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

March 25, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Mar-25 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 25 March 2009 Mercredi 25 mars 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(KEEPING OUR KIDS SAFE

AT SCHOOL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(SÉCURITÉ DE NOS ENFANTS

À L'ÉCOLE)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

SMALL BUSINESS

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

POVERTY

HEALTH CARE

SCHOOL SAFETY

TAXATION

DEADSTOCK INDUSTRY

TRUCKING SAFETY

SKILLS TRAINING

TAXATION

TENANT PROTECTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

ONTARIO BUDGET

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO BUDGET

DEVELOPMENT IN

TORONTO–DANFORTH

EASTER SEALS MONTH

DEADSTOCK INDUSTRY

EDUCATION

DISASTER RELIEF

YORK UNIVERSITY

GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY

JACK BURKHOLDER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CAREGIVER AND FOREIGN WORKER RECRUITMENT AND PROTECTION

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE RECRUTEMENT

ET LA PROTECTION

DES FOURNISSEURS DE SOINS

ET DES TRAVAILLEURS ÉTRANGERS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MINING INDUSTRY

MINING INDUSTRY

MINING INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

SALES TAX

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PROPERTY TAXATION

DENTAL CARE

SALES TAX

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POVERTY REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA PAUVRETÉ

TOBACCO DAMAGES

AND HEALTH CARE COSTS

RECOVERY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE RECOUVREMENT

DU MONTANT DES DOMMAGES

ET DU COÛT DES SOINS DE SANTÉ

IMPUTABLES AU TABAC

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by the Islamic prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(KEEPING OUR KIDS SAFE

AT SCHOOL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(SÉCURITÉ DE NOS ENFANTS

À L'ÉCOLE)

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 23, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 157,

An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 157, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Paul Miller: I rise today to discuss Bill 157,

An Act to amend the Education Act. As New Democrats said when this bill was introduced, we will be supporting this bill. The issue of safety in our schools is one that my colleagues and I have raised in the Legislature, and as such we will support this bill, but we also have a number of comments of constructive criticism on this very serious issue. We also want to recognize the commitment to this issue by MPP Joyce Savoline in ensuring that the Liberal government could not ignore this issue.

Broader issues impacting violence in schools and youth violence: Our students must be able to attend school without fear. The goal of our schools is to provide a place of learning and growth, an environment that nurtures creativity and critical thinking, to teach skills and knowledge that equip these young people for future possibilities. The practical reality of schools in Ontario is that the Harris era cuts have not been addressed in the past six years.

Teachers and education workers are stretched so thin that it is difficult for them to engage with students in the school environment in the way that is needed and that they desire. Support staff in schools have been slashed. Necessary after-school programs are limited. Ontario's schools are divided into haves and have-nots according to the ability of the parents and school committees to fundraise. In a broader context, we see challenges of poverty, recent job loss, and disenfranchisement of racialized and immigrant communities, just to name a few of the factors.

What does all this have to do with safety in schools and mandatory reporting? Well, as the Falconer report on the roots of youth violence and even the safe schools workgroup tell us to varying degrees, violence in schools, individual incidents, a culture of silence or simply the inability for staff to be present as necessary due to the unrealistic demands on their time are an accumulation of a variety of factors that need to be addressed. I wanted to ensure that we do not lose sight of what is required across the board to address what is at the heart of keeping our kids safe in schools. This safety, we see, is so intrinsically linked to broader social issues and access to services.

Reporting: This bill requires mandatory reporting on many levels by teachers who see activities which may warrant suspension. They must report to a principal. The principal, in turn, must make a judgment call to inform parents of the affected party and to contact those of the perpetrating party. This reporting, and the duties and powers related, extending to other workers who are not necessarily employed by the board but do interact with students raises some questions. Does this include cafeteria workers, social service workers and police officers in schools? Do these individuals have correct training that would allow them to have the confidence necessary to take on this role?

Defining terms of the legislation: Parents have a right to know what is happening to their kids, particularly when there are incidents that require their attention. We know that we can't call parents for every single conflict that a child is involved in. Teachers cannot do that. The system would crawl to a halt if every incident had to be reported and would not be logical. There are serious incidents where calling parents is automatic and necessary. What we will need is a way to judge all the incidents that are between. Those incidents are not easily defined.

Educators need a direction to help determine what needs to be reported and what does not. We will support anything that will assist educators to protect our children and keep our parents informed.

Much will depend on the definition of "reportable incident." Teachers are already required, as the minister said, to report suspected cases of child abuse to the principal, who then has the responsibility to report externally. In situations of violent incidents among students, the practice is for teachers to report to the principal. The legislation clarifies that responsibility.

In the experience of our member from Toronto as a former teacher and as a critic for a long time, teachers do report violent problems when they happen. It is in their interest to do so—to protect themselves, if nothing else, and to protect those young people. So reporting happens. Whether or not there's support at the higher levels is sometimes another question, but even then the principals of course have a lot to do, and they have to use their judgment and time wisely. In some cases, they may fail in their judgment in that regard, but in his experience most teachers have done the job of reporting, but this also codifies it, helps them and lets them do it.

Teachers have been silenced. Moreover, we find that teachers do report incidents from across the spectrum. They take them to their principals, to their higher-ups, and what they find is that their reports are dismissed and they are silenced, and that, above all, no school wants a bad reputation. No school wants to be known as the one with the problems. No school wants to be pinned with a stigma of overwhelming disciplinary problems. For one reason or another, principals are scared to acknowledge some of these incidents. Principals are also under considerable pressure to reduce the number of suspensions, so that government will be perceived as doing something about school violence.

But what we're talking about here is suspendable offences. Are our school administrators ready to deal with that, and how? It would do us all well to have another look at this TDSB report on safety in schools, the Falconer report, and read closely about the culture of silence developing in schools across this province. That is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, obstacles to safety in our schools.

Issues mandatory reporting does not deal with: I do want to say that mandatory reporting doesn't deal with the issues that we should be talking about. Mandatory reporting doesn't deal with issues of mental illness. Mandatory reporting doesn't deal with kids who come to school where in their family there's substance or alcohol abuse. Many of these issues at home bring violence to the school. Some of these students are possibly sexually abused or emotionally abused, and these kids act out violently at school as a result. Mandatory reporting doesn't deal with that.

The Liberals and Tories might say, "That's not what they're supposed to be doing," but we should be talking about what we should be doing to prevent problems before we're in a situation where teachers are forced to report violent or difficult problems. Reporting is good, but it doesn't address the causes of youth violence.

How do we effectively deal with youth violence? Dealing with youth violence requires more than accurate reporting and putting a few police in schools. We would like to see legislation that puts more support staff, social workers, psychologists and other people who deal with mental illness in our school system as a way of reducing tensions that contribute to violence.

The provincial safety and equity officer: Again, going back to the Toronto District School Board, the community safety advisory panel recommended the creation of a provincial safety and equity officer, to be a central repository for the reporting of serious issues of school safety. We have not heard the minister respond to that recommendation by Julian Falconer and the advisory panel. In fact, there is no acknowledgment in the minister's school safety report of the invaluable TDSB report in which this recommendation is included, which is odd—an embarrassing oversight.

We do not know whether the minister or the Liberals will speak to many of the recommendations made by Falconer. They claim they have about 80% of what is in the report still to be addressed.

Here are just a few of the specific recommendations from the Falconer report, which, if acted upon, would have considerable impact on the safety of our students for this bill:

"The TDSB should establish school-based teams made up of social workers, child/youth workers and teachers to help family caregivers navigate and access the mental health services their children and youth require, and these teams should make use of a variety of treatment techniques and work across" different disciplines.

"The TDSB should provide wraparound programming in schools where there is a significant population of students who are in jeopardy of falling outside of the education system....

"The panel finds that selected … schools in marginalized communities should be designated as community hubs. Community hub schools will become the focus of the neighbourhoods that they serve. Local community organizations and groups will be encouraged to become part of the school community, in order to facilitate a closer connection between the school and the students, the parents and the community....

"The TDSB should restore the community outreach worker position. The panel recommends that the community outreach worker gather, coordinate and act as a clearinghouse concerning information about current programs and services provided by the existing community partners and schools.

"In order to facilitate in the building of community hubs, the TDSB should review the level of caretaking staff at each school to determine if there is sufficient staff to maintain the schools such that schools can serve as a welcoming and positive environment for the community....

"The Ministry of Education should increase the benchmark costs for all components of the funding formula (the foundations grant, the special purpose grant and the pupil accommodation grant), so as to close the gap between funding provided and actual costs of operations.

"The panel recommends that the Ministry of Education, in consultation with school boards and other members of the education community, should develop mechanisms for annually reviewing and updating benchmarks in the funding formula and for conducting a more comprehensive overall review of the funding formula every five years.

"The Ministry of Education should increase the funding of the demographic component of the LOG to the level that is stipulated by the 1997 expert panel that studied the creation of the learning opportunities grant—$400 million (adjusted to reflect inflation).

"The Ministry of Education should 'sweater' the demographic component of the learning opportunities grant so that the funds received by the board are used solely for providing programs to mitigate socio-economic factors affecting marginalized students. The new demographic component should include a built-in accountability process mandating that school boards report annually on the programs and services funded by the grant, and on their effectiveness.

"The Ministry of Education should reconstitute the local priorities amount as 5% of the basic amount of school boards' pupil foundation grant (updated as per above-noted recommendation), and that boards apply the local priorities amount to locally established priorities, programs and services aimed at the continuous improvement of student learning and achievement with particular focus paid to at-risk schools....

"The TDSB should hire 20 new full-time social workers.

"The 20 new full-time social workers should be dedicated to high-priority schools determined by the board based on criteria that include dropout rates, high absenteeism, suspension/expulsion data, LOI ranking and the number of safety incident reports.

"The panel recommends that the 20 new full-time social workers dedicated to high-priority schools should not be assigned to more than two schools each.

"The TDSB should hire 20 additional child and youth counsellors.

They "should be dedicated to high-priority schools determined by the board based on criteria that include dropout rates, high absenteeism, suspension/expulsion" etc.

"The panel recommends that the TDSB should hire 24 ... attendance counsellors to meet the needs created by the mandatory learning to 18 provisions of Bill 52."

Additional areas of the bill could address acknowledging old policies that haven't worked and trying new approaches.

