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

November 17, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L245 - Mon 17 Nov 1997 / Lun 17 Nov 1997

WEARING OF GREEN RIBBONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING / PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

WEARING OF GREEN RIBBONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM

BRIAN ROBINSON

EDUCATION REFORM

SHEENA'S PLACE

EDUCATION REFORM

TIM FARMILO AND CHRIS DRAGERT

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

VETERANS' MEMORIAL PARKWAY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA PROMENADE COMMÉMORATIVE DES ANCIENS COMBATANTS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

POST-TEACHERS' STRIKE LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

EDUCATION REFORM

WEARING OF GREEN RIBBONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EDUCATION REFORM

ESTIMATES

ACCESS TO PUBLIC GALLERIES

POINTS OF PRIVILEGE

ACCESS TO PUBLIC GALLERIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DU PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL), 1996 (CONTINUED) / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DU PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL (SUITE)

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

WEARING OF GREEN RIBBONS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I notice there are some members who are wearing ribbons. They are out of order. I ask those members if they would remove the ribbons, unless you seek unanimous consent. If you get unanimous consent, of course they would in fact be in order.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to wear the ribbons, which are an expression of democracy.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines is seeking unanimous consent to wear their green ribbons. Agreed? I heard some noes; therefore, they're out of order. I ask the members to take them off.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING / PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Algoma, you had a point of privilege?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Yes, Speaker. I have given you the required notice. I rise to bring to your attention Progressive Conservative government advertising that was aired on television across the province over the weekend as a message from the government of Ontario. I've submitted the text of these advertisements to you. They were widely broadcast.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, I appreciate and I want to listen, but I must caution the members who have the green ribbons that they must be removed and taken off your desks. They can't be exposed. I don't know what the green heart is. I presume that's a political expression as well.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): It's my heart.

The Speaker: Okay, sorry. I didn't know. If it is, that's fine. It appears to me that you too are wearing that green heart, so unless it's a fashion statement -- I don't think it is, as a matter of fact, so I'm going to declare that as a political statement as well.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Do you have a problem with two people wearing the same brooches?

Mr Wildman: No, but I believe that is not a fashion statement. I think it's more of a political statement, that's all. Member for Algoma.

Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: I'm now dealing with a point of privilege, member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Lankin: I have a point of privilege with respect to taking this off.

The Speaker: Then I'll hear it after the member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: That matter, I suspect, will be dealt with subsequent to this matter.

I rose on a point of privilege to bring to your attention, Speaker, commercials that were aired widely across the province sponsored by the provincial government and paid for with taxpayers' money. I first heard these advertisements on Friday evening. I saw them again on Saturday and on Sunday, over the weekend. The language in these commercials is blatantly partisan and it is designed to put forward the message of the Progressive Conservative Party with regard to their position and their dispute with teachers' federations in this province over Bill 160.

These ads are not intended to provide information to the public, to the taxpayers. In fact, they don't provide complete or correct information. They are completely one-sided and partisan in nature. I don't dispute that if the Conservative Party wished to advertise its position with regard to education in the province, or Bill 160, it would be quite proper, if the party so determined, to buy advertising time and to advertise across the province on behalf of the Conservative Party.

However, I draw your attention to the text. It says at the bottom, "A message from the Ontario government." Thus, we know the advertisement was paid for in production and distribution by the taxpayers. I ask you, if you look at the text, to determine whether or not this is an attempt to give information or to put forward a partisan political message. It starts off by saying, "Why do the Teachers' Unions Oppose Education Reform?" assuming they do oppose education reform.

It then says, "The union bosses want school boards to keep the power to raise your property taxes" -- the "union bosses," hardly a tone which is used when you are attempting to get information across rather than attempting to influence in a political manner.

Then it says further, "They want the ability to increase class size through union contract negotiations." That is, the "union bosses" want to increase class size, according to this advertisement paid for by the taxpayers of this province. "They want high school teachers to spend an average of three hours and 45 minutes in the classroom." They want "higher taxes, bigger classes; less time teaching kids. That's what the union bosses want to protect; the status quo. A message from the Ontario government."

Then the other ad: "Why is Your Government Reforming Education in Ontario?" This sounds as if it might in fact be an attempt to get information across to the public in a non-partisan way, but it starts off by saying: "We want to stop school boards and union bosses from raising your taxes. We want to limit the average class sizes to no more than 25 elementary students per class." Again this is an attempt to influence public opinion in a politically partisan way against the leaders of the teachers' federations who have been engaged in a considerable dispute with this government. It is not an attempt to get information across about the government's education agenda or Bill 160.

In fact, this information is filled with innuendo and misinformation. Contrary to the claims of these advertisements, the teachers' federations and the school boards historically have been able to negotiate issues like class size and in most cases they have attempted to negotiate them downwards and put limits on them. The teachers' federations, not the union bosses --

The Speaker: Member for Algoma -- and I don't want to cut any member's point of privilege short -- I think I have a good idea about what you're driving at with respect to your point. If you want to add some more comments, I'd be interested, but I don't want to get into a political debate about the thing.

Mr Wildman: I just want to point out that that is what this is, political debate, rather than providing information. Contrary to what is in this commercial paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, 60% of whom are opposed to Bill 160, the teachers' federations proposed a reduction in class sizes to be negotiated.

Having said that, Speaker, I recognize you have ruled on matters similar to this in the past -- this government apparently still hasn't learned from what you've indicated in this House in the past with regard to partisan advertising -- and you've indicated that your personal views on this subject are clearly on the record. You stated that on February 24, 1997, in Hansard, page 7154. You went on to say that in that particular instance you could not find a prima facie case of privilege.

I submit to you, Speaker, that if you review the content of these ads, the wording of these commercials, it goes beyond simply a matter of personal opinion but is a blatant attempt by this government to use taxpayers' money to win political points for the political party that is in power rather than disseminate information to the public about Bill 160. I ask you to rule on that matter.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, I'll save you a problem. I gave you similar notice of this and I will speak at this time and save two different points of privilege coming forward.

The concern all fairminded people would have, and I consider all members of the Legislature to be fairminded, is that in fact we have the government now escalating its advertising campaign and changing the tone of its campaign.

Previously, members of the opposition, myself included, have risen in this House to speak to this matter, that is, the use of taxpayers' dollars by the government of Ontario, through various ministries or through the auspices of the entire government, to purvey a clearly partisan political message to the people of the province.

If the Progressive Conservative Party, whose coffers are full of money these days from developers and others, wished to raise issues and pay for advertising, it seems to me that's what they should be doing, in other words, using the money of the Progressive Conservative Party, not of the taxpayers of Ontario because clearly, as the text of these ads indicates, this is not information.

If the government were to publish, for instance, direct information on the bill, many people would find it more acceptable, though I suspect the government cannot do this in an impartial way. But what we see are clearly combative pieces of advertising denouncing certain people in this province, pointing out and ascribing motives to various people in this province who are in opposition to the government.

When they say it's a message from the Ontario government, I think it's clear that's not paid for by the Progressive Conservative Party but rather by all people in Ontario. When they ask the question -- and I know you will want to get hold of the content of these ads yourself -- "Why do teachers oppose education reform?" clearly that is pointing out an

interpretation by the government of the people who are in opposition to it.

I don't know why the government would say this, because it would be totally inaccurate, but it is a partisan message. If it were a partisan message by the Conservative Party, then one understands there's going to be a slant to it. We don't like it, but we understand that when the Conservative Party is putting it out, they're going to put the Conservative Party position out. This, however, is the government of Ontario.

When they say that, as they call them, union bosses want school boards to keep taxes high, to keep spending a lot of money, again they are pointing out motives of people who are in opposition to them. When they talk about boards of education and teachers wanting higher taxes, surely when they point that out, they are again denouncing them.

I look at all of the content of this, and then I look at your ruling, which I think was an important ruling some time ago. This was on the city of Toronto bill. The statement you made, which all members of the Legislature should remember -- I certainly remember it -- is as follows:

"On a separate but related matter, the member for St Catharines, Mr Bradley, expressed concerns on Tuesday last week about the unequal access to advertising resources, as between the government and opposition." I'm quoting you now, Mr Speaker. "He asked whether the Speaker had any jurisdiction to restrict the government from disseminating allegedly self-serving, partisan advertising.

"At this point in my ruling, I want to express some personal concerns about the propriety of public funds being used to advocate, through advertising, a particular position on a matter that is before the House." Clearly, this is before the House.

"Let me be clear" -- this is the Speaker speaking -- "I am not speaking here about politically paid-for advertising, but rather about funds that are contributed to by every Ontarian regardless of his or her political view. Personally, I would find it offensive if taxpayer dollars were being used to convey a political or partisan message. There is nothing wrong with members debating an issue and influencing public opinion. In fact, it is part of our parliamentary tradition to do so.

But I feel that it's wrong for a government to attempt to influence public opinion through advertising that is paid for with public funds which, I might add, are not available to the opposition, instead of through debate in the House.

"As I say, these are my personal views."

I must say, Mr Speaker, when you expressed it at that time, I was under the impression that the government was actually going to listen to that cautioning on your part. I use the word "cautioning" advisedly, because clearly you have stated in your previous ruling your objection to this. I don't know how anybody could possibly define the ads that we heard on the weekend, obviously devised by the whiz kids in the Premier's office, as being anything other than partisan political advertising paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, on September 10 you considered a similar point of privilege put forward by some of the same members who have spoken with regard to this point of privilege. You said in your decision:

"Your argument being that it isn't balanced" -- that is, the advertising or the information flow wasn't balanced -- "and reasonable, or it isn't fair, and the government has the advantage that the opposition doesn't have when it comes to reporting to the people of the province of Ontario -- whether or not that's true is academic. I as Speaker don't have any power to determine whether or not something is balanced or reasonable or information-based or not."

Mr Speaker, the opposition has one view of the information being presented; we have an opposite view of the information being presented. We believe the information to be true, correct and information which is necessary to portray and tell the people of Ontario about our position.

