Hansard Transcript 1998-Oct-14 vol. A | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Mr Speaker, as you are aware, I have raised concerns with the Minister of Long-Term Care about the lack of funding for our community care access centre in Kingston. What has the minister done? Nothing.

Now we see where children fit in with this government. In Kingston the child development centre at the Hotel Dieu Hospital offered assessments through the multidisciplinary approach for the diagnosis of children suspected of autism. The sooner the diagnosis is made, the sooner treatment can begin for these children. It is imperative that an early diagnosis and treatment is initiated to ensure the best possible outcome for these children. Don't we in Ontario still believe that each individual has the right to develop to his or her potential?

The child development centre at Hotel Dieu has had five consecutive years of funding freeze. This has resulted in the assessment team being cut from a minimum of five to just one assessor. Now parents who can afford to pay for the services for their children must pay, but what about the children whose parents can't afford treatment?

We have a government that has a Minister of Health, a Minister of Long-Term Care and a minister responsible for children's issues. Can you tell me where they are? Who is the advocate in this government for the frail, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, the children? How do you explain the lack of funding for essential homemaking services and for children? Right in the minister's own backyard the CCAC is short of funding. As Dr Pace in Kitchener-Waterloo has said, "We have been misled by politicians who said services will not be interrupted."

In Toronto we have a hospital selling bonds. In Hamilton -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Yesterday we saw in our health care system a frightening example of what the Mike Harris revolution means. We had in the greater Toronto area a period of time yesterday in which emergency wards in 17 of Toronto's 19 hospitals were only accepting the most seriously ill. We had a period of time, in the area between Ajax and Mississauga, home to some four million people in the province, where only two hospitals were able to serve that kind of population in emergency care. It is a frightening example of what has happened as a result of the policies of the Mike Harris government and the cuts to our health care system in placing our hospitals in this kind of situation.

While there are normally situations where there are shortages, the normal situation has never in memory, that anybody can recall, got to the point where you have so many hospitals in a critical situation at the same point in time. When people are asked what is causing this, the one thing we keep hearing about is the shortage of beds. We know that the Minister of Health with some fanfare months ago announced $225 million which was supposed to fix this problem. The only problem with that is none of that money has actually been spent yet, so I say to the minister, stop making announcements and get the money into the system where we need it.

WHITE RIBBON AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY WEEK

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I proudly stand in the House today to mark the start of national White Ribbon Against Pornography Week, also known as WRAP. The campaign runs from October 18 to 26.

White ribbons have been distributed to all members of the House. I realize we cannot wear them in the House, but I request that the members considering wearing them outside of the House to symbolize their opposition to pornography in our society. We are all responsible for our children and the well-being of our youth. Therefore, governments, communities, society, should be aware of this global problem.

The Catholic Women's League of Cambridge has spearheaded this campaign for eight years. Their goal this year is to support Canadians Addressing Sexual Exploitation in trying to have the federal age of consent law changed from 14 to 18 years. For the second year a poster with the caption "Pornography Hurts" will appear on 30 buses in Cambridge, sponsored by the Catholic Women's League and the Knights of Columbus of Cambridge.

Again, I urge all members of the House to support National WRAP Week.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): This government's education policy is literally coming apart at the seams. There is a school in my riding that is in extremely poor condition, the École Nouveaux-Horizons. Young children of five and six are being forced to endure cramped, inadequate facilities in a building that was scheduled for demolition in 1983. It is located next to a highway that is a danger to students every day.

The past and present school boards agree that building a new facility is a priority. A promise of funding allowed them to purchase a lot where a sign announcing "Future Site of École Nouveaux-Horizons" is still displayed. That promise was then withdrawn.

In response to renewed and urgent requests, a new committee has been created. It is scheduled to release yet another report by December of this year.

The parents have lost patience, and understandably so. Their children are at constant risk at the present site.

I know that the Minister of Education would not want to be held responsible for an accident involving these children. I am therefore asking him to grant emergency funding so that we can proceed with the construction of a new school facility.

The situation is urgent. What we need is funding, not another committee, not another report. Children can't learn in an environment that compares to conditions in some developing countries. Let's fix this embarrassment now.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): When I visited E.L. Crossley school last week, I saw how this government's cuts to educational funding have resulted in more students and fewer teachers.

