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

May 29, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2001-May-29 vol. A (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 29 May 2001 Mardi 29 mai 2001

VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FORT HENRY

EVENTS IN DURHAM

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

VOLUNTEERS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

EDIBLE PACKAGING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE SERVICES

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE FORCE

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TENANT PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

PREMIER'S ATTENDANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

VISITOR

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

VISITOR

EDUCATION FUNDING

COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS

AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

PROSTATE CANCER

EDUCATION

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PROTECTION OF MINORS

SOCIAL AUDIT

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

OPPOSITION DAY

EDUCATION FUNDING

Tuesday 29 May 2001 Mardi 29 mai 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

VISITORS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to acknowledge today a visit by a very special group of people from my alma mater, Pauline Johnson high school. Teacher Jeff Goodall and the class have come to learn all about democracy and see our Legislature at work.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FORT HENRY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On May 23 Fort Henry won the Oscar of Canadian tourism by being chosen the number one Canadian attraction of national and international interest at the gala awards ceremony in Halifax by Attractions Canada, an organization that's a national partnership program between government, private enterprise and the national media. Its mission is to recognize our country's many beautiful attractions and make them better known to the Canadian public.

It's a fitting testimony to the importance of Old Fort Henry, built in 1832 to protect Canada from potential American invaders, as the national historic site and its proud place in the development of Canada. It's a tribute to all the people, including the hundreds of students who have served since 1938 in the fort's guard, and all others who have worked and who continue to work there and all those who have supported their efforts.

The fort has been managed and operated by the province for more than 60 years. The opportunities that lie ahead in terms of global promotions through Attractions Canada are enormous. But as I've mentioned in this House previously, on numerous occasions, the fort needs at least $25 million in repairs to make it structurally sound. The damage caused by water seeping into the ramparts, freezing and expanding, is so severe that a large

section of the parade square has been roped off.

LCBO employees, under a program called "I Support Fort Henry," hope to raise $100,000 in repair money over the next year.

I once again plead with the government to let the reconstruction program begin and to match the federal funding of $5 million in order to make an effective start on the much-needed emergency repairs. Match this federal money today.

EVENTS IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): As the member for Durham, I'm always pleased to tell Ontario about the many positive things taking place in my riding.

Today I want to talk about township of Scugog Councillor Larry Corrigan, who is participating in the 12-hour Relay for Life walk, an event sponsored by the Canadian Cancer Society, taking place in 25 track and field locations across Ontario this weekend. The Relay for Life starts at 8 pm Friday, June 1, and ends at 8 am June 2.

Councillor Corrigan has said he is participating in the walk in memory of his late wife, Sandra, who, sadly passed away in 1988, and for all the township of Scugog residents who have been the victims of cancer. The statistics are staggering when you think that 134,100 people this year alone are estimated to find out that they have one form of cancer or another.

I want to thank all my constituents from Oshawa, Port Perry, Blackstock, Bowmanville, Orono and Newcastle, who will also participate in the Relay for Life this Friday night in Oshawa. Your actions are bringing us closer to finding a cure.

I'd also like to mention that plans are already in the works for the 2001 Terry Fox Run in the municipality of Clarington this coming September 1. Event organizer Walter Gibson is assembling his team to make this year's run more successful than ever.

Last Thursday morning in Bowmanville I was honoured to attend a special breakfast honouring corporate sponsors. We were fortunate to have had Darrell Fox as our guest speaker. He eloquently spoke of the tremendous impact that Terry Fox has made on all cancer victims and their families.

I would like to thank them for their ongoing support.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Today I would like to tell you about a young man from my riding who was involved in a serious swimming accident and is now a quadriplegic. Marc Pilon, a young, 20-year-old college student from Plantagenet was actively involved in many sports but today his dreams of participating are on hold.

What a remarkable man he is. Marc's positive attitude and determination are evident when you meet him. He has a goal, and that goal is to be able to walk again. Marc has fallen through the cracks of our health care system. Marc was part of a pilot project and receiving physiotherapy at the Ottawa Hospital. This clinic provided him with a successful program that kept his hopes up that one day he would walk again.

Due to the cuts under OHIP his time on this program is over. Marc cannot afford $480 a week for a physiotherapy program at a NeuroGym. When we consider Marc's youth, his positive attitude and his potential to contribute to society, we must find a way to help Marc. This is a worthwhile investment and I ask the Minister of Health to find a way to help Marc.

Minister, you must meet him. Ron MacLean of Hockey Night in Canada met him and was impressed with his progress. I beg you, Minister, find a way to help Marc walk again. He has the will and determination. OHIP must come up with financial assistance to help Marc. We must find a way to help him.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I'm very pleased today to announce to the House the work and dedication of some outstanding volunteers in my constituency. I would like to acknowledge the dedication of several individuals who have volunteered their time to the Upper Canada Lodge in Niagara-on-the-Lake. These individuals have volunteered their time to the Upper Canada Lodge for the past 10 years and continue to do so. I would like to thank Doris Laverick, Joyce Dineley, Carole Smithe, John Chabot, Florence Bennett and Liz Walker-Neuhof.

I recently toured Upper Canada Lodge and the folks who gave me the tour were actually four family members of residents or past residents of Upper Canada Lodge. They too volunteer their time at the lodge. I want to thank them for the tour and letting me know first-hand of their concerns at Upper Canada Lodge.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge the dedication of Helen Orr. Helen has been a volunteer at Dorchester Manor for over 25 years. Helen is in her late 80s and is a talented piano player who brings joy to the residents of Dorchester Manor with her music.

It is the dedication and compassion of these people and others like them that make my community a better and friendlier place to live and raise a family. On behalf of the government and my constituency I say thank you to all of them.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I rise today to recognize the people of Erinsville, a village in my riding, for an extraordinary initiative. This community was so moved by the tragedy in Walkerton that they created the Walkerton Comforter, a quilt that expressed their condolences and sympathies to the people of Walkerton on the anniversary of their loss.

What was started by a small group from Erinsville grew into a project with national scope, and the comforter was recently presented to the people of Walkerton. One project participant explained, "We sadly witnessed your community's saga of dismay, distress and death ... the trauma of the events as they unfolded made us want to do something, anything to help, but we felt powerless, as we are sure you did too. This comforter is as much about tending to our grief as it is about speaking to your own grief."

This quilt depicts ways that our air, land and water are threatened. It shows ways to keep our environment clean and safe, not only for us but also for our children. People from across Canada sent in signed cloth teardrops to be included in the quilt, expressing their love and sympathy. This quilt is a reminder to all Canadians, not just the people of Walkerton, that our environment is fragile and must be respected.

The people of Erinsville have dedicated the quilt to the memory of those from Walkerton who lost their lives. It is a tangible symbol of the love and sympathy of an entire nation for a community that has endured a great tragedy.

EDIBLE PACKAGING

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am very pleased to rise today in recognition of some students at the University of Guelph who have developed a product of edible packaging.

We must look for innovative ways to reduce our hazardous waste, and this product is a great one, made with soy products. A trio of biological engineering students at Guelph university developed the substitute packaging made from soy flour and glycerine. In one form, this packaging product could be a biodegradable replacement for the Styrofoam meat tray. In another form, and by changing the recipe slightly, the packaging becomes edible. Think about eating a plate of delicious cookies and the plate tastes good as well.

In a recent news article, students stated that the soy makes the packaging nutritious, the glycerine makes it flexible and the sugar makes it delicious.

Cost becomes a factor in any new product, but the students have indicated that with mass production the edible soy packaging would be within a few cents of the cost of producing Styrofoam. I don't think many of us would object to spending a few more cents to help our environment.

I would like to commend these students for their innovative work on this product. As we often say, our young people have wonderful ideas. We just have to learn to listen to them.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Daily, we hear rhetoric in this House and in this province on how much better health care is now, compared to 1995. I challenge each Ontario resident to consider that and review what their hospital was like six years ago.

We had occasion last week to take our three-year-old son to an emergency ward. The service provided by the staff and by the doctors was superb, but nine of the emergency room beds are lined up in a hallway with numbers painted on the wall beside them. Patients are being examined and treated in a hallway. Our senior citizens are lying in hallways waiting for beds to be freed up. This is appalling.

Yet, in my riding, we know that Quinte Healthcare Corp continues to face a $5-million deficit in the coming year. Ironically, the only way they could get additional funding from this government is by cutting essential services. Hospitals are being rewarded for cutting services rather than for providing good service. That, I also find appalling.

I call upon this government to consider not just spending the money on ads, not doing rhetoric, but to genuinely fund the one publicly funded, one-tier health care system that the people of this province value and demand and were promised in the 1999 election. It has not been delivered. The people of Ontario demand that we have one-tier, quality health care.

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE SERVICES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise today to bring to the attention of the House an important and historical event happening in my riding of Hamilton West. Today, SISO, the Settlement and Integration Services Organization, is opening up their new offices at Liuna Station.

I would remind members of this House that Hamilton is the third-largest receiving centre for new Canadians arriving as immigrants or refugees, the second-largest in Ontario, and that SISO provides services to these new Canadians.

I'd like to take just a moment to read their mission statement:

"Settlement and Integration Services Organization is a community-based agency which exists to serve immigrant and refugee communities in the Hamilton-Wentworth area and advocates/asserts/supports the right of all people to fully participate in the social, economic, political and cultural life of society."

I would bring to the attention of members that SISO services, on a yearly basis, 5,000 first-time clients and up to 20,000 returning clients.

I know the members of the House would want to know that it's opening in a historic building, the old CN station, where literally tens of thousands of new Canadians first came to Hamilton. LIUNA has refurbished this building, and that is indeed the new home. I would ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming SISO into their new offices.