As well as the Falconer recommendations, there are many other things that the government could be dealing with. The bill contains statements like this: "If the minister has established policies or guidelines...," and "The minister may establish policies and guidelines...." The ministry must establish policy and guidelines, but has not done so since 1994, clarifying the role of everyone involved in reporting and documenting and when such reporting and documenting is to include reports of the OSR. The legislation is based on the faulty assumption that old directives and policies are fine. What is needed is a comprehensive review of policies and procedures and guidelines.

Regarding reporting, it is a matter of the health and safety of our staff as well as our students. If the old policies and procedures were adequate, we wouldn't have the situation in the schools that we have today. It is the view of many teachers that it is due to the failure to clarify and define roles, and the failure to keep documentation which would allow province-wide tracking of violent incidents, including those deemed to be less serious. This bill seems to have been largely advanced to address a few instances where principals failed to follow existing board policies on the issue, so it really needed at all—that's a little confusing.

The NDP have been saying for years that we need to restore and increase the number of social workers, child and youth care workers and support workers in schools.

Gender-based violence and responses: The gender-based abuses and assaults that occur in our schools are so prevalent that they are almost accepted as normal. The government's response to the criticism of the Safe Schools Act was to simply have school boards suspend fewer students. There are students who will cross the line no matter where you draw it. They must be dealt with to protect the learning environment. While some suspensions are inevitable, many involve special-needs students who are not being offered the programs and support they are entitled to.

Alternative programming: There is a real lack of alternative programming for students who would benefit from education in the trades, service and technical areas. The current approach, which is to lower the dropout rate by lowering expectations, does not give students the skill they require and reduces accountability, which results in lower standards and less discipline in schools.

There is a prosperity gap. Schools are a reflection of the prosperity gap and the tensions and violence that exist in our society. The problems in schools cannot be solved by focusing only on the schools. It is the provincial government, not the boards, who has to accept responsibility for the current situation. The problems contained in the Falconer report and the government's own task force report are a direct result of the indifference and the lack of support by the government.

More adults in schools: We must compensate for the past indifference and lack of provincial support by immediately providing the funding for social workers, child and youth workers, attendance counsellors, community outreach staff, monitors and extra teachers that the NDP, parents and educators, and now the Falconer report, have called for. We need more adults in our schools and we need them now.

Schools need to be able to provide alternative programming to meet the needs of their students. Our schools must be safe; our students must be protected and free of violence, abuse and threats. Students and their parents must be held accountable for unacceptable behaviour, but this is only possible in a system where parents are given the opportunity to provide their children with a sense of hope based on the legitimate expectation of success in the future.

There is a failure of the Safe Schools Act. There must be rules and sanctions, but our response to violence should not be centred on reporting incidents and sanctions, threats and punishments. If the approach worked, the Safe Schools Act would not have been the spectacular failure it was. There must be rules to protect our students, and students who engage in criminal behaviour must be dealt with by the criminal justice system.

However, the imposition of sanctions should be the last resort, not the first knee-jerk response to a situation. Essentially, sanctions are an admission of failure on the part of the system. Before sanctions are imposed, we must be able to offer our students every chance for success. Our schools must be given the tools for success, not failure.

Violence in the schools is a product of the problems in our society. The government must take immediate steps to reduce the prosperity gap in our society. We need to provide real opportunity for currently marginalized groups to succeed. We can't be telling marginalized groups that they need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps when they have no boots. We need a $10 minimum wage now. Social assistance levels must improve to reflect the reality of raising a family. Adequate public housing must be provided. Municipalities must be helped to provide the social and recreational services which they are required.

In conclusion, we hope the minister and the Liberals will speak to all these issues more than just doing mandatory reporting. This is a first tiny step. The students of this province deserve so much more, and the educators deserve so much more. What are we waiting for?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I've just got two minutes, but I think I would like to give a little bit of an introduction to the bill, seeing as we're just starting to debate it today. The safe schools action team, which I chair, was re-engaged by Minister Wynne a year ago. We presented our report to her in December, and I'm very pleased that Minister Wynne is acting on it so quickly.

One of the things that she asked us to do in this report was to look at the gaps in reporting. That is why this legislation that we're bringing forward is quite specific, because we know where there already are requirements around reporting, and we know that much of what is in this bill is already done by school staff routinely. But unfortunately, there have been some rather egregious incidents where what would seem to be common sense hasn't been followed. We know that usually it is, but we need to make sure those exceptions aren't happening.

The two gaps we found in reporting were, number one, that school staff don't always report to the principal when there has been some sort of behaviour. It actually is spelled out clearly in the bill what those incidents are. If there is an incident that the principal must consider for suspension, if there is an incident that the principal must consider for expulsion, then the principal needs to be told. How can they make a decision if nobody tells them? That's the first piece.

The second piece was that we found out sometimes that even though principals were aware of these incidents, they didn't always inform the parents of the victim. Again, the requirement for when you tell the parents of the victim is the same as when you have to report to the principal: The incident is serious enough for the principal to consider either suspension or expulsion. There is an exception here, which is if informing the parent would do further harm to the student; for example, for fear that the student might be punished, thrown out of the home, whatever, by the parent.

I'll talk at some future time about the intervention rules, but that addresses—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I always listen to the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek with interest, and I think his prepared remarks today were well thought through in terms of first supporting and then explaining in some detail the reasons why the bill is more superficial than one would be led to believe. Really, it is an important issue, and I hope to have the chance, in the limited time we're allowed to speak, to address some of the deficiencies of the bill. I have serious misgivings, actually, listening to our critic, Ms.

Savoline, who did what I considered a superlative job in commenting critically on an important bill affecting the protection of our youth in our public school system. Doing the right thing is what people perceive is being done here with Bill 157,

An Act to amend the Education Act, but in fact it doesn't really deliver.

On closer scrutiny—and I think the member from Hamilton East tried to make this point very clear when he was referring to the TDSB Falconer report. He made it very clear that there were some inconsistencies there: the lack of supports for students at risk. That's that the infrastructure to make this program work is needed, and it simply isn't here. In fact, if you look at the work done on this issue of violence in schools, protecting children, and protecting vulnerable children, and bullying, this bill misses the mark. It's tragic that the public are going to be expecting something to be delivered when in fact it's not being delivered.

I would say that the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek's remarks are worth listening to and worth responding to, and I'd expect that he will, in his

summary, let us know if this bill meets the mark or not.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rick Johnson: It's my pleasure to speak in support of Bill 157, the Keeping Our Kids Safe at School bill. Children have a right to attend school in a safe and caring environment, and I absolutely support this. My roles as a school trustee, past chair of the Trillium Lakelands District School Board and president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association have given me a unique perspective into the needs of this bill. I would like to thank the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his comments this morning.

Over my 12 years as a school trustee, I received many calls from parents, from staff in schools, and from my children and their friends, talking about the need to be able to feel safe in school. This bill addresses many of the key issues that happen in schools today, such as bullying, violence, vandalism, sexual assault, drug trafficking, etc., and the need for principals to deal with these issues and contact police if necessary, because children need to feel safe.

Enshrining the ability of principals to delegate school discipline and safety issues to a VP or teacher in their absence is another key part of this bill that will do much to ensure that children have the ability to learn in a safe and caring environment. There are many parts of this bill that will certainly improve the quality of education for children throughout Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments? Member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to thank my colleagues from Durham, Guelph and Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. I'd also like to reiterate the work that the member from Burlington, Ms. Savoline, did on this bill. She deserves a lot of credit. She had a lot of good input to this bill, and hopefully there are more things we'd like to see put in down the road.

I'd like to especially thank the member from Durham for his kind words. He shares my opinion that this bill does fall short in many areas that we would like to have seen addressed. The member from Guelph put it in a manner that was well presented; however, she did admit she saw some weaknesses in the bill that she would like to have seen addressed.

I am a firm believer that if you're going to do research and put a bill in front of this House, you should take the time necessary to get it right the first time. That way you avoid future amendments and future private members' bills that have to be brought forward to address some of the issues the bill doesn't address.

I'm not a person who likes to hurry bills through. I like to do my research, analyze it and do the right thing the first time. I don't like bills that skim the surface, so to speak, and there's not a lot of depth. I would like to see bills in the House that actually address all the major issues, not just part of them. It's a start, but as I brought forward, there are a lot of things that have been left out and haven't been addressed that are a major part of the situations we have in schools. I hope that in the future the government will see the light of day and deal with those issues.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Jeff Leal: It's indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity to get some thoughts on the record this morning with regard to Bill 157, the Education Amendment Act (Keeping Our Kids Safe at School), 2009. I think I can bring an interesting perspective to this bill. My wife, Karen, is the vice-principal at St. Anne's school in Peterborough, and one of the jobs of vice-principals, of course, is to look after discipline within a school.

I'm particularly pleased that John Mackle, the director of the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland Clarington separate school board, and his counterpart Ms. Sylvia Terpstra, the director of the Kawartha Pine Ridge public school board, have certainly been extremely active on this file in terms of working with their principals and vice-principals and the need to make sure we have appropriate reporting of incidents in school: areas such as bullying, violence, vandalism, sexual assault and drug trafficking.

Just for the record, John Mackle, the director of the PVNCC, actually started his teaching career with the member from Eglinton—Lawrence at Michael Power school right here in Toronto. I know that the member from Eglinton—Lawrence and Mr. Mackle have had a long-standing relationship and certainly converse from time to time on a number of issues.

There's no question that words mean something. I remember as a young student—those were the days of the separate school system—where you had days off for holy days, and maybe the member from Durham would also remember those days. It was mandatory, of course, to go to mass in the morning. The local priest would do a head count to make sure all the students were there; in the afternoon, it was like a professional development day.

I remember one incident when I was about seven or eight. We were going to the local playground to play some road hockey, and the non-Catholic students saw us all walk by and they said, "There's the dogan family." I'd never heard that term before. I remember going home that evening and asking my mom what was meant by that because, "I'm Jeff Leal, part of the Leal family, and they called us members of the dogan family." My mother explained to me in a very clear and concise manner that "dogan" was a derogatory term for Roman Catholics. I didn't have a clue about that, but I thought about it for a moment.

I think it goes to the heart of how words do mean something and how they can have a serious and detrimental effect on students.

I remember in about 1982 we, through Trent University, had a large number of international students that came to Peterborough. In particular, in 1982 I remember there was a very serious incident with a Somali student. It started as verbal abuse of the Somali student and then it worked into physical abuse. The mayor of Peterborough at the time, the late Robert Barker, immediately set up a racial relations committee in the city of Peterborough. He brought together representatives from both school boards and the Peterborough Lakefield police services board to put together a committee.