I do not believe that this is a point of privilege.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Monsieur le Président, sur un point de privilège : je me suis intéressé au commentaire que le leader parlementaire du gouvernement a donné sur sa position. Je veux que vous regardiez cette situation-là très clairement.

Premièrement, qu'est-ce qui est arrivé ? Le gouvernement a dépensé de l'argent public afin d'acheter des publications --

The Speaker: I think I've ruled the lapel pins out of order. I'd ask for them to be removed. I won't hear you speak while you're wearing them. I ask the other members --

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I'm already in a point of privilege. I've dealt with that one already. I'm going to come back to that.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, I ask you to come to order right now, please. I want you to remove the ribbon. Thank you. Member for Cochrane South.

M. Bisson : Ce qui est arrivé, c'est simplement que le gouvernement provincial encore, pas pour la première fois mais pour une multitude de fois, a décidé de dépenser de l'argent public pour acheter des publications pour avancer un message politique.

Monsieur le Président, quant à moi, le Règlement de la Chambre -- les règlements de ce qu'on peut faire comme député -- est très clair. On ne peut pas prendre de l'argent public afin d'acheter des publications pour avancer un point politique. C'est pour ça qu'on a des partis politiques, c'est pour ça qu'on a des associations de comté et c'est pour ça qu'on a des partis provinciaux qui font la perception de fonds qui est nécessaire pour être capable d'avancer un message politique. Rien de mal sur ce bord-là.

Mais quand le gouvernement utilise sa présence dans le gouvernement, et son pouvoir, pour prendre de l'argent public pour faire des publications qui sont carrément politiques de nature, ça veut dire que le gouvernement, quant à moi, est en train d'abuser non seulement de son droit comme gouvernement mais son privilège comme gouvernement. Comme vous le savez, c'est non seulement pas acceptable, c'est seulement le gouvernement qui peut le faire. Je demande au Président à ce qu'il regarde à cette situation-là. Vous l'avez fait. Vous avez déjà pris une décision au mois de septembre passé.

Le dernier point, et je veux en faire seulement un autre et ça ne va prendre qu'une minute : M. Sterling, le membre qui est responsable comme leader parlementaire pour le gouvernement conservateur, s'est levé ici dans la Chambre et a dit : _Écoute, c'est strictement académique si c'est politique ou non politique._ Ce n'est pas académique. C'est très clair que le gouvernement a utilisé l'argent public pour acheter des publications à travers la province pour avancer un message politique.

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Cochrane South. As I said earlier, I don't want to cut any debate off. I think it's an important point of privilege raised by the member for Algoma and I will hear it as long as members want to submit. But if you could bring up any new points of order, I'd greatly appreciate it, rather than reiterating ones I've already heard.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, I want to make one additional point to the comments already made by our House leader. I appreciate the fact that in previous rulings on the use of government funds for advertising there's sometimes a fine line between what is considered informative and what is considered partisanship. But I really believe that this new advertisement that was launched by the government this weekend crosses a very different line. I think it goes well beyond a violation of the points of privilege, the privileges of the members of this assembly, but that's the only

article under which we can rise to speak to it.

If you've looked at the text of these ads and their presentation, you will realize that this is nothing short of a vicious attack being launched on a group of people who dared to oppose the government's agenda.

I say to you with as much conviction and concern as I can summon that I don't believe we have ever, in a democratic society and certainly not in this country, seen that kind of attack on opponents of a government launched by the government itself. It is unconscionable, and the fact that it is being paid for with public money is almost incidental to the fact that our democratically elected government would launch this attack at all.

Applause.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I just want to respond briefly to the comments of the government House leader. At one point I guess the government House leader slipped in his remarks and said that these ads were a portrayal, and they are indeed a portrayal. They don't talk about leaders of teachers' federations or of teachers' unions. They talk about union bosses in the tone -- unfortunately, Speaker, you have the transcript but you haven't got the actual tone that was used by the announcer in making these statements. This is an attack on those leaders who represent the teachers of this province in a way that is --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Algoma. Come to order, please.

Mr Wildman: -- paid for attacking a group --

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, I warn you to come to order. I think we've entered into political debate at this point.

I will get copies of the advertising. It's TV advertising, I take it, that is at issue here. I will endeavour to get copies of the advertising and review them and report back to the House as soon as possible.

WEARING OF GREEN RIBBONS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, I am rising on a point of privilege with respect to your ruling that we must remove any

article which you have deemed to be a political protest; in this case today, the green ribbons and the green heart which I and my colleagues were wearing on the lapels of our jackets. I'm asking you to give consideration to that ruling, not immediately, but to come back to this House perhaps, and I would like to give you a couple of reasons.

The rulings that you make in this House, we have now understood, have much broader reach than just the jurisdiction, the legislative precinct, for which you are responsible. In the last week I have had three constituents come to see me or call me and raise specific complaints about the treatment they received from members of the Ontario Government Protective Service, not here in the legislative precinct but in the Mowat Block.

Specifically, Mr Doug MacMillan, who was there with his sister-in-law and four children -- two of each had their children there -- was refused entry because he was wearing a green ribbon. Mr Speaker, he also had a poppy on: a poppy and a green ribbon. He was told by the security guard he could not enter a public building because he had a green ribbon. I understand you do not have jurisdiction for that, but that ruling by the OGPS, the Ontario Government Protective Service, comes directly from the rulings that you have made with respect to this House.

In a second incident -- I'll be very brief describing the second incident -- Anna Semple and Anne Runyan, also from my riding, with three children, parked in the underground of the Macdonald Block and were attending a parents' rally outside the Mowat Block. From the underground parking lot, you have to come up the elevators and come through the lobby. As they were coming up the elevators, they were stopped by a security guard. Their children had signs on; they were to take

part in the rally. They were told that they had to give their signs to the security guard, that he was confiscating them. They asked, could they not just simply get out the door, because their intent was to go outside, and he said no, and in fact told them that if they refused, he could charge them and arrest them.

Again, I understand that you have no direct --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Beaches-Woodbine, you've got to wrap, because these aren't even under my jurisdiction.

Ms Lankin: I realize that. The reason I raise them is because the security guards who are working for the government in those government public buildings appear to be taking their directions from the rulings you have made in this Legislature.

Mr Speaker, there are many occasions when white ribbons are worn in this Legislature, when red ribbons are worn in this Legislature. I think, as opposed to political buttons, and I understand why you've ruled them out of order, which have clear messages and words on them, individual members expressing support for a cause, whatever that cause is, should not be able to be determined by the majority government, which is the case when you leave it to a ruling of unanimous consent. In this case, anything that you deem to be a political statement therefore becomes suspect.

I'll tell you, when I got up this morning, I specifically put on an apple green blouse as a political statement. I hope that you're not intending to do anything about that, and I would point out in the galleries --

The Speaker: No, I have no plans to do anything about that. Let me just say --

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Mr Speaker, on the same point --

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Mr Speaker, on the same point, my point of privilege --

The Speaker: You've got to take your ribbon off or I'm not even going to recognize you. Member for Ottawa West --

Mr Cullen: I'm addressing the same item.

The Speaker: I heard you. I'm not recognizing you until you take your ribbon off. Member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: On the same point, Mr Speaker: Just this past month in Sault Ste Marie, two standing committees of this Legislature arrived with all the attached accoutrements, but this time, for the first time in my seven years, security at each of the doors, and as people came through to participate in the democratic process of appearing before a standing committee of the Legislature, they were accosted as they entered to see what they were wearing, if they had any buttons on.

The question I have is, how far afield does this Gestapo-like control of the way people who are exercising their democratic rights to come forward and express themselves to these committees --

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, if you could take your seat, please.

Mr Martin : I have just been told to sit down by one of the members across the way. I would like --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, I'm asking you now to take your seat. If you don't take your seat -- one more warning: Please take your seat or I'll name you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, come to order. Member for Lake Nipigon, heckling "Take your seat" or "Sit down" is not out of order.

If I can move on, the committees run themselves. Members run the committees. I don't have a say in how --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, I'm not going to warn you again. I heard your point of privilege.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, I'm going to name you next time you get up.

Member for Ottawa West, can I finish what I was saying, please? Thank you. I know you want to get up on the point of privilege.

With respect to the point of privilege, point of order, it's simply not a point of order for this place. It's a point of order potentially for your committee, but it's not a point of order for the Legislature.

I'm not there. I don't know what jurisdiction or what rules are made at the committee level and it's not up to me to interpret them. That's up to the committee to decide, and the committee Chair and those members of the committee.

With respect to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, I don't know what happened at the Macdonald Block or the other blocks. If they take their rulings from in this place, I don't direct them to do that.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It's a government order.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, come to order. Thank you very much.

Mr Bisson: You're welcome.

The Speaker: I can only direct to this House what it is I ruled in that 10-day filibuster, which was, there can be no buttons, ribbons etc worn. I understand that some members want to come in here and make a political statement. I think that's important that we do that, as all members should do it, in their place when they're speaking.

Anybody can come in here and ask for unanimous consent to wear any ribbon and any button on any day, but it's not a majority thing. Any member could stop any other member from wearing any button or ribbon. Any one member, as long as they didn't give consent, can stop any buttons or ribbons being worn in this place. So it's not a majority decision. All members must agree before it can be allowed to be worn. That is the one difference.

I find it just a lot simpler if I rule all ribbons and all buttons out of order, rather than start determining what is in order and what isn't in order.

Lastly, the member for Ottawa West.

Mr Cullen: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I've listened to your comments, but I have to draw your attention to standing order 21(a), which states quite explicitly: "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

Mr Speaker, I believe the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does apply here to this House. I stand here not only with a green tie, but a green ring, worn by my grandfather during the struggle for the independence of Ireland, in commemoration of a despotic government that banned the wearing of the green 150 years ago.

Mr Speaker, I can say to you therefore that wearing green, whether it is to support the parents and the teachers on Bill 160 or wearing green to recognize the struggle for independence, or wearing any other colour, I believe falls under the freedoms that are enjoyed under our rights and privileges under our Constitution.