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE FORCE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would like to honour the work of Peel Regional Police, one of Canada's largest police agencies, which employs 508 civilians and almost 1,400 sworn officers. It was the first police service in Ontario and the fifth in Canada to be accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.

The number of programs that this police force is involved in is unique. That's why I'd like to further endorse their work by saying they are in fact the best police force in Canada. They are involved in community policing; community stations; airport policing; Peel Crime Stoppers; RAID -- which is Reduce Abuse in Drugs -- activities to heighten self-esteem; and Peel Children's Safety Village.

Their "pure patrol" is something that I think is really working for our communities. That is where the police are actually getting out of their vehicles and getting to know the people who live in the community.

They also have a cyberproofing program for children who are taught how to protect themselves from being exploited and becoming victims of abuse on the Internet.

The community policing aspect of Peel Regional Police is working. I stand here today feeling extremely proud and grateful to all our officers, men and women, who are exemplary and dedicated to the well-being of the people of Peel.

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Administrator of Ontario has been pleased to assent to a certain bill.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour did assent:

Bill 55,

An Act to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine / Projet de loi 55, Loi visant à protéger la moraine d'Oak Ridges.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday I tabled a resolution requiring that the Premier agree to meet with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. I would ask for unanimous consent to debate and pass the resolution today.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek the unanimous consent of this House to have an emergency debate today at 6:45 pm regarding the need for a public inquiry into obstruction of justice around the prosecution of pedophiles in Cornwall.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TENANT PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

Mr Marchese moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 63,

An Act to amend the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 63, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la protection des locataires.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): The bill amends the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, to provide that when a tenant is evicted or leaves on receiving a notice of termination and leaves property behind, the landlord is required to keep the property available for retrieval for 30 days and to compensate the tenant for any loss or damage to it.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask that leave be granted to have unanimous consent to allow for the singing of our national anthem, O Canada, once a week in this Legislature, as was just adopted by the Nova Scotia Legislature? I would like to follow that lead and I seek unanimous consent.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I seek unanimous consent for a motion in which this House declares that full, province-wide public hearings on the government's plans to fund private schools are absolutely essential. Brief hearings limited to Toronto on Bill 45 are not enough.

This enormous tax bill contains 256 sections. Only three of them deal with the government's proposal to fund private schools. So, for each six-hour day of public hearings on Bill 45, logically only four minutes and 12 seconds would be given to public funding for private schools. That's clearly not enough and that's why we need province-wide hearings on something that is so dramatic and so draconian.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

PREMIER'S ATTENDANCE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We in the official opposition were informed that the Premier would be present for question period today. Perhaps it's been so long since he's been here that he forgets what time it starts.

The Speaker: As you know, the Speaker isn't aware of what arrangements would be made. What will be helpful, of course, as is a tradition here, is to let the opposition parties know so they can

schedule their questions. I'm sure that's being done.

If on an ongoing basis that isn't being done, then hopefully the two sides can work it out. There is nothing in the standing orders that allows the Speaker to interfere in that process.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Premier, I'll go to the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Finance. I must say at the outset that I am delighted and honoured that he's putting in a cameo appearance here today. It's very meaningful to us.

Minister, during the leaders' debate your Premier looked directly into the TV camera and said the following: "I've been asked, would I support private schools? I want to tell you, I went to the Jewish Congress and I said no. My priority is public education." Everybody knows that the Premier said something at that time and he's saying something completely different today. He made a specific commitment back then to voters, and today he's saying something entirely different. He gave working families his word of honour and he has now dishonoured them by breaking his word.

Will you have the decency here and now, Minister, to admit that your government, through your Premier, has broken its promise?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I thank the member opposite for raising the question of where I've been. I'm proud to tell the member that I've travelled to London, Ontario, to Ottawa, to New York and also to Tokyo and Hong Kong --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Sorry for the interruption, Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Flaherty: -- as Minister of Finance, as is the tradition following delivery of the budget, to help explain to investors and other officials around the world the good news in Ontario about our vibrant economy, about our balanced budget for the third year in a row, about the largest payment in history reducing the public debt of the province of Ontario, about low, competitive taxes, all the good news about creating this vibrant economy, unlike the bad news from 1985 to 1990 under the Liberals opposite.

Mr McGuinty: I can see that the government's seals of approval are in fine form, but I wonder, Minister, if you might focus on the question at hand. There's a very serious issue before Ontario's working families. They're very concerned about your plans, which are going to cause serious damage to public education for their children.

If you want, I would be quite prepared to have you refer this question to the Premier. I'll return to the Premier. Premier, why don't you admit to the Ontario public that you have broken a very specific promise made during the course of the campaign, that you have renounced an undertaking you gave in a letter to me, in letters directed to the federal Liberal government when you said that funding of private schools would both weaken and undermine public education, when you said it was going to cost taxpayers somewhere between $300 million and $700 million? Will you now admit that you have broken your specific promise made to Ontario's working families?

Hon Mr Flaherty: On the question of approval, and I think the member opposite for raising the question of approval, there is substantial disapproval with respect to the tax increases that were brought in by the Liberal government from 1985 to 1990. They raised the sales tax from 7% to 8%, raised the fuel tax twice and established the employer health tax in 1989. Although taking in record revenues, they kept increasing the public debt. What they appreciate across Canada, across Ontario and across the world now is the fact that we have a vibrant economy, low competitive taxes and a brilliant future for this province.

Mr McGuinty: We are very much concerned about the future of our province. We are very much concerned about the quality of public education available to all our children. If you don't understand this, you should understand that a highly skilled and educated workforce is instrumental in giving us a competitive edge and that it all begins with a government that supports public education.

Why not have the decency now to inject a bit of honesty into this debate? Why not admit that your government took a very specific position? They said that this policy, which you now warmly embrace, would cause grievous harm to public education. You said that it would weaken it, that it would undermine it. You said it would cost somewhere between $300 million and $700 million. Why not now admit that this policy you've embarked our province on will be harmful to our children and harmful to our future?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Our commitment to public education is firm and fully financed, with additional spending of $360 million in this budget for public education in this province, which includes francophone education, separate schools and public schools. There is a difference, though, when it comes to choice. We believe parents should have a choice in the education of their children. What we hear from the other side, from Dalton McGuinty, is that Dalton McGuinty thinks his opinion should substitute for the opinion of parents with respect to the education of their own children in Ontario.

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

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I'm sure that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Come to order, please, so that we can ask the question. Leader of the official opposition, sorry for the interruption.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, this question is to you. I am sure you will understand that the Ontario public and especially our working families are looking forward to hearing from you on this very important issue. During the course of the leaders' debate, you said, "I've been asked, would I support private schools? I went to the Jewish Congress and I said no, my priority is public education." You then summed up that portion of the debate with the following words, and these are your words: "Colin's question was, `Mike Harris, will you categorically guarantee that you are not going to support private schools?' I said, `Yes.'"

You made a specific commitment to Ontario's working families. They relied on that promise. You gave them your word of honour, and you have now clearly dishonoured them by breaking your word. Will you now stand up in your place and admit that you have broken your promise and apologize to Ontario's working families?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think I have been very clear when I was asked in the leaders' debate, did I support charter schools or vouchers or would I bring them in in this session? I made it very clear that, no, our first priority is the public education system, and our first priority still is the public education system and full funding of that system. However, the program we brought in, of tax credit, is for parents, not for private schools. It is for parents. It is for parents and as a matter of fairness and for choice for those parents who opt for an alternative form of education.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Weasel words.

The Speaker: Order. Sorry to interrupt. Member for Essex, you've got to withdraw. You cannot yell that across. We're not going to start with any unparliamentary language. I would ask you to withdraw, member for Essex; withdraw the "weasel words" you said, please.

Mr Crozier: I withdraw.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much --

The Speaker: I've asked the member for Essex to withdraw what he yelled out. I'm asking him to withdraw it now or I am going to name him.

Mr Crozier: I did.

The Speaker: Sorry, I was looking at the Premier; the Premier was up. I did not hear it, and I have to hear it. I apologize; there were two talking at once. I would ask you to withdraw it, please.

Mr Crozier: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Sorry for the interruption, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The only inconsistency is with the leader of the Liberal Party, and the only ongoing inconsistency is, are you in favour or are you opposed? Which members of your caucus are in favour? Which members of your caucus are opposed? I've seen your position explained as "We're in favour of the public education system and that has to be our first priority." Well, that's been our position. That's been my position for 21 years.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you can't fool all the people all the time. You've been found out on this particular matter. You said you weren't going to send money from public schools over to private schools. You were clear and unequivocal about that. Now the fact is that you're doing that, and you're telling us now that really you're not doing that, because you're not sending it to the schools, you're sending it to the parents.

Maybe I'll draw your attention to a letter dated January 13, 2000, from your Minister of Education to Minister Axworthy, where she says the following: "While the government of Ontario recognizes the right of parents to choose alternative forms of education for their children, it continues to have no plans to provide funding to private religious schools or to parents of children that attend such schools." So if you want to talk about inconsistency, Premier, I suggest that you take a long, hard look in the mirror.

I'll ask you again, on behalf of Ontario's working families, why have you changed your mind? Why have you broken your promise? Why have you dishonoured Ontario's working families?

Hon Mr Harris: I think you heard in the budget that was brought down this year that the feeling of the Minister of Finance was that we were in a financial position now to begin retiring debt, to fully fund the public schools, to put over 5% more into health care and to be able to address new issues.

I want to make it very clear and the Minister of Finance has made it very clear that the extension of tax credits to parents, particularly for low- and middle-income families, to improve their choice on education, and particularly those low- and middle-income families that are paying twice for education, takes not one cent away from public education in this province.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you sang a different tune a little while back, and Ontario's working families are trying to figure out whether they believe yesterday's Mike Harris or today's Mike Harris. What you said before, Premier, in your letter to me of January 18, 2000, was, "Complying with the UN's demand would remove from our existing public education system at least $300 million per year, with some estimates as high as $700 million. Obviously such an action would run directly counter to Ontario's long-standing commitment to public education."