But you see, teachers aren't the only members of the educational community. I also talked to support staff there. I talked to secretarial staff who told me about having their work year reduced from 12 months down to 10. Not that there are not going to be secretaries working in that school 12 months out of the year, but it means that for two of those 12 months there is going to be contracting out at the lowest possible rate and the loss of those hours to long-time, skilled professional and faithful employees.

In addition to secretarial staff, of course, caretakers play an important role in all our schools. I talked with the caretaking staff there, senior caretakers as well as assistant caretakers, people like Patricia King. She told me about how many of their hours have been reduced to a mere 16 a week, which not only creates an unliveable wage but means they're mere part-time employees rather than full-time. What that means is that they're not entitled to benefits either. Many of these women are the sole income earners and they're the sole parents in their families.

The result of these cuts by Harris and the Tories here at Queen's Park is schools that are less safe, schools that are creating a poorer quality education and schools that are punishing young children - our children - so that Harris can give a tax cut to his wealthiest friends.

JEFFERSON ELORA CORP

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting Jefferson Elora Corp's open house in Elora. I was pleased to join Elora Reeve Mary Dunlop and officials of the company, including Jefferson's president, Isao Sugibayashi.

Just 18 months ago, Jefferson Elora began operations and it now employs 90 people. The company produces metal stamped parts for the Honda Civic and the new Odyssey minivans, which are built in Alliston.

Much to my delight, during the open house company officials announced a $30-million expansion of the plant that will create 16 new jobs. The company plans to start production in November 1999.

I'm not surprised that the Jefferson Elora company has made a decision to expand its operations in our area. Company officials have obviously been very satisfied with their experience in Elora.

The expansion is a reflection of the many positive features that the Waterloo and Wellington areas offer: highly skilled and hard-working people, an excellent quality of life, and a sound infrastructure including good transportation networks with proximity to lucrative markets and an improving economy that our government has encouraged through its policies and outlook.

The local government in Elora has my thanks for working hard to create a positive economic climate that attracts expanding industries like Jefferson. As the MPP for Wellington and as our government's small business representative, I will, together with my caucus colleagues, continue to strive to improve conditions that attract jobs and investment to Wellington and Ontario.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): While I'm giving my statement, I'd like to ask Keegan Hawkeswood, one of our pages, from the riding of Windsor-Sandwich, to come over and deliver these postcards directly to Premier Mike Harris.

These cards say specifically "Give Back Our Tax Dollars." It's a photo of a sign that is still up in my riding. This sign says it all. When the Harris government decides to waste money propagandizing with the use of taxpayers' dollars, I want to tell you that our community objects, because $41 million has been lost from our health system, specifically from our hospital budgets. The effect of that is clogged gridlock in our emergency rooms. What we see today happening now in Toronto and the greater Toronto area is the same thing.

The worst part about being from Windsor is seeing this happen and knowing that all of it was predictable and, worse, it was preventable, that you chose to cut hospital budgets before any of those organizations could restructure properly, and now 50% of Ontario hospitals are in debt.

You saw it coming. You could have stopped it and you chose not to. The people from Windsor want this government to know they don't agree with what it has done to our health care system.

Specifically, Ms Kirsch on Josephine says, "The caption says it all," and that caption is: "Mike Harris, our hospitals need help. Our highways don't need more signs." Kathleen Carrigan on Mercer says, "Enough is enough."

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

1340

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Je me demande la question suivante : est-ce que les conservateurs vont nier à nouveau les droits des francophones, et cette fois-ci par le biais du projet de loi 12 ?

Vous savez, monsieur le Président, que le gouvernement est en train de transférer, à travers la Loi 12, les services aux municipalités du nord, y inclus les services d'ambulances et autres services indiqués dans la loi. Encore le gouvernement, dans son approche, à laquelle on est pas mal habitué mais dont on n'est pas trop content, en transférant ces services ne va pas s'assurer que les droits qui sont présentement protégés sous la Loi 8 avec la province vont être transférés aux municipalités.

On a aujourd'hui un amendement qu'on a établi il y a deux semaines au comité des affaires gouvernementales qui dit très simplement que quand on transfert ces services à travers la Loi 12 aux municipalités du nord, on transfert avec ça les droits linguistiques protégés sous la Loi 8. On demande au gouvernement demain à ce comité d'accepter notre amendement, le seul amendement qui a été mis à date sur cette question. Il est très important de supporter notre amendement pour s'assurer que les droits linguistiques des francophones vont être protégés une fois que les services seront transférés aux municipalités du nord.

