself today, red-faced, bringing forward legislation dealing with, as I say, maybe $30 million of taxes but refusing to give the public any opportunity to debate the legislation on $6 billion worth of taxes?

I think the public understands. Five weeks before a huge corporation is to be set up, frankly to try to correct the mess this is going to be, and rammed through, I gather, in five weeks -- but we do not get any opportunity to debate $6 billion worth of Mike Harris's property tax bills.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): This is a government that likes to boast of its financial expertise. They like to tell us that they manage their affairs well, that they're the taxfighters. Well, today the Provincial Auditor released a report which puts a bogus to that theory.

Listen to how they manage their own affairs. The Provincial Auditor today released a report, and the report on just one ministry alone is telling. We don't have time to go through all of them, but just look at what they've done with respect to the backlog in the courts. Despite all their promises, despite all their actions, the backlogs in the courts have almost doubled, that is, the critical ones that risk being thrown out of court. That means that alleged rapists, alleged thieves, individuals who will not be heard, cases that will not be tried, all stand to be thrown out of court.

Worse, the Provincial Auditor documents that there are $316 million worth of fines that this government has not collected. In two years they have not collected one cent of these fines, money that could have been used to implement the tax cut of which they're so fond. They're busy cutting social services, education and health care instead of going after the money that is legitimately owed by offenders to this government. What the Provincial Auditor has demonstrated today is total bungling, total mismanagement. They've finally been exposed for what they are.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Finance because there is so much that is unsaid. First of all, this bill is about a number of so-called tax credits. I want to go into why the government has to bring this forward at this time with such urgency.

You see, part of this is about training, about a training tax credit. Well, there was a program in Ontario called Jobs Ontario Training which a lot of people in the private sector were able to access for the purpose of training. This government, that thought it knew everything, wiped that out. Now what are they discovering two and a half years later? They're discovering that many of the new industries, if they're going to locate in Ontario, need some money dedicated to training, especially to training young workers.

This government has created a mess by wiping out training funds in the first three months they were the government. They're now having to run around and backtrack and put in place a tax credit to provide for training, because training is intimately tied to the new industries, whether the new industries are biotechnology or whether the new industries are information systems and telecommunications. You have to have access to training if we're going to get our share of the new industries. This government is rushing in today because it's trying to cover up the mistake it made by cutting training funds two and a half years ago.

Then there is reference here to money for the film industry. This is the government that two and a half years ago wiped out any programs intended to assist in bringing the film industry to Ontario and helping the film industry broaden in Ontario. That's what you did in your first six months in government. Now you're here trying to cover your tracks.

Also, we see reference to book publishing. In the first six months, this government virtually devastated book publishing in this province. Then there is reference to the other cultural industries. In the first six months of your government, you virtually decimated anything intended at helping the cultural industries, which are huge creators of new jobs. You virtually devastated any chance they had to get started in this province.

To give you a sense of the magnitude of the mistake this government has made, four years ago Ontario was one of the provinces that was in the lead in terms of biotechnology. Today, two and a half years later, Ontario is fourth. Quebec leads, British Columbia is second and Saskatchewan, little Saskatchewan, has edged out Ontario in terms of new biotechnology.

This is all about this government trying to cover up the ridiculous mistakes it made in its first two and a half years as government. But it's about more than that. This is the Conservative Party brag: that they were going to create 725,000 new jobs in Ontario in their first term as government. They'll be lucky if they get halfway. Ontario lost jobs last month, and I suspect one of the reasons we're seeing this bill today is because the job numbers for this month are not too attractive. This is again a desperate move by this government to try to say something good about a job picture that has not been very good at all.

Finally, let me deal with the issue of taxes. In the next week, this government is going to force through Bill 152, the downloading bill, which essentially will force $1.5 billion in new costs on to municipalities, and they'll force through Bill 160, which will mean a $6-billion tax levy by this government. We have in effect tax and fiscal moves of $7.5 billion by this government, and they either want to have no debate on it or they want to limit debate on it. Then they bring forward this.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Finance. After weeks of silence, you admitted in this Legislature that some Ontario businesses are going to see their property taxes increase as a result of Bill 160. That was a very important admission for the people who run businesses in Ontario to get hold of.

As you might imagine, they are in a constant state of making preparations, drawing up budgets and making business plans. They need to know how many people they can hire, they need to know who they're going to have to lay off.

Yesterday you didn't have the answer to this question, so I'm going to ask you once again. Which businesses in Ontario are going to experience property tax increases as a result of your Bill 160?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): As I said to the leader of the official opposition yesterday, on an individual basis there will be winners and losers as a result of the new property tax system, but the total bill for business with respect to education will not be going up. The total amount of the bill will not be going up. I know he finds that difficult to believe, when for 10 years the two previous administrations saw property taxes in this province rise by 82%. I know it's hard for him to comprehend that they will be frozen now, that they will not be going up, but that is the case.

With respect to individual businesses and individual municipalities, when the assessment information is entirely complete and the reassessment is done, which will be done by the end of this year -- by the end of this week it will be 80% complete; by the end of this year it will be 100% complete -- we will be sharing that information with municipalities and they will be able share that on a property by property basis with their taxpayers.

Mr McGuinty: It's important to understand what this Minister of Finance is saying. He's telling us that he's about to invoke a measure, he's about to pass a law in Ontario on behalf of the Taxfighter government, which is going to increase property taxes for Ontario businesses. That's exactly what you're going to do.

Hon Mr Eves: No, it's going to keep them the same.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Finance, you get an opportunity to answer the questions.

Mr McGuinty: With great fanfare this minister just stood up in this House and told us in the most grandiose way what he's going to do to encourage business development in Ontario. On the other hand what he's doing is putting into place, through Bill 160, the means by which he's going to increase property taxes for our businesses. You can't have it both ways. You were going to fight taxes. You were going to bring them down, and now what we're talking about is increasing them. Tell me, Minister, where do you get off as the Taxfighter increasing property taxes for our businesses?

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the official opposition, I know this is a difficult concept for him to comprehend. We are freezing business taxes on property in the province of Ontario. Understand that. The combined administrations of David Peterson and Bob Rae raised the revenue generated by those same property taxes 120% in 10 years. We are stopping that. We are freezing it. It's not going up. I know you find that hard to understand but that's the reality. We're not going to ask business to pay more. We're freezing their tax rates.

Mr McGuinty: Now that the minister and I agree that he's about to increase property taxes for Ontario businesses, I want to talk about --

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: Now that we understand that one of the ends of 160 is going to be to increase property taxes for Ontario businesses, let's talk a bit about the process. Your Minister of Education said it was wrong for government to raise taxes behind closed doors by the stroke of a pen. He said that if we're about to do that kind of thing that should be brought into this House so it can be the subject of debate and where we can vote on it. That's what your guy, the Minister of Education, said.

I'm wondering now if you, as Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier of this province, happen to agree with this minister, because I do. Do you agree with him? Whether or not we're going to raise $6 billion in taxes, should that not be the subject of a debate in this House?

Hon Mr Eves: We have been debating Bill 160 for many, many weeks. We are debating it in the House. He's doing it right now as he speaks.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: We are not raising business property taxes with respect to education. The total amount will not go up. I know that's difficult for the leader of the official opposition to understand, but it's the truth.

Also, with respect to municipal property taxes on businesses, we're leaving municipalities the option to charge a lower rate for smaller commercial properties -- something your government never did -- to help out small business in the province of Ontario. Your legacy of the David Peterson government was an employer health tax, a payroll tax to hurt virtually every single business, especially small ones in Ontario. You introduced the commercial concentration tax in the greater Toronto metropolitan area and you raised taxes 33 times in five years. We've lowered them 30 times in two years. Where do you get off talking about anything to do with taxes?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, thank you. Member for Brantford, thank you, and St Catharines. New question, official opposition.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): No more holidays for the Minister of Finance. I can't sustain it, Speaker.