It seems to me you are making this stuff up as you go. You're embarrassed. You're ashamed. You made a specific commitment. People now understand that you don't follow through on everything you committed to. The jig is up. Why not do the decent and honourable thing? Stand up, apologize to Ontario's working families and withdraw this policy.

Hon Mr Harris: First of all, when referring to the United Nations, here are the alternatives the United Nations gave us -- and I rejected all three -- (1) to provide direct funding to private religious schools equivalent to our Catholic and public schools; I rejected that; (2) to eliminate funding separate schools; I rejected that; (3) to provide religious instruction in the public schools. We rejected that as well, as we reject the right of the United Nations to tell us how we're going to fund our public education system.

Second, I make no apologies for this government correcting the finances of this province, for getting us into a surplus position, for getting us now to the lowest tax rates for our small and medium-sized businesses, for getting our entrepreneurs into a tax-competitive position, for lowering taxes for hard-working taxpayers and families of this province and for now being able to be in a financial position to give double-digit increases to health care and --

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, your two weeks of limited public hearings on Bill 45 are a sham. Given the fact you've totally reversed your position on public funds for private schools, and given the fact that this is going to have a dramatic effect on public schools, to limit hearings to two weeks in Toronto just won't do. Tell us why you think the rest of the people of Ontario should be shut out of public hearings when it's their schools that are going to be affected too. Why should they be shut down, and how do you justify that?

Hon Mr Harris: On the whole question of hearings, we'd actually like to get public input and advice on implementation of the bill. These tax credits, as you know, are very small, particularly the beginning years, and they don't kick in for another year. We are interested in getting advice. We'd like to provide as much time as is required, both in hearings and any other outside advice we can get, and any advice you have on how we can implement this in as fair, proper and correct a manner as possible. I don't think there's been a suggestion the hearings ought to be limited. This is something the House leaders and the committee members can talk about.

Mr Hampton: Our advice is: don't do this. Stop it in its tracks right now. It's the wrong thing to do. When we talked with Ministry of Finance staff, this is what they told us: in effect now private school parents are now going to get five -- count them -- tax breaks. They'll get federal and provincial child care tax breaks. They'll get federal and provincial religious charitable donation tax breaks, and now they'll get your $3,500-a-year private school tax credit. What it amounts to is this: you're loading the deck in favour of private education.

My question is, before you load the deck in favour of private schools, don't you think the people of Ontario deserve a say via public hearings on what's going to happen?

Hon Mr Harris: This is really the same question that we took to the people in 1995 and 1999. In essence, here was the question: do you want individuals to pay more taxes, as the Liberals and NDP campaigned for, or do you want individuals to pay less taxes, as we campaigned for? Every initiative we brought in so that hard-working families could pay less taxes, you vote against and the Liberals vote against; every initiative so that hard-working families can pay less taxes, we vote for and you vote against. We understand that. We know that.

We understand there are some people who actually support you high taxers who want to take more money from hard-working families because you think you can spend it better than they can. We fundamentally disagree. That's why we were elected in 1995 and in 1999, and I suggest to you in 2003 or 2004 we'll be re-elected again.

Mr Hampton: What we get, Premier, is the lengths your government is prepared to go in order to load the deck in favour of private education. Let me give you the numbers. For a family with an income of $100,000 a year, if they send two children to private schools, with private school total tuition of $14,000, what it amounts to, with your tax credit and the other tax breaks, is almost $10,000 in tax breaks to send their children to private schools. That's very generous funding for private schools at the same time that you're forcing public school boards to cut their budgets.

The question of fairness is this: before you load the deck in favour of private schools while you deprive public schools, don't you think you ought to have the courage to go out there and hold public hearings across the province so people can have their say?

Hon Mr Harris: First of all, we're happy to have public hearings. We're happy to hear from the public, and they'll have their opportunity both on the policy and the implementation of the policy. We welcome that advice.

But again, I make no apologies for hard-working families to try and lessen the tax burden on these families. I think this is something we are elected to do; it's something we're committed to do. If I could eliminate taxes completely, I'd be happy to do it.

On the other hand, by lowering the tax rates from the punitive rates you had, making sure that we're competitive, we've found that we get more people working; we get more people off welfare. In turn, we get the kinds of dollars we need to put double-digit increases into the health care system, to put 360 million new dollars into the public education system. So it's only through tax competitiveness, in getting our tax rates to where they're competitive, that we've been able to put all these new dollars into priority programs like public education and health care.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: What's clear, Premier, is the extent to which you're willing to go to give parents who are already well off more and more enticements so they'll send their kids to private schools and undermine the public school system. That's what is clear.

There's another element to this. When we talked to your Ministry of Finance officials they told us that private schools get to select what children they want, that private schools are not bound by any of the other rules that govern our public schools, such as non-discrimination, such as not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, on the basis of ethnic origin, that they get to pick the kids. You give them public money but they get to pick the kids. Premier, that sounds to me like your government wants to fund discrimination. Before you do that, don't you think you should hold province-wide hearings so that people across the province can have their say on those issues as well?

Hon Mr Harris: I have never heard such a silly stretch of the facts in all of my life. First of all, we've already said we're committed to have public hearings. Secondly, if you know of any individual, any institution, any school that is violating the human rights charter here in the province of Ontario, we have laws to prevent that, we have anti-discriminatory laws, and they will be enforced. To stand in this place and make that kind of allegation, that there is blatant discrimination anywhere, and not refer that to the Ontario Human Rights Commission is a disgrace.

Mr Hampton: Well, Premier, you should talk to your Ministry of Finance officials, because they acknowledge that in the private school system it is children with special needs and disabled children who are in fact not accepted, that they are mostly excluded from the private school system. They point out that under your proposal there is absolutely no plan whatsoever to tell those schools that they must accept all children.

So, Premier, before you load the deck even further, before you give public money to private schools that then can say, "But we don't want your child and we don't want your child and there's no place for your child," before you fund that kind of discrimination, hold public hearings across the province and let the citizens of the province tell you how they feel about that. Do you have the courage to do it, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I've announced public hearings. Is that what you're asking me: do I have the courage to have public hearings?

You see, we've had more public hearings on more government bills than the NDP ever had, than the Liberals ever had. We've had more hours, we've had more hearings, we've had more public input; not only that, but we've consulted a lot more in advance of the bills before they've gone out for public input. So of course we said we will have public hearings.

As to any matters of discrimination, these are matters where we have laws in this country and in this province on all institutions, and these laws are there.

Thirdly, we're not planning to give five cents to any private schools.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Premier. Premier, you told us a few moments ago, and we've heard this refrain now time and time again, that the motivation behind your voucher program is to correct inequities, as you've just said, and to help out low- and middle-income families.

I've got the fee

schedule here for 2001-02 for Upper Canada College. Do you know what the fees are for day students this year, Premier? They're $16,690. Do you know what the fees are for boarding students?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Sorry to interrupt the leader of the official opposition. The member for Brampton Centre, come to order. This is his last warning. If he yells like that, he's out.

Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: For boarding students at Upper Canada College, the fees this year are $29,690.

On behalf of Ontario's working families, Premier, can you tell us why it is in their interests that you take money out of public schools and send it over to parents of children who are attending Upper Canada College to help defray some of the expenditures?

Hon Mr Harris: First of all, it may have been the Liberals' intention to take money from public education to support private schools, but that's not our intention. We will not take five cents; we will take nothing away from public education in this province to implement a tax credit policy of fairness for families. So let's just make sure we have the record straight on that. It's not the way the Liberals were planning to do it. The way we do it is, not five cents out of public education.

Secondly, the tax credit, as you know, does not cover boarding costs that you mention in your question. I'm surprised you didn't know that, and I'm delighted you asked the question because we've been quite clear about that.

Thirdly, the tax credit, when fully implemented six years from now, will only cover 50% of up to $7,000, which fits into the category of École Parsifal in Ottawa South, Lycée Claudel in Ottawa South, $5,960, these kinds of schools. So some parents may choose to pay more or to board their students, but that of course will not be covered by --

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: You're the one who maintains that the purpose of this policy is to correct inequities and to help out lower- and middle-income families. Well, in the case of Upper Canada College, maybe you could explain to Ontario's working families -- who, by the way, have some 35,000 of their children on a waiting list for psychological assessment because of all the school boards that have had to fire their psychologists, and, by the way, 42% of Ontario's parents in our elementary schools are out there raising money day in and day out for textbooks and computers.

Those working families of whom I speak, Premier, want to know why it is that you have $500 million for private schools but you don't have money to correct pressing problems they've got to contend with, day in and day out. They want to know why it is that you are coming to the rescue of parents who are sending their kids to Upper Canada College, who are already, without your assistance, paying fees in the neighbourhood of $17,000 for a day student.

Hon Mr Harris: I assume you're in favour then of the $1.37 billion in special education, more than any other government in Ontario's history, that we're investing in the public education system. I assume you're in favour of the tax cuts you voted against that gave us the prosperity so we could put $360 million more this year into the public education system in Ontario.

I might say this: I understand why the Liberals are not asking for hearings. At least the NDP is consistent in wanting to have hearings.

Mr McGuinty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Had the Premier graced us with his presence here yesterday, he would have known that we raised that --

The Speaker: That is not a point of order. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I understand the embarrassment of the Liberal Party asking for hearings and why they didn't ask me today about hearings. When we had Bill 118, the Child and Family Services Amendment Act, the Liberals asked for hearings. We had hearings, and when we went to Sault Ste Marie not one Liberal member showed up for the hearings. So I assume that's why it's only the NDP that wants hearings and wants to get the input, and more credit to them.