Under that came a local program called the VIP program, which stood for Values, Influences and Peers. This was a program that went into both the elementary and secondary schools in Peterborough to start to work with students in order to educate them and provide information on how we could achieve a higher level of tolerance in the area. I know both Trent University and Fleming College were involved in that program.

I'd like to get on the record today that the president of Trent, Bonnie Patterson, is leaving after 10 years in her leadership role. We wish her well in her future endeavours. Secondly, the other individual that is leaving is the chancellor, Roberta Bondar, and I want to make reference to her in terms of this bill. Roberta Bondar has been a real hands-on chancellor at Trent University. She spent a lot of time in elementary and secondary classrooms, particularly talking to young females, which I think is extremely important.

She talked about her educational background, and indeed, in her case, literally had the opportunity to reach the stars. I think individuals like her are very important to get into the classrooms and highlight serious issues of bullying, violence, vandalism, sexual assault and drug trafficking.

This government has gone a long way over the last six years. As long as I've known you, Mr. Speaker, you've spent a great deal of time in classrooms in the riding of Essex to make sure that we see evidence of a new, much more positive learning environment in our classrooms across the province of Ontario. We've seen more and more teachers hired. We've seen more administrative staff being involved in the system. I think we've gone a long way in the last six years to bring about a higher degree of harmony in our classrooms.

In the future, I look forward to hearing remarks from my new colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, who in his old role prior to his election to the House on March 5 was very involved as chair of the Trillium Lakelands District School Board, bringing forward a lot of the new initiatives that I think have been so helpful in our classrooms.

We have a solid record when it comes to making our schools safer. We amended Bill 212 to include bullying as a suspendable offence. We annualized $2.3 million for suspension and expulsion programs. We annualized $10.5 million to support professional resources, more attendance counsellors, psychologists etc. We provided an additional $10 million for additional supports for urban and priority schools.

One of the great things that we accomplished—the Minister of Transportation is with us today—is that we got rid of those punitive fees for using schools on weekends. We talk about schools being crucial hubs in communities, and certainly in rural communities. Prior to the 2003 elections, they would say, "Mr.

Leal, we would love to be using our school gyms on the weekend, but we can't because we can't afford the fees to pay custodian staff time and a half to be there on the weekend." A lot of those sports activities and community activities are great avenues for our kids to be involved in the community, to socialize, to work with their peers and, frankly, to give them the opportunity to feel part of something. One of the ways that we address bullying, violence, vandalism, sexual assault and drug trafficking is to have people involved in something, feeling that they're worthwhile and can make a contribution.

One of the ways they do that is through participation in sports teams and other community activities. The Minister of Transportation needs to be saluted for his leadership in getting rid of those punitive fees. This has been an infusion of financial resources into our schools that has certainly been very, very well received.

We've also, as I said, provided $6 million for the Focus on Youth program, $1 million for Kids Help Phone and $4 million for training on safe, equitable and inclusive schools. In Peterborough we are very, very fortunate to have Alan Vallillee, who is the director of Kinark children's services, to work closely with both school boards to identify students who need some special help. We're very pleased that Bill 157 is part and parcel of keeping our kids safe in school as a continuation of those programs that we've already put in place.

I'll just touch briefly on the safe schools action team, which did an incredible job—the member from Guelph was very, very involved in that—identifying a gap in reporting requirements in legislation and policy for school staff other than the principal to report serious student-on-student incidents, hearing that parents of victims of serious student-on-student incidents were not always informed, and hearing from students not to ignore inappropriate and disrespectful behaviour and certainly not to condone it.

I think Bill 157 is a comprehensive way to bring all the important parties together to deal with what is and can be a very serious matter, to get to the heart of the matter, provide the appropriate supports to make sure that these incidents don't occur. I'm pleased today to have the opportunity to support Bill 157. I know my school boards in the Peterborough area are very pleased with this piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: It's always entertaining to listen to the member from Peterborough. He does bring a sort of sentimental approach to it that I can relate to. I believe that if bullying is part of what this intervention bill is about, it is important to make sure that the children are feeling safe and indeed are safe in the schools. I think this bill, as I said before, attempts to do that. I suspect it will have public hearings. I expect it was drafted quickly, even to the extent that the member from Guelph has made comment that there are some shortfalls in the bill. That is true. Our critic, Ms. Savoline, I think, pointed out some very helpful recommendations.

We will likely support the bill, but it just simply does not deliver to make the schools safer. There's nothing going to change here. This is all what Shakespeare called all show and no dough. He said it in a much more fancy fashion, shall we say.

In the next few minutes, I'll have the opportunity to speak on the bill and I will only point out what the bill does; I won't make overt criticisms. But I think the member from Peterborough mentioning that the president of Trent University, Bonnie Patterson, is leaving after 10 years—that is worth knowing. She's a wonderful person—I've met her many times—and I think she has done much for the school.

I would think that this isn't in any way critical of the administration in the schools; what it's critical of is giving the principals, the chief administrators in the schools, the real tools to do the job and to intervene when and where necessary, which is no different than in the children's aid, where we're protecting our children and their priorities come first. This isn't in the bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to compliment the member from Peterborough. He always adds a personal touch to his comments. But I have to say, given his remarks about the comments made about him in the Catholic school, that it wasn't restricted strictly to Catholic schools. Trust me, in the public system we had bullies too. Looking back on those days—and unfortunately, it doesn't happen as much anymore—there would have been that one quiet kid, the one big kid who didn't like bullies, and he would stick up for the little guys or whoever was being pushed around.

But now, because of the system and the weapons that are in schools now, people stay out of it because they are afraid for their personal safety.

The member from Peterborough is correct in saying that there are things that continually come up in schools that are new that society is dealing with and that we have to address. There will obviously be more things that will come along down the road that we'll have to address in this House. I feel that in the bill itself—the member from Durham is correct—there are a lot of things that haven't been addressed.

But, yes, it is a start, and, yes, we will support it, because we feel that any kind of discipline or restrictive measures in the school system that are going to help clean up our society of the abuse, the bullying and the things that go on in our schools which are unnecessary and unacceptable, we will support in any way we can.

I hope that when there are future bills that come forward that the opposition brings and that address things in schools that could be helpful, the government of the day will take it upon themselves to open their minds and their pens to opposition suggestions, which are very helpful at times, as witnessed by the member from Burlington and her good input.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Je dois tout d'abord remercier et féliciter la ministre de l'Éducation, M me Wynne, pour avoir pris le temps d'étudier à fond ce qui se passe dans nos écoles.

Dans ma région de Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, je dois dire que j'ai 54 écoles élémentaires et 12 secondaires. Rarement, nous sommes appelés pour des cas de ce qu'on appelle « bullying », ou des jeunes qui font pression sur les autres.

Mais je dois dire que hier, avec beaucoup de mes collègues, j'ai assisté à un film qui a été présenté ici même à Toronto qui s'appelle « Milk » et qui concerne la discrimination des citoyens de cette ville de la Californie.

Ces choses se passent assez souvent dans nos écoles et je crois aujourd'hui qu'avec ce projet de loi, on va vraiment prendre soin de la discrimination qui se passe et, aussi souvent, de ce qu'on appelle, encore une fois, la pression qu'on met sur les enfants dans nos cours d'école.

Le paragraphe 300.1(1) dit : «

Le directeur d'une école peut déléguer par écrit aux personnes suivantes l'un ou l'autre des pouvoirs ou des fonctions que lui attribue la présente

partie :

«

a) un directeur adjoint de l'école;

«

b) un enseignant employé à l'école. »

Donc, cela veut dire que le directeur de l'école va maintenant avoir le pouvoir « d'appointer » ou de donner des responsabilités à ses subordonnés ou aux personnes qui sont sous sa direction afin de s'assurer que dans nos écoles, nos enfants sont bien protégés et sont aussi respectés quant à leur point de vue et leurs droits qui sont employés dans notre belle province.

Encore une fois, je dois féliciter le député de Peterborough pour ses points soulevés.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It's a pleasure to comment on the address by the member from Peterborough. I enjoy it when the member speaks in this chamber, because he does add a personal touch to it. But on this particular bill, he spoke mostly about his personal experience and almost never touched on the bill, because there isn't much in the bill.

The reality is that so much of what this government has done in the last four years is about bringing forth pieces of legislation that really don't address, or won't accomplish, the intended goals of the government. It's just fitting into the political agenda of the government.

The member for Peterborough talks about the history. I can well imagine that when he was a young student in that system—and I don't know if he's young or old; I think we're around the same age, but maybe he's a little younger—could he have envisioned that we would be living in a time when 23 schools in Toronto have a policeman on site because of violence in our schools, because of bullying, because of problems, because of uncontrolled acts of violence that continue to go on in our schools?

Could he have envisioned at that time, as a student growing up in the system of the 1960s, that we would actually be dealing with these kinds of issues in the province of Ontario, and particularly in the city of Toronto, in 2008 and 2009?

This government continues to talk about addressing the problem of violence in schools, and we're talking about bullying specifically, and mandatory reporting in this instance, but it clearly has done very little to change the environment and the activities that are going on in our schools with respect to violence—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Member for Peterborough, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I appreciate the thoughtful comments from my colleagues from Durham, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and my good friend, the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I want to get on the record that the member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell did a superb job of coaching the Ontario LegisKaters a couple of weeks ago. We came up a little short in the game—

Mr. John Yakabuski: It wasn't the coaching, eh?

Mr. Jeff Leal: It wasn't the coaching. No, no, the coaching was expert. The team needs a little bit of work.

But let me get back here. I think the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke makes a good point. You're right: When I was a student at St. John the Baptist in the mid-1960s—I don't want to date myself too much—no, there was never any anticipation of a police officer ever being in my elementary or secondary school.

But one of the key things is that, when I chat with teachers—and the member from Durham's wife, Peg, was an outstanding teacher at PVNCC—part of the problem, as I see it, is that we haven't nipped many of these incidents quickly enough. If you let one incident go, it tends to multiply and it keeps going and going and going until you have a really serious situation where the ramifications are enormous.

One of the things about this bill: When it's fully implemented in 2012, there will be a structure in place that will identify very early where there are incidents of bullying, violence, vandalism and sexual abuse, to bring to bear all the services you can at a very early stage, to make sure that this conduct is changed, and you can do it through a variety of approaches.