SCHIZOPHRENIA

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to extend thanks and congratulations to the members of the Guelph chapter of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario.

To celebrate Schizophrenia Awareness Month, many communities held walks, but Guelph's was special. Guelph's "Wizard's Walk of Hope" was designed to become a model for other communities. The Wizard of Oz attended, as did the Tin Man, the Scarecrow, Dorothy and the Munchkins, and the Cowardly Lion was even brave enough to help people up on the platform. It was a very fun day. But what was most important was the hope that was generated by this very well organized event.

Schizophrenia is a disorder of the brain that affects one in 100 people in Ontario. It's a mental illness that has devastating effects not only on those who suffer from it but on their friends and on their families. The "Wizard's Walk of Hope" was designed to help people learn about this illness, to know that schizophrenia is a brain disease that has physiological and psychological effects.

What causes it is still unknown. It may be genetic, neurochemical, viral, developmental or allergic. The key is finding a cure through modern methods of research. People are very excited about the new development of effective medication.

It's my pleasure to extend congratulations to Chris Pearson, who is a key organizer in Guelph, and to all of her team. Thanks go to all the participants in the "Wizard's Walk of Hope."

Colleagues, I encourage all of you to meet with your local branches of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario. Next year the "Wizard's Walk of Hope" will be coming to your community, and remember, it started in Guelph.

WEARING OF PINK RIBOONS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I'd like to move unanimous consent to permit the wearing of a pink ribbon in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Day today. I have ribbons for members of the assembly who would like to show their support for that day.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. You will know that last night at one point in time in the entire greater Toronto area, 24 of 25 hospitals were turning people away. Six in fact were unable to even accept the most critical cases. That's one emergency room for over 4.2 million people. This is not the first time this has happened in Mike Harris's Ontario, and tragically, it will not be the last.

Minister, will you now admit that Mike Harris's health care is actually endangering the health of Ontarians?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): To the Leader of the Opposition, no, this isn't the first time. I could indicate to you three examples I have under your administration where you also were in a position where there were redirects; there were critical care bypasses. As you know, the reality is that from time to time these situations do happen. These situations, personally, always concern us, the government. What we have done today is that we have communicated with all the hospitals in order to be assured that at no time were any patients at risk, and we have certainly been given that reassurance by the hospitals.

We understand that part of the situation was that it was a long weekend.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, the hospitals were not totally prepared for the numbers of individuals who came to the emergency rooms yesterday, so -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: This minister does nothing but continue to fiddle while this situation gets out of hand. We have raised this in this House time and time again. In September of last year, you said at that time it was an anomaly, some kind of freak occurrence. Then when it extended through the winter you said, "Well, there's some kind of special flu going on; maybe it's the long-term-care beds that are the problem here."

So you had a study done, and then you said, "Maybe we've got to spend $225 million." But we discover now that you haven't spent a cent of that money. What is it you're waiting for?

The only thing you have done for sure with respect to hospital care in Ontario is to cut $800 million. That's the only thing that we're aware of. When is it that you're going to do something to address this crisis that your policies have created in Ontario health care?

Hon Mrs Witmer: First of all, I am very proud of the policies that our government has created. We are the first government that had the courage -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We are very pleased that we undertook to strengthen our hospital system. Unfortunately, the excellence of that system had been put at risk by the inaction of previous governments. When I take a look at the Ottawa Citizen of December 26, 1987 - and this was under a Liberal government - it says, "An elderly woman turned away from two area hospitals last weekend died Christmas Day."

We are taking action. We realize that we must ensure that we reduce the waiting times in our emergencies. We are strengthening our hospitals. We are expanding emergency rooms throughout Ontario, including the city of Toronto. We are taking action, which you did not do.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, nobody in this province is buying that. Get out of this place, go knock on a few doors and you'll quickly discover that the number one concern in Ontario today is health care and what you are doing to it. We brought this situation, this crisis in emergency care, to your attention over a year ago.