I'm going to move on to the Minister of Education. You will know that we have raised a number of questions in this Legislature until we are blue in the face which you have been unable or have refused to answer with respect to Bill 160.

We don't know which businesses are going to have their property taxes increased as a result of Bill 160 and we don't know how much their property taxes are going to go up. We don't know how many hundreds of millions of dollars specifically you're going to be taking out of the system of public education through Bill 160 and we don't know how many fewer teachers are going to be available to teach our students.

I want to come back to that last one, one more time, and I want to give you this opportunity once again as we go into the home stretch on Bill 160: How many fewer teachers are going to be available to teach Ontario students as a result of your Bill 160?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Yesterday I answered this question and I'll say the same thing today. That is a decision, in terms of the staffing, in terms of the appropriate number of teachers in each school and each board across the province of Ontario, that has been made by the respective boards and it is a decision that will continue to be made by the respective boards.

One thing I'll say: As a result of the changes brought in by this government, there will be fair funding to each board and to each school right across Ontario. That will guarantee the fair and appropriate number of teachers in each and every school in each and every board right across Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Everybody understands that you want fewer teachers in Ontario schools. There is no debate about that. Let me tell you somebody in particular who understands this only too well, and that's a former teacher. In fact it's Julia Munro, the member for Durham-York, who said: "The concern remains that there will be fewer teachers in the high schools teaching the same number of students. The education system cannot be enhanced unless there are enough teachers to meet the needs of students through quality instruction. This is the position I am actively advocating with my caucus colleagues at every available opportunity."

I want to support her in her efforts to make you understand, Minister, that we cannot improve education by reducing the number of teachers who are available to teach our students. I am going to ask you, will you listen to Julia Munro and will you listen to parents and to students who are telling us that we simply cannot improve education in Ontario by reducing the number of teachers who teach our students?

Hon David Johnson: My answer is clearly yes, I do listen to the member for Durham-York, Julia Munro; I do listen to parents. What I hear from the member for Durham-York and from parents is concern for our education system, concern that has been expressed over many years, many quality improvements that should be implemented, quality improvements that will come through Bill 160. Through Bill 160, we ask our teachers to spend the same amount of class time in the classroom as teachers do in other jurisdictions in the elementary system and in the secondary system. Is there anything that's not fair about that?

Through this whole process each and every school and each and every board will get a fair amount of money to establish the excellence in education, the kind of programs that Julia Munro wants to see, that I want to see and that our parents want to see.

Mr McGuinty: We have been around this now a number of times and I'll keep coming back to it again and again in the hope that you are going to see the light and that when it comes to Bill 160 you'll recognize what it's really all about. It's not about improving education in Ontario; it's about taking money out of the system and it's about having fewer teachers available to teach our students. That's what Bill 160 is all about. Everybody today in this province has come to recognize that.

You have had criticism from your own members of your own caucus. You have had criticism from members of your own cabinet. You yourself, Minister, have criticized your own bill. You're shepherding this through the Legislature and I think it may be the only case in history where a minister has stood up in this Legislature and agreed and disagreed with the contents of his bill.

This is my last question for you today; you can relax. Will you just stand up here and now and tell us this isn't about improving education; it's about taking money out of the system and it's about having fewer teachers available to teach Ontario students?

Hon David Johnson: I'm sorry to hear this is my last question of the day from the leader of the second party, particularly since he's going blue in the face on this particular issue. What this government has said over and over again, what I will say over and over again, is that this bill is about three things. It's about establishing quality in our education system. Is it not adding quality to our education system to ensure that the average class sizes do not, as they have in the past, go up, to ensure that the class sizes do not increase? Is it not adding quality to ensure that our students have access to the same number of instructional days as students do in other jurisdictions?

It's also about accountability, accountability back through to the parents and the community in which the schools are located to ensure that the school councils are involved. And yes, it's about efficiency in the system because we expect the Ministry of Education and every ministry to be involved in solving our financial problems for the sake of the --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. New question, leader of the third party.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Minister of Education and Training.

Section 207 of the Education Act makes it illegal for boards of education to do what you are trying to do under Bill 160. Under

section 207 of the Education Act, before a school board sets a property tax rate, a recommendation has to come forward at a public meeting. Following that meeting there has to be time for public debate, for scrutiny by the public, by parents and by ratepayers. Then they have to go to another public meeting in order to pass or set that tax rate.

It's an accountable process; it's an open, public process. Why are you trying to avoid that public scrutiny? Why are you trying to avoid that public process? Why are you trying to move the setting of tax rates behind closed doors?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I refer this question to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I appreciate the fact that the leader of the third party has just enunciated that we are debating Bill 160 here in the Legislature. We have been debating it for many, many weeks. With respect to the exact rate and ratios with respect to taxation, those cannot be set -- as I explained to the leader of the official opposition yesterday -- until all assessment information is in in the province of Ontario. It will be in within a month and a week. We will then be able to set those rates. But I can assure him of one thing, that the total amount of tax revenue that's raised by that rate will not go up.

Mr Hampton: The minister tries very hard to miss the point. What you've talked about in terms of freezing the tax rate is nowhere in Bill 160 -- nowhere. Quit trying to put that across to the public. Quit trying to call this debate about Bill 160 a debate about setting the tax rate. The tax rate, under Bill 160, can be set by you by quietly passing a regulation. That regulation will not be open to any public inspection, any public debate, open to any exercise of the democratic process. What are you afraid of?

Are you afraid that having a democratic process around the setting of the tax rate will give parents a forum where they can come and ask more embarrassing questions of your government, questions you can't answer? Why are you taking something that is public and open and subject to the democratic process and trying to ram it behind closed doors? Don't you have any respect for democracy?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the third party knows full well that Bill 160, as he said, provides for the setting of the rate, and he's correct with respect to the Minister of Finance having the ability to set the rate.

Mr Hampton: Behind closed doors.

Hon Mr Eves: Not behind closed doors. Regulations, with all due respect, are subject to public scrutiny and they will be subject to public scrutiny.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Wentworth East, would you please come to order.

Hon Mr Eves: As the leader of the third party understands -- at least I hope he understands -- the province is assuming responsibility for the public education process in Ontario. We are going through a transitional phase. It will be necessary for us to wait until we get all the factual and assessment information in this year to be able to set the rate. I have guaranteed to the people of Ontario that that rate will not raise any more money than is currently being raised in education taxes today.

After that is done, as my colleague the Minister of Education said last week and has said on previous occasions, as recently as yesterday, we'll be looking at a part of the legislative process to do it in future years. He might want to ask himself why the province of British Columbia, with his good NDP friends, has had this system for years and intends to keep it.

Mr Hampton: The minister refers to something that the Social Credit government brought in in British Columbia. I regret to say it will take us a long time to correct every mistake you've made too.

Let me try to help the minister out. Let me tell him what's really going on here. This minister and other ministers of this government are trying to do this behind closed doors because they want to be able to blame the municipalities. The reality is that people's taxes will go up because of Bill 106, the plan to reassess every property in the province. People's taxes will go up because of the downloading under Bill 152, which will dump another billion dollars on to the property tax. People's taxes will go up because of the megacity; the additional bill is $150 million and counting. Taxes will go up because of what you're going to do under Bill 160.

The new motto of the Conservative Party is: "First you drug `em, then you mug `em." Admit it, Minister. Mike Harris has gone from being the Taxfighter and he is now the tax mugger.

Hon Mr Eves: We are trying to control property taxes on education in Ontario. As I alluded to earlier in my answer to a question by the leader of the official opposition, your party and theirs saw huge, dramatic increases in property taxes in the province: 82% over 10 years; 120% in terms of the revenue generated from that in 10 years. You increased taxes 32 times and they increased taxes 33 times, both in five-year periods of time. We have to stop this rampant education tax increase to the taxpayers of Ontario. They can't afford to have their taxes raised 120% when enrolment goes up 16%. We are going to ensure that does not happen, much to your displeasure.