I believe sincerely that Bill 157 is targeted at getting to this at a very early stage.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. John O'Toole: In the brief time that I'm allowed to comment on the bill, I'm going to try to stick to the bill rather than talk about other things.

The best way to start on this bill is to examine its structure and content and highlight what isn't in it. There has been a lot of work done on this, and I think you have to look at the genesis of why the government is charged with bringing in some satisfactory response to some tragedies in our schools.

I think the most important one that the public would be aware of is the incident at C.W. Jefferys Collegiate. I think that is a very important backdrop, where a young child was abused and injured, etc. I'll just read into the record here: "That incident only came to light during an internal investigation into the shooting-death of Jordan Manners at the school last May." This is part of a report in the National Post on January 7, 2008.

"Allegations had also been made at the time of the attack that school administrators knew of it and had even transferred the girl to another school"—in other words, they took care of the evidence—"but did not tell police or children's aid.

"Six months later, in December 2007, police laid the failure-to-report charges."

That went through a number of steps in the justice system where the charges against the school's administrators were laid by the police and the former administrators were put on paid leave.

The Child and Family Services Act only says that evidence or suspicion of abuse must be reported forthwith, and that it is certainly in a timely manner. I think that was mentioned by the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke when he said that if there is physical abuse in the school that's suspected—even in the home—the teacher today, under the Child and Family Services Act, has the duty to report. If they don't, they could be charged. My wife was a teacher and Ms. Munro, the next member of our caucus to speak, was a teacher. If they suspect some abuse in the home, they're required to report it. I think that's fair and it's important and it's relevant to this case.

The charges against the school administrators, I said, were dropped. "Justice of the Peace Gabriel John said the charges against Charis Newton-Thompson, former principal at the Toronto school, and former vice-principals Stan Gordon and Silvio Tallevi were sworn last December—well after the six-month time limit in the Provincial Offences Act." That was reported in May 2008.

Attorney General Chris Bentley said at the time that the crown believed that "the charges were laid within the necessary time." So there's the crown laying the charge, and there's the Attorney General, Chris Bentley, a minister in cabinet, saying that they should have been charged in a timely manner, and he believed they were.

Now this is all very technical, but I guess the issue here, without going into too much detail—I'll come back to this to wrap up that story for those that may be interested in the story. But if I read the act, it does nothing more than this—this is important. In

section 1—gosh, I wish I had more time. I'm not going to have enough time to cover all this evidence that needs to be put on the table; I'm going to read it, though.

Section 300.1 permits the principal of a school—this is the key word—to "delegate" his or her power, duties and functions.

Section 300.2 requires board employees who have become aware that a pupil may have engaged in an activity listed in another

section of the bill,

section 306 or

section 310 of the act, to report on the matter to the principal. So they're delegating these things that the teachers and other people—they have to report to the principal, which is good; they're the top administrator in the school and that's their duty, to run the school in a safe and secure manner.

Here's the issue:

Section 300.3—this is the subtlety of this—requires a principal who believes that a pupil has been harmed as a result of an activity listed in sections 306 or 310 of the act to notify the parent or guardian of the pupil. But there's the subjective part here: They're not mandated. They can if they want. That's the subtlety here: They're not mandated to report it to the police. I don't think they're qualified to make an assessment of a medical nature. Was the bruise caused accidentally in the schoolyard or was it inflicted in a fight that they witnessed or somebody witnessed?

I think what's missing here is that it should be mandated to be reported, as my wife would have if she suspected child abuse. It's mandated that they report it. Why isn't that in here?

If I go back to what I was reading earlier, and this is to do with the C.W. Jefferys issue, Chris Bentley said that the crown's position, if the alleged offences are continuing offences, meaning that it found that—face a $1,000 fine for each day the allegations were unreported. But it goes on to say that in August, Bonnie Croll, an Ontario court judge, deemed that the crown's appeal of the May decision to quash the charges against the principal and vice-principal of C.W. Jefferys—that's August 13, 2008.

The crown argues in its appeal—this is the crown; that's Mr. Bentley's lawyers—that non-reporting of the incidents was a continuous offence and did not end at the time of the alleged assault. The Attorney General's office had 30 days to appeal the decision. Through arbitration, it was decided that Charis Newton-Thompson, the former principal of C.W. Jefferys, would become manager of a curriculum review—in other words, they took her out of her job—in charge of ensuring that current and new curriculum for kindergarten to grade 12 is inclusive and reflects the diverse population of the city etc.

Former Vice-Principal Stan Gordon now works at an adult school, while Silvio Tallevi retired. They were probably pressured—I'm saying that without having any real information about that—to get off the front page.

What is the minister actually doing here? As I said before, I'm going to read

section 2. This is the bill: "Section 2 of the bill adds subsections (5.1) to (5.4) to

section 301 of the act. Subsection (5.1) permits the minister to establish policies and guidelines governing"—here's the key word—"delegation" authority "by principals under

section 300.1. Subsections (5.2) and (5.3) permit the minister to establish policies and guidelines requiring certain individuals who are not board employees"—these are volunteers in the school; they must report these observations to the principal. If they see something going on, they've got to report to the principal. Once again it goes back to the principal, who doesn't have to report it. They have this sort of magical power that they can—why wouldn't they report it? Even if you suspect it, you should report it to the police, who are trained to investigate these things.

I think it's a large, gaping hole in the side of the Titanic here. This thing's going to sink. This thing doesn't work. I'm going to read, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker—I'm finding this more and more difficult as I read the bill—the explanatory notes: "Section 3 of the bill adds subsections (0.1) and (3.1) to

section 302 of the act"—all technical stuff. "Subsection (0.1) requires boards to establish policies and guidelines governing"—here it is again—"delegation by principals under

section 300.1." So all it does—it's sad to think that they wasted all this ink. I don't even know—I'm just going to get down to the bottom line here.

This thing here is actually one and a half pages long, and we're talking about children's safety. All they had to say is "suspected violence" or "bullying," or use a regulatory framework of words to describe events: pushing, shoving, bullying, abusing, even calling them a dogan or whatever Mr. Leal called them. This is inappropriate behaviour. This should be reported and investigated by somebody who's trained to investigate. Just because you're a principal or somebody else, it doesn't mean you're qualified; nor am I. I should report.

If I saw one of our pages here being pushed around by another page, I think I should have to report that to probably the Speaker or maybe the Sergeant at Arms. It's not appropriate.

This

section that I just mentioned delegates this authority back to the principal. I should clarify that here as I read, "set out what the principal shall and shall not disclose when notifying a parent or guardian...."

Why would they withhold anything from the parent? I'm a parent of five children. One of my children is a high school teacher. I always go into that. My children are the most important part of my life. My wife was a teacher, and my children are our pride and joy. Our youngest is 30, so they're older children. I'm obviously much older. One is a teacher in England. One has just finished her master's degree in Scotland. She lives on the Isle of Man. One is in Australia, married with two children. I always talk about that in the Legislature because, really, that's my legitimate story in life. I have two other boys: One is a lawyer in Toronto, and the other works in the medical field.

I just say this: With the parent issue here of being told or not told, I really think they have a responsibility to report the stuff to the parent and family—a single parent even more so, perhaps. The parent is the primary caregiver. The parent is the primary educator. The inflections here are just wrong. They're protecting the system. These three administrators, the principal and two vice-principals, as I told you in this report in the paper, got charged, and actually they moved them for failing to report. They were charged with failing to report this bullying, an event that led to a young student's death.

Let's make it clear here: I fully respect teaching and teaching the subjects that they have degrees and studies in, whether it's math or culture or art or music—very important. But they're not police investigators, and if they suspect something, they should look at it as an adult with a mature mind.

These things have been going on for some time. If you want to look at the McMurtry-Curling report—that was a report commissioned by the McGuinty government. Mr. Curling was the former Speaker of the Legislature. I think he resigned. I'm not sure. He was the Speaker here at one time. He actually sat on this side of the House in opposition and held up the House for some time, but those were in his more sorry days. He worked with the former Chief Justice for the province of Ontario, Roy McMurtry.

Here's what it says: Although the report was commissioned in reaction to the death of Jordan Manners in the hallway of C.W. Jefferys high school, "McMurtry and Curling don't say much about that ... other than noting while schools should call police if serious crime occurs, they shouldn't be overly quick to react lest 'racialized students' (translation, black students) suffer 'increased criminalization.'"

Then you get into the soft, sensitive socialization of justice. I don't want to get into anything more than that. In other words, if it was thought to be a racial thing going on in the school, maybe they shouldn't exacerbate it by calling in the police. I guess you have to be sensitive to these things.

But how do you feel about the teachers and principals lacking the clarity in the legislation of what they should or shouldn't do? They're hanging it on the principal. Everybody's got a delegated authority to report to the principal, and the principal has to make this big decision. What are they going to do? Realistically, let's review that option.

Realistically, the principal, if they are—and I think most of them are good administrators; no question about that. They're trained and educated. It comes down to, who would they ask for advice? Well, they all have a superintendent that they work with. The superintendent would be making around $150,000 to $200,000 a year—pretty well paid. They're not teaching. They're there to be administrators. Some would question if that's too much money, but that's another debate, another day. The superintendent should be saying, "Well, let's look at this case." They're not a police officer either.

They're not trained in investigative techniques and other kinds of forensic things—police officers are, and other trained professionals. If the superintendent didn't know, what would they do? Who would they seek advice from? They'd go to the director. The director of education may make as much as $500,000. What? What are they actually doing? But anyway, that's another question. I raise that question because they should be the ones that are charged, not the principal. Failure to report should rest with the top person. It's no different than when we look at the issues in the market today. The buck stops where?

At the top, not down in the school or at the middle of the corporation. You don't blame the employee on the floor of a workshop, like the issues going on—AIG is a good example. Lehman is the top guy, I think. That's where the buck stops. He is the guy making $15 million or whatever he's making. It's just disgusting what these people make. That's a whole other issue that upsets me beyond belief.

But the point I'm trying to make is that this bill delegates the authority—everybody in the school has to report it to the principal. And then the principal may or may not, or should or should not, report it for reasons that could be social—you could be interfering with a little quarrel that's going on. If there's something that's happened that threatens the safety of one child, then all of the children are in threat of their safety. That's what this bill fails to do: to mandate reporting.