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. As the minister knows, thousands of people from around the world come to Ontario every year to make new lives for themselves and their families, and we welcome them. This has always been one of our province's greatest strengths, even at the time that my own family came here in the Depression years. Yet there are significant financial costs associated with the immigration process, a process for which the federal government has primary responsibility. Can the minister tell the House what, if any, support the federal government provides for newcomers' settlement and training?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I want to thank my colleague the member for Mississauga South for her question and I want to indicate that the issues she raised are of concern to all members of this House. As we know, Ontario opens its doors to a significant number of immigrants every year. In fact, 1.3 million new Canadians have settled in Ontario in the last decade.

Whereas we take 60% of all of Canada's immigration, we're only getting 40% of the funding. We need to make sure that the federal government realizes there's a huge inequity here. Quebec gets 14% of the immigration but they get 33% of all the funding. Ontario taxpayers are paying that federal freight.

I want to urge all members of this House to contact the 100 Liberals in Ottawa from Ontario and tell them that we want this inequity dealt with in the best interests of all Ontarians, especially the support for new Canadians.

Mrs Marland: My own community of Mississauga has one of the fastest-growing populations in Ontario, and we welcome thousands of immigrants who come to this province every year, many of whom arrive through sponsorship agreements. In fact, there are thousands of these agreements which fail when sponsors default on their obligations to support the immigrants whom they invited to Canada -- 908 people per month in the region of Peel alone. The bill for the region of Peel in failed sponsorships in the last decade is $15 million.

The enforcement of sponsorship agreements is, again, a federal responsibility.

Would this minister tell the House what impact these failed sponsorships have on provincial services and what, if any, support Ontario receives from the federal government?

As I said, we've had 1.3 million new Canadians in our province in a decade, and we need to make sure that the federal government steps up and stops undervaluing their commitments to new Canadians who settle in Ontario.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock for a quick moment. We have in the members' gallery east Mr Doug Rollins, the member for Quinte from the 36th Parliament.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, Ontario hospitals have been in a state of continuous crisis since your government came into office and cut $800 million from their budgets. Hospitals have tried to cope with the cuts. They shut down 5,500 acute care beds; they laid off 10,000 nurses; they closed their emergency rooms when the backlog of patients waiting for beds made it impossible to care for anyone else. And despite all of these efforts, a majority of Ontario hospitals have faced deficits every year.

Every year, hospitals try to tell your government what they need if they're going to keep their doors open, and every year your government has played numbers games with hospital funding, reannouncing old money as if it was a new investment, waiting until the year's almost over to give hospitals their final budget, refusing to put a rational funding formula in place.

But Minister, last week you took the attack on hospitals to a new height. You accused hospital board members of intellectual dishonesty when they didn't welcome the reannouncement of the money you gave them last year. Minister, are you accusing hospital boards across this province of lying about the reality of their deficits?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member wants to talk about numbers. I'm quite willing to do so, because if one looks at the past two fiscal years in this province, gross domestic product growth in this province was 11.6%, but hospital funding growth was 21.3%. In fact, since we got elected in 1995, hospital spending has increased by 30%. That indicates our commitment to hospitals -- 20% of that 30% was within the last two years alone. We have kept our promise on hospital spending and on health care spending.

The health care budget in this year's budget has increased by 5.4%, which is significantly higher, once again, than population growth, higher than inflation, higher than GDP growth. We are putting health care as the primary responsibility of our funding requirements. It's 45 cents out of every program dollar we spent. Those are the numbers that she should be aware of.

Mrs McLeod: You accused hospital board members across this province of intellectual dishonesty. You said basically they were lying, and what you really want to do is discredit hospital board members so you don't have to acknowledge the reality of the $750-million deficit that hospitals are facing across the province this year.

Minister, you can't keep avoiding it. The situation in hospitals is getting more critical all the time. In March of this year, hospital emergency rooms in Toronto alone were on critical care bypass 192 hours, the highest ever for one month and four times higher than in the same month last year. Those hospital deficits are going to force the layoff of thousands more nurses. I think maybe that's how you've decided to solve the nursing shortage: instead of hiring 3,000 nurses, you're going to force hospitals to fire 6,000 nurses.

Minister, that means more beds closed, more surgery cancelled, more patients turned away from emergency rooms, and your response to all of that is to attack hospital board members. It is only too evident that you are deliberately setting public hospitals up for failure in exactly the same way you set public education up for failure so you could bring in private schools. I ask you, are you going to wait until hospital board members start to quit before you bring in your private hospitals or are you just going to go ahead and replace public boards with private companies?

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member spent most of her question attributing remarks to me which are perhaps sound with her but not with me. I can say to the honourable member that the remarks which she attributes to me were not made in that context. Indeed, the context was $120 million more for hospitals announced last week alone to help those who have performed well to meet the needs of their community. That was the context of the announcement: $120 million more into the hospital system; $120 million more of taxpayers' money for health care spending in this province.

I would say to the honourable member, and through her to any hospitals that are listening, that we have in our possession the operating plans of all the hospitals and we're going through a process of dialogue with the hospitals to meet their objectives and to see what parts of their operating plans meet accountability and meet the expectations of their community and which parts don't. That's a normal process, and the honourable member I think is stoking up something which does not in fact exist.

ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): My question is for the Solicitor General. Minister, on Christmas Eve of 1994, the Ontario Provincial Police issued a press release announcing that they were winding up an investigation into an alleged pedophile ring in the Cornwall area. They announced at that time that there were no charges to be laid. They condoned the investigation of the Cornwall police in 1992 and the board of commissioners of police of the Cornwall police department in a 1993 investigation, which also found that there were no charges to be laid and nothing was amiss.

Immediately thereafter, the citizens of Cornwall put some money together and did their own investigation. They obtained statements and affidavits. They travelled to Florida and they got registration slips at a motel on Birch Avenue known as the pedophile strip, and they served those documents on your department and on the department of the Attorney General of this government. Immediately thereafter, a new OPP investigation was commenced and miraculously 115 charges were laid.

My question, Mr Minister, is with regard to the first OPP investigation. What is your level of confidence with regard to the integrity of that investigation? How do you explain to the people of Ontario how that investigation and the previous two investigations by the Cornwall police missed all 115 charges?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): This government certainly does not tolerate the abuse of children in any manner. I think everybody in this chamber would agree that our thoughts are with the entire community of Cornwall through this difficult time.

The member knows it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific investigations.

As you are aware, the Harris government is committed to protecting children from abuse of all kinds, and particularly sexual abuse. I was proud to bring Christopher's Law, the first sex offender registry in the country, into law. As well, the OPP's child pornography section, Project P, is the largest such unit in Canada and is looked upon by other police services as the lead agency for investigations of these types of crime.

Mr Guzzo: Thank you, Mr Minister. But I'm not aware, having spent most of my adult life in a courtroom prior to coming to this Legislature, that you are not free to comment on an investigation. Let me explain to you that if in 1994 the people of Cornwall, the citizens' group, had adopted that same position, the 115 charges that have been laid would not have been laid, sir. So I don't think it's fair to suggest that we cannot comment and we cannot look at investigations of this nature. In my opinion, sir, that is our responsibility in this House, and the people who were here in 1994 let the people of Ontario down by not questioning them.

But my supplementary, sir, is more basic. In light of the obvious situation with regard to that first investigation -- I put this question to the OPP officers who debriefed me after the bill, my last bill in this House, and their answer, sir, was a little more enlightening than yours, quite frankly. In light of what obviously took place in that 1994 investigation, how can the people of this province be satisfied that similar matters are not taking place as we speak and have not taken place while we have been the government of this province? How do we know that as we talk today there are not similar situations being covered up in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Turnbull: The OPP, at the request of the Cornwall Police Service, has investigated a number of allegations of sexual abuse in the Cornwall area dating back several years. Since July 1997, when Project Truth was initiated, 115 charges have been laid against 15 people. The integrity of all aspects of the justice system rests on its ability to proceed without interference. Charges may still be pending, and let me assure you that the book is not fully closed on whether charges will be laid. Any further comment by me would be inappropriate.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday I asked a question about community care access centres and the fact that, as we speak, tens of thousands of frail seniors and persons with disabilities are receiving notices that their in-home care services are being dramatically cut or eliminated. The associate Minister of Health provided this House with a list of initiatives by your government over the last five to six years, so that's on the record. What I want to ask you to do, Minister, is to please address the issues of today.

Community care access centres have been providing services above their allocated budgets. Each year your ministry has been doing year-end adjustments to provide them with money, but that has not been rolled into their base budget. Now, without that base budget increase and with your new no-deficit law, they have no alternative but to cut those services. Those are real people who have been receiving real services and those services are being cut. Minister, are you going to accept those cuts in services to frail seniors and persons with disabilities or are you going to address the base funding shortfall for community needs?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the honourable member may know, since we came to power, the in-home funding has increased by over 72%, close to 73%. So I don't think it would be a fair characterization of our funding to suggest, by any stretch of the imagination, that we have not met some of the funding increases due to growth, due to utilization and due to the demands in the system that are met by CCACs and by the agencies that report to them.

We are, of course, seized with some of the new budgets that have been put forward by the CCACs and we will be examining them closely to make sure they meet the needs of citizens in Ontario, but we also have to do so in a fiscally responsible and accountable manner. That's what we expect of every single transfer agency that reports to the people of Ontario through the government of Ontario and its funding.

Ms Lankin: Minister, please, over the last number of years your ministry has worked with these CCACs. Many of them, whether it be Niagara or the St Catharines-Welland area, whether it be Sudbury-Manitoulin, whether it be the six CCACs in Toronto, whether it be Waterloo, Kingston, many areas of the province, those communities have identified need above your funding levels. They have been meeting that identified need of seniors and persons with disabilities. You have been funding them with year-end adjustments.