I am proud to put this on and I believe in so doing --

The Speaker: I ask the member to take the ribbon off or I will name the member. I am only giving you one warning.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I understand. I name the member for Ottawa West.

Mr Cullen: Which do you want me to take off, Mr Speaker, the tie or the ring or the ribbon?

The Speaker: It's not up to me to tell you what to take off and what not to take off.

Mr Cullen was escorted from the chamber.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In view of how the Speaker is ruling, I notice a whole whack of government members wearing their silly little "I'm an MPP" buttons as if it accorded them some sort of rank or status when in fact at this point in their history as a government it's quite to the contrary. I'm not consenting to their wearing those buttons; perhaps the Speaker would rule on that as well.

Mr Bisson: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker --

Mr Kormos: Mr Speaker, what about the buttons? I'm not consenting to them.

The Speaker: I assume it's on the same point of order.

Mr Bisson: Exactly. On the point of privilege, Mr Speaker, I am interested in your ruling because you're --

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, is it on the same point of privilege?

Mr Bisson: I actually have two. One is related to that, and I'll come back to the other one after, separately.

You make the point --

The Speaker: Let me rule on the one first before you come back to your separate one.

Mr Bisson: I want to be clear. Mr Speaker, you're making a point that members of the assembly cannot come in here with any kind of lapel pins or brooches or ribbons, anything that signifies any kind of political campaign. I notice the government members across the way are wearing their chamber of commerce, CFIB pins. If that's not a political statement, if that's not a political message, I don't know what it is. I would like to know, is that a --

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, if you read my ruling, the ribbons and buttons ruling that I made in April, you would see right in that ruling that I spoke directly about those types of pins and buttons and I delineated between the two. So if you read the ruling, I think you'd get a very clear answer as to what it was I was ruling on.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I gather from your comments that you plan to review the material and to rule on it in the future.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Yes.

Mr Phillips: I'd just like to add a couple of thoughts as you're considering it. One is that we in the opposition look to you, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could I just get some order, please? Government whip, if I could just get some order. I'm having a very difficult time hearing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Parkdale.

Mr Phillips: There are two things to consider while you're considering this, Mr Speaker. One is that we in the opposition, and I think the public, look to you as one of the key protectors from the abuse of power by any government. It's a difficult role but one that perhaps is your most important role. In our judgement, the advertising is a gross abuse of power. It is the state using the public's resources to attack the public.

As we look at the future, governments of any stripe cannot be allowed to abuse their power in such a way, so we are looking to you to help redress this issue both for the opposition and I think for the public.

The second point that's very important is that the public confidence in their democratic institutions in some respects is at stake here. I don't mean to overstate the issue, but I think this is a significant weakening of the confidence that people have in their democratic institutions when they see such, in our opinion, gross abuse of power where the government will so directly attack a group in our society using public funds, using language that can only be described as provoking a conflict.

For those two reasons, Mr Speaker, we are looking forward to your examination of this issue. We don't underestimate the importance of it, both protecting the opposition and the public from abuse of power by any government and helping to restore some confidence in this democratic institution.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): At the height of the civil action by the teachers, the Ontario Conservatives held a fund-raiser in Sudbury. Although it wasn't nearly a sell-out, the Premier did slither into town under cover as he drove through the estimated 3,000 people. The Premier avoided the crowd very, very capably. However, he couldn't avoid the people who were outside.

Even the most ardent Tory was upset when the Premier of this province started his presentation to the converted by saying, "I can't understand why every time I come to Sudbury they have a parade for me."

The people of my city, of my riding, found those comments to be insulting, and so do the rest of Ontarians find those comments to be insulting. That's the problem with this Premier and his band of revolutionaries: They don't listen. They wouldn't listen to the 3,000 Sudburians, the parents, the students and the teachers, who wanted to voice their concerns with Bill 160. I wonder, will he listen to the in excess of 100,000 people who signed letters and petitions? Will he listen to them as we now bring them over to him?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Cochrane North.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement today is about protection of public education in Ontario. From day one the Mike Harris Conservatives have spun a web of confusion and half truths --

The Speaker: Stop the clock. You know what, member for Cochrane North? I think I'll just allow this to happen today. It's cutting into your statement.

The member for Cochrane North.

Mr Len Wood: From day one the Mike Harris Conservatives have spun a web of confusion and half truths about education funding. The Tory revolution pledged classroom funding for education would be guaranteed. It's been cut right across the province in every area we look at in education.

We have seen over the past few weeks' demonstrations clearly that the Conservative government has broken every promise on education. The government seriously lost credibility by rushing to seek an injunction instead of attempting to seriously negotiate a solution with the teachers. The ruling by Judge MacPherson confirms that the government was wrong.

Though the teachers are back to work, the fight continues. Last Saturday morning I helped kick off a green ribbon campaign with the parents, students and teachers We had a couple of hundred people who joined in the circle in Kapuskasing and headed out in different directions, tying ribbons on all the car aerials, all the public schools, all the public buildings and asking everybody, including the Conservative back-bench members, to wear green ribbons in support of hope for public education against what Mike Harris has decided: to cut billions of dollars out of education and destroy public education in Ontario. We will not stand for it.

BRIAN ROBINSON

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am proud to rise and congratulate a constituent of mine who recently was awarded a special award for fire safety.

On November 14, Brian Robinson, a firefighter from Peterborough, as among nine individuals from across the province to receive the distinguished Fire Safety Award from the Ontario fire marshal at a special ceremony. Brian received this award for his comprehensive fire safety presentations at the Trent Child Care Centre over the past two years, teaching children how and what to do in the event of a fire.

His visits certainly had an impact on at least one little girl whose house caught fire after one of his visits. This little girl used the fire safety tips she learned from Brian to help her babysitter evacuate the home safely.

Brian's commitment to the community is truly remarkable. Not only did Brian hold those regular volunteer fire safety talks on a regular basis; he also conducted them on his day off. Brian has been quoted as saying that if you help just one person, doing these things, it's worth it.

These are words of a truly great person with a great sense of community. I ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating Brian Robinson for helping to keep the children of my riding out of harm's way. Congratulations, Brian.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): If anyone had any doubt about who really runs the Conservative government of Mike Harris, they should read the

article by Guy Crittenden in the November 1 edition of the Globe and Mail. It's entitled "The Harris Kremlin." It spells out:

"Mr Harris has played fast and loose with the democratic process. He has surrounded himself with a cadre of young, fervently ideological advisers to do his bidding. Grass-roots supporters who thought the party would emphasize democratic debate, plebiscites and local decision-making have been shocked. In the Harris Kremlin, power flows from the centre.... ministers are often kept in the dark, making them little more than salespeople for initiatives cobbled together in the Premier's office."

Voters who thought they elected members of the Legislature to reflect their views have been disillusioned to find that the whiz kids, and not their elected representatives, call the tune in Mike Harris's Ontario.

According to a Southam News story by Carolyn Abraham and Richard Brennan, "Education Minister Dave Johnson, who has been the government's prominent public face during the strike affecting 2.1 million students, is receiving many of his marching orders from the so-called whiz kids in the Premier's office.... Three weeks ago, the Premier rallied his 1995 election team to devise a strategy as he anticipated a full war with the teachers."

Here's what they advised him. They told the Premier he should -- and I quote; not my words, their words -- "Kick the teachers' asses." Indeed, this is democracy in Ontario?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): The last few weeks have been a remarkable time in the history of Ontario: that 126,000 teachers of this province would engage in a political protest, in an action of civil disobedience to protest the government's actions. People who are normally in the classroom, focused on educating our children, found themselves pushed to the wall by a plan by this government, and they responded.

Since the teachers have gone back in -- and we are thankful for the education job they did: the education of the public with respect to Bill 160 -- parents have taken up the protest. My colleagues and I have boxes like this today. There are hundreds and hundreds of letters from parents in Ontario to Tory backbenchers, asking them to please not vote in favour of Bill 160 or to absent themselves when the vote is taking place, to listen to their constituents. There are also hundreds of letters coming in from principals and vice-principals to our leader's office asking the government to withdraw the amendments.

People want an opportunity to sit down and go through public hearings where you're really listening. You've not listened to the people of Ontario. The majority, 60%, oppose you. It is time, in a democracy, for you to begin to listen.

SHEENA'S PLACE

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I rise today in the Legislature to call the attention of all members of this Legislature to Sheena's Place in Toronto. Sheena's Place is a community-based centre which offers services to people suffering from eating disorders. Sheena's Place was founded in response to the 1993 death of Sheena Carpenter, a young woman suffering from anorexia nervosa.

There are currently 70,000 people in Ontario suffering from eating disorders. Most of the afflicted are women. Studies show that 15% of those diagnosed with anorexia or bulimia will die from causes directly related to the illness. Maintaining a strong sense of self-esteem in the face of day-to-day challenges is often overwhelming for those who are afflicted by eating disorders. How tragic that we are suffering an epidemic brought on by an unrealistic cultural image of what people should look like.

Sheena's Place offers support, information and services to those living with eating disorders. In addition, the facility also provides information and support to parents, siblings, friends, spouses, partners, teachers and other care providers. I would like to ask all the members of this Legislature to support this excellent organization and the vital services they provide.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Over the last three weeks my offices have been inundated with messages from parents, students and concerned taxpayers who are furious that the government of Mike Harris has trampled their democratic rights with Bill 160. They have been further frustrated that individual Conservative caucus members are not available on e-mail and that the faxes have been shut off in Conservative offices across Ontario.

In my replies to these taxpayers, I have pledged to deliver a copy of each and every one of their communications to all the members opposite. I have here packages for Mr Johnson, Mr Harris and Mr Carroll that I am sending across. The rest will be delivered by attendants to every government office. Further, I attended a meeting yesterday of 400 concerned citizens who have signed a petition demanding that the government withdraw Bill 160

Premier, I want you to know that democracy is alive and well in Chatham-Kent and Essex. I send across the petition from Concerned Citizens for Quality Education, who want you to know that democracy does not end at the ballot box, it begins there. As well, I have a petition from A.Y. Jackson school.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It's interesting that government members come into this House after a five-week break, when we know people in their constituencies have been talking to them about Bill 160 and how they're opposed, and make statements about everything else other than Bill 160.