I think, listening to the speakers today, and I would even say the new member here, whom I want to congratulate formally, Mr. Johnson from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock—I have known him since 1994, I guess: a good person, and he will bring a lot to this debate here. I wish he wasn't here, but that's a different debate. It's not because I don't like him, though. I would only say that because he, as well, has a great deal of experience, and he may respond in his two minutes.

Also, the member from Guelph: I remember that before she was here, she was very involved. I think she was the head of all of the school trustees in the province of Ontario, the boards, and she's very highly regarded in the educational sector.

As well, the Minister of Education, even before she was here, was an NDP lobbyist, really.

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: Well, I thought she was NDP always. Didn't you? Everybody did, really. But she is very passionate and committed to education.

But this bill fails. It's something I'm going to support because it makes a move in the right direction, but let's get it right.

Our critic had the answer to the question here, and I would say that the member from Burlington, Mrs. Savoline, in her speech—I was in my office last week, and I watched her response as our critic. She said it perfectly, that we want to support it, but we want it to do the job and do the job correctly. That's what this is about, and that's what this debate is about. I bring a bit of that passion that I bring to things because, if you're going to do it, as I said—and the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek said it as well—do it right. We're here. We want to protect the children. That's clear.

I don't want any ambiguity about that at all. But the tools simply aren't here in this little one-and-a-half-page bill.

I'd like to find out who is getting to not do it. Who are the stakeholders that are telling them, "No, don't do it"? I wonder who it is. I would like to find out. It could be the teachers' union, because there could be a pay thing involved here. I'm not bashing them. But somebody got to the minister, because they're not doing the job.

I'm going to say that it's a bill where we're all on the same page, but there are not enough pages. There are a few pages missing here. I also am aware that this bill will come into force in 2010 but into full force not till 2012, which conveniently is after the next election.

I think this bill simply doesn't do the job. It's a weak response to an important issue.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): This House will recess until 10—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Well, there was one other time when you had me not go into that process, but okay. Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to commend the member from the official opposition. He touched on a lot of things that were concerns for me. But there's one item, a big item, in this bill that we're not talking about, and it's the stress on the teachers themselves. My wife also was a teacher. I'm telling you, when I grew up, if you did something in the school you got disciplined in the school and you got it twice as bad at home.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Four times as bad.

Mr. Paul Miller: Four times as bad. Now some of the parents will go the schools and say, "My little Johnny wouldn't do that."

Mr. John Yakabuski: "Why pick on Johnny?"

Mr. Paul Miller: "Why are you picking on Johnny?" Well, Johnny did do it and Johnny got away with it, and all he has to do is get sent home to play with his computer for three days. That's not the way that the system should be working. You don't reward somebody by sending him home to play with video games or go to the show or go out and play road hockey. I would have been probably cutting lawns, cutting hedges, putting out garbage or painting if I was doing something that my parents would not have tolerated. They would have backed the teacher. Even if maybe I wasn't so guilty, I was still guilty, because that's what maintained discipline in our schools when I was growing up.

That's gone. Now the kids know that the worst scenario is, you're going to go to the principal's office. You can say whatever you want to the teacher. They've got third and fourth graders swearing at the teachers. I would have had a bar of soap in my mouth. I know you can't do that anymore, but that's the way it was. Now the kids are rewarded: "Oh, you go home, little Johnny, and play with your computer games." Absolutely unacceptable.

The discipline begins in the home. If the parents can't control the child, what chance does the teacher have? What chance does the principal have? All the principal can do is expel the kid. That doesn't help the kid, because he's not learning; he's at home playing video games. That's not good for our education system.

The teachers have lost all the instruments of any kind of discipline. They cannot enforce anything, and the kids—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I'm very pleased to rise to speak to Bill 157. I just want to clear up a couple of points. It's very clear that this bill will come into effect on February 1, 2010.

I want to speak specifically to some of the comments that the member from Durham made, and that is with regard to the reporting mechanisms by the principal. Clearly, that is covered off in other pieces of legislation. The protocols are well-established. It's not only through government policy; it is also through board policy as well. So that is a very specific point that the member from Durham raised, and I did want to address it and the concerns of the member.

The other thing that I wanted to speak to today was to talk about the schools. As many of you know, I have over 45 schools in my riding, and one of the things that I notice when I go into the schools is that in every school, down the hallways, we talk about respect. We talk about general behaviour which is supportive of everyone's individual rights. They talk about things that are important to them, and also that they, the children themselves, want an environment that is conducive to respect for every student. They know that and they understand that. I know that when I talk to the students, that's one of the things that they talk about: respect, and a global understanding.

I just wanted to relate: I had a school that sent me 15 letters of all of the issues that were important to grades 3 and 4. They took the time—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I'm pleased to have this opportunity to make a couple of comments with regard to the member from Durham's speech.

I think the important thing for us here to understand is that the purpose of the bill was to close the gap, and yet, when one looks at the reality of the problems that are faced by many schools and, very importantly, many students and their families, this does not. It may paper over, but the critical issues still remain in the schools.

The minister, in response to a number of comments made by the education critic and others, has referred to the amount of money that is being spent. But when I look at the families that are impacted through bullying and things like that, and the victims who have had the temerity to come forward, clearly this bill really does only paper over that gap. It doesn't do anything particularly for those victims.

So rather than send letters out about all the millions of dollars that have been spent, the minister needs to be looking at the effectiveness and the accountability of that, and how that is helping the individual children who are the perpetrators and those who are the victims. In the course of all of this, they seem to have been lost in this discussion. We're still left with mechanisms that will not stand that test, that strength, to be able to make sure that there's proper—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you.

This House will recess until 10:30 of the clock.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I'm very pleased to introduce the mother of our page Jackson Amos and his grandparents Glen and Karen Jackson. They came all the way from Emo to be with us. The page is acting as the captain of the team today.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I'm pleased to introduce today a guest from Windsor, Tina D'Agnillo, who's the mother of page Michele D'Agnillo from Windsor West. A special welcome to Tina.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'm more than delighted to be able to present to you staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources' wildlife section. There are 17 of them here today. These are the folks who implement and develop the very ecologically based strategic policies for the ministry. We are delighted that they are going to share the session with us this morning.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Today we are welcoming a large contingent from the mining sector in the province of Ontario, many of whom will be meeting with a number of our colleagues today. So, certainly, I want to welcome representatives from the Ontario Mining Association and others from the sector. Also, if I may invite all members to come to our Meet the Miners reception this afternoon starting at 5:30 p.m. in the legislative dining room.

Welcome to all the delegations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of page Teresa Baszak, we would like to welcome her mother, Margaret, her brother John, her brother Luke, her grandmother Irene and her grandmother Dorothy Breen. Welcome to Queen's Park today.

On behalf of page Victoria Carney, we would like to welcome her mother, Sylvia Carney, to the Legislature today.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask all members to join me in welcoming the group of legislative pages and ask the pages to assemble for introduction, please:

Jackson Amos, Mississauga—Erindale; Mark Ang, Don Valley East; Teresa Baszak, Etobicoke—Lakeshore; Renée Bongers, Leeds—Grenville; Victoria Carney, Kitchener—Waterloo; Carmen Chen, Markham—Unionville; Ian Coomes, Halton; Michele D'Agnillo, Windsor West; Lisa Di Vona, Simcoe—Grey; Daphnée Dubouchet-Olsheski, Ottawa—Vanier; Everett Kehew, Oxford; Sean Kyte, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke; Sarah Nadon, Sault Ste. Marie; Michael Niven, Algoma—Manitoulin; Emily Parker, Barrie; Olivia Peters, Scarborough Southwest—and the Speaker's niece; Ahsan Shahzad, Brampton West; Noel Smith, Whitby—Oshawa; Megan Wood, Scarborough—Guildwood; Marissa Yott, Burlington.

Welcome, pages. Please resume your positions.

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Through you, Speaker, to the Premier: Today's media reports are indicating that you intend to once again break a solemn promise and impose new taxes on struggling Ontario families through tax harmonization. I quote something you said just last June: "Why would you raise taxes in a time of economic challenges?" That's you saying that, Premier, just a few months ago.

Can you confirm that your apparent addiction to spending and increased taxes is leading you down the path to yet another broken promise?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There's always a tremendous amount of delicious speculation at this time of the year, and I guess that's only natural, and probably healthy in a democracy.

What I can say and what I will repeat as we very much look forward to the budget tomorrow is that there are two overriding objectives we are seeking to achieve in the budget. Number one is that we want to help Ontario families better weather this global economic storm. Secondly, we want to strengthen this economy. The recovery will come, and when it does, we want to be in a position to seize those new opportunities and new possibilities. We understand that a strong economy is the foundation on which are built our good-quality public services. So we'll do both: help our families and strengthen the economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: In the last provincial election, we all remember the Premier saying, "I won't cut your taxes, but I promise I won't increase them, either." Talk about déjà vu. If indeed on Thursday you break another solemn commitment to the people of Ontario, sir, I think you can be accurately described as a serial promise breaker, and suffering Ontarians are paying the price.

Premier, do you believe that, as leader of the government, breaking your word to the people of this province is perfectly acceptable?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think before the accusations begin, we should wait for the budget and we'll see what it does. I'm always interested, of course, in the views held by the opposition, but I'm more interested in the views held by the people of Ontario. We will be inspired by their values and their aspirations.

Again, I think there are a couple of things that they want us to do in this particular budget, and it's an important budget, given the times. They want us to see if we can do more to help each other through this difficult period. At the same time, they want to have a reason to be hopeful for their future. They want to know that, coming together, we can strengthen our economy; we can build a more solid foundation for our future growth and future jobs. Our budget will speak to both those overriding objectives.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm hearing a number of comments from the government side regarding an ongoing police investigation and I would appreciate those comments not being made in this chamber.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Yesterday, the Premier was musing about his first big breach of faith, bringing in the largest tax increase in the province's history after another of his solemn election promises not to increase taxes. He said Ontarians forgave him for that whopper and he's confident he can lead struggling Ontarians down the path once again, that they will forgive and forget. That's an open insult, in my view, to Ontario voters.

Premier, these are difficult times. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs. Families and communities are struggling. How can you, in good conscience, once again break faith with the people of Ontario and bring in new taxes that will hurt the most vulnerable during these difficult times?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It is true: There are some things that Ontarians will have a hard time forgetting. That $5.6-billion deficit which was hidden from their view was something that was very disappointing for them.