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

Mr Hampton: Again I'll say, there is no tax freeze in the bill -- nowhere. All you're doing is trying to take a public, democratic process and move it behind closed doors so people can't find out.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Education: The Premier said something incredible today. He said the advertisements run by the Halton region in opposition to the provincial download were a waste of taxpayers' money because they're not based on any final decision.

Minister, how is that you can run all of your ads attacking teachers and parents in the province and yet the Premier calls the effort by Halton to fight back a waste of taxpayers' money? Can you explain the difference?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm not going to explain whatever difference the member opposite perceives. I will simply say that the people of Ontario -- I've been in government for many years, well over 20 years now -- want to know what's going on. They want to know the programs that the government is putting forward. That's a normal state of affairs to an NDP government, a Liberal government, a Tory government, at the municipal level, at the provincial level, at the federal level. There is a need to communicate with the people of Ontario.

You may not like to hear the fact that we intend to reform the education system, that we intend to proceed with reforms to bring quality and accountability and efficiency to the system, but that's what our ads are about. People of Ontario have a right to expect that sort of communication and that's exactly what we're doing.

Mr Hampton: Perhaps I should give the Minister of Education another chance. I'm merely quoting what the Premier said. Halton region has figured out that your downloading is going to cause real problems for them in terms of property taxes, so they've taken out some advertisements to inform the public of how much the downloading is going to be and how damaging it's going to be. Your Premier comes out and says that they're a waste of taxpayers' money because they're not based on a final decision.

People across the province have been watching your attack ads, your propaganda campaign on Bill 160, which is not yet a final decision. I'm asking you, how can the Halton ads be a waste of taxpayers' money and you've spent, by our estimate, over $4 million in this province attacking teachers, attacking parents, attacking school boards? How is it that theirs are a waste of money and yours are somehow a good deed by the government?

Hon David Johnson: It's interesting that the leader of the third party has shown such great concern about advertising costs at this juncture in his career. In 1994-95, when he was in government, the NDP government spent over $20 million in advertising. The agencies under the NDP government spent over $25 million. Grand total spending: over $45 million.

There were two years when the spending was even higher: 1992 and 1990-91, when both the Liberals and the NDP were in government together, in cahoots, over $50 million spent on advertising.

Why do we have --

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

Mr Hampton: I want to quote what the Conservative MPP for Grey-Owen Sound had to say about the government's attack ads, your propaganda campaign. He said: "The ads were terrible. I mean, I haven't heard anybody say that they were good. You can't go attacking our teachers."

Then he said: "We're supposed to be the government. We're supposed to solve problems, not make problems, and all I've seen are ads that just make problems for us, problems for the teachers and for everybody. I think we wouldn't have been in as big a mess as we are in if those ads had never gone on the radio or the television or in the papers."

My question for the Minister of Education is simply this: When are you going to realize that your vicious, ugly, nasty attack ads, your propaganda campaign, were beneath the dignity of an Ontario government? You are going down in infamy for attacking people across this province merely because they disagreed with you, merely because --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon David Johnson: There is an incorrect statement being made here. The reality is that this government values teachers very highly and is intending to be supportive of teachers. It is and will be working closely with teachers in the future. We need the teachers in terms of implementing the quality program in our classrooms. But I can tell you that over the past while, in terms of dealing with the unions, certain problems have arisen.

We have attempted to keep government advertising in general to a minimum. We have attempted to keep it simple. We have not had any flashy brochures such as this one from the Ministry of Education under the former government. Looking towards the future, there is a need to work closely with the teachers. I look forward to that day and I think together, the teachers, the principals, the government, the school boards --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. New question.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Minister of Education. As you will know, Renfrew county, like Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry, Hastings, Lanark, to name but five or six of the eastern counties, is very rural, and in communities like Wilno and Westmeath, Douglas and Calabogie we have had for decades small rural schools, well established and well regarded for the quality of education they have been providing to generations of students in rural Renfrew county. My question is a simple one on behalf of the parents in communities like Westmeath and Wilno.

Once Bill 160 is passed and the new funding formula is in place, will you, as Minister of Education -- now possessed of major new centralized power and authority -- guarantee to the parents and students in communities like Westmeath, Wilno, Douglas and Calabogie in Renfrew county that their small community rural schools will continue in existence?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): What I will guarantee is that there will be fair funding to each board across the province. We know that in the past on too many occasions, particularly small boards, and I suspect in eastern Ontario and perhaps in other rural parts of Ontario, have not always had access to the same amount of funding as boards in some urban areas, for example.

What I promise to the member opposite is that that day is over, that each board will have access to fair and equitable funding, that the funding will be focused on the classroom and that the funding will be focused on enhancing the quality of education in the boards and the schools the member is talking about and indeed right across the province.

Mr Conway: It's not just a concern in rural Renfrew, I say to the Minister of Education and Training, and it's not just a concern among anglophone parents, but I can assure you that francophone parents in communities like Maxville and Avonmore, in Mattawa, are going to be very interested and concerned about whether their small, rural schools, elementary and secondary, will remain open.

Let me repeat the question, accepting as I do that the honourable member and minister's intentions are good. The question is simple: Will you assure the parents in my riding in communities like Westmeath and Wilno, Douglas and Calabogie, to name but four rural communities in Renfrew county, that once this bill is passed and the regulations in place giving you very significant new powers, decades-old rural schools will continue to be open and offering quality education to those rural communities?

Hon David Johnson: Again, I will do what I can do and that is to assure those boards right across the province that the new funding formula will recognize the number of students, will recognize special considerations such as geography, special education grants, learning opportunity grants, pupil accommodation grants, that the grant system, the new funding formula, will recognize the special needs of the various boards right across Ontario. The province of Ontario will provide that money on a fair and equitable basis.

The decision in terms of schools remains at the local level with the school boards but we will provide them, through the province of Ontario, with a fair and equitable funding to give the best possible education to the students right across the province.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. We know that the deputy minister must cut $667 million out of elementary and secondary classrooms next year. We know that you put in the preparation time changes to take another 4,000 teachers out of the classroom. We also know that this is going to have a devastating impact on extracurricular activities in our schools.

OFSAA, the Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations, has said the following:

"Physical education teachers within the school system have picked up the additional responsibilities, which means that, for many, their existing, limited, non-classroom instructional time is often used in the planning of school programs and covering classes for other teachers who are working with school teams."

In other words, physical education teachers spend a lot of their so-called prep time working on extracurricular activities. Minister, when you take away that prep time, what's going to happen to those extracurricular activities that are so important for our students?

Hon David Johnson: First of all, the premise of the question is completely wrong, as the member opposite knows. What will be invested in education will be determined on an annual basis through the funding formula, and there is no magic figure which will be reduced from the education system in the province of Ontario. Certainly every ministry will be looking, on behalf of the taxpayers, to run an efficient ministry to get best value.

What each board has will be, in the final analysis, a fair and equitable funding formula recognizing the needs of the students, recognizing the special needs, recognizing the geography, recognizing the number of pupils, and those boards will have the full opportunity to provide the various services that are needed in terms of their particular schools and their particular communities.

Mr Hampton: We already know that you are going to take another $667 million out. The Premier even admitted that. He tried to spin a number of excuses over the last three weeks to explain it, but we know the $667 million is going to come out. We also know that at least 4,000 teachers at the secondary level are going to be gone.

Now OFSAA is telling us that, as a result of the cutbacks you've already imposed over the last two years, participation in after-school extracurricular activities is already starting to drop. For the first time, in 1995-96 there were 2% fewer girls participating in interschool athletics and 3% fewer boys. The reality is, when you take more prep time out of the system, when you take more money out of the system, when you take more teachers out of the system, extracurricular activities like athletics, band, music, drama are going to be the areas that suffer.