Now you have said no, and in fact the meetings have happened between your ministry and these CCACs and they have been told they have to deliver service to the allocated budget. With your no-deficit law, what it means is that those services have to be cut.

Now, please, you can make a difference. You can commit today to go back and reconsider those budgets, to understand the community need and to fund to that base community need so that individuals are not being cut. I want to ask you -- I raised a number of examples yesterday -- if it was mom who was incontinent, who was only getting two baths a week and now the cuts that CCAC is forced to make mean she's only going to get one bath a week, is that acceptable to you, Minister?

Hon Mr Clement: As she may know, part of the $1.2 billion of extra money that our government committed, over a multi-year period, to long-term care was $551 million for home care and other long-term-care service, and $264 million of that is going directly to CCACs for their funding allocations, so it would be inaccurate to say we are not adding to the base allocations of CCACs.

I would say to the honourable member that from our perspective it is not this Hobson's choice. It's not a choice of adding funds or cutting services. Our transfer partners have told us that part of the government's agenda has been to ensure that they deliver the services more efficiently, more focused to the patients who need the care, and cutting out some of the overhead, cutting out some of the waste and duplication. We will continue to pursue that with the CCACs as well.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Before we proceed, we have another former member in the members' gallery east, Mr Leo Jordan, the member for Lanark-Renfrew in the 35th and 36th Parliaments.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it has to do with the education tax credit program. We fear very much a fragmentation of the public education system and an undermining of the goals of universal access to education.

We've assumed all along that you must have conducted some fairly major analysis that would tell you where this will lead. We were surprised in our briefing by your officials to learn that, for the study they quote, they simply looked at the Internet and did a brief

summary of some information they found on the Internet. Apparently they had no significant studies done to indicate what would happen to enrolment with this program. We understand you've assumed that nothing will happen to enrolment with the program.

Will you today, Minister, table the study and the research and the analysis you had conducted that showed you the impact of your program on enrolment in public schools, and will you give the House today and the public a synopsis of that major research you've obviously done so that we can understand how you arrived at no impact on enrolment?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I thank the member opposite for the question. There were substantial pre-budget consultations, as I'm sure the member opposite knows. The finance committee of this House met for a couple of weeks in Ottawa, Thunder Bay, London and Toronto. There were about 349 people who were involved in the direct pre-budget consultations. Submissions were made in writing and in person with respect to this issue of equity in education.

Certainly we'll hear more as the matter proceeds through the public hearings that are going to take place, and indeed more will be heard when the public consultations take place in terms of drafting the regulation concerning eligibility for the tax credit.

Mr Phillips: Listen, you have embarked Ontario on a road that will have a dramatic impact on public education. Surely to heaven you haven't embarked on that road without some significant research being done to tell you where the road leads. I say to you today, Minister, you've launched us on this and if you haven't done the research, Ontario wants you to answer for that. I say again, this is a major embarking down a road for education. I want you today to get up and table the research that shows you what the impact will be.

If you haven't done that, I want to know why you haven't conducted the major research to tell us what destruction you're going to do to public education. I want the research, and we want it today.

Hon Mr Flaherty: We can do better than that. We don't have to rely on theory, on speculation, on might-have-beens. We have the reality in this country -- in British Columbia, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba and in the province of Quebec. In all of those jurisdictions, they've moved forward with funding for children attending independent schools. That's already happened in this country. We know the reality of it.

For example, in Manitoba, independent school enrolment as a percentage of the total increased only marginally from 5% to 6.6% from 1999 to 2000. That's what's happened in the rest of Canada. That's what we anticipate happening in Ontario.

COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS

AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I want to ask you about a situation that has been bothering me for several years, and I'm not able to get any answers. I know that our government is proud to push our agenda of accountability and transparency, but I believe that we should be expecting that policy to be honoured throughout all publicly funded or public-interest institutions in Ontario.

Minister, I am wondering how our government is reacting to the fact that as the Kitchener-Waterloo Record states that many of the "complaints investigated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario since 1994" have been either "dismissed or handled behind closed doors." I've had personal experience with that. What are you going to do to ensure that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is accountable and part of a transparent health care system?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to thank the honourable member for Kitchener Centre for what is an excellent question. I think it has to be a fundamental touchstone of certainly this government that there be accountability and transparency in all aspects of public institutions, which not only includes government but also the College of Physicians and Surgeons and other independent or quasi-independent boards and agencies. We believe -- and we should believe -- that patients should have more access to information about their doctors and about the procedures that are part of doctor accountability. That's true for every profession, not just medical doctors.

I can tell the honourable member that in December 1999, the government launched an independent review of the College of Physicians and Surgeons complaint and discipline process. That review has been extremely comprehensive. It has looked at every aspect of complaints and discipline. We wanted to make sure that we could determine how the public interest was best served. We are seized with that information. We are seized now with the report and with the start of an action plan.

Mr Wettlaufer: I used to belong to a professional body and we had a disciplinary procedure through our regulatory body, and so do the teachers. They work very well.

I want to take this opportunity to give the members of this House an example of what we could do. US states presently have legislation making all physician complaints accessible by the public. One state in particular, Massachusetts, was the first in 1996 to put all disciplinary decisions, hospital sanctions, malpractice settlements and court actions on its Web site. Are we going to follow their leadership and hold our health care providers accountable through this example of transparency? If not, I'd like to know why not.

One of the excuses I always receive from the College of Physicians and Surgeons is that the health act doesn't permit them to disclose some information. The second part of my supplementary is: if the health act needs changing, will we change it?

Hon Mr Clement: Again, I think the touchstone should continue to be transparency and accountability. If we have to make legislative changes in order to get to a better definition and

interpretation of the public interest, we should change legislation. There is an action plan that's in response to the independent review. We are taking a look at the action plan, quite frankly, to make sure it goes as far as it should rather than not going far enough.

I think that's the key to responding to this. It has to meet our commitment to transparency, meet our commitment to accountability, and certainly we are looking for public input on this from the member himself, other colleagues in the House, in the chamber and throughout the public as well. This is something that all of the public should have some thoughts on and should have an opportunity to provide some answers to.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Health as well. Your regulation regarding homemaking services is forcing community care access centres across the province to discharge thousands of clients who are now considered ineligible because of your restrictions. These clients are people who are capable of living independently but are unable to complete homemaking tasks necessary for them to stay in their homes: people like Yolanda and Lorraine from Sudbury, who have no family members or friends who can assist them on a regular basis.

These people are being forced, by their circumstances and your regulation, out of their homes and into long-term-care facilities and low-cost retirement homes. Yolanda and Lorraine want to and can stay in their own home if you make an amendment to your regulation to allow community care access centres to provide homemaking skills to people who (1) are unable to perform their own homemaking skills or, (2) cannot afford homemaking skills.

Minister, will you make that amendment today, in order to keep Yolanda and Lorraine and many other people in Ontario in similar situations in their own homes?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the question. There are a number of things in play there. There are regulations in place when it comes to access to homemaking services that I believe were in place before we got into power. I would have to double-check on that, but certainly they are in place.

There are of course professional responsibilities of physicians to determine the appropriate place for a person. Is it in a long-term-care facility? Is it in a hospital? Is it for home care? These are clinical decisions rather than policy decisions, and they should be clinical decisions, quite frankly. Quite apart from that, we have our $1.2-billion multi-year investment in long-term-care facilities. We just announced last week another 5,500 new beds that are being created in our province as part of our long-term-care strategy.

So all of these things are in place, or are going to be in place, and will provide parts of the answers to the honourable member's question.

Mr Bartolucci: That regulation was changed in 1999 under your mandate.

Minister, how does your collective government conscience allow you to avoid the question with rhetoric? On a daily basis, my office is getting phone calls from sick, elderly constituents: people like Yolanda, people like Lorraine, people who have lived and worked in Ontario for decades, paid their taxes and never asked for anything in return. These people do not want to be your sacrificial lambs for your government's tax cuts. These people are in the twilight of their lives. They are on fixed incomes and they never thought that their provincial government would turn its back on them, and this is exactly what you have done.

Minister, you have a letter from the CCAC Manitoulin-Sudbury, dated May 9, telling you that you are underfunding community care access centres across the province. Today, will you commit to the Manitoulin-Sudbury CCAC, and every CCAC across this province, that you will increase the base funding and that you will make an amendment to that regulation which will allow elderly, frail seniors to remain in their own home?

Hon Mr Clement: Of course the honourable member probably is aware that there are CCACs which are delivering that function. That's the more accurate way to describe that.

If the honourable member is raising a particular case to me, I mentioned to another honourable member that CCAC funding has increased over 72% since our government got into power. He mentioned the Sudbury-Manitoulin case, which I believe the other honourable member mentioned as well. If there is a particular problem, if they want to work with me for a value-for-money audit to make sure they are delivering the right services to the right people up to the best of our ability, we're open for business.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we believe that all education resources should be directed to our public schools, not private schools;

"Whereas Mike Harris has been attacking public education for six years, chopping $1.8 billion from the classroom and now wants to pay parents to leave public education for private schools;

"Whereas we believe that a voucher plan for private schools is wrong, unfair and steals money from public education;

"Whereas we believe that these funds being invested in private schools would be better spent on rebuilding public education through such measures as bringing class sizes down to 20 students per class in the early years;

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

"Do not turn your back on Ontario's working families. Fight Mike Harris's voucher system for private schools; fight for smaller class sizes; fight for public education."