Fortunately, working together with Ontarians, we have eliminated that deficit. We have had a number of years of solid economic growth. We have fixed the roof while the sun was shining. Today Ontarians have better schools, better health care, better environmental protections, better supports for our most vulnerable and a stronger economic foundation.

But now we need to do more. I'm in full agreement with that: We need to do more to protect our families from this storm and to strengthen the foundation of the economy so it will support public services going into the future.

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Premier: In 2004, the Premier wanted to tax meals costing under $4. It was only after a massive protest and negative polling results for the Liberal Party that he backtracked. This latest tax grab goes to show that the Premier continually is simply looking for ways to siphon hard-earned money from Ontario families. You live in taxpayer-subsidized housing in a tony Toronto neighbourhood. You're in a comfortable bubble.

Do you have any idea what average Ontario families are going through right now and what your latest tax grab is going to do to them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my honourable colleague is making assumptions and speculating. He's within his rights to do that, but I think we should wait for the budget and see what the actual positions found within that are.

One of the things that I can say, that I said before, is that we will find ways to provide better supports to Ontario families. These are difficult times. We're going to take measures at the same time to strengthen the economy, because we know that unless we enhance our capacity to do so, we are going to place our public services at risk. So we will do both, once again: Protect our families to help them weather the storm and strengthen the economic foundation so that we can better support our public services.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I think it's pretty clear from the Premier's public comments that they're going ahead with this, and I'm not sure that he understands the scope of this tax grab. It's going to increase the cost of diapers, hygiene products, heating fuel, food, books for students, used cars, municipal services and housing. On top of your new tax for home energy audits, you're now slapping down seniors, people with disabilities and those on fixed incomes with another one of your tax grabs.

Premier, you already have the folks in this province by the throat. How much tighter are you going to squeeze them?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to withdraw his comment, please.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Speaker, I will respect your request and withdraw.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Yesterday, the leader of the official opposition said that his party is, in theory, in favour of a single sales tax. We know that the federal Conservative Party is in favour of a single sales tax. When this party prepared a minority report for the advice offered to the Minister of Finance, they said that we should heed the call of the federal government and take immediate action to fix Ontario's uncompetitive tax structure.

I'm trying to figure out from one day to the next where they stand on this issue, because yesterday they appeared to be in favour of it but today they are saying that they're afraid of it. We're not quite sure where they stand on this particular issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That's yet another effort by the Premier to muddy the waters and get people away from the fact that he's breaking another solemn promise. That's what's happening here. How can the people of this province trust this Premier in terms of anything he says—anything he says?

Premier, how many more times are you willing to make a promise and then turn around and break it? You said yourself that an economic downturn is the worst time to increase taxes. Did you even believe it when you said it yourself?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We're looking forward to delivering the budget tomorrow in this august chamber. We're looking forward to speaking to the values and aspirations of the people of Ontario. We're looking forward to ensuring that we work as hard as we can to achieve two overriding objectives: help families today better weather this global economic storm and, at the same time, strengthen our economy.

But there's one more thing I'm looking forward to, and that's the reaction of the opposition to our budget, because when they're staring in the face of the specifics, it will be important to know whether or not they're with the people of Ontario in the supports that we provide them to help them better manage the challenge of the day. It will be interesting to learn whether or not they're in favour of strengthening the economy and lending support to Ontario businesses.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To the Premier: During one of Ontario's worst recessions, with tens of thousands of jobs lost, why is the Premier going to be raising taxes on things like heating oil, diapers, children's clothing, feminine hygiene products and other basic essentials that families need?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'll try to be as creative as I can, but I'm not sure I can keep saying the same thing in so many different ways to so many different questions.

There's a lot of anticipation when it comes to the budget, and I can understand that. As I said before, it's natural and I think it's healthy. But what I can say to my honourable colleague is: Take a look at what we've done during the course of the past five years. Take a look at our most recent announcement to accelerate a dramatic enhancement of the Ontario child benefit from $50 a month to $92 a month at a time of great economic challenge. That was a plan we'd originally put in place to achieve by 2011, but we brought that forward to 2009 because we thought it was important to help struggling families.

If the member wants to get a good sense of where we're going to go, take a look at where we've been.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: On Thursday, the McGuinty Liberals are inviting Ontarians to celebrate their "8% more" event. That's 8% more to heat their homes, 8% more to dress their kids, 8% more to read the paper, 8% more for the corner hot dog and even 8% more to take the family dog to the vet. Why is the Premier slapping an 8% sales tax on families at a time when they can least afford it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, there's all kinds of speculation here. We'll be looking forward to introducing the budget in the House. I think—I hope—the member will be supportive of the measures that we put in place to protect our families and provide them with additional supports.

But we've got a couple of objectives here. To repeat: We have to find a way to better support our families, including those who struggle the most, and at the same time we have to find ways to better strengthen our economy. The recovery will come, and when it does come, we want to seize those new opportunities. So that's what our budget will do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A few months ago, this Premier told families to go shopping; that was going to help the economy. Since then, he got a call on his direct line from big business, and when they said, "Jump," he said, "How high?"

Now the Premier is saying, 8% more on heating oil, educational books, veterinary care, bicycles, vitamins, and dry cleaning, right in the middle of an economic crisis that has left Ontarians worrying about their jobs, their savings and their pensions. What planet is this Premier on, to hit families with an 8% tax right in the middle of a jobs crisis?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I've always said that proceeding with a single sales tax could not happen, could not even be contemplated, unless we had significant federal support and unless we had in place protections for Ontario families. I've always said that.

But what puzzles me a little bit is that the NDP still have in place, to the best of my knowledge, a policy that we increase the Ontario provincial sales tax by 1%. Unless the honourable member is prepared to say today that that is no longer the party position, I continue to ask myself why it would be helpful to Ontario families to increase the PST by 1%.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Question? Leader of the third party.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier's tax grab—

Interjection: To the Premier.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To the Premier; sorry. This Premier's tax grab is not just on everyday purchases; this regressive sales tax grab means higher taxes on new homes.

Between January and March, Ontario lost 27,000 construction jobs across Ontario. Housing starts are down 35% year over year. When prospective homebuyers are struggling and the residential construction sector is hurting, why is the Premier raising the tax on new homes?

Interjection.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, it's—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Just trying to help.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: You're more than helpful.

My colleague raises real concerns, and I do not want to dismiss those, but I would ask her to hold her fire until she sees the budget and sees the initiatives that we put in place.

We are mindful of the needs of families, particularly struggling families, at this point in our history. We're mindful of the needs of the economy as well. We sense that if we don't do more to strengthen this economy, which is under tremendous stress as a result of both this worldwide recession and the growing impact of globalization, we're going to put at risk our capacity to support those good-quality public services. That's why our budget will do both: help families today, and strengthen the economy for tomorrow.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: Housing starts in Barrie are down 72%; in Hamilton, 55%; Kingston, down 72%; Oshawa, down 71%; Toronto, down 40%; Ottawa, down 18%. In one month alone, 27,000 jobs were lost in the construction sector. If people are not buying houses, nobody is going to be building them, Premier.

Why is this Premier raising taxes on new homes in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I mentioned the other day that there's a report from the UN saying that we're losing 30 million to 40 million jobs globally because of this worldwide recession.

Construction is a real concern for us, but that's why one of the really good pieces of news is the one that I announced just a couple of days ago with Minister Smitherman. We're investing $32.5 billion in infrastructure over the course of the next two years. That's 300,000 jobs that we're talking about there. That's new roads and schools and hospitals and public transit. It's designed to put as many people to work as we possibly can right away. At the same time, it improves quality of life in our communities and it enhances economic productivity.

So, the fact is we're doing much right now to invest in jobs, particularly in the area of construction.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's really obvious that the Premier is out of touch with the people of this province. He just doesn't seem to get it. Ontarians are about to be slapped with yet another tax, a regressive tax, that's going to take hundreds of dollars directly out of their pockets, a few dollars at a time, every time they visit the drugstore or the grocery store. How does this do anything to get people through the tough times that we're experiencing in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I'd ask my honourable colleague to wait and see the specifics of the budget and the supports that we put in place to better help our families.

When Minister Matthews and I attended the Cabbagetown Youth Centre a few days ago, we had an opportunity to meet with some families there, and I remember in particular talking to a mother whose household income, she told me, was $16,000. She lived with her husband, two kids—one six, one four years of age—and her mother-in-law. She told me that her greatest wish was just to have enough money to put her six-year-old into swimming lessons. That's why I was proud, on behalf of Ontarians, to tell that mom, and all struggling moms, that we're going to take the Ontario child benefit from $50 to $92 a month.

That additional $42 a month—it's not the end of the world; I understand that—is a bit more to help those moms make those decisions that are important to those families.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services.

Minister, small businesses across Ontario desperately need to get access to capital. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business reports that the number of businesses in Ontario struggling to access financing through banks has almost doubled from 15% in 2007 to 28% by the end of 2008.

Our party is proposing an access-to-credit program, similar to the federal government's Canada small business financing program, but run through Ontario's credit unions. This program would help new businesses get started, as well as help them make improvements and expand. A program like this would stimulate economic growth and create jobs in Ontario.

Minister, are you willing to implement a program like this that would give small and medium-sized businesses much-needed access to capital?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member for asking this question.

Let me say the small businesses actually are the backbone of this economy and there is an issue with regards to the availability of credit to small and medium-sized businesses these days. But we have, over the term of our government, actually come up with a program to assist small businesses and have also taken the opportunity to talk to the banks to make sure they can develop a program that can assist small businesses.

Let me just talk about a couple of programs that we have actually developed to help small businesses. We want to make sure that small businesses do business outside the province and outside the country, with countries that they haven't done business with before. That's why we came up with the market access program, under which small businesses and medium-sized business—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Minister, you have an opportunity to create some wealth and make a difference in this province. Let me give you an example of exactly what I'm talking about. In my riding there's the manufacturer Bent Ply of Muskoka. They make theatre chairs, office equipment and skateboards. I received a letter from Kenneth Smith, the president. In it, he writes, "In the last half a year, we have acquired a major new customer and have invested over $500,000 in new equipment just to be able to process the orders for this new customer.

The payback on this equipment alone is staggering, and assistance from local banks has been next to nil, as their lending hands are tied. Our credit lines are at their maximum levels and we will not be able to continue on this current course."