Minister, are these things unimportant, or do you have a plan to ensure that these important parts of our school system continue to operate for our students?

Hon David Johnson: It's interesting the number of things that the leader of the third party knows which are not in fact real. For example, in the elementary and secondary school system there has never been more money spent in the system as a whole than there has been and is in 1997: $14.4 billion revenue from all sources in all aspects of elementary and secondary. Never in the history of the province of Ontario has as much money been spent.

In terms of preparation time, we are simply asking the teachers in the province to spend the same amount of time in the classroom as teachers do in other jurisdictions. Is that unfair? In fact, our elementary teachers already spend the same amount of time in the classroom; there's no change at all at the elementary level. At the secondary level we're asking them, yes, as their colleagues in Alberta and other provinces, to spend the same amount of time in the classroom. I believe they can do that. I believe they can provide all of those services that our children need with the time they spend in the classroom and with the fair funding formula which will be coming down soon.

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is to my friend the Minister of Agriculture. I had the honour of attending the launch of Bill 146,

An Act to protect Farming and Food Production, last June at the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member for Wellington has the right to ask the question. Member for Hamilton East, I don't want to argue with you about it. Member for Wellington.

Mr Arnott: Bill 146 is currently before the House. Last week 25 members of our caucus met with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to discuss Bill 146 and many MPPs have been attending the OFA's annual convention this week. I'm sure that all members of the House would be interested to know that the OFA is extremely supportive of this legislation. Will the minister explain why Bill 146 is so important to our agrifood sector?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Wellington, because indeed back in June we did go to his county to make the announcement of

An Act to protect Farming and Food Production. The government is delivering on its promise to support agriculture, to make sure that normal farm practices are indeed protected. The old legislation, 10 years old, was not doing that job. We have promised the agricultural producers of this province that they indeed would have protection against nuisance lawsuits.

We toured the province prior to this bill being drafted to make sure we got it right, and I would certainly hope that the opposition and the members of the third party will understand and will indeed be supportive of this legislation.

Mr Arnott: My constituents will be very reassured by that answer. But I'm disturbed that misinformation is still being spread --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm having difficulty hearing the member for Wellington.

Mr Arnott: Misinformation is still being spread in some circles that Bill 146 might be harmful to the environment.

Interjection: That's not the only thing that's being spread.

The Speaker: It's hard to maintain order when you open your comments like that. Member for Wellington.

Mr Arnott: I didn't realize this was so provocative, Mr Speaker.

Can the minister assure the House that Bill 146 does not give farmers the right to pollute?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: It's a pretty serious subject and I'm rather disappointed that the opposition is taking it so lightly.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I won't warn the member for Wentworth East again. Would you come to order.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Maybe we should have in this bill some protection against the verbal effluent coming from over there.

I'm pleased to inform my colleagues in the Legislature that the work of Ontario farmers was recognized on Tuesday of this week as the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition was awarded the province's top honour, the Ontario Pollution Prevention Leadership Award, at the 1997 Environment and Energy Conference of Ontario. That is something to be proud of.

Bill 146 has absolutely nothing to do with weakening environmental requirements, health and safety requirements. It's simply to protect the normal farm practices that are done throughout this province.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday, in response to a question from my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich, you indicated that you had changed the role of parent councils to be non-advisory in response to the advice of your appointed Education Improvement Commission. I know the commission has given you some bad advice in the past, like recommending that we have unqualified teachers heading up some of our classrooms, but to the best of my knowledge, they have never given any public advice on the role of school councils.

I assume this was private advice, and I do not understand why you would respond to the advice of your handpicked commissioners when they go against the views expressed by every parent council representative in this province.

Why would you listen to Dave Cooke's private advice and go against the views of the parent councils themselves?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, this is not an accurate depiction at all of what I said or what is reality. What I said and what is the reality is that just the word "advisory" had been deleted from the bill. The EIC felt, in terms of their study, report, investigation of this whole matter, that it would allow more latitude in terms of their discussions.

The councils remain advisory. They remain under the jurisdiction of the policy memorandum, which clearly outlines that they are advisory. There is no question about that whatsoever. The EIC will be studying this matter over the next few months and will be reporting back to me. At that point in time, the ministry, the government, will have a look at the role of the councils to determine precisely what they should be, but they're clearly advisory today. There's no question about that whatsoever.

Mrs McLeod: Oh, come, come, Minister. We went through two weeks of public hearings on this bill and we went through two weeks of public hearings on Bill 104. Parent councils were absolutely clear: They want to remain advisory. Taking the word "advisory" out of your Bill 160 by amendment was clearly significant, and parent councils know that. They also know you have directed the EIC to give you advice on the role of parent councils, and you have now acknowledged that you responded to the private advice of David Cooke and Ann Vanstone. You took the word "advisory" out.

If you needed more scope, it's because you're planning to do something very significant with the role of parent councils. If they weren't going to be solely advisory, you would have left the word in the bill.

We have parent councils resigning. Another parent council in Brockville resigned last night. My parent councils were prepared to resign en masse. I foolishly told them to make their concerns known to the Education Improvement Commission, not knowing they were already advising you privately to go against their views. What other advice are David Cooke and Ann Vanstone giving you? What role are you going to put on to the parent councils of this province?

Hon David Johnson: In fairness, and I'm sure the member opposite knows this, it wasn't only the EIC who suggested that this word be dropped, but the Ontario Parent Council and --

Mrs McLeod: It was your appointed parent council.

Hon David Johnson: I guess the problem is that for every example I raise of somebody who suggested that the EIC, in terms of their scope, has the ability to look at that, there is some sort of devilish plot; every group that is not in agreement with the member opposite is up to no good and is to be discounted. The problem is that's not the case. The Ontario Parent Council is a reputable group; they also supported it.

We'll have to see when the study is complete. I think the member opposite should allow the study through the EIC to take place, to make their recommendations. The government will have a look at it and then we'll determine what the longer-term role is for the councils.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Okay, stop the clock.

Member for Fort York.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to my good friend the Minister of Education. I know that you know we spend $13.8 billion on education; I know that. But I'm not sure you're aware of this: In addition to the recognized expenditure of $11.7 billion, there's approximately $2.1 billion in unrecognized expenditures that is funded by boards from the local tax base. That includes things like junior kindergarten, French immersion, French extended, after-4 programs, tutoring for students at risk, paraprofessionals in parts of the system all over Ontario.

They have a concern about what's going to happen to this money. I heard you repeat the word "fair" about eight times in the last few questions you've answered. Being a fair man, I'm assuming you are going to make sure that the $2 billion that is spent by the local boards at the moment is going to go back to them. Is that the case?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, the number in terms of the spending for this calendar year in the education system from all sources is $14.4 billion. That includes all the payments from the province of Ontario, that includes the payments from local school boards, and it includes some small amount of revenue from other sources.

The funding formula, as I've indicated and you've indicated, will be fair. There's some concern that certain boards have the ability to generate additional revenues; other boards are poor. The students in other boards do not have the opportunity, because they come from a poorer area. Knowing the member opposite, he would want every child in Ontario to have the same opportunity. He would not think it would be fair that because a child came from a certain part of Ontario where money was not available, that child would lose out. That is what we're trying to accomplish, that every child should have the same opportunity across the province.

Mr Marchese: I'm a bit concerned about what this minister and this government are going to do. I know the reason they are centralizing education dollars is to be able to cut them, under the guise of fairness. I tell you, the legislative grant is one way of harmonizing downward so that everybody will be equal, but they will be equal at the bottom end, for one; they will all be equally poor.

The second point I made had to do with this $2 billion that is funded by local boards at the moment. The question I was asking you was, is that money going back, or are you chopping that money to do something else with it? I submit to you that you will be cutting more than $670 million. This is the one big area, the $2 billion, where you're going to find a hell of a lot more money to chop. That's what I submit to you. Deny it if you can, or at least assure the boards that spend money in useful programs like JK, like French immersion, like paraprofessionals that the money's going back to them.