You at first said, "There's no real problem here." Then you said, "Maybe we'll make up a few excuses for this, things like the flu etc." Then you said, "Maybe we're going to have to spend some money here to rectify the problem," so you came up with this figure of $225 million. You made the announcement on April 20 of this year. You haven't spent a single penny of that money.

No wonder that last night in the greater Toronto area 24 out of 25 hospitals were turning patients away - one emergency room available for over 4.2 million people. When are you going to admit that this crisis is of your making?

1350

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think the leader recognizes that the issue of the emergency rooms is of long standing. It's unfortunate. If your government had dealt with it in the late 1980s, we wouldn't have the problem we have today.

I am very pleased that we undertook to work co-operatively with the Ontario Hospital Association. The Ontario Hospital Association and the ministry together identified short-term and long-term solutions for dealing with the problem. Part of the responsibility is with the hospitals. They need to ensure that when they use redirect or use the bypass, they all use the same types of standards. We know that there is a variation in standards.

We all need to ensure we are doing everything we possibly can together. I would remind you, hospitals are autonomous corporations and they need to ensure that they can provide for the needs of the patients. We are working with the hospitals to ensure that they have the support to do that.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the same minister: If you want to start comparing governments, the only one on record for cutting $800 million away from our hospitals is your government. If you think that's a source of pride, if you think that's the kind of news that's welcomed by Ontarians, you've got another think coming at the time of the next election.

On Friday, a report was released regarding the financial crisis Ontario hospitals are facing. Ontario hospitals are now facing a total deficit this year of over $250 million. That's up from $177 million last year and $154 million the year before. The important thing in all of this is that patients are paying the price. What this means is that staff are being laid off, those who are left behind are burned out, beds are being cut, services are being reduced. Why is it that you are insisting that Ontario patients pay the price for your mismanagement of Ontario health care?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): To the member opposite, the only government that has cut health spending is the federal government. We have seen the elimination, the slashing, of about $2.5 billion -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I say, the only government that has slashed health care spending is the federal government. I'm very pleased to say that our government has actually absorbed that slashing and we have also increased health spending from $17.4 billion to $18.7 billion. That does not include the $2 billion that we are adding to the restructuring of our health system.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have taken the tough decisions in order that we can strengthen the health system and provide the highest-quality health care necessary. It's because of the inaction of previous governments that we -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: You, your Premier and your policies have done more to promote a loss of confidence in public health care in this province than any government in history. What we're talking about here is an $800-million cut to Ontario hospitals. That has led to a cut in beds, it has led to a cut in services, it has led to a cut in nursing staff.

A while back you said, "We're going to put $2 billion into restructuring to help facilitate this process." You have spent $154 million alone of that $2 billion, which you are so pleased to announce, and it turns out that $154 million is only to be used for the purposes of severances for nurses. I can tell you that Ontario patients welcomed that news as well.

Minister, once again, how could you possibly have let things deteriorate to this point in time where we are in Ontario today facing a crisis in health care?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me reassure you that what we are doing is ensuring the excellence of the system. We are moving forward to strengthen health services because of the lack of planning and lack of restructuring that had been done. Our system, unfortunately, was not responding to the needs of our population. If the Leader of the Opposition is so committed to improving and continuing to do what we can here in Ontario, he would be well advised to talk to Mr Martin, who is making an economic statement today, and ask him, "Please, put the funding back into the hospitals."

Mr McGuinty: The minister likes to come back to this issue from time to time, to point the finger elsewhere. I have a very simple and very direct question for the minister: Is she prepared to stand up in this House today and admit that health care in Ontario is underfunded on her watch? Is she telling us that there is too little money in health care today in Ontario? Is that what's she's telling us? Because if she's telling us that, I want to know that; I want to hear that admission. The people of Ontario are very anxious to determine why we're facing the kinds of crises like the one we experienced in the greater Toronto area last night. Is that what you're telling us, Minister, that health care in Ontario today, on your watch, at a time when you can afford to give $5 billion away in a tax cut, is being underfunded?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we have recognized that there is a need to add money to the health system. However, I know you didn't think that was necessary, because you said in September 1996, in the leadership debate: "I am convinced there is enough money in the health system. I don't think we are spending it as effectively as we can." We don't agree with you, and that's why we added money to the system.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is also to the Minister of Health. I have a lot of sympathy; this isn't a good day for you. You've clearly been put off your usual pace by the seriousness of what happened in emergency departments in this city last night; you clearly have. Frankly, it's quite outrageous that you would stand here today as the minister responsible for health care services and try to blame absolutely everybody else for what is your responsibility. You have presided over the removal of $800 million from hospitals. Hospitals are where emergency care happens.