I will very proudly sign my name to this petition.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the annual rent increase guideline for multi-unit residential dwellings in Ontario increases every year more than the rate of inflation and more than the cost-of-living increase for most tenants;

"Whereas no new affordable rental housing is being built by the private sector, despite the promise that the implementation of vacancy decontrol in June 1998 would encourage new construction;

"Whereas over 100,000 people are on the waiting list for social housing, homelessness has increased as a result of unaffordable rents and high rents are a direct cause of the national housing crisis;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement an immediate province-wide freeze on rents which will stop all guideline increases, above-guideline increases and increases to maximum rent for all sitting tenants in Ontario for a period of at least two years."

I support this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This is one of hundreds I'm receiving almost weekly.

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children; and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

I am more than happy to affix my signature to this.

PROSTATE CANCER

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

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

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

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

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA (prostate specific antigen) is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health's inaction is literally causing men to die needlessly;

"Therefore,

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): "Whereas Mike Harris and the Ministry of Education, with their new curriculum changes and cuts, have been failing our province's students;

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

"To cease cutting funds from the education system, and put back what was taken out to pay for textbooks for all grades, music, arts and physical education programs, and to hire more teachers;

"To immediately begin preparing elementary students for the secondary school curriculum (as the current students were not);

"Prepare for the doubling number of students in 2003 by working with colleges and universities now (space, teachers, admissions, marks etc);

"Abolish recent in-class time hike for teachers, which doesn't allow proper time to prepare lessons or volunteer their time to extracurricular activities;

"Eliminate the teacher adviser group and the teacher adviser program;

"Simply, to listen to the students of Ontario and to stop ignoring them. After all, they are the ones these changes are affecting."

I support this petition as well.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or other religions, is best for their children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children; and

Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of their tuition fees paid for that education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

I'm submitting this on behalf of a number of constituents, for instance, Jennifer Slump, and I'll sign that petition now.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I have a petition with approximately 5,000 signatures.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:...

"Three years ago, recommendations made by the Health Services Restructuring Commission (HRSC) were confirmed by the district health council, which resulted in the merger of Picton, Belleville, Trenton and Bancroft hospitals. Unfortunately, this merger exempted Picton from remaining within a rural classification, in accordance with the new framework guidelines established for northern and rural health care.

"Upon merger, Picton was to maintain 36 active treatment beds, with an additional six sub-acute care beds available by 2003. This is no longer the case. Picton is facing further reductions due to its reclassification from rural to partially urban. Why? Is driving 35 to 40 kilometres one way to reach medical care not far enough?... We are a large county and for many residents access to medical care is precarious and daunting....

"The provincial government has stepped in and overruled the review of the rural and northern framework, resulting in our community being recognized as partially urban and subject to further downsizing. What gives this governing body the right to overrun the people who were first responsible for the origin of our community hospital? We must not forget the support of those organizations such as the Women's Institute, service clubs, Ladies Auxiliary ... churches and the many individual bequests.

"Our hospital was built in 1959 and dedicated to the memory of our servicemen. We must now join together and support the war being faced by our local hospital."

We call upon the Minister of Health and the Premier, Mr Harris, to realize "that the reductions being enforced upon our community hospital should not become reality." We must preserve "our doctors, our services, our outpatient clinics that are so essential...."

I am pleased to add my signature to this petition.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas children are being exposed to sexually explicit materials in many commercial establishments; and

"Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors, and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials; and

"Whereas uniform standards are needed in Ontario that would make it illegal to sell, rent, loan or display sexually explicit materials to minors;

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

"To pass Bill 95, the Protection of Minors from Sexually Explicit Goods and Services Act, 2000, as soon as possible."

I am pleased to attach my signature to this petition.

SOCIAL AUDIT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has undertaken a massive reform of the way social service programs are managed and delivered in this province; and

"Whereas the government's language, actions and policies over the last six years have reinforced the worst kind of stereotypes about people on social assistance without offering Ontarians any proof that the policies they've put in place are meeting the needs of those whose circumstances have forced them to seek temporary assistance from Ontario's social safety net; and

"Whereas this government, when challenged on how well their Ontario Works programs are working, points to welfare caseload numbers as their one and only measurement of success or failure; and

"Whereas a social audit would determine how this government's policies are impacting on low-income children and families and allow for enhancements to improve the well-being, employability and economic security of individuals and families in need;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the government of Ontario conduct a social audit of its Ontario Works program."

This is going across the province. This was sent to me by the Ottawa West End Legal Services, and I'm very pleased to add my name to this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I have a petition here on behalf of residents of the Minister of Transportation's riding, and I am pleased to present it on his behalf.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children; and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

These are from people from Mount Hope, Hamilton, Ancaster, Caledonia.

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the current level of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services in Ottawa is the lowest of any major urban area in the province and waiting lists for these services exceed 7,000 patients and seven months;

"Whereas the delays experienced by patients waiting for these services are potentially harmful to their health and often result in the mental anguish of uncertainty, needless suffering and financial burden;

"Whereas Ottawa-area hospitals have submitted proposals for increased MRI services;

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

"That the Minister of Health be directed to take immediate action and provide sufficient funding to resolve the alarming backlog of patients waiting for MRI scans at Ottawa hospitals."

I affix my signature.

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further petitions. The Chair recognizes the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Thank you, with deep gratitude, Mr Speaker. I appreciate this opportunity. I am presenting this petition on behalf of Gary Carr, the member for Oakville -- the Speaker -- and myself as the member for Mississauga South. It reads as follows:

"Petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas Sithe Energies Canadian Development Ltd is actively pursuing the development of an 800 MW electricity generating facility; and

"Whereas the 14-hectare parcel of land on which the station is proposed is located on the east side of Winston Churchill Boulevard in the Southdown industrial district of Mississauga;

"Whereas Sithe has stated its commitment to an open dialogue with communities where it has a presence and to being responsive to the concerns of the same; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has a responsibility to ensure the safety of Ontario citizens and to determine how this facility will impact those who live in its immediate, surrounding area,

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

"That the government of Ontario direct the Ministry of the Environment to undertake a formal environmental assessment of the Sithe project."

I am happy to add my signature to this petition.

OPPOSITION DAY

EDUCATION FUNDING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Parkdale-High Park.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It's my pleasure to rise on behalf of my party on this opposition day about the commitment this party has -- and this government has failed to provide -- in favour of public education, that it has put forward, to the detriment of every child in public education in this province, schemes to give incentives with public money --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Either you need unanimous consent to take the place of Mr McGuinty or Mr McGuinty has to be here to move that motion.

Mr Kennedy: I seek unanimous consent to speak in place of Mr McGuinty.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? It is not agreed.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: It is agreed.

Mr Kennedy: The resolution to be debated this afternoon, an opportunity that we are providing through our opposition day, is, that in the opinion of this House, the government should make reducing class sizes in our public schools to a real cap of 20 students per class in junior kindergarten through grade 3 its top education priority and withdraw its plan for private school vouchers.

This is a vital opportunity for the people of this province to finally be heard. After six years of this government attacking public education, they have finally made clear what their real agenda is. They have --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Mr Kennedy has moved opposition day number 3, and now the Chair recognizes the member for York South. Debate?

Mr Kennedy: It is vital that the people of this province take this opportunity to talk back finally to this government, to a government that has not been in any way responsive or responsible when it comes to the public education system, but instead has found and has put forward for us a lazy option, an option essentially of giving up on the public education system.

Yesterday at our public meeting in my riding of Parkdale-High Park we had people from, for example, Etobicoke Centre. Nativity of Our Lord school, for example, is inviting the Minister of Labour from this House and says to him, "Come down to our school. Explain to us how $300 million for private school vouchers is going to make our school that has portables, that has decrepit conditions," quoting that parent, "but a wonderful educational opportunity" -- how will that become better because you have decided, in your government, to take money away and put it instead into private school vouchers?

The thing that this government needs to be able to --

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to go on the record that I received no such invitation.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. The Chair recognizes the member for York South.

Mr Kennedy: The minister will be receiving his invitation, and I know that the families -- I think he'd better check with his office, because the families and the parents of that community have said they have tried to meet with that member and have been unable to.

Perhaps this member knew that this is what the government was up to, and this is a challenge we've put. I wrote to each individual member at the beginning of the year. I wrote again last week and said, "If you have the confidence of this policy, please take it on as legislators and explain it to the people who are in public schools." For those who have done it, I commend them. I would say, though, for the government as a whole, this is your obligation as legislators. You now have a policy. You have said -- and the people of Ontario need to understand what they're saying.

They are saying, "Here is a wide-open exemption." Here is something that is not about fairness, it's not about a particular type of school; it's about any kind of private school whatsoever in this province receiving an incentive. The family's getting an incentive of $3,500.

What the government has to tell their constituents and the province as a whole is that no other jurisdiction does this. No state, no province, gives private school vouchers. The other thing that this government may not wish the public of this province to understand is that in the United States, at least, those jurisdictions put this on a ballot. They had referendums, 35 of them last fall. Every single time that vouchers and tax credits were put to the public, they were defeated, because in the light of day this government's proposals become obvious. They become clear for what they really mean.

What they really mean is finally deducting and taking things away from the students in public education.

In the next few days it will become clear that what the Premier said in the House today is no validation, that in fact the funding for public education has been reduced by this government, has been reduced this year and has been reduced in every single year it has been in office.

That is not substantially the case. The case for public education is the case that has been there and that we need for the future about the merits of public education. But there is no question that this is a backdoor attack that allows people, in fact encourages them, to leave public education.

The mechanics around the dollars are this: for each student that this government now encourages for the first time, the first government anywhere in North America, to leave -- "Here's some money if you leave" -- for every student who leaves, they take the funds with them, and the essence of public education is not about that self-interest kind of thing that has been encouraged to parents and to families. Instead, in public education we have students who are maybe $1,200 students.