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite says he's of the opinion that the quality will come down to the lowest common denominator. The reality is today, as the EQAO has reported just two or three weeks ago, after it tested grade 3 students and grade 6 students, there is concern in the province of Ontario that our students are not having the opportunity to come up to the expected level they should. In tests across Canada -- in the science test last year, for example -- our students did not do well. In terms of the international tests, our students did not fare well.

The answer is that we're going to ensure that the money is in the system --

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Read Ireland's study.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Sudbury, come to order, please.

Hon David Johnson: The answer is that there is no magic number to cut. There is a commitment to ensure that the funding is there, through the fair funding formula, through the budget struck each and every year, to ensure a high quality so our students can reach the expected level in Ontario and compete on a national and international basis.

CHILD PROTECTION

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last June you announced in this House an intention to review child protection services in Ontario. I wonder if you could tell us how that review is going and what the status of it is.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I would be very pleased to provide an update on the steps we announced earlier this year in terms of how to improve the child welfare system in Ontario.

First of all, the design work for the new computer database, which is the system that will help prevent children from falling through the cracks, will be completed, the design will be done, by the end of January, which is an extremely fast time frame for the production of these things, as I understand it.

Secondly, we have already begun the training that front-line workers have asked for, and that was recommended by the task force, so that they will have the support they need. That's already begun.

I announced recently the new review panel of experts who are looking at whether we need to change the legislation, how that should be done.

The review that is going on of individual child welfare agencies, a case-by-case review, will be completed by the end of this year. I'd like to congratulate the individuals who have been part of that process because they've been working very hard to try and get that data and that information we need to make further changes.

Finally, the review of the ministry will be completed by early next year, with its look at whether the ministry's procedures are appropriate.

Mrs Ross: I'm aware of the panel that's being set up and I'm really pleased to see that Dr Harriet MacMillan of McMaster University is on that panel. I'd particularly like to know what exactly is the mandate of that panel and how it will operate. I have several constituents who have asked for a way for them to provide input. Can you advise us how we could do that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I announced the panel to a conference on child abuse at Sick Kids earlier this month and was very pleased at the support that group had for the individuals who are on this panel. Judge Mary Jane Hatton, who is the chair, has a very good track record as a provincial court judge in family law matters. We also have representatives of the Metro Toronto Police youth bureau, a high school principal, a coroner, paediatrician, child psychiatrist, as well as those involved in social work. We've got an excellent group of people.

They are asking: Is it the legislation in terms of how it's worded, or how are we applying the legislation? Is it the law or how the law is applied? What's the problem? They'll be making recommendations on that.

The other thing is that they will be consulting very widely among all the different sectors that help support the child welfare system, from health to education and the justice system. They'll be inviting written comments and submissions and will be meeting with many other individuals and experts who can provide input to us.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, you're fond of quoting people who have supported your bill over the last few days in this House. I want to ask you about a number of prominent Ontarians, people who do not have political ties in this case, who have come out and have trashed your bill and have panned Bill 160.

It's an unprecedented step that a sitting judge in this province would come out and criticize government policy and government legislation.

On Saturday at a conference, Judge Marvin Zuker, a prominent Family Court judge in this province and author of several books, said about your bill, "Bill 160 does not address the lack of classroom supplies, the increase in the number of children with learning disabilities and attention deficit disorders." He went on to say: "It offers no clear mandate to deal effectively with the education of children under the age of six." And he said, "Without these programs, we run the risk of losing control over our children." Is Judge Zuker right? Do you believe what he has to say?

Will you listen to what a prominent Ontario Family Court judge has to say about your legislation?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm delighted to listen to this particular judge, delighted to listen to all parents and people who either support or do not support Bill 160. There's a parent from Unionville who says, "Please be advised that myself, my wife, my two sons, recent graduates of high school, cannot express strongly enough our support of Bill 160." I listen to this parent. I listen to a parent from Cameron, Ontario: "We support Bill 160 and ask that it be passed."

We all know in this House that parents have been asking for change, that the people of Ontario have been asking for change, in the education system.

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

Hon David Johnson: Is any particular government able to address each and every problem at any one point in time? No, that's not possible. But I can tell you that people of Ontario are in basic support of this --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Agostino: If the minister doesn't want to listen to Judge Zuker, maybe the minister will listen to Anne Jones. Anne Jones is one of Hamilton's most prominent citizens, appointed as the first regional chairman by Premier Davis, lifelong card-carrying Conservative, candidate for the Conservative Party in Ontario; Anne Jones also nominated your member from Hamilton West to carry the Conservative banner.

Anne Jones led a protest to the constituency office of the member for Hamilton West a week ago in regard to Bill 160. She said, "This bill has gone too far." She said, "I've never seen a Conservative government like this." She describes the curtailment of debate as "frightening. They can pass the bill in no time." She goes on to say, and this is Anne Jones, not opposition politics, "Bill 160 hurts children in the classroom, and that is something the Conservatives promised not to do."

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Agostino: Let me tell you what Anne Jones says about her nomination of the member for Hamilton West. She calls it a misfortune that she nominated the member for Hamilton West. If you won't listen to the opposition, will you listen to one of your loyal card-carrying Conservatives, Anne Jones, who --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon David Johnson: I have to listen, the government has to listen, and we're more than willing to listen to the comments from Anne Jones, from anybody. Certainly I respect the job Anne Jones has done in the Hamilton region. I also have to listen to the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association, who have indicated that to some degree the problem is that there are myths being perpetrated out there about the bill, that there are certain things the bill does that it doesn't do at all; that the bill would allow the government, at the drop of a hat, to put trustees in jail, close down schools etc, etc. It's not the reality.

I think the people of Ontario are behind the reforms that this government is initiating: the extra instructional time, the cap on the average size of the classrooms across each board. I think if you ask people such as Anne Jones, they'd say: "Yes, it's time for reform. Get on with it."

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have petitions representing somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 signatures from the Espanola-North Shore area.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to take up to an additional $1 billion out of the education system this year and every year; and

"Whereas the Ontario government would remove up to 10,000 teachers from classrooms across the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government will have unbridled regulatory powers over public education; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wishes to remove the right to negotiate student learning conditions; and

"Whereas the Ontario government proposes to undermine shared decision-making among students, parents, educators, trustees and taxpayers;

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160."

I affix my signature.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have petitions here requesting the withdrawal of Bill 160 from residents of Elliot Lake and the North Shore, Newcastle, Peterborough, Etobicoke, Mississauga and many other communities across Ontario. I submit them. I support the petitions, and I'm signing them as well.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to present a petition to the House this afternoon. This petition has been presented to me by a Ms Cynthia Howe, who I know is on the school community council in Bowmanville at St Joseph's school. I'm not certain if this petition is formatted correctly, but none the less, for the purpose of ensuring that the people of Ontario know that I am speaking for my residents, I will read it.

"To Mr O'Toole, our MPP and representative of the opinions of your constituents, we urge you to vote against Bill 160."

I assure you I'll continue to meet and dialogue with these constituents to help them to understand Bill 160.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's from people in North Bay, Colleen Parker; it's from people in Sudbury, Elliot Lake etc. It says:

"Whereas education is our future; and

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

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

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

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

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

"Therefore,

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

"Further,

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

I sign this 8,000-signature petition.