I got a letter, unfortunately, from a group of parents, signed by Lynne Dénommée, who is one of the members of the parents' council at école Saint-Gerard in Timmins. I want to let you know that in this letter, dated November 13, addressed to Réal Laurin, who's the principal at that school, they inform the principal that the entire parents' council was resigning from their positions. Why?

Because this parents' council has understood very well what the government was doing with Bill 160 and couldn't understand why a government that says it's intent on trying to make a system of education better would not take the time to speak to parents' councils or speak to parents in general about what goes on in education. It's most unfortunate that they've been put in this position.

I call on the government once again to try to do what is right: to slow down when it comes to Bill 160, to talk to the parents and the kids involved, the very people who are the ones who are going to be the victims of this bill, so that if you're going to do this, at least you take the time to listen to what parents and kids have to say and people don't have to take steps such as we're seeing here where entire parents' councils are resigning their positions because of what this government is doing. Shame on the government.

TIM FARMILO AND CHRIS DRAGERT

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It is my pleasure today to rise in the House to congratulate two bright young constituents of mine, Tim Farmilo and Chris Dragert.

These two exceptional students from Centennial Secondary School in Belleville are among 28 students from across Ontario who this semester will pursue their study of science using the unique facilities of the Ontario Science Centre.

A teacher, elaborating on the uniqueness of this school, said, "Having use of the equipment at the science centre to teach science makes me feel like a kid in a toy shop."

Chris and Tim will have use of such facilities as the holography lab, biotechnology lab and rotating room. As well, they will act as hosts, helping other students to find science as interesting as they do.

In operation since 1982, the school currently offers the following five OAC courses: science in society, biology, calculus, chemistry and physics. The school touts its small and informal classes, its experienced and imaginative teachers and stimulating environment. That imagination is evident in such demonstrations as the use of liquid nitrogen to make ice cream.

I want to commend both Chris and Tim for their initiative and hope that they will have further success in improving their education.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to take this opportunity in welcoming the 13th group of pages to serve in this 36th Parliament: Gregory Agate from Lincoln; Peter Ashton from Parkdale; Katherine Aukema from Brampton North; Robert Brown from Perth; Kelly Chapeskie from S-D-G & East Grenville; Graeme Crawford from Peterborough; Patricia Dickenson from Lambton; Kimberly Farrell from Norfolk; Daniel Gooch from Durham West; Melissa-Anne Lackan from Scarborough Centre; Sandra Lamon from Algoma; Kyle Marshall from Burlington South; Mora Martin from Sault Ste Marie; Ross Moncur from Essex South; David Morley from Durham Centre; Laura Poel from Oxford; Brendan Smith from Riverdale; Matthew Smith from York East; Meghan Summers from Quinte; and Alberto White from Niagara South.

Welcome.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on social development and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 142,

An Act to revise the law related to Social Assistance by enacting the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, by repealing the Family Benefits Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act and by amending several other Statutes.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 149,

An Act to continue the reforms begun by the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997 and to make other amendments respecting the financing of local governments.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Thursday, 2 October, 1997, the bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 161,

An Act to provide fairness for parents and employees by providing remedies relating to the province-wide withdrawal of services by teachers between October 27 and November 7, 1997 and to make a complementary amendment to the Education Act / Projet de loi 161, Loi favorisant le traitement équitable des parents et des employés en prévoyant des recours à la suite du retrait de services par les enseignants à l'échelle de la province entre le 27 octobre et le 7 novembre 1997 et apportant une modification complémentaire à la

Loi sur l'éducation.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1430 to 1437.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 75; the nays are 41.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Minister, any comments?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I propose to wait until ministry statements.

VETERANS' MEMORIAL PARKWAY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA PROMENADE COMMÉMORATIVE DES ANCIENS COMBATANTS

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to name Highway 416 Veterans' Memorial Parkway / Projet de loi 162, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement des voies publiques et des transports en commun pour nommer la voie publique 416 Promenade commémorative des anciens combattants.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I note that the member for Simcoe East is wearing the same tie as I. Is that a political statement, in your view?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Algoma, I know the coalition for Biway shoppers will be pleased.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 107 and 108; and that the House will commence at 11 am on Thursday, November 20, 1997, to discuss ballot item number 105 only.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

POST-TEACHERS' STRIKE LEGISLATION

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): Just a few minutes ago I introduced the Fairness for Parents and Employees Act in the Legislature. This proposed legislation would --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): If you were really interested in fairness you would do something about Bill 160.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Flaherty: This proposed legislation would, first of all, provide help to working families who were adversely affected by the province-wide strike. Second, it would guarantee no workplace repercussions for those parents and guardians who missed work to care for their children during the teachers' strike. Third, it would protect teachers who chose to stay in the classroom.

Before I continue with some of the details of our proposed legislation, I would like to thank our business and employer community for their positive response to my request for fairness and flexibility in assisting their employees to cope with the difficulties caused by the teachers' strike. I am proud that both the business community and working parents and guardians demonstrated flexibility and good sense during this difficult period.

The legislation that I introduced fulfils the promises made by the government to the people of Ontario during the teachers' strike. Our proposed legislation would first provide for a payment of up $40 per family for each day that an eligible child was unable to attend school because of the strike.

For the purposes of this legislation, "eligible child" refers to school children l3 years of age or younger, or children in child care facilities or day nurseries located in schools that were closed due to the teachers' action, or special needs students in secondary schools. The money for these payments would come from the savings school boards have accumulated as a result of not having to pay striking teachers.

Second, the legislation would ensure that employees are protected from dismissal or discipline if they couldn't work because of the additional child care responsibilities during the teachers' strike.

Finally, our proposed legislation would prohibit teachers' unions from taking reprisals against any of their members --

Mr Wildman: Shame on you. You're the Minister of Labour. What's the matter with you? There was no intimidation.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Finally, our proposed legislation would prohibit teachers' unions from taking reprisals against any of their members who refused to participate in this strike or who counselled or assisted others in not participating in the strike.

Our government is determined to protect the rights and interests of children, families and employees who were adversely affected by the teachers' action. We are also determined to protect teachers who chose to stay in the classroom. We made specific promises and we are keeping them.

The legislation I introduced today is important legislation which, if passed by the House, will provide fairness to Ontario families. It will also provide some remedies for the difficulties and expenses that many parents and guardians had to face because of the teachers' strike. I urge all members to fully support our legislation and to give it speedy passage.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): We are still in the midst of the single greatest education crisis in the history of this magnificent province, and this is the government's response. What they're trying to do -- and this is perfectly transparent -- is a cynical attempt to buy favour with parents, who are extremely concerned about what's happening to education in Ontario. It's nothing more than that. Apparently they're going to come up with $40 a day for babysitting costs in order to reimburse parents.

These are the questions parents are asking: How are they going to reimburse their kids for the loss of special education services since this government has been making cuts to those programs? How are they going to reimburse the 60,000 Ontario four-year-olds who have been deprived of junior kindergarten since this government stepped into power? How are they going to reimburse kids who have been deprived of the services of speech pathologists, school psychologists, librarians, ESL teachers? How are they going to help kids who are in those classrooms today where they don't even have books sufficient to meet their needs?

This government picked the fight. It picked another fight in a long series of fights. It started off by fighting with the public service, then it fought with the doctors, the nurses, the police and the firefighters. They've been fighting with our farmers, environmentalists, every single municipal representative in the province. But you know what? They lost this fight. They started out fighting with the teachers, but they didn't realize that they soon very quickly took on parents, students, trustees and every friend of public education in Ontario.

Today, rather than this sop to parents and effort to buy favour with 40 bucks a day, we should have had the Premier stand up in this House and say he was withdrawing Bill 160. Everybody now understands what Bill 160 is all about. It's about a power grab, and it's about a money grab. It's as simple as that.

This government has already cut close to $1 billion from public education in Ontario. Kids are taking it on the chin as a result of that, in special education, junior kindergarten and adult education.

This government, to its dismay, had to contend with a leak during the course of this crisis when the truth came out and we quickly discovered that what this was really all about was exactly what we'd been maintaining it was all about. It's about stealing another $700 million from public education. Parents right across Ontario now recognize that.

I still don't think Tory backbenchers understand the nature of this paragraph. We are going to run your schools from downtown Toronto. Do you really understand that? Queen's Park is now going to run your schools in your ridings. Is that what they elected you to do? You show me where that is in the Common Sense Revolution. You go back home and talk to the folks who put you here in the first place and ask them if that's in keeping with their wishes. Is that what they desire you to do here in this place, to take control of public education?

You are effectively emasculating every trustee in the province. School boards are going to have next-to-little power. You, this government -- and in fact, to be fair to the backbenchers, it's not even you who are going to get this power. It's going to come from within the centre. Read that

article that was made reference to earlier by my colleague, Jim Bradley. It talks about the Harris Kremlin. That's what this is all about. You are being emasculated as well.

This is all about taking control and it's not going to be elected officials who are going to exercise that control. It's going to be unelected people -- unelected, unaccountable. That is not in keeping with the history of this province, it's not in keeping with Conservatism in this province and it's not in keeping with the wishes of the people of this province. I undertake, here and now, to revoke Bill 160 and to put into place education reform that truly meets the needs of our students.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I want to recount just a bit of recent history to this government. This government doesn't seem to understand that 126,000 teachers did not leave their classrooms and go out on a two-week protest period because that's what they wanted to do. Talk to any teacher around this province, and they want to be in their classroom. They want to be teaching children. They want to be working with children. What you've done is you have left teachers, you have left students, you have left parents with no options.

You already have taken, on an annualized basis, $800 million out of our elementary and secondary schools. Despite your attempts to stay away from the issue, to avoid telling the truth over the last month, Bill 160 and your funding formula is all about taking another $667 million away from our children, out of our elementary and secondary classrooms.