Minister, this business operator needs access to capital that currently is not available anywhere. Are you prepared to step up and do something that could really help businesses like Bent Ply of Muskoka?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Actually, we have already done that. Let me just give you an example. Through the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, there is the Smart program under which organizations that want to buy productivity improvement tools or equipment are entitled to get up to $50,000 worth of grant under that program. So I would encourage the member on the other side to look at these programs, and he should really advise the organizations that are looking for this funding that these programs already exist.

In addition to that, we also have money available through the Yves Landry Foundation in order to provide training for employees who really want to use productivity improvement programs to become more productive, efficient and competitive in the marketplace.

So I really want to encourage the member to look at the programs. He should be proactively promoting these programs for the small and medium-sized businesses in—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Later today, the Canadian Auto Workers will be holding a rally right out here in front of the Legislature. They'll be demanding action from your government to help the thousands of laid-off workers who are being denied monies legally owed to them by employers who just don't care.

The CAW knows that it's not just a federal jurisdiction. The CAW knows that the primary responsibility for this sorry state of affairs lies with the government of Ontario's refusal to implement a provincial wage earner fund similar to that outlined in Bill 6. Why has the government refused to pass a bill that would ensure that every Ontarian gets the back pay, vacation pay and severance pay owed to them by law?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member is well aware that there is no subnational jurisdiction that has such a program. It is the responsibility of the federal government.

When anybody loses their job, we empathize and we sympathize with them. We are there to work with those families and ensure that we can do what we are here to do as a provincial government. I know that the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade reaches out right away to those employers, to the municipalities, to look for new job opportunities. The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, as soon as they are aware of a plant closure, are there within the hour to work with trade unions, work with the employees and work with our partners to ensure that—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: The minister's comments are not exactly correct. The truth is that despite the real pain and suffering of so many workers and their families, we have a provincial government here that's refusing to act on an issue that is clearly—clearly, Minister—within your jurisdiction. My Bill 6, which passed second reading in the Legislature in 2007, deals directly with the problems that are going on in society right now. Why does this government continue to block a bill that would ensure that workers get the back pay, vacation pay and severance pay that they are entitled to as workers in this province?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member is well aware that what he is introducing would be a payroll tax and would cost jobs in this province. Also, the member is well aware of our advocacy and what we are asking for, and he should talk to his federal counterpart, where we would like to see changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act that would bring employees to the super-creditor status. This would go a long way. My predecessors and I have also written to federal Ministers of Labour to enrich the wage earner protection program. We will continue to do this.

I ask that the member pick up the phone or write a letter to his federal counterpart to ensure that those programs can be enriched. He knows full well that this falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: My question is for the Attorney General. We know that these are challenging economic times for Ontarians. It is during these times that families are all the more aware of managing their expenses and of ensuring that they get fair value for their hard-earned dollars. We are increasingly aware of the anger and frustration felt by Ontarians when they look to purchase concert tickets on the Internet. This frustration mirrors that felt by members of the public elsewhere in North America. People cannot understand why companies who sell tickets at face value can also take

part in reselling them at greatly inflated values. I know the Attorney General spoke about this issue recently and indicated he would be asking his officials to consider what options were available to address these concerns and further protect consumers from unfair ticket selling practices. Since the Attorney General first spoke about this issue, a number of other jurisdictions—federal, provincial and also south of the border—have joined in voicing concerns about fair practices. Can the Attorney General tell this House what steps the government is taking to ensure that Ontarians are treated fairly?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member raises a very important point. We've heard loud and clear from Ontarians that they want fair access to tickets, and they are concerned about the unfairness of an entity benefiting both from the primary ticket market and from the resale or secondary ticket market. I called Ticketmaster in. They assured us they weren't holding back tickets from the start of sale, that they weren't hoarding tickets and there was no automatic link between their primary seller and their secondary seller. I asked them to go a step further.

I asked them to do what they've done in Manitoba, I asked them to do what they've done in Alberta, and stop the resale of tickets for events in Ontario when they were in the primary market. They refused to do that, so I will be working with my colleague from small business to bring in legislation to protect Ontario consumers.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: The constituents in my riding will be pleased to hear that the McGuinty government and the Attorney General are taking these steps to ensure Ontarians are treated fairly when they go to buy tickets for a concert. The McGuinty government clearly understands that the families in Ontario deserve the same protections offered to consumers in other provinces and jurisdictions. I applaud you for committing to introduce legislation to ensure this. What can consumers in Ontario do to make sure that they are protected?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to thank the member from Pickering—Scarborough East for asking this question. The goal of my ministry is to make sure that consumers are protected, whether they are buying a house or repairing their house, or even when they are buying tickets. There are a couple of things that I would like to suggest. One is that if there is any issue with regard to consumer complaints, they should really refer to the consumer protection branch of the consumer affairs ministry, and they can get some assistance from them.

The other is, there are very useful hints available on the website of the consumer affairs ministry where they can seek help as well. But the Ticket Speculation Act falls under the responsibility of the Attorney General and we are working very closely with him to make sure that our consumers are protected. So I really want to thank the Attorney General for taking the lead on this file and taking the—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, and I don't need the help of the member from Nepean—Carleton.

POVERTY

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, you have spent most of the last year claiming to develop a poverty reduction strategy, yet your government is now set to put new sales taxes on hundreds of items that people use every day, even those needed by our children. Low-income Ontarians will now have to pay more for food items, children's clothes and even haircuts. Minister, did you speak up for poor children in Ontario when the Premier and finance minister proposed new taxes at the cabinet table?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you very much for the question. This is kind of an astounding question, I have to say. First of all, you know that we're not going to be speculating on what's in tomorrow's budget. But when it comes to poverty reduction we are making some very important initiatives. I would welcome the support of the party of the opposition to support us in our determination to reduce child poverty and poverty overall in this province. We have announced that included in the budget will be an increase, a speed-up, to the Ontario child benefit. It will make an extraordinary difference for families in this province.

I look forward to the supplementary, but when it comes to poverty reduction, I welcome any support from the members of the opposition.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Minister, you will even charge new taxes on diapers. This is a tax on babies. Even kids' hockey or soccer uniforms will now be taxed.

Minister, why don't you stand up and speak up for Ontario's children? Tell us how adding millions of dollars in new taxes on Ontario's poorest and most vulnerable will help lift them out of poverty. How are you going to write this tax hike on the poor into your poverty strategy?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When it comes to people standing up and speaking out for those who are living in poverty, I think the question should be directed to you, not to us. We are the party that has developed a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy. You are the party that has voted against every support to low-income people that we have brought forward. I say that it's time for you to take your responsibility to the people of this province seriously. It's time for you to understand that people living in poverty need the help of all of us in this House—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The minister has 10 seconds to respond.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question.

HEALTH CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Last week, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care was musing about delisting more insured health services. We know from the government's previous delisting of optometry, physiotherapy and chiropractic services that this doesn't save money; it just shifts the burden to other parts of the health care system. Often, for people who can't afford them, they have to go without.

Ontarians want an answer from the Premier today. Why won't he stand up for medicare and commit to not delisting any more services?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think we have a pretty solid record of progress when it comes to investing in and achieving progress for Ontarians when it comes to their health care. Whether you're talking about more doctors, more nurses, more hospitals, shorter wait times or more investments in new technologies like MRIs, I think the record speaks for itself. There's always more to be done. Health care demands are ever-growing and ever-pressing. But again, I think the record demonstrates very clearly our commitment and our belief that one of the highest priorities for our families is their health care, and we'll continue to demonstrate that through this and ensuing budgets.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The Premier was elected on a promise to strengthen our public medicare system, but all we've seen lately are actions that destabilize it. His decision to reinstate competitive bidding in home care has set the stage for labour unrest; 3,000 home care workers have started rotating strikes. He reversed his promise to hire 9,000 new nurses, sending chills. Long-term-care facilities are still waiting for the promised 2,500 extra personal support workers, and they cannot make the numbers work. Hospitals are facing soaring deficits and are contemplating cuts and layoffs. Private clinics are growing like mushrooms.

What is this government going to do to bring stability and trust back into medicare?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just can't share the perspective of my colleague. I think, from any objective perspective, we've made tremendous progress in Ontario when it comes to health care. Again, I'm not going to get into specific numbers, but nurses and doctors and family health teams—we're going to be the first province in Canada to go ahead with something called a nurse practitioner-led clinic. In fact, there's one in Sudbury. That's never happened before.

So we're looking for new ways to put in place better supports for more Ontario families when it comes to the quality of their health care. The record, I think, speaks to that very clearly.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Education. Parents are very concerned about school safety. Parents in my riding of Willowdale have been following closely and with much interest the debate on Bill 157. The government has improved school safety over the past years, introducing anti-bullying measures and programs to help at-risk students, funding secure entrances and security cameras, enhancing the training of principals and teachers and putting more caring adults in the schools.

But there's always room for improvement. Can you tell my constituents how Bill 157 is going to continue to expand and enhance these safety protections?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We know that all school staff play a critical role in building and sustaining a positive school climate. The proposed legislation is part of our ongoing efforts that the member opposite has outlined. If passed, what this legislation will do is these three things: It will require all school staff to report serious student incidents, such as bullying, to the principal so the principal can then respond appropriately. Secondly, it will require principals to contact the parents of victims of serious student incidents.

Thirdly, it will require staff to intervene to address inappropriate and disrespectful behaviour amongst students, behaviours such as racist or sexist comments that are unacceptable in our schools.

What this does is build on our safe schools strategy. It puts in place a comprehensive response to the safe schools action team and codifies much of what already does happen in our schools.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. David Zimmer: My constituents in Willowdale understand that there's no magic solution, no quick fix to making schools safer. They know it's a gradual process, a complex process, and it involves a lot of parties. Many of them do believe that Bill 157 is an important element in making the schools safer.

However, some constituents are saying that the mandatory reporting provisions in Bill 157 are inadequate, and they're asking for mandatory reporting to the parents of the victim. Minister, why does the proposed legislation leave that reporting decision to the discretion of the principal? Some parents don't think that's right.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the member for Willowdale raising this question, because it is something that has been a concern. The current safe school provisions of the Education Act require that parents of aggressors be informed of incidents for which students are suspended. That's already in the act.