They are the students who come ready to learn, who have had all the advantages, who got the ability to do very well, and they found a home in public education. But alongside of them are students who need some extra attention, who need to be learning, who need to be taking advantage of the extra services that we can provide in public education, and those students may for one year, for two years, cost a lot more.

The reason we have public education is to pool those opportunities for those students, to make sure that no matter what their background is, no matter what their economic situation, we're allowing them to have excellence in the same school because we're able to put those children together.

If this proposal is allowed to take precedence over the needs of public education, we won't be able to offer that in future. We won't have sufficient resources to say, as we in this party want to say, that public education has to be about excellence for all.

This party opposite, the government party, would encourage people to leave public education, to essentially have $3,500 of public funds to go to private school, where there are no conditions, where there are no restrictions, where there is no Soviet-style government of this particular nature with its heavy hand on the schools, on the teachers, on the principals, restricting their ability to deliver innovation and responsiveness to the people who are here.

I think in all of our communities parents are starting to become alive to the fact that this government has stolen control of their local schools away from them, and in putting forward this opposition resolution, we think they can take it back. The way to take it back is not just to be against this ham-fisted policy, this lazy policy that the government, until forced to, has been afraid to put to public hearings. We understand they made a very small concession. They're still afraid to take it to their own ridings; they're still afraid to take it around the province.

We call upon the public to contact the clerk of the standing committee on finance to tell them that they want to be heard. Today is the day that the people of Ontario have to stand up for public education, because a large number of their representatives are patently afraid to do so, are not willing to stand up for public education.

The way we think to fight for public education is to improve it. There need to be things done with the $300 million and the commitment that this government is not prepared to put into public education. We need lower class sizes. This government came in and increased class sizes, cut funds, took away teachers, overloaded the system. We think our students deserve better.

We proposed in our plan for public education to make 20 the maximum in primary grades in this province, and we think that initiative by itself will pay for itself, but it does take commitment. It costs $350 million to ensure an excellent education for our students in the lower grades. That's where our priority should be.

That's where the focus of this House should be: how can we make the young children of this community get their literacy, get their numeracy, have that taught to them in the lower grades, get the individualized attention that the taxpaying citizens of this province have every right to expect but for some reason the members opposite want to deny them, don't want to give them full value for their tax dollars?

We have heard in some of the petitions read by the members opposite that somehow this is giving parents their money back. There are people in this House, people in this province, who don't participate with the education system because they don't have any kids in the system. I, for example, have a preschool child. But it doesn't matter. We all invest in public education. We don't give refunds for any purpose, because the value of public education is such that we all have to invest in it.

This government, at a time when it had $14 billion in increased revenue, has cut funding for education by $1.8 billion. With this initiative, with this idea that somehow they are going to encourage people with public funds to go to private schools, they stand exposed as lacking that elemental commitment to making sure not only of lower class sizes but that excellence in education gets shared around.

We say, for example, lighthouse programs are what this government should be focusing on: to take the good programs that are taking place in schools, to fund that to make sure that they are learned by other programs, so that other places can have the advantages of the very significant excellence that already exists in the system; to take the teachers who have made that happen, in math or in special education or in some of the inner-city schools or some of the rural schools and pay, as a government, to make that occur all around the province. Take advantage of the fact that we have a public education system on both the separate and secular side, and we can make those systems even better.

We have also said we would pay to see master teachers, to see people mentor the new teachers to make sure that we don't have what this government has handed us today for public education: 4,400 teachers who left last year for reasons other than retirement. They voted with their feet to say this isn't a jurisdiction where they can practise the profession of teaching -- of inculcating among our young the ability to be part of this society, to be successful in society, to have good paying jobs in this society -- because the government has given up on the system.

We see that most clearly in the initiative today when the government says that they can continue to deprive children of the essentials, of textbooks, for example. This year, each of the members opposite should be back in their riding at some point and describing to them why there aren't going to be any textbooks available. A new curriculum in grade 11: there will not be money to buy the books for most of the subjects, because the government has other priorities.

It thinks tax cuts are important, it thinks tax breaks and vouchers for private schools are important, but it doesn't think that books and teachers and attention to students on an individualized basis matter, and that's fundamentally what we're here today to speak about. It's to put on the record, to have the public of Ontario see first-hand, where the commitment and the priorities are of all members of this House.

The tax voucher system -- the private school voucher -- allows this government to be harmful to all publicly funded schools: to take $6,800 out -- after they've paid their first $300 million -- to actually have the audacity to have a system where they will benefit from the difference between the $6,800 and the $3,500 of public funds they're prepared to give people to take their kids to private schools. This is a means, eventually, after losing us at least $300 million out of the public purse, to continue to take money from schools. The Premier said it could be $700 million.

Other people have estimated that with even small growth increments, it could be much, much higher. That money will leave the public system but, perversely, a good part of the money won't even go this special, rarefied route to parents. It will go instead to this government to use for its tax cuts, to use for its other priorities that don't include children.

Fundamentally, this is about changing an agreement we've had in this province for decades. And more fundamentally, it's about removing the rug from under any reasonable plan for the future, for this province to move forward in the 21st century. If there is one thing we can do as a jurisdiction to confer some benefit, to do something positive, it's what we do in those 12 and 13 years during public education. The attack the government has made on that system has been regrettable and reprehensible, but now it becomes comical for the government to have any pretence that they believe in that kind of future where everyone is offered a chance of excellence.

Instead, they have made it very clear: if you want to pack your bags and leave the public education system, if you want to join the Conservative Party and take a lazy approach, rather than hunker down and fix things and make them better and improve and provide the things that people need, if you just exit, the Premier is saying to us today that the Conservative Party will pay you to do that. That's not a role for a public official in this province, that's not a role for a Premier, and that's not leadership on public education.

Instead we have our leader, Dalton McGuinty, providing very clear leadership, very clear policies, very clear options for this government to take up today. Just as we did when we put forward a peace plan last December, we want to see peace in our high schools. We said to this government, "We've got a plan. We acknowledge you're the government of the day. Take this plan and put your name on it. Bring peace to the schools. You can have some of your badly thought-out policies, but at least give extracurricular activities back." For 240 days this government refused to do that.

For 240 days they showed us their true priorities and instead, finally, lamely, reluctantly, dragged to the finish line, and at the end of the year they considered they might be partly responsible for a situation that they initiated.

Today I hope to hear the members opposite change their minds. This is not the kind of thing that any single party has the right to do. This government has no mandate. This government said opposite things a year ago. This government has no right to trifle with 2.1 million kids in the public education system.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I rise in support of this resolution. I just want to say at the outset, I thought it was interesting that the Liberal education critic talked about the Liberals providing clear policy, because -- I don't know -- if you listen to what's going on when it comes to discussions they're having with people in support of private education, they tell them behind closed doors that they support it, and then when it comes to talking to people who want to support public education, they are saying that they're going to support public education.

The Liberals, as always, are falling down on both sides of the issue, and what's interesting, all at the same time. It amazes me. It always amazes me that the Liberals can get away with that.

I want to say up front, as a New Democrat and for the rest of the caucus, that we are clear on this issue of public versus private school funding. We are opposed to this voucher tax credit system that the government is proposing in this year's budget, which will allow people who choose to send their children to private schools to get what is in effect a voucher at the end of the tax year. The government wants to say this is not a voucher.

The only difference in what the government is proposing is that if you had an actual voucher, the parent would get the $3,500 in September, but because it's a tax credit, they'll get it back as a tax credit in the month of March. Rather than the voucher, you're getting a tax credit, but it all works out to the same thing; rather than being paid in September, you're being paid in March.

In the time that I have in this debate, I want to say a couple of things when it comes to public education and where we have seen policy in this province go over the last six years. I want people to think back to about the summer of 1995, after the Conservative government came to power in June of that year.

If you remember, Mr Snobelen was appointed as the Minister of Education, and at that time in the summer of 1995, in speaking to bureaucrats at the Ministry of Education -- and this was caught on tape, because they had videotaped his speech to give back to the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Education -- Mr Snobelen said, "We will create a crisis in education as the backdrop to be able to do the fundamental changes that we want to make in the education system as Conservatives."

I say, as I said back then, that if anything should have happened to Mr Snobelen at the time, he should have had to resign as the Minister of Education on the basis of having divulged what was a cabinet discussion, because I believe that has been the policy of the government when it comes to education and health care over the last number of years since they've come to power.

If you severely underfund the system, if you create the crisis, you create the condition by which you're able to open up the doors to make the kinds of changes that this government wants to make. So let's look at how they've created a crisis.

One of the first things the government did was change the whole way we fund schools in Ontario. There used to be a time when funding for schools was split about 50-50, depending where you lived, between local school boards and the provincial government. It was a partnership. The school boards would go out and raise, by the way of municipal levy, money to be able to pay for education at the local level, and the province kicked in about 50% in order to make this function work. The important point is that there was a combination and a balance, I would say, between local control at the school board level and provincial guidelines by way of the province.

As a result, the province, because it put in a part of the money, had a say in determining what the curriculum was and in making sure there were provincial standards set across the province. By way of the school board being able to raise its own funds, they were able to deal with local issues. For example, in our communities of northern Ontario, it allowed the school boards to offer French immersion programs in the way that made sense for our communities. It allowed them to introduce programs that dealt with the environmental issues of our particular part of the province.

It also allowed the school boards to deal with aboriginal programs to make sure that we try to sensitize young children growing up in non-aboriginal communities about the realities of what First Nations people have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Those were some of the things you were able to do at the local level, because the school board trustees had taxing powers and also the ability to determine what was going to be done inside the school year.

The government then said, "We want to get away from that." What they did was, they not only took over complete control of education, but they changed the way that financing was done in education at the primary and secondary levels. What they did was basically to say from now on schools would be given money on the basis of the square footage they have in the schools.