When you put in this bill this nonsense about disciplining teachers, about intimidating teachers, my God, don't try to rewrite history. Teachers went out because they believed they must go out to protect public education, to protect it from you Neanderthals. That's why they went out and that's the only reason. There was no intimidation. There was no effort by anyone to say to teachers, "You must go out." They made a decision of conscience. They made a decision of conscience against a government that has no conscience, against a government that tries to put a dollar value on everything.

I also want to point out something else that is a complete fallacy here. If you think you can now, after insulting teachers, after insulting parents, after insulting boards of education, buy support with a measly $40 a day, it indicates just how awfully misguided you are, how totally misguided you are.

Let's review something else. You have spent, by objective estimates, $3 million over the last three weeks on your objectionable and misleading propaganda campaign. People couldn't watch Hockey Night in Canada on Saturday night, they couldn't watch the Grey Cup game without --

The Speaker: You must withdraw "misleading propaganda," please.

Mr Hampton: What was it then? It is a propaganda campaign, Speaker. No one doubts that.

The Speaker: I would ask that you withdraw "misleading," then.

Mr Hampton: I will withdraw, for the time, "misleading." We'll investigate that

part later.

The Speaker: I've been down this road before. Please just withdraw "misleading."

Mr Hampton: Other people will decide whether it's misleading. I withdraw that part.

Your propaganda campaign, which cost --

The Speaker: I'm sorry, but this is your last chance. Withdraw "misleading," please. I'm not into an argument. It's very simple, and it's a rule that's fast. Just please withdraw "misleading."

Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, I already withdrew.

Your propaganda campaign, which cost between $2 million and $3 million out there -- that's what you spent. Let's just look at the objective evidence. You've taken $800 million from education already, and it's in the deputy minister's contract, which I revealed, that you're going to take another $667 million from elementary and secondary education. Yet you think nothing of spending $3 million on your propaganda campaign or of spending that amount of money trying to brainwash people about what this is really about.

This is about two things: This is about taking money from education so you can give more money to your wealthy friends via your tax cut, and this is about establishing top-down, centralized, almost Kremlin-like control over education in this province. You know what's so amazing about this? Eastern Europe recognized that top-down control doesn't work. They recognized that it stifles initiative, stifles creativity, stifles spontaneity. But what is the Harris Conservative government trying to do to education in Ontario? Trying to establish top-down, command-like control over our schools.

If the truth be known, this bill should be entitled "An Act by a desperate government to buy support from parents after they've blown everything that education stands for."

The Speaker: It's time for oral questions.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: November is Wife Assault Prevention Month, and traditionally the minister responsible for women's issues leads the House in all-party statements on it. That not being done, I would ask for unanimous consent that statements be made on November being Wife Assault Prevention Month.

The Speaker: Agreed? No.

Interjections.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't know who you heard, but the point of the matter is that in fairness to my two colleagues --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, I appreciate your help. It would be more helpful if I could hear what the minister is saying.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm just trying to help.

The Speaker: I'm sure you are.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In fairness to my two colleagues, I just heard now. I'd like to hear what was asked, if you don't mind.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'm away tomorrow. When does she want it?

The Speaker: You know what? With great respect, I put the question. It was for Wife Assault Prevention Month, seeking unanimous agreement to make statements today. I asked for consent; I heard a "no." That's all there is to it. It's time for oral questions.

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

The Speaker: Can you stop the clock, please?

Hon Mr Sterling: At the House leaders' meeting this morning, we discussed this particular matter. I was informed that they were going to ask for unanimous consent tomorrow.

The Speaker: I don't want to get into this any further. I asked for it; it wasn't there. If the House leaders want to get together and discuss it tonight, tomorrow or the next day, it's up to you. Right now we're going to oral questions.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister, I appreciate that. Thank you. It's time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. You will recall that at one time you said that Bill 160 was not about money, that it wasn't about any particular financial targets and that it was about improving education. Then some time during the past few weeks, of course, the truth came out. We now understand only too well that this is an exercise to, among other things, take $700 million more out of public education in Ontario.

You had a fight with the teachers. The teachers won. The public has sided with the teachers. I'm wondering, will you now listen to that huge protest, that huge inferno that has enveloped our province, and withdraw Bill 160?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm disappointed actually to hear this member, somebody who just a few years ago brought in a bill to limit teachers' right to strike, somebody who just a few years ago made statements that this is wrong, a bill to severely limit the right to strike, the time and when they could strike. I'm very disappointed actually that this member -- on the picket line, encouraging the teachers to take the strike into a third week in fact -- now raises this issue.

The bill before the Legislature has been brought forward after about a year and a half of negotiations with trustees, with teachers, with many involved, and it is designed to protect classroom education.

The easiest thing in the world to do is cut funding. You did that; the NDP did that. The challenge is, regardless of what the level of funding is, how do you protect classroom education?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: I can tell you, Speaker, it's certainly a change to see the Premier in person, because for the last three weeks he has disappeared completely. I thought we had a virtual Premier for some time there, a two-dimensional guy who appeared on TV complements of taxpayers' money. He never had the guts once to attend any of the education rallies. He didn't have the guts to go into any scrums and explain where he was coming from, and he didn't assume the proper responsibility as Premier of this province to do everything he possibly could to bring this education crisis to a halt. Where the hell has this guy been?

If he's not going to listen to the teachers, he's not going to listen to the trustees, he's not going to listen to parents and he's not going to listen to students, then maybe he should start listening to his own backbenchers.

Tony Skarica said: "We've had enough public confrontations. Maybe it's time to slow down a bit." Solid advice, Premier.

Bill Murdoch says, "I for one would like to know more about this $667 million." Premier, if you're not going to listen to the public, those --

The Speaker: Thank you, leader of the official opposition. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Of course I always listen to all members, my own backbench members, and indeed I listen to members of the public, to teachers --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: In addition, I also listen to members of the opposition. Indeed, I want to say I take very seriously the comments of the leader of the Liberal Party, October 29, 1997, on Humble and Fred: "Everybody, I think, believes you can find room for improvement in education. You can probably find more savings." Thank you very much, Mr McGuinty. We are looking at doing just that.

Here's what you said, member for Ottawa South, on April 24, 1992: "Somewhere along the line, in attempting to ensure that teachers and boards have full rights to negotiate wages and benefits, the system has failed the very group for whose best interests our education system has supposedly been created." I might say we listened very carefully to you.

Finally, you said this on Focus Ontario: "We don't have any specific policies right now." Well, we do. We are fixing the problems.

Mr McGuinty: You've got specific policies, all right; there's no doubt about that. The only problem is, they're the wrong ones.

Premier, I want you to do something that you don't do a lot of. I want you to stop and think about this for a moment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the House to come to order, both on the government side and the opposition side. It's becoming very difficult to hear the questions and answers.

Mr McGuinty: We had 126,000 teachers take to the streets, unprecedented in the history of this province, in fact in the history of North America; 2.1 million students were out of school for two weeks. Most remarkable of all, their parents supported their teachers. I want you to think about how truly amazing this is.

At the outset, public opinion was not on the side of the teachers, but as the public became better educated as to what the facts were, they clearly decided that the teachers were in the right, the parents were in the right, students were in the right and you were in the wrong.

Premier, in the light of all of that, what is it going to take, what is it really going to take, to make you stop and listen and do the right thing and withdraw Bill 160?

Hon Mr Harris: I would like to say we always listen and we listen very carefully. On April 24, 1992 -- that means you've had over five years since you made this statement to develop a policy or a response -- here's what you said: "Somewhere along the line, in attempting to ensure that teachers and boards have full rights to negotiate wages and benefits, the system has failed the very group for whose best interests our education system has supposedly been created." Over five years ago you made that statement. Five years later you said, "We don't have any specific" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Members for Windsor-Sandwich and Hamilton East, I'm not going to warn you again. Come to order, please. Also the member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Hon Mr Harris: Five years later you said, "We don't have any specific policies."

I'm prepared to listen. I would ask you, if you have something new, other than inciting an illegal strike to carry on into the third and fourth week, if you have something new to add to this debate, after having five years to think about it, I'd be glad to hear it.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): To the Premier: One of the biggest stumbling blocks in the way of the public supporting, in the way of everybody supporting, your Bill 160 is the $700-million grab that you're about to make. You can alleviate all that. Stand up right now, Premier, and assure us that you are not about to remove one further cent from public education, and that if you find any savings, you will then redeploy those so they best meet the needs of our students. Promise right now that you're not about to take any more money out of public education in Ontario.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister would be happy to respond.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Bill 160 and the education program of this government and this ministry is about three things: It's about quality, it's about accountability and it's about efficiency.

Through the provisions of this bill we will ensure that class sizes don't increase, we will ensure that our students get the proper instructional time, but at the same time there is an efficiency that is expected through the education system, through all the ministries, through the government of Ontario. We will ensure that every nickel that has to be spent on education is spent to ensure that quality. But on behalf of the taxpayers we need to ensure the financial stability of Ontario, and if there are savings that are not needed for the quality --

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

Mr McGuinty: Nobody buys that, Minister. Everybody understands that this is about money and it's about power, nothing more than that.

One of the things that was disclosed during the course of this education crisis was the performance contract for Veronica Lacey, the deputy minister. It clearly provides in this that there is a plan to remove $667 million for the 1998-99 year. Given that everybody now understands what's in this and given that before that was released, everybody on that side of the House was saying this is not about taking more money out of the system, what I want to know is, is this provision still in place? Is Veronica Lacey now still bound by the terms of this performance contract to find $667 million and to remove that from public education?

Hon David Johnson: The contract that's referred to is a draft contract that was at one point in time --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I guess spending controls and efficiency and ensuring best value for the taxpayer don't come naturally to the Liberal Party. This is a party that increased the spending in Ontario by $10 billion in three years.