ADULT EDUCATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have hundreds of names of students who go to Jones Avenue adult school in my riding. Some are letters and some are petitions. It reads:

"To the Speaker of the House:

"We, the undersigned, implore you to keep Jones Avenue Adult New Canadian School and other adult schools open during the day. Please restore full funding for students who are 21 years of age and older. Thank you for your time and consideration."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une pétition à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario et elle nous provient des villages de St Isidore, Casselman, Bourget, Hammond, Rockland, Embrun et un peu des environs :

«Attendu que le gouvernement de l'Ontario est demeuré indifférent aux protestations du public sur le projet de loi 160 ; et

«Attendu que le gouvernement de l'Ontario a choisi de duper la population ontarienne en camouflant les objectifs réels du projet de loi 160 ; et

«Attendu que nous, les citoyens et les citoyennes de l'Ontario, croyons qu'aucun gouvernement n'a le droit d'agir contrairement aux désirs de l'électorat de cette province ; et

«Attendu que nous avons perdu confiance en ce gouvernement ;

«Nous, les soussignés électrices et électeurs de l'Ontario, demandons par cette pétition à la lieutenante-gouverneure de dissoudre la présente Législature et de déclencher une élection générale immédiatement.»

J'y ajoute ma signature.

EDUCATION REFORM

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to take up to an additional billion out of the education system this year and every year; and

"Whereas the Ontario government will remove up to 10,000 teachers from classrooms across the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government will have unbridled regulatory powers over public education; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wishes to remove the right to negotiate student learning conditions; and

"Whereas the Ontario government proposes to undermine shared decision-making among students, parents, educators, trustees and taxpayers;

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160."

This is signed by 276 residents of the riding of Parry Sound. I am very pleased to present this petition on their behalf and I agree with them.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas black bear populations in Ontario are healthy with between 75,000 and 100,000 animals and their numbers are stable or increasing in many areas of the province; and

"Whereas black bear hunting is enjoyed by over 20,000 hunters annually in Ontario and black bears are a well-managed renewable resource; and

"Whereas hunting regulations are based on sustained yield principles and all forms of hunting are needed to optimize the socioeconomic benefits associated with hunting; and

"Whereas the value of the spring bear hunt to tourist operators in northern Ontario is $30 million annually, generating about 500 person-years of employment; and

"Whereas animal rights activists have launched a campaign of misinformation and emotional rhetoric to ban bear hunting and to end our hunting heritage in Ontario, ignoring the enormous impact this would have on the people of Ontario;

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

"That the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all current forms of black bear hunting."

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here to rescind Bill 160's proposed amendments with regard to principals and vice-principals.

"Whereas Bill 160 originally maintained principals and vice-principals would remain as members of the teachers' federations; and

"Whereas the proposed amendments were introduced after the hearings had been completed; and

"Whereas the proposed amendments will seriously destabilize the education system, causing unnecessary stress on our established school teams;

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to withdraw those sections of Bill 160 which impact the current status of principals and vice-principals as members of the teachers' federations."

I have affixed my signature thereto.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have been handed a petition by Gayleen Garvin, who is a hardworking teacher at Frontenac Secondary School in Kingston, and it's addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. It's a very short petition but it's very powerful just the same. It states:

"We, the undersigned concerned parents, teachers and/or citizens of the province of Ontario, wish to inform you that in the best interests of education in Ontario, Bill 160, as presently drafted, must not be passed. We hereby request that you not sign the bill, dissolve Parliament and call a general election."

I have signed it and since it is such a short petition, Mr Speaker, I wonder if you will allow me the opportunity to read a similar petition?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I will not. Further petitions. The Chair recognizes the member for Sault Ste Marie.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The issue of the Red Cross and homemakers is still out there because the government hasn't acted, so I have a petition with some hundreds of names of people in Sault Ste Marie and Algoma continuing to be concerned about this issue.

"Whereas the current pay equity legislation affects Red Cross differently than any other provider of homemaker services in Ontario and makes it impossible for the Canadian Red Cross Society to compete on a level playing field; and

"Whereas without a resolution, the Canadian Red Cross Society will be forced to increase wages and benefits, already the highest in the industry, by approximately 45% January 1998. The program cannot afford this increase;

"Whereas Red Cross provides 80% of the service in rural communities, and in 29 communities Red Cross is the only service provider; and

"Whereas clients in many communities will be left to cope on their own and some 6,000 homemakers and 400 office staff, most of them women, will lose their jobs;

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

"We are concerned about the Red Cross pay equity issue. We are asking the three party leaders to put people before politics and come together in an non-partisan effort to resolve the homemakers' services pay equity problem."

Certainly our party is wanting to contribute to that discussion.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I have several petitions that were presented to me at a meeting I held at the Virgil public school regarding Bill 160. Although this is not in a format that's acceptable to the Legislature, I promised them that I would present it. The petition deals with wanting to defer Bill 160 and split it, the amalgamation of schools, and to explore and debate more the contentious items.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a further petition from residents of my constituency addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas education is our future; and

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

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

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

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

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

"Whereas Ontario Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty has pledged to repeal Bill 160;

"Therefore,

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

"Further,

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

I concur and I will affix my signature to it.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition from several members of the Beaver Lake Hunt Club in Windsor. It says:

"Whereas black bear populations in Ontario are healthy with between 75,000 and 100,000 animals and their numbers are stable or increasing in many areas of the province; and

"Whereas black bear hunting is enjoyed by over 20,000 hunters annually in Ontario and black bears are a well-managed renewable resource; and

"Whereas hunting regulations are based on sustained yield principles and all forms of hunting are needed to optimize the socioeconomic benefits associated with hunting; and

"Whereas the value of the spring bear hunt to tourist operators in northern Ontario is $30 million annually, generating about 500 person-years of employment; and

"Whereas animal rights activists have launched a campaign of misinformation and emotional rhetoric to ban bear hunting and to end our hunting heritage in Ontario, ignoring the enormous impact this would have on the people of Ontario;

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

"That the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all current forms of black bear hunting."

HOSTPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): I have a petition here from hundreds of people in my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, strongly feel that there should be no further cutbacks to the health care system in Brantford and Brant county. St Joseph's Hospital should remain, contininuing to give the services and care it is known for. Combining this facility with the already overcrowded Brantford General Hospital would lower the standard of health care in this region. This is unacceptable."

I affix my signature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The time for petitions has expired. Orders of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PETITIONS

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

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Mr Speaker, I have a point of order to raise with you with respect to something that just happened in this House. As you know, we all live and abide by the rules, the standing orders that have been passed as far as the procedure at the Legislative Assembly is concerned. We just heard a member about five minutes ago state that he knew that a subject he was about to raise during the time set aside for petitions was not a petition.

I know we sometimes have difficulty in knowing whether or not a petition is in proper form, but if a member actually gets up and knows that what he's reading is not a petition, I would like your ruling on whether during that period of time that is set aside for petitions in effect he can raise that particular matter. I would like your ruling on that, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I'd like to address that point of order, and it is a point of order. I listened carefully to the member who was presenting it. I felt that the petition had been given to him in good faith and he showed good faith in presenting it here, even though it didn't meet the technical criteria. That would be determined at the table in most cases. But if I have to check each petition before it is presented, I'm sure you wouldn't want that either, so I did give him some latitude that I might not do another time.

Mr Gerretsen: If I could just address that ruling --

The Acting Speaker: No, I'm sorry, you can't. We're into orders of the day.

Mr Gerretsen: Your ruling was excellent until you got to the last point.

The Acting Speaker: I consider that the matter has been dealt with. You had a point of order. I recognized it, I dealt with it, and now I'd like to get on with the other business of the House.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE

Mrs Ecker moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 142,

An Act to revise the law related to Social Assistance by enacting the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, by repealing the Family Benefits Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act and by amending several other Statutes / Projet de loi 142, Loi révisant la loi relative à l'aide sociale en édictant la

Loi sur le programme Ontario au travail et la

Loi sur le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées, en abrogeant la

Loi sur les prestations familiales, la

Loi sur les services de réadaptation professionnelle et la

Loi sur l'aide sociale générale et en modifiant plusieurs autres lois.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to ask for unanimous consent from the three parties to split the time among the three parties between now and 6.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member for Algoma has requested unanimous consent to split the time equally. Agreed? It is agreed.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm pleased to make the closing comments on third reading of Bill 142, the Social Assistance Reform Act. This bill creates two new legislative frameworks, the Ontario Disability Support Act and the Ontario Works Act, and by doing this it meets two key commitments that we made in the Common Sense Revolution. First, we decided to put in place a new income support program for people with disabilities that would be separate from the welfare system. Second, we concluded that it was necessary to bring fundamental reform to Ontario's welfare system.