If Bill 157 passes, that would extend that right to the parents of the victim unless—and there are these caveats—the student is not a dependent, i.e., they're 18 years or older; or that student is 16 or 17 and has formally withdrawn from parental control; thirdly, if, in the opinion of the principal, contacting the victim's parents would put the student in a harmful situation, from the parents. It's really unfortunate, but that does happen, and we need to acknowledge that principals need that discretion. We have a lot of respect for the principals in our schools as very important—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

TAXATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Minister of Consumer Services. Tomorrow in Ontario it will be more expensive to build a house, it will be more expensive to heat that house, it will be more expensive to raise a family, it'll even be more expensive to keep the family pet if your government harmonizes sales taxes. Your government will be raising taxes on everything all Ontarians purchase.

As consumer services minister, have you told the Minister of Finance enough is enough, and that in this economic climate consumers just can't take any more tax hikes?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I think this question has been answered so many times by the Premier in the House.

Let me say this: I am not aware of what is in the budget, or not, and I don't know how the people in the opposition are aware of it, but there are two things we are planning to do. I think one is to protect our vulnerable in society, and the other is to make the province friendlier from the business point of view. That will be the objective that we will have in mind as we move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: What I heard over there is, if it eats, they're going to tax it; if it moves, they're going to tax it; if it breathes, they're going to tax it; and if it stands still, they're going to tax it.

First it was the health tax, then it was increased user fees, then there was the tax and power grab in Bill 150, and now it's the HST. It's a tax-hike bonanza over there.

Tomorrow, consumers will be faced with higher—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Perhaps the members wouldn't need their earpieces if the tone in the chamber was a little lower.

Please continue.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. In seriousness, the members opposite should know that tomorrow consumers will be faced with higher taxes on everything from water heaters and furnaces, child care, plumbing and electrical supplies. Unbelievably, Seeing Eye dogs will be taxed. You're even going to raise the taxes on baking soda.

Consumers in this province can't catch a break with this minister at the cabinet table. Will he stand up for Ontario's consumers, or is he going to continue to sit idly by and allow these continued attacks on—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: It's really unfortunate; sometimes we believe in this House that the louder we talk, the more effective we are. Sometimes it's worthwhile to really listen and say what needs to be done.

The Premier has said again and again in this House that we should wait for the budget and see what is in the budget.

We will not bring a budget that will not protect our vulnerable, and we will make sure that we have the right atmosphere for our business people as well.

DEADSTOCK INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Today, farmers are protesting at Queen's Park because the McGuinty government has cut the $5-million program to ensure the safe disposal of deadstock from Ontario farms. Deadstock removal costs have increased because of new requirements to prevent BSE. Governments bear some of the responsibility for BSE, and therefore governments should bear some of the responsibility for the safe removal of dead farm livestock.

At a time when there are major concerns about food safety, how does the McGuinty government justify cutting the $5-million-a-year deadstock removal funding?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think it's important that we have this opportunity to get the facts before the people of the province.

Our government has invested $19 million in this particular sector, since coming to government, to enable this industry to transition to a sustainable way to manage the product on farm.

When we came to government, there were no regulations that would provide for a safe and environmentally responsible way to manage this waste on farms or in centralized facilities. We now have that in place. Two years ago we told our stakeholders—producers and those who pick up deadstock—that they had $4 million we were going to transition to this new regulatory regime, which is in place in other provinces in Canada. It is not—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Other provinces in Canada—for example, Quebec and Alberta—do find ways to help farmers pay for the cost of safe disposal of dead farm livestock. We've continued to have a problem here in Ontario, and farm organizations are telling you that you continue to have a problem. BSE continues to be a problem, in terms of food safety.

Farmers are willing to pay some of the share of disposing of dead farm livestock. They're prepared to pay some of the costs. Why isn't the McGuinty government prepared to pay some of the costs of ensuring food safety?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I would like to share with the honourable member that in Alberta most of the deadstock is rendered on-farm. Deadstock that is picked up is totally paid for by the farmer. In Quebec, the same would be the case.

What I am also very happy to report to this House is that the province of Ontario is prepared to sign a going-forward document with the federal government. It will provide resources for producers who are prepared to do environmental farm plans. Managing deadstock would be a part of that plan. Any investment that they would make to safely manage that product on their farm would qualify for that funding.

This is a transition that we have effected by working with producers and those in the industry. We believe that, going forward, it is more sustainable and more environmentally friendly than what we inherited. That is what we are committed to implementing.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I understand that as of January 1, 2009, legislation came into effect to cap the speed of most large trucks in Ontario at 105 kilometres per hour using an electronic device, a speed limiter.

I also understand that Ontario has worked closely with Quebec to harmonize our speed limiter laws in order to ease traffic and trade concerns between the provinces, with our laws even coming into force on the same day.

On almost all roads across the province, drivers of passenger vehicles must share the road with transport trucks. While most truck drivers are very good drivers, I do hear from my constituents on concerns surrounding truck safety. They worry about many things, but one of the top concerns raised is the speed at which some of the large trucks travel.

I am asking the Minister of Transportation to share with this House what this new legislation means for large trucks on our roads and what the benefits are of speed-limiting—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: That's an excellent question. As of January 1 of this year, as members may be aware, most large trucks in Ontario must have a speed limiter in place and set at 105 kilometres an hour. Quebec put this into effect exactly the same way we did, on the same date, so that it is synchronized in the two provinces.

The benefits are clear: Once fully implemented, we will see a 280,000-tonne reduction in greenhouse gas emissions each year. That's the same effect as taking 2,700 tractor-trailers off the road. We'll see an increase in road safety—research shows that excessive speed is a factor in 23% of crashes—and, finally, a significant decrease in fuel consumption that will benefit truckers financially: approximately 100 million fewer litres of diesel fuel used by the trucking industry each year.

We're pleased that Transport Canada has confirmed what we—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I'd like to thank the minister for sharing the benefits of this legislation, especially when it comes to road safety. However, I would like to let the minister know that I also have heard some criticism of this new law.

I've been asked about the educational aspect of this new law. How are we letting truckers know the new rules, especially those who are out-of-province or from the US? I have heard that concerns have been raised around who was consulted on this legislation. I have also heard that it can be quite expensive to install a speed limiter on a truck that is not already equipped with one, and for those who already have a speed limiter in place, it can be expensive to have it turned to 105 kilometres. I have heard that because of this and other reasons, speed limiters may hinder trade with the US and with provinces which do not have speed limiter laws in place.

I'm hoping the minister can respond to the above concerns and share with this House the answer to those criticisms.

Hon. James J. Bradley: We introduced this law after extensive consultation with the trucking industry and the general public. There were public hearings held. Once the law passed, regulations were posted on the regulatory registry for public comment. We listened to the feedback we received from everyone.

I'd like to clarify that older trucks, those from 1995 and before, that do not have electronic engines with speed limiters manufactured right in them will not need to retrofit those vehicles. In fact, more than 50% of Ontario trucks and 87% of the carriers in the US already have speed limiters in place and in use, and they're still able to deliver their goods on time. We do not believe that this will be a hindrance to cross-border trade and travel.

As for education on the new law, we're currently in a six-month educational awareness period. If pulled over, a trucker is informed that the new rules must be complied with by—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities and it concerns the Second Career program. Peter Zuccola from Nepean was laid off from his position as parts manager at a car dealership in October 2007. He applied to the government's Second Career program because he wanted to take a course in heating, refrigeration and air conditioning at Algonquin College so he could get back to work. In fact, he once had this qualification and he just needs to update his skills. It took Mr.

Zuccola five months of paperwork before the ministry finally told him that they wouldn't help him get retrained because ministry officials apparently thought he would be better off finding a retail job, even after he showed them a letter from a heating and air conditioning employer who said they'd hire him so long as he completed the college course.

Why does this government consistently put up roadblocks that prevent people like Mr. Zuccola from getting the training assistance they need to get a good job in the trade of their choice?

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the member raising the concern about his constituent. As I've always said in this House, I'm very happy to look into individual cases that are brought forward.

I reject the second part of the honourable member's question when he talks about roadblocks and obstacles. The Second Career program is part of a menu of programs and services that are offered by Employment Ontario. I think we've seen a tremendous amount of success over the last eight months since the program was put in place. As the member knows, the Second Career program envisions 20,000 people going back for long-term training over the course of three years, and after approximately eight months we already have about 8,000 people who have come forward.

But Second Career is only one of a variety of programs that exist through Employment Ontario. Through the skills development, a more short-term training program, over the last eight months we've seen 10,000 people come forward—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: The ministry has known about the problem for over a year. The minister should know. I know that when I was a minister, if something like this was going on, there would be something in that briefing book that would indicate that this is a problem that not only Mr. Zuccola is having, but hundreds of people are having in terms of the Second Career program.

The story goes on. Mr. Zuccola, after being rejected by the ministry, decided to take the college course anyway. He's paying $9,000 for the course, even though he has no income. His wife, God bless her, is juggling several jobs to pay the bills and raise their child so that her husband can get the retraining he needs to get a job.

There's another twist. Mr. Zuccola sits next to a guy in his class who is being retrained through the Second Career program for the exact same qualifications. What an insult. There are thousands of Ontarians like Mr. Zuccola who are getting jerked around by this ministry and this government. They're not getting the retraining that has been promised through the $4 million of advertising of this program—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, I'm very happy to look into the constituent that the honourable member brings forward. But I also have to impress upon this House that we've been very sensitive to removing obstacles through the Second Career program. In November of last year I announced a series of major changes to open up the Second Career program. Quite recently we changed the application form, and we continue to work with Employment Ontario providers to make sure that individuals have access to the training they need.

Let me tell you about some good-news stories that I want to share. Rick was laid off from the manufacturing sector after 10 years. He applied for Second Career and is now enrolled in Niagara College's electrical engineering program. This is what he had to say: "For the first time in my life I was asked what I wanted to do for a career, instead of just finding work to provide for my family."

Amandeep Sandhra was laid off as an assembly operator at Chrysler. Second Career is providing funding for him to retrain for a job in the IT sector.

Robert, a 45-year-old, was laid off from his job as a general labourer at a small powder and painting company in London—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

TAXATION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, your budget tomorrow may very well merge our provincial sales tax system into the much-hated Brian Mulroney-Michael Wilson federal GST system. When this happens, First Nations citizens who currently have an exemption to the PST will no longer have that exemption for items purchased off-reserve because the current GST rules will force them to pay that GST. Why would you increase the tax bill to some of the poorest citizens in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I wou