We've made it clear that the education program, Bill 160, is about quality, accountability and efficiency. At one point in time there was an estimate that the kind of efficiencies that could be achieved throughout the education system would be about in the $600-million-to-$700-million range, but that will be the topic of the budget for each and every year, for the estimates process. What we will actually spend in the education system in 1998-99 will depend on the estimates for that particular year. We will ensure that every nickel that's needed to be spent to ensure a quality program is in fact spent.

Mr McGuinty: We have just received some very interesting news. Apparently this is only a draft contract. Now, let's just put that against what we heard the Premier say a couple of weeks ago, that he felt they could find another 4% to 5% in savings in public education. That's somewhere between $500 million and $700 million.

On the other hand, we have the Minister of Education saying not to worry, that this $667-million figure is only found within a draft contract.

Minister, I want you to do a couple of things now. First of all, I want to know who is right, you or the Premier. Second, if there is another contract that's now in force, I want you to table that in the House. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon David Johnson: I think the member opposite knows that the performance contracts are personal information that are not to be tabled in the House. But I would ask, is there any taxpayer in Ontario and is there any member in this House who feels that there isn't some room for efficiency within the education system, that there isn't some waste or duplication within the education system, that the government and the Ministry of Education shouldn't look as hard as they can to find that waste and duplication? That's exactly what we intend to do.

I would say that it's quite conceivable that this government could find efficiencies in the 4%-to-5% range. I think that's a pretty good target. But at the end of the day, I guarantee that this government will spend exactly what it takes to ensure a high-quality education program for the students of Ontario.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My first question is for the Premier. Premier, we've just come through a two-week teachers' protest, which is unprecedented, as we all know. During the first week of that protest, you and your ministers insisted it wasn't about money. Then, when I leaked this copy of the deputy minister's performance contract, you started to acknowledge that it was about money. You said that you could, you felt, take another $700 million out of the education system.

Premier, why didn't you tell the parents of this province that fact right up front? Why didn't you tell them right up front that this was about taking another $700 million out of the system? Were you afraid to tell them the truth?

Hon Mr Harris: I think we were quite clear in the Common Sense Revolution and the campaign that we felt, on average, about four pennies of every dollar spent in education was being wasted with duplication and bureaucracy.

We made a second commitment -- the most important one -- that whatever savings might be able to be achieved, whatever waste could be found, must not affect the quality of education in the classroom in a negative way.

Bill 160 is the classroom protection act, to ensure that whatever the level of --

Interruption.

The Speaker: Order. I caution the gallery that it's out of order to speak or applaud. Please don't do that.

Mr Hampton: The boards of education across this province can show from their own budget figures that you've already taken $800 million out of the system. That's why junior kindergarten is being affected; that's why adult education is being affected; that's why special education is being affected; that's why you can go into classroom after classroom and find no textbooks.

Premier, the point is this, and I come back to it: You denied for the first week that this was about taking money out. Then, when you were confronted with the deputy minister's contract, you switched your story and you admitted that this was about taking $700 million. You didn't even have the decency to tell your own caucus. In the Toronto Star, one of your caucus colleagues is quoted as saying: "None of us knew about it. We were totally out of the loop. We were thrust into the war without any weapons." Premier, why wouldn't you even tell your own caucus members? Were you afraid they might tell the truth to the public?

Hon Mr Harris: The only actual cut to education funding came with the NDP in 1993 to 1995, $571 million. So you're pulling figures out of the air that I have no knowledge of, nor does my caucus, nor does the minister. The records and the audited statements of the school boards and the public records from the auditor and the audited statements will show that we are actually spending a little more money on education now than when we took office.

Having said that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Harris: Having said that -- and the audited statements will verify those facts -- what I want to say is I understand why the opposition wants to talk about money, because they're the ones who were a part, over a 10-year period, of this slow decline in the quality of education in this province. It is quality of education, improving the standards, improving results, testing and giving our kids a head start and an opportunity -- that's how we measure success, not the way you measured failure.

Mr Hampton: This is a Premier who when he went to Europe a year and a half ago said to everyone in Europe: "Come to Ontario, invest. We've got a wonderful education system, a well-trained and well-educated workforce." This is a government where the Deputy Premier goes to Harvard University and tells everyone at Harvard University, "The key to Ontario's success is a good education system, a well-trained workforce."

Now the Premier wants to pretend that he's in a fairy-tale and that was all false. I suppose according to you, Premier, the bogeyman stole special education, the bogeyman stole adult education, the bogeyman came in the night and took away junior kindergarten and it's the bogeyman who has been taking the textbooks out of the classroom.

Premier, I've got a suggestion for you. This is the performance contract: Rip it up. Take Bill 160 and rip it up. Take your cuts and rip them up too. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: I want to assure the leader of the New Democratic Party, who got outpicketed by the leader of the Liberal Party in this last dispute, of this: that we take our responsibility very seriously to bring long-needed reforms to the education system, reforms that were recommended by the royal commission put by your party, reforms that were recommended by the former New Democratic Party Minister of Education, reforms that are required to improve the quality of education in this province.

Those are the reforms that this caucus and this cabinet and this party have had the courage to make in the face of a lot of vested interests, in the face of a lot of rhetoric, in the face of a lot of misinformation. We have finally had the courage to stand up and say, "Our kids come first."

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre and member for Cochrane North, you have to take those green ribbons off, and I see the member for Fort York and the member for Windsor-Walkerville. Last warning, member for Cochrane North. Then I have no choice but to name the member for Cochrane North.

Mr Len Wood was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, you must take the green ribbon off.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm wearing it in support of the teachers and parents and the education system.

The Speaker: I name the member for Hamilton Centre, Mr Christopherson.

Mr Christopherson was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: The member for Fort York.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Speaker, Mike Harris has got a lot of courage --

The Speaker: Then I name the member for Fort York, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-Riverside, I ask you to remove the green ribbon.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Speaker, I am wearing this ribbon in opposition to the --

The Speaker: Then I name the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr Lessard was escorted from the chamber.

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

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is also for the Premier and it follows on the remarks that he just made. Premier, teachers are not opposed to education change. Teachers do not oppose a new report card; they support it. Teachers do not oppose a new curriculum; they have supported different changes in curriculum over the last 20 years, many of them introduced by previous Conservative governments. Teachers do not oppose use of educational testing so long as it's used in the right way. What they object to, Premier, is you trying to say that your bill, Bill 160, is about quality education.

If it is about quality education, can you explain to me why the words "quality of education" don't appear anywhere in the actual text of the bill? Can you explain that please?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Education and Training can.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Does it not enhance the quality of education that we should ensure that average class sizes should not go up? Does it not enhance the quality of education that we should ensure that our students have the same number of instructional days as students in other provinces? Does it not enhance the quality of education that professional people with good qualifications can come in and complement the teachers and add, perhaps in the computer field or in early childhood, extra quality and experience in the classroom? Are these not enhancements to the quality?

These are some of the provisions along with, I might say, involving the parents. Certainly through the parent councils, involving the parents will enhance the quality of education. That's what this bill is about in addition to achieving efficiency. That's what this bill is about and I think it will improve the quality of education in the Ontario.

Mr Hampton: I asked the Premier to defend his previous statements and it appears that he is not capable of defending them. He in fact tried to duck the question. My question was very specific: If this is about quality of education, why do the words "quality of education" not appear anywhere in the text of the bill? Why does the government have to rely on weasel words like "average class sizes," when anyone knows that those words will permit class sizes to go to 35 or higher, provided that there is something to average them down? Why does the government continue to rely on that?

Perhaps I should put it another way: You can't tell me why the words "quality of education" don't appear in the bill. Can you tell me why the word "money" appears 69 times in the bill?

Hon David Johnson: I have a copy of the bill right here and I'll just read the title: "An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent" --

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: Perhaps the leader would be interested in this -- "with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size." This bill, in terms of protecting class size, instructional time and a number of other issues is indeed about quality. It is also about accountability, and yes, it's also about efficiency.

Mr Hampton: We just got evidence that the minister read the title of the bill. We're getting more and more evidence that he doesn't know anything about what is in the bill. He has absolutely no defence for why the word "money" appears 69 times in the bill.

Let me tell you why the word "money" appears 69 times in the bill. It appears because this is all about taking money out of the education system. This is all about finding another $667 million at the expense of our children so you can finance your tax gift to your wealthy friends. Let me put it to you in very, very straight terms: You take from our children's education in order that you can give more wealth to people who are already wealthy. That is why the word "money" appears 69 times in this bill.

My question to you is this, Minister: After 126,000 teachers left the classroom to show you that you are wrong, after literally hundreds of thousands of parents joined them on the picket lines out there, after your $3-million propaganda campaign has blown up in your face, will you admit that you are now wrong? Will you tear this up and --

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

Hon David Johnson: The leader of the third party seems to have a fixation with the word "money." I understand, because it was the NDP who in 1993 and 1994, through the expenditure control program, through the social contract, took $571 million out of the education system. Did you improve the education system? Were there any movements to improve the curriculum, to bring in a standard report card, to do standardized testing? Were parents happy with your quality in education? Absolutely not. That's why parents have said --

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: That certainly was reflected in the results of the election, wasn't it?

Parents, through this whole period of time, have said we need to improve the quality of our education. In addition to ensuring efficiency of the system, we have brought forward those components, that testing, that curriculum, and indeed Bill 160, with the limit on class sizes.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. New question; Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. You will now know that thousands upon thousands of people have been collecting throughout the province in protest to Bill 160. You haven't listened to teachers, you haven't listened to parents, you haven't listened to students and you haven't listened to trustees. In fact, on that last note, many trustees have spoken about the dangers of big government going mad in assuming control over education in Ontario.

One trustee in particular said, "I shudder at the thought of total provincial control over education in Ontario." Do you know who said that? It was the president of the Northern Ontario Public and Secondary School Trustees' Association, Mike Harris.

You won't listen to trustees, you won't listen to parents, you won't listen to teachers and you won't listen to students. Will you listen to Mike Harris?

Hon Mr Harris: Yes.