The bill has undergone vigorous debate and extensive consultation. We have also made a number of important amendments based on the advice we received during the public hearings. As a result, I believe we now have the legislative foundation for a new approach to social assistance in Ontario that fulfils the government's objectives. I will be outlining some of them and we will be splitting the time among four speakers to go through the points in the legislation.

The government's objectives that we have in this legislation are, first, to meet the unique needs of people with disabilities through improved income and employment supports; second, to make self-sufficiency the overriding goal of social assistance by helping people on welfare to get back to work; third, to fight welfare fraud which stigmatizes recipients who are struggling to get off welfare and also destroys the credibility of the system among taxpayers.

In developing this legislation, we have been guided by three key principles: fairness, accountability and effectiveness.

To put it simply and directly, the social programs must be fair to both those who need them and to the taxpayers who pay for them. A key element of this fairness is the prevention of welfare fraud and abuse to ensure that benefits are received only by those who are in need.

Accountability requires the reciprocal exercise of responsibilities. Welfare recipients are accountable for taking advantage of opportunities to become self-sufficient and self-reliant. Equally, government is accountable to taxpayers and to those who need help to provide programs that will achieve that goal. Government also carries the responsibility for establishing the conditions for investment, growth and job creation in a healthy economy which will also help to make this happen.

Effectiveness quite simply means programs that work, programs that will do what they're intended to do, programs that will create real results. For people with disabilities, this means there will be real supports both for their independence and for employment. For people on welfare, it means practical help in finding the shortest route to a paid job.

With the passage of Bill 142, these principles as I've described them, will now form the foundation of Ontario's key social programs.

First, this legislation, as I mentioned, creates the Ontario disability support plan. It's a new and separate program to meet the needs of people with disabilities. The program is a direct result of the consultations this government undertook over the last year prior to drafting the legislation.

People with disabilities and their organizations had asked that their needs be met through a new program that was separate from the welfare system. They asked for recognition of their special challenges through a program that would have more personal control, more choice and more flexibility. They proposed that we end the current outdated approach to assessing disability and they told us they wanted clear eligibility criteria that would be sensitive to how a disability restricts their activities at home, in the community or in the workplace.

The program will meet all of these requirements and more. It will establish clear and understandable eligibility provisions that will have the flexibility to accommodate unique and changing circumstances and it will focus on an individual's abilities, not simply their disabilities.

The program recognizes that many people with disabilities may require income support for all of their lives and so we have made the rules more generous governing assets and things of that kind to recognize that very real reality for them. The program also recognizes that many people with disabilities are quite capable of deciding what they need without counselling so we are removing the requirements that demand mandatory counselling for them. For those whose conditions are not likely to change, repeated and unnecessary reassessments will not be required.

For many people with certain mental illnesses or terminal conditions such as AIDS or cancer, their disability may vary from time to time. They be fine at one time and not at another. The new program will recognize that cyclical nature of their particular condition so that these individuals can continue to get the financial support that they need.

Perhaps more important, the new program recognizes that people with disabilities want to work and they can work, so the program needs to provide and will provide them with a wide range of practical employment supports that will help them achieve those goals.

Sometimes a person with disabilities will find employment, but the job may not work out, especially if they are trying to re-establish themselves in the workforce. When that occurs in future, benefits will be rapidly reinstated as a result of this legislation. The current requirement that says they have to reapply and wait will end, and this will mark a significant improvement for those individuals attempting to enter the workforce again or for the first time.

The Ontario disability support program therefore is recognizing the unique needs of people with disabilities so it can support both independence and employment. It's based on choice and flexibility, and it will translate the principles of fairness, accountability and effectiveness into reality for people in Ontario with disabilities.

The other piece of the legislation deals with welfare reform. Both Ontarians and governments before us have long known that the welfare system wasn't working, and we have met that challenge head on. We started by reducing rates to a level that is 12% above the average of the other nine provinces. We tightened eligiblity rules. We set up a fraud hotline that, for a mere investment of $170,000, has saved Ontario taxpayers almost $15 million. Now, through this legislation, our Ontario Works program, our mandatory work-for-welfare program, we will be proposing through this, fundamental changes to the overall system.

At the heart of our reforms is a very simple and compelling reality: that people are better off working than on welfare. When you start with that premise, the pieces and the elements of the reform of a more effective system fall into place. Instead of just handing out cheques, the focus is to get people back to work. Instead of trapping people in dependency, the objective is to encourage self-sufficiency. Ontario Works achieves these objectives by linking employment services to basic financial assistance and by making participation in these services mandatory. The purpose, quite simply, is to create the shortest route to a paying job.

The key to the program is the requirement that people on welfare actively participate in the supports that will speed their progress to employment. These include employment supports such as job search, referral to basic education, specific skills training; it includes employment placement and community participation.

Community participation has certainly generated some controversy. I would like to share the story of one particular woman we met in southwestern Ontario. She took the initiative to find her own community placement. When she went to the agency and said, "I'd like to come as part of Ontario Works," they said: "No, no, we can't deal with you. That's too politically controversial.

So you pretend that you're not on Ontario Works and you can volunteer, you can participate here." She said, "Will you pay for my transportation costs?" and the agency said, "No, we couldn't possibly do that." She said, "Well, under Ontario Works I can get those costs paid for and I can take advantage of that opportunity." That's the kind of attitude we have to change so they know that they are having opportunities and can provide opportunities for people on welfare who want to get into paid jobs.

The evidence to date shows that our reforms are working. Over 75,000 people have already participated in one or more of the mandatory components in the program; 55 communities, all our major communities in this province, are now delivering Ontario Works. Since we were elected in June 1995, almost 244,000 people have stopped relying on social assistance, an unprecedented decline of over 18%.

A key objective of our legislation will be to strengthen our government's ability to fight fraud, so the bill provides for the use of biometric information that improves the system's ability to verify identity, so that basically we know that you are who you say you are.

I want to stress again that the finger-scanning technology is not fingerprinting; there's a big difference. The main purpose of finger scanning is to create a unique identification number that is reproduced only when the same individual is scanned again.

The information that we gain through this technology, as well as the privacy of welfare recipients, will be protected by this statute. We've worked closely with the privacy commissioner to ensure that.

Finally, members will be aware that an important feature of this legislation is consolidating the delivery of Ontario Works, because currently both the province and the municipalities deliver welfare programs. This is complex, it's wasteful, this division between short-term and long-term assistance is cumbersome, and it's far past time it was changed. Unifying delivery at the municipal level will bring programs and services closer to the people they are intended to serve, as well as making the system much more cost-effective.

I'd like to comment very briefly on the amendments we introduced during the legislative process as a direct result of the advice we received during the public hearings.

First, we've clarified the wording of the definition of "people with disabilities," because concerns were raised that the new eligibility criteria might require proof of substantial restriction in all areas of daily life -- at home, in the community and in the workplace. What this amendment does is clarify our intent that eligibility for support requires substantial restriction in only one area of daily living. In other words, people will be eligible for support if they are limited in their activities at home or in the community or in the workplace.

The second amendment specifies that liens will not be placed on the principal residences of people with disabilities. This was certainly never the intent behind the legislation, but we wanted to make it very explicit.

Third, we've clarified the eligibility criteria for those who only have alcohol and drug dependencies. To be clear, while they will not be eligible for the disability support program, they will continue to qualify for social assistance.

The fourth amendment provides people over 18 who are receiving welfare with the right to appeal the appointment of a trustee to manage their allowance.

Fifth, we've clarified the legislation to provide that social assistance is not a loan against future earnings.