Now what you've got is this ridiculous situation where we're not really looking at how many kids are in the school to determine how much funding has to happen at the local school level; we're looking at the square footage in the school for the number of pupils. As a result of that, we have some great inadequacies when it comes to the amount of money available to certain schools to deliver programs.

The second thing was that by taking over complete control of education, the province of Ontario basically is now able to call all the shots. The school boards are still there, although there are fewer of them, which in itself is not a bad thing, but they've basically neutered the power of the school board trustees to deal with local issues. Now the province barks and the school boards have to say, "Yap, yap, how high?" I don't see that as being necessarily a good thing for education.

They have created a crisis in education, first, by changing the way we fund schools; second, by taking complete control of the schools by way of provincial control; and third, they've picked a huge fight with the teaching profession in Ontario. Since 1995 the Tories have worn like a badge of honour the number of battles they've had against the teaching profession in this province. I think that has led to a great disservice, not only to teachers in our communities but also to students and parents who see teachers as others who are trying to go out there and do the best they can in the system we have.

As a result, we now see fewer and fewer young people choosing to enrol in teachers' college to go into the teaching profession because they've watched Mike Harris for the last five, six or seven years bash teachers at every occasion. They say, "Why should I go into a profession where I'm constantly getting bashed? Maybe I should go do something else."

The figures now are clearly showing that only about 50% of the number of people are enrolling in educational programs that lead to a teaching degree today that there were a couple of years ago, a complete drop by half the number of people going into the teaching profession. As a result, we will have a teaching shortage in this province in the not-too-distant future.

So the government has gone in and has underfunded the system. They've cut almost $2 billion out of the public school system. They've taken complete control of education. They've neutered the power of the school boards and the school board trustees. They've changed the funding formula to reflect footage rather than the number of pupils who are in the system. They have created a backdrop by which we are now starting to see failure of our public school system to a degree we've never seen it before.

I would also argue that on a lot of the school testing issues, where the government has come up with province-wide testing, which is not a bad idea in itself, they've set that up to fail. I've talked to a number of people in the teaching profession who were responsible for grading the provincial exams, who were hired by the Ministry of Education to do it. I'm being told that in a number of cases, when they went out to do the grading, they were told to change the grading after the grading was done. I think the government is trying to demonstrate that there's this huge problem in the system of public education and that somehow or other we've go to fix it.

We find out in the budget of the year 2001 what the government has planned, and that is that they want to give Ontarians, as they say, the "choice" between sending their children to the public system of education or a private system: religiously based or non-religiously based private schools. I think that's really dangerous for a number of reasons. In the time I've got left, I want to tell you why I'm opposed to it and why I think most Ontarians are opposed to it. There are some people who support this, no question, but they are not in the majority.

I believe you can accommodate faith within the public system. I don't believe the best way to do that is in an entirely private system. By allowing the child to move from the public system into the private system, there are a number of questions that have to be asked. Number one: once the child goes into the private system, what assurance do we have as taxpayers -- because we are the ones who are going to be paying by way of our tax dollars -- that those children, when they go into the private system, will be following some sort of public curriculum that is province-wide?

We know that faith is going to be part of the education. I understand that, I accept it, I respect it and I encourage it. But on the question of education, I want to make sure as a taxpayer that at the end of the day the children who would end up in the private system, who are there now or would go in the future, have basically a requirement to follow our provincial guidelines when it comes to curriculum, making sure as well that there are certain provincial guidelines that are followed when it comes to issues of discrimination and a whole host of other issues.

There's no mechanism to make that happen. You could make it happen, I would argue, if we decided to do that. But creating a whole other basic system of education, a the private system to get there, is not a good use of taxpayers' dollars. I would argue: make that a combination within the public system. We should be trying to strengthen the public system so that we can give our children the very best education possible so they can go out and compete in tomorrow's economy.

I don't think that fragmenting the system to a greater degree by way of increasing private schools is going to be a way to strengthen education overall. What it does, by the Premier's own admission and by the minister's own admission in letters they wrote to us, wrote to the Liberal opposition and wrote to the public on this issue is that when you're giving somebody a tax credit -- I don't care what the amount is -- you're taking money away from the public system to offset and pay into the private system. It is taking money away from the much needed dollars that are necessary to strengthen our public system.

What I would argue is simply this: if we as a Legislature decide we want to encourage the ability of parents to choose a way of making sure that the faith the family has when it comes to religious beliefs is ingrained, not only in what they do at home but to a certain extent in what happens at school, we should be looking at how to do that in a public system. I would argue against doing it in a private system.

In the few minutes I have left, the other thing that I would say is that the government, both in the 1995 and the 1999 elections, never ran on a ticket that said, "Vote for us and we'll give you private education." In fact, they ran opposed to that. My leader Howard Hampton in a leaders' debate in the 1999 election put that question squarely to Mike Harris and Mike Harris said, "I will never support funding the private system." He was very clear about that.

Ontarians made a choice. They chose to elect, freely and democratically, the Conservative government by 44% of the legislative votes in Ontario in the last election, but they did so in the belief there was not going to be private schools. I argue there is no mandate for the Conservative government to move on this initiative. I believe that either should be put to a referendum for the people of Ontario or the issue put off to the next election.

If the Conservatives believe there should be private education, or the Liberals believe there should be private education, depending which day of the week it is because some days they're in favour and some days they're against -- when they walk into a religious-based school or they're being lobbied by people who send their kids to private school, they say, "Yeah, don't worry, we're in favour," but when they go out and talk to the public they say a different thing -- at least the parties would be able to state clearly what their position is in an election.

The voters would then have to make a choice. If they believe, as a majority, that there should be funding for private schools, let the voters decide. That's the way the democratic system should work. I don't believe it's right for a government to do these huge shifts of public policy when they don't have the mandate to do it.

You should shelve this whole issue till the next election. If you really feel strongly about it, put it in the next campaign as part of your campaign literature. Maybe then, if people understand, they will have a choice. My guess is that the vast majority of Ontarians would vote against such a proposal and would sustain any party that stands for public education. With that, I thank you very much for having this time in debate.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss a very important new initiative of our government. I thank Minister Flaherty and Minister Ecker for the leadership they have shown in bringing forth the initiative we've talked about, the tax credit issue.

Over the next five years, we propose to phase in a partial tax credit for parents of children at independent schools. Let me make it clear right off the bat: this is not a voucher system. There is a difference. Once again, even the resolution put forth by the opposition clearly shows they do not understand the difference between a voucher and a tax credit. Instead, they've dwelt today on fearmongering and speculation.

Let's also make it clear that this is not a new initiative for any province.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Yes, it is.

Mr Dunlop: No, it's not. All of the western provinces as well as Quebec have shown leadership in this. We have started this in Ontario and we have shown leadership.

We are not funding private schools. We are giving a tax credit to hard-working Ontario families. This is all about expanding choice. It means more choices for parents and more choices for students. For years, the Ontario government has heard from parents who want their children educated in their own culture and religion. Even in my riding, which is primarily a two-board system, I continually get letters at all times from parents wanting some more choice. Some parents feel that the only way to do that is to send them to an independent school, but for many families the cost is overwhelming. Everyone is not wealthy.

That's what the fearmongering I am hearing from the other side is on the tax credit issue -- that it's only for the wealthy. You know full that's not the truth.

The Ontario government believes that the time has come to address the concerns of the parents. We continue to strongly support the public education system. In fact, our funding for public education has increased to $13.86 billion this year. I believe that shows a strong commitment to public education. For the 2000-01 year, we have increased our investment in public education by more than $360 million. Since our government came into office in 1995, education spending in Ontario has increased from $12.9 billion to $13.86 billion in this next school year.

As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, I have visited a number of new schools in Ontario. Just in new pupil places alone, beginning in 1998-99, there was $132 million spent on new pupil places, new construction in Ontario. For this fiscal year, that number has gone up to $315 million. I have visited schools and done some sod turning at schools such as St Mark Catholic school in Stoney Creek, a beautiful new structure for the citizens of that area; the Holy Jubilee school in Maple in Vaughan-King-Aurora; and the Canadian Martyrs Catholic school in Penetanguishene.

These are state-of-the-art schools, with state-of-the-art air conditioning and ventilating systems, with fantastic gymnasiums, with wonderful sound systems and stages for all types of activities that can take place in the schools.

But again, I want to stress how much more money has been spent just in new pupil places and making these places a more healthy environment -- a $109-million increase in funding this year over last year for new pupil places.

At the same time, we have many initiatives in place to support and improve public education. We are taking additional steps to improve choices for parents and for students. In the budget announced earlier this month, we indicated our plan to support parental choice with a new equity in education tax credit. Subject to approval by the Legislature, it will begin in the 2002 taxation year. It will give parents a tax credit of up to $3,500, phased in over five years, for fees they pay to send their children to independent schools in Ontario.

We will be consulting with the public on the best way to implement this partial tax credit. The government will work to identify how to establish eligibility for this credit.

I want to make it perfectly clear again that this is not a voucher system. This is about expanding choices for parents. It is something parents have demanded for years. The need to address this concern once again became apparent during this government's pre-budget consultations. That's why we do pre-budget consultations: to find out what the hard-working families of Ontario want. Other provinces support independent schools while maintaining their commitment to publicly funded education. We recognize that it is possible and desirable to support families who choose to send their students to independent schools while we continue to invest in public education.

I want to answer a concern that has been raised earlier in this House. No one is proposing to take one penny out of the public education system. Our government supports public education through a vast range of initiatives. For example, we have increased funding and other supports for students with special needs in Ontario. In fact, last year we increased spending on special education by 12%. That was the third year in a row we've increased resources in this vital area. In my own two school boards, the two largest school boards, the Simcoe County District School Board and the Simcoe-Muskoka Catholic District School Board, those increases went up by 25%, some of the largest in