Mr McGuinty: If you're going to listen to Mike Harris, who some several years ago warned us about the dangers of big government going mad and assuming control over education in the exact same way that Bill 160 is about to do and the way that Bill 160 is now going to assume responsibility for the minutiae of how education will be delivered in Kenora, Cornwall, Kincardine, London, Oshawa, Ottawa, Toronto, North Bay -- if you listen to that guy, what you'll do right now is stand up and withdraw Bill 160. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: If I thought there was anything in the bill that would do that, I sure would.

WEARING OF GREEN RIBBONS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Your Minister of Education this past week attacked teachers for wearing the apple-green ribbons in the school. The apple-green ribbon campaign is in support of education. Can you tell me what is wrong with teachers wearing an apple-green ribbon in the classroom in support of public education?

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

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): There are many values in the education system --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You know something? There's a guy with a mike up there in the gallery. You can't have the mike hanging over the edge. I think they're just explaining it now. Okay, thanks.

Hon David Johnson: There are many aspects of the education system in the province that we value dearly, and one of those aspects is the fact that our classrooms are not politicized. Indeed, school boards have policies which forbid the posting of political papers, advertising or that sort of thing.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: What I said was that obviously what the teachers do on their own time is their business. If they want to picket or protest, that's their business. But in the classroom, our parents have every right to believe that their children are sent there for learning, not to have the class politicized, particularly when you think of the young children in their formative stages in the elementary system. Is that what we want? Do we want our classrooms to be politicized for one political agenda or another? Absolutely not. I stick by that.

Mr Hampton: This is nothing less than incredible, that a teacher who would wear a green ribbon in the classroom in support of public education is classified as wrong by this government. That shows how clearly you live in the world of doublespeak, that to be in support of public education is wrong under this government in Ontario.

Minister, if that's your definition, can you explain to me how you justify your propaganda attack ads which appeared during the Grey Cup game, which appeared during Hockey Night in Canada, which appeared on television during prime time family viewing? Could you tell me how you justify your ugly propaganda campaign, your ugly, partisan attack ads when kids are watching television, and yet, according to you, it's wrong to wear a simple ribbon in support of public education in Ontario?

Hon David Johnson: The leader of the third party asks, first of all, about --

Mr Hampton: Ugly, ugly ads.

The Speaker: Leader of the third party, will you come to order, please.

Hon David Johnson: I think the leader of the third party knows well that it is wrong to bring this kind of political fight into the classroom. School boards have policies which forbid that. But what happens outside of the classroom is another matter. The teachers' unions, the OTF, certainly have television advertising. The government has a right and an obligation to bring information to the general public. This is beyond the classroom, a totally different situation, and the people of Ontario have a right to expect information from the government about important issues, but not in the classroom.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the last few days, I've read in the local newspaper that the government's welfare fraud hotline has saved $15 million. I'd like to know as to the government's investment in this worthwhile project.

Interjections.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): One of the comments from across the way was that this was more propaganda. Only the opposition would think that saving $15 million for the taxpayers in the last two years is propaganda.

We instituted a welfare fraud hotline to get information from many people who have come in with allegations. They are investigated. There were over 2,000 cases of welfare fraud and abuse that had their benefits either terminated or reduced because of abuse of the system. There are another 8,000 cases that we are still investigating to see if they indeed also need to have their benefits stopped or reduced.

The welfare fraud hotline costs $174,000; we think an investment of $174,000 to save $15 million is a good deal for Ontario taxpayers.

Mr Hardeman: I hope these results continue. However, what we are we doing to prevent prisoners from illegally collecting welfare, and others who are double-dipping in the system?

Hon Mrs Ecker: There are a number of other steps we're taking in addition to the welfare fraud hotline. We have been doing what are called information-sharing agreements with other jurisdictions -- for example, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, the federal government -- to try and make sure that people, as they say, are not double-dipping.

In addition, we have an information-sharing agreement with the Minister of Correctional Services, and because of that activity we've saved an additional $413,000 with individuals who are collecting welfare while in jail, which they are not supposed to do.

We'll also be having further agreements with the Workers' Compensation Board, and we'll be working with the insurance industry in future, to ensure that only those who are in need are on the system and that we are protecting the credibility of the welfare system not only for the people who need it, but also for the people who pay for it.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, 126,000 teachers across this province launched an unprecedented protest against your government's planned destruction of public education. They took this courageous action for one reason only: because as teachers they are deeply committed to education and to the future wellbeing of their students, and they were determined to do everything in their power to stop your government's attack on our education system. Your response as a government has been to vilify our teachers and to take punitive action against those who dared to raise concerns about your government's agenda.

Even your amendments are punitive. Instead of trying to respond to the concerns, you're determined to create even more chaos. Your new attack on principals and vice-principals without question will destroy effective educational leadership in every classroom in this province. Why are you so determined to plunge our educational system into total, absolute chaos?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): For years parents have been asking for improvements in the education system. Bill 160 is a part of the total package which includes the more rigorous curriculum, the standardized report cards, the standardized testing, the limit on the average class size, the increased number of instructional days. Many people don't know, for example, that the average number of instructional days across Canada in the secondary level is 181 days, yet our students in Ontario only have 170 days under the present system. Through this bill we have implemented an extra 10 days at the secondary level and an extra five days at the primary levels.

In terms of the principals and vice-principals, we were assured the principals and vice-principals would be in the school in this sort of situation. The obvious fact is that they weren't. The vast majority, well over 5,000, were not in the schools, were not there to do their duties, to give safety to the children. They're in a difficult situation. They're in a conflict situation, with management responsibilities on the one hand and union responsibilities on the other.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, all of your words and any of your so-called reforms mean absolutely nothing, because the bottom line is that you cannot bring in any educational reform when you have made enemies of every teacher in this province, and you cannot bring in any positive change without effective educational leadership, and you are about to destroy that. Your attack on principals and vice-principals has nothing to do with improving education. Even your predecessor acknowledge that principals and vice-principals were important educational leaders and should stay as educational leaders in the schools.

Your change, your amendment, your attack on principals and vice-principals has nothing do with anything you heard at the committee hearings. It has everything to do with the fact that those principals and vice-principals who were so committed to education dared to come forward and attack your government, so they must be punished.. You will slap them down and you will destroy effective educational leadership, and you will plunge our education system into sheer chaos. If you won't withdraw your bill, will you at least withdraw this poorly-thought-out, draconian, punitive amendment?

Hon David Johnson: I will agree with the member opposite that improving the education system requires all members to work together. The teachers are on the front line, the principals are there on each and every school, and we certainly need the cooperation of all concerned to achieve that.

The member opposite indicates, though, that this didn't come up in the public hearings. In fact the parents' council, for example, suggested that the principals and vice-principals should not be in the union. There were a number of other people who suggested that. There is the Paroian report which suggested that the principals and vice-principals should not be in the union.

The principals and vice-principals are in a difficult conflict situation with management responsibilities, union responsibilities. Through the bill, through the amendment, we have attempted to address that.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Minister of Education: Minister, following on your last answer, the only parent council that said that principals and vice-principals should be taken out of the federations was that politically partisan outfit that you and your predecessor appointed. Every other parent council in the province said it would be wrong to take principals and vice-principals out of the federations. When you try to spin that line, at least give all the information and point out that it's only your partisan outfit.

I've got hundreds of letters here from principals and vice-principals across this province, not the so-called union bosses you talk about but the people who actually manage and run our schools. The supervisors, the people who deal with parents all the time are asking you, "Don't follow that destructive amendment, and frankly, don't impose Bill 160." If you won't listen to parents and you won't listen to the ordinary teachers, will you at least listen to the principals and the vice-principals who have many years' experience in our education system? Withraw the amendment and withdraw Bill 160. Will you do that? Will you listen to them?

Hon David Johnson: I can only say that the previous minister looked at this situation. It was put forward to him that there would not be a problem, that the conflict situation could be dealt with. It's a conflict situation that does not occur anywhere else that I can think of in terms of the importance of the principal position, the management functions associated with that position, and to have the same person in the union context is quite a conflict.

Unfortunately, during the period of the unlawful strike there was a problem. There were many principals, I suspect, who did not want to leave their schools, but with the pressure that was brought to bear, the reality was that they could not serve two masters. It's a situation that needs to be clarified and we intend to proceed.

Mr Hampton: What a bunch of nonsense. Are you trying to imply that the people who are our educational leaders, principals and vice-principals don't have the integrity, the ability to make up their own minds? Is that what you're trying to imply? Be honest about it. The reason that principals and vice-principals closed schools is because under the Education Act, if they feel they cannot operate a school safety, if they do not have enough staff in the school to provide safe supervision, they have a duty to so inform the board and to then close the school. Don't try to pass off your nonsense.

All of these teachers, all of these principals and vice-principals, from one end of the province to the other can't be wrong. They all say that you are headed in the wrong direction.

Your plan to bring in your hacks, your business managers and use them to replace principals and vice-principals will be destructive of education. Will you listen to them? Will you listen to someone? Will you listen to the people who have been helping to run our schools for many years?

Hon David Johnson: Through this whole process we have listened to a great number of people, through public hearings, through consultations etc, but there is a basic concept with a senior individual, a well-respected group of people having to serve two masters, being in a management position and having management functions and responsibilities at the same time --

The Speaker: Thank you. Pursuant to standing order 30(b), it being 4 pm, it is now time for orders of the day.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Point of order, Speaker: I rise to bring to your attention a problem relating to standing order 62(a). If you'll note on the Orders and Notices paper for November 17, on pages 28 and 29 it states that, "The standing committee on estimates will meet to consider" --

Interruption.

The Speaker: I've had enough interjections. This is the third one. Can you clear the galleries, please. Order. Clear the galleries, please.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Just one individual and clear the galleries.

The Speaker: I'm not stopping the House every time one person wants to interrupt the Legislature. There were three times, and I clear the gallery. After three times, every time I clear the gallery.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Hey, come on.

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, I'm not holding up the House every time someone wants to break up.