Sixth, we made a number of amendments respecting the use of biometric information, again to ensure the privacy protection of clients and to make sure that the information could only be used appropriately.

The government believes the time for talking about reforming the system in Ontario is long past. It's time for action, and it's the kind of action that's represented in this legislation. The changes that will result from this bill are fundamental and far-reaching, but so are the benefits.

The Ontario disability support program will create a new standard for creativity and sensitivity and recognizing the unique needs of people with disabilities. Ontario Works will offer a real alternative to the passive welfare programs of the past that gave people a cheque and little else. It will provide welfare recipients with the tools to end the dependency that too often traps them and their families. Together, the disability support program and Ontario Works are going to restore the faith of taxpayers and recipients alike that Ontario's vital social programs are fair, accountable and effective, and that they work in the interests of all Ontarians.

The reforms we are making to both of these programs are based on three important points. The first is that there's no humanity in warehousing people in the name of social assistance on a program that's not working. Second, there's no compassion in fostering dependence instead of building self-respect and self-reliance, and giving them the tools they need to get on with their lives. Finally, there's no fairness in wasting human potential by not acting to fix a system we know is not working.

These are the objectives that will be met by this legislation. For this reason, I ask for your support and the approval of the members in this chamber of Bill 142 at third reading.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I'm pleased for the opportunity today to rise in support of Bill 142 at third reading. As members are aware, this bill provides the legislative authority for two new programs: The Ontario disability support plan and Ontario Works. I'll be addressing the first of these, the ODSP.

For many years in our province, in fact since 1960, people with disabilities have been served by two programs: the Family Benefits Act and the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons act. In their day, these two programs did their best to support people with disabilities. Times change and needs change. Often when you look at programs that have been around for a long time, you find out they just haven't kept up. Ontario currently provides the highest level of disability support among the provinces, and we can sure be proud of that, but these programs are simply not sensitive to today's needs.

When we were putting together the details of the Common Sense Revolution, we talked to many individuals and groups throughout the province. When we consulted with persons with disabilities, the message came through loud and clear: They told us they needed their own program. They told us it was not good enough to be part of a category of welfare, particularly when it labelled some of them as permanently unemployable. They reminded us that they had unique, complex and changing needs, and that these needs could only be met through a distinctive program that was sensitive to them.

That's how the CSR commitment for a separate program for people with disabilities came about. That's why I'm so pleased to be speaking today on third reading of this legislation. The passage of Bill 142 will mean another promise kept. The Ontario disability support plan will bring real and positive improvements to the lives of thousands of Ontario residents.

ODSP has three related objectives: to provide clear and understandable eligibility criteria for income support; to ensure greater opportunities for independence; and to deliver practical supports for employment that produce real and measurable results.

Meeting these objectives caused us to focus first on the nature of disability in Ontario today. I'd like to speak briefly about what we learned during our consultations with persons with disabilities while we were preparing for this legislation.

The key message was about the diversity of their needs. Disabilities come in many different forms. They have different impacts. Some disabilities are stable and lifelong, some are progressive, while others are intermittent. Some disabilities create permanent restrictions in daily living, while in some cases the impairment may fluctuate. Some disabilities make employment impossible, but we also know that many people with disabilities can be entirely self-sufficient with the right supports.

Given this diversity of needs, people with disabilities told us simply and directly that we had to start with completely new disability criteria, so that is what we've done. The new eligibility criteria focus on substantial mental or physical impairments that are continuous or recurrent and are expected to last a year or more. The new criteria also recognize that the disability may substantially restrict the activities of daily living in one or more of three areas: personal care, functioning in the community or functioning in the workplace.

During the hearings on Bill 142 some people were concerned that eligibility might require substantial restrictions in all three areas. That was never our intent and, as the minister stated, an amendment has made that clear.

Another key feature of the new program involves the question of how disabilities are assessed. In the current program, some people with disabilities face periodic reassessment even though their condition is obviously stable and permanent. That practice is both wasteful and demeaning and it will end under this new legislation. Only those people whose conditions can be reasonably expected to improve will be subject to reassessment.

Addressing the objective of support for independence forced us to address the question of flexibility. Again the new approach in this legislation is a direct result of this government's consultation with the disabled community.

At present, families are actually discouraged from contributing to the wellbeing and comfort of their adult children with disabilities. This doesn't make any sense. In future, there will be much more reasonable and generous rules governing assets and financial contributions made by the families of people with disabilities.

Allowable cashable assets will be increased. The current limit on retaining compensation awards for injuries or for pain and suffering resulting from crime or abuse will also increase. The program will permit loans against life insurance policies to assist with the cost of such serious illnesses as AIDS and cancer.

The rules on inheritances and trusts will also be relaxed to enable families to contribute to a more secure and comfortable future for their adult children.

There is also an important change concerning the 25% copayment for ODSP clients using the Ministry of Health's assistive devices program. Many groups in the hearings -- the CNIB, the Independent Living Centre of London and area, and the Niagara Mental Health Survivors Network, to name just a few -- called for the copayment and the assistive devices program to be abolished. Again we have listened and we have acted.

The third objective of the new program is to support employment. I would like to take a few minutes to describe how this is achieved. The first step was to give the new program a clear focus on abilities rather than disabilities. This meant recognizing that many people with disabilities can work, want to work and in fact do work. The challenges they face, however, often require a wider and more flexible range of supports than the current program provides.

Therefore, the second step was to decide that ODSP supports to employment needed to be a separate and distinct program and it would need to focus solely on the needs of persons with disabilities who want to prepare for employment, find work and keep a job.

ODSP will therefore deliver a broad variety of employment supports including employment planning assistance and skills development; technological aids and devices to modify the workplace or enhance the skills of the employee; initial and ongoing job supports to assist the employer, the new employee and fellow workers. These supports will provide people with disabilities much more control over the help they need to overcome barriers to seeking, obtaining and keeping employment.

The decision to replace the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act is another example of how we have valued the judgement of people with disabilities. We agreed with them that this program was outdated, that its weaknesses were so widespread and entrenched that it had to be replaced.

Concerns were expressed during the public hearings that this change would hurt students with disabilities. Actually, I am pleased to confirm that the opposite is true. Money currently spent by MCSS on post-secondary education of people with disabilities is being fully transferred to the Ministry of Education and Training to cover the cost of disability related post-secondary expenditures. In addition, the money now in training allowances will be reinvested in employment supports. As a result, spending on employment supports will almost double from roughly $18 million today to almost $35 million when the program is completely in place.

The members of this government are very proud of this legislation. The reason is that while it is easy to criticize and find fault, particularly when we are dealing with a program that has been in place for more than 30 years, it is a far greater challenge to move beyond what is to create a new vision of what might be. That is what the Ontario disability support program aims to achieve. It recognizes unique needs. It will support independence and it will deliver enhanced employment opportunities. It rebalances the shared responsibilities of governments, communities, families and individuals.

The new definition of disability contained in this legislation is the key to fairer assistance and support for persons with disabilities.

When I spoke at the start of second reading on this bill in August, I talked about the yardsticks we have attempted to apply to public policies and programs in implementing the Common Sense Revolution. These yardsticks can be reduced to a few simple question: Is the program fair to the people it is designed to serve? Is it fair to the taxpayers? Is there accountability? Are there consistent standards balanced by flexibility? Will it deliver productive results?

After the many hours of debate on this legislation, after the extensive consultations that both preceded its drafting and accompanied the committee hearings, after the amendments that have responded sensitively to questions and concerns, I believe the answer to all these questions is a resounding yes. I am therefore honoured to support and recommend to all the members of the House the third reading of Bill 142.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for York-Mackenzie.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Another progressive.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the member for St Catharines.

I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on third reading of Bill 142. This legislation establishes a framework, as the minister and my colleague from Chatham-Kent have already indicated, that effectively addresses the reform of social services in this province, a tas