Interjections.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Point of privilege, Speaker: With all due respect, I have the highest regard for your position and for you personally, but I do believe that my privileges as a member of this House and indeed the privilege of all the members here --

The Speaker: I'm sorry, we are in the middle of a point of privilege of the member for Algoma. But to comment briefly and quickly -- and I'm not going to hear many challenges or points of privilege -- the fact is, in any session I sit, there are three opportunities when the gallery interrupts. I say to all members, if you've been here at any time, I allow for three times. Once, I've warned them -- I did warn them after the second, that another time and I would clear the galleries. If you want to check Hansard, you can.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Dovercourt, I appreciate the fact that you don't like that ruling, but the fact remains, it is consistent with every ruling I have made. I'm not debating it any longer. It is consistent --

Mr Silipo: So what? It is consistently bad.

The Speaker: I am going to name the member for Dovercourt if you don't come to order. Three times I warned them I clear the galleries. It is not my expectation to have 100 people in here and have each and every one of them interrupt the proceedings. I can't do things that way. So that's the way it's --

Mr Silipo: You can't hold the whole gallery responsible for one person's actions.

The Speaker: That is the way. And it was the third interruption, to the member for Dovercourt. Either we're obviously not going to agree on this or you're not going to agree with my ruling -- and I say to the members for Dovercourt and Beaches-Woodbine, I don't want to be interrupted again as I'm speaking, or I will name the members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Dovercourt, I will name you. I don't want any further debate on it. That's my rule. I've lived by the rule. I gave three warnings. I cleared the gallery. That's as simple as it gets.

The member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: Well, Speaker, every pedagogue knows that a class detention is the worst kind of discipline. Having said that, I would like to raise with you --

The Speaker: With great respect, member for Algoma, I find that tremendously offensive. With great respect, I find it --

Interjection.

The Speaker: To the member for Sault Ste Marie and to the member for Algoma, I go to great lengths to be fair and equitable in this House to all sides, and I find that challenge to be fundamentally unfair.

Mr Wildman: Well, I withdraw the remark, Speaker.

ESTIMATES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Speaker, I want to raise with you a point of order related to standing order 62(a). I refer you to pages 28 and 29 on the Orders and Notices paper for November 17, 1997. You'll note that on page 28 it says, "The standing committee on estimates will meet to consider the estimates...of the Ministry of Education and Training, as follows: Tuesday, 18 November, 3:30 pm," in committee room 2, and "Wednesday, 19 November, 3:30 pm," in committee room 2.

On page 29 it says, under "Time Remaining," that for the Ministry of Education and Training there are seven hours and 30 minutes, because none of the time has yet been used. In other words, we have yet to begin the estimates debate on the Ministry of Education and Training.

You will note that in standing order 62(a), it says the estimates committee will report estimates "no later than the third Thursday in November," which is this week.

As you are well aware, Speaker, and all people in the assembly are aware, we are in the centre of a tremendously serious crisis in education that relates directly to the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training, that relates to the question of whether the government intends to take another $700 million over and above the $800 million they have already removed from classroom education in Ontario. It is imperative that this assembly have the committee debate the estimates, and for the new minister to have the opportunity to appear before the committee, along with the deputy minister whose contract has been the source of so much controversy, to defend those estimates.

Now, we have a problem. Because of the time allocation motion on Bill 160, that will be dealt with today and tomorrow in clause-by-clause to deal with amendments. We can't sit on a matter related to education in the standing committee on administration of justice to deal with Bill 160 on Tuesday and at the same time be in the standing committee on estimates dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training. You can't deal with the same policy area in two different places at once.

What I am going to suggest, and I would ask for agreement among the House leaders and the members of the assembly, is unanimous consent to extend the deadline for the estimates so that we can have a later deadline rather than this Thursday, so that the estimates debates can proceed in the estimates committee and not have them truncated because of the time allocation motion on Bill 160 related to the standing committee on justice.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, this is, I think, the best way of dealing with this. I have already mentioned this privately to the government House leader as a possibility. I said that we in the official opposition would be prepared to accommodate the government and all members of the House by agreeing to postpone that date for the receipt of the estimates of the Ministry of Education for another week.

There are members of the Legislature, both on the government side and the opposition side, who have an interest in both proceedings, and I think it would be advantageous not simply for the opposition but for all members of the House who have an interest in education to be able to attend both the spending estimates consideration for the Ministry of Education and the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 160, which deals entirely with education and the funding of education. So I think this would be a very practical solution.

I have indicated to the government House leader that I am prepared to accommodate other members of the House on the government side and our side in doing so and I look forward to the usual cooperation of the government in this matter.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Briefly, in support of the recommendation, we obviously are anxious to have an estimates session dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training. There have been so many issues that have been raised relating to the financing of education and the proposals for future financing of education that I think a review of their estimates is of the highest priority for the members of this House.

I would hope that the Minister of Education himself would be as interested in the clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 160 as he is in defending his estimates before the estimates committee. I think the minister himself is in a conflict if these two sessions are held concurrently. But we're obviously also in a dilemma. We don't want to ask that estimates not be held concurrently with clause-by-clause if it means we never get a chance to examine the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training. I think Mr Wildman's suggestion is a very appropriate one and I hope it can be acted on.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Seeking consent is always in order and I will put the question now. I think basically everyone heard the arguments presented by --

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Speaker, could I just speak to that?

The Speaker: Sure.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, this rule 62 is there for a number of reasons. Number one is that by the third week in November all of the estimates should be heard by the estimates committee and that they then are reported to the House, whether or not the estimates committee has considered all of the ministries, a few of the ministries or some of the ministries.

Following that, there is a requirement for a concurrence debate to take place. You can imagine with our legislative

schedule that it's going to be very difficult for us to fit certain parts of the different processes within that period of time. I believe that we will require that necessary time to do our planning with regard to having the concurrence debate and fitting it in with the rest of our schedule. Therefore, we will follow the orders as printed and follow the intent of those orders.

The Speaker: I will still put the unanimous consent as presented by the member for Algoma. Agreed? I heard a no.

ACCESS TO PUBLIC GALLERIES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I would just like to return to the point that I raised earlier, and not to debate with you your ruling.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'm not interested in going back there. I appreciate the fact you don't agree with what I ruled, but if you want to make a quick point I will certainly hear it.

Mr Gerretsen: A very quick point. I think as part of our democratic system not only should we have the opportunity to debate issues here in a free and open way, but the people of Ontario, if they're willing to come down here, should be able to see what's going on here. The situation that we have right now -- and I certainly don't intend to centre out the people who are in the members' galleries right now. They are still there. They are part of the general public, no more and no less so than the people in the other public galleries.

I would seriously suggest to you that you may want to revisit your ruling again and perhaps only deal with the gallery on a gallery-by-gallery basis. If there are noises being made in one particular gallery and you give three warnings, then perhaps -- and I don't agree with it -- you could consider clearing that particular gallery rather than looking at the entire House.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Or one by one.

Mr Gerretsen: On a one-by-one basis.

In effect, you have left two galleries the way they were before. I certainly don't want to get into any difficulty with the people who are occupying those galleries, but why should those people be allowed to stay and the rest of the people, the other 98 people who were here earlier who did not make any noise at that point in time either, be removed from this? I don't think that's a fair situation and I would strongly suggest that you revisit your ruling on that and deal with it in a different manner than you have so far.

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, I've got to tell you, I didn't direct this gallery to be cleared until there were interruptions. The interruptions came after I directed this gallery to be cleared.

I appreciate what you're saying, and on occasion I have had one gallery emptied as opposed to the other, much requested by the member for Dovercourt once and the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

The fact of the matter is, there were three interruptions. In a quieter moment now, to make the explanation, you're right, it is a privilege for the people of the province of Ontario to come down here and see this place as it works, and I think it's important that they do just that. But the fact remains that I can't manage this place if every 20 or 30 minutes somebody breaks into it from the gallery. I could be asking people to leave 15 or 20 times a day.

I've made a rule that if I have to ask three times, then I'm going to clear the galleries. I didn't realize that so many didn't know that, but if you check back in the record, that's what I've done. That was the third interruption, and I did warn them the second time. If you're asking me to be cognizant that this gallery is not making a noise and to clear this one, I will certainly do that in the future; that's why I didn't clear the members' galleries.

Having said that, I appreciate the opportunity now to express what I consider to be my policy. I don't think it's unreasonable, and I think it's more important that this place operate than it is to give people a forum to stand up and interrupt the proceedings of duly elected members.

POINTS OF PRIVILEGE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Earlier today you received a letter from me giving you notice of my intention to raise a point of privilege. My point of privilege is with regard to the Harris government's undemocratic handling of Bill 160.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You know something? I did get that notice, but it's not in order. As part of the rules, you must give notice of your point of privilege you are raising; your point of privilege must be outlined in the submission you give me. Simply suggesting by note that you have a point of privilege isn't good enough. I'll just read you standing order 21(c):

"Notice to Speaker

"(

c) Any member proposing to raise a point of privilege, other than one arising out of proceedings in the chamber during the course of a sessional day," which is a point of order, "shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the point at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House."

That means you must supply me, an hour before raising the question, with a written statement as to what your point of privilege is. Simply saying, "I have a point of privilege," isn't good enough according to the standing orders. My suggestion is that today you file that with my office and I'll deal with your point of privilege tomorrow. It also allows me the opportunity to know what your point of privilege is, so if there's any research to do, I can do that before I come to the Legislature.

Mr Curling: My point of privilege is about the undemocratic way Bill 160 was handled, and you're saying that's not good enough, for me to say --

The Speaker: No, I didn't.

Mr Curling: That's what was in my letter.

You were going to stand and tell me, but under the rules, you're supposed to submit that to me an hour before the House meets. All I know from what you sent me is that you're going to stand up because of the government's undemocratic handling of Bill 160. It's just not significant enough. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going to file a notice of a point of privilege, you've got to give me something a little more substantive than that letter.

I have a letter from a significant number of members of your caucus and they all say the same thing, and