What's more, the last time we had this kind of situation, you set up a committee and you discussed - and you tell us today you're discussing it with the hospitals. But you never spent one penny of the $225 million you so proudly announced to solve the problem.

Then along comes Thanksgiving. You sounded this morning to the reporters as though you didn't know when Thanksgiving was. Long weekends cause emergency lineups. You're responsible, in a responsible government. What are you going to do?

1400

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): First of all, I think we need to remember that no one is assigning blame. We all have accountability. Everyone needs to work co-operatively in this province to ensure that the patients receive the highest quality of care. That's why this morning we did get the assurance of the hospitals that at no time yesterday were patients at risk. Yes, patients were inconvenienced and patients were waiting. But I was concerned, and that's why we personally reviewed the situation and we determined that no one was at risk. We continue to monitor the situation today.

I would just remind you that the ER task force had recommendations with application to both the hospitals and the Ministry of Health. We told you we would make the money available in October, it would be flowing to the hospitals, and they would -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, there have been lots of long weekends since April 20 when you announced this $225 million. You had the nerve to tell reporters this morning that you couldn't flow the money because of too much paperwork. There was too much paperwork, too much bureaucracy. This famous government that wanted to cut bureaucracy couldn't get the money out before Thanksgiving when it could have been predicted that this problem was going to happen.

Minister, the issue here is standards, standards of care, and your responsibility as the Minister of Health to make sure those standards are the same. You tell us that the hospitals have different standards of care. Whose responsibility is that? Tomorrow we have a bill in front of this House that is designed to set standards and to require the government to provide sufficient funding to meet those standards. Are you going to support that bill tomorrow?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I've had an opportunity to review the bill and I can see that within the bill there are certainly similarities between what you are proposing and what we are preparing. As you know, we will be introducing a patient safety act ourselves this year. We have consulted with the health professionals, particularly the nurses. Of course, this is an issue that is a priority for them.

We need to ensure that we can provide high-quality patient services. We need to have standards within the system. We need to ensure that patients have something akin to a bill of rights, and certainly we would hope that our legislation would be supported by yourself as well.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, you are fast losing whatever trust the people of Ontario had in you as a health minister. You have announced and announced and announced dollars that have not been spent. You stand up here and assure us that no one was at risk. I can assure you that the patients who were run from one hospital to another and couldn't get the care they wanted are not going to be very reassured by that comment and they are not going to be very reassured by the kinds of ridiculous comments you made this morning about how unexpected it would be that there would be a rush on emergency rooms after a long weekend.

This is of long standing. You have had the tools in your hand to change this issue and you have not, and you dare to stand there and say, "We're talking about a patients' bill of rights; we're talking about a patient standards thing," instead of grasping the opportunity to support a bill that would enable you to move forward now.

When can we expect to see your bill come forward, and when can we know what we're actually talking about when you ask us to support something that your government would do when you're running a bunch of MASH units around the province instead of hospitals?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's extremely important that we all understand what is meant by "redirect" and all appreciate that what it means is that hospitals implement measures to redirect patients to other facilities to control their increasing ER volume. It is there, if the member does not already know, in order to ensure that the most urgent and the most needy cases are seen in a timely manner. The reality is, the hospitals were doing yesterday everything they possibly could to ensure that those urgent cases were addressed.

We are working co-operatively with the hospitals in order to ensure they have the appropriate support. That's why we've increased funding -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - to the health system up to $18.7 billion.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. You will know that within the last couple of hours a member of your own government, the member for Wentworth North, held a news conference where there were serious allegations involving Philip Services and the possibility of unacceptable hazardous materials being dumped into the Taro landfill. As a result of this, I want to ask you to commit to three things today: (1) to a full and expeditious investigation into all these allegations; (2) to call in the OPP to investigate any allegations of criminal involvement. (3) to commit to a public inquiry to ensure that all the facts that need to be brought out in this very serious matter are done, and done in a transparent way in front of the public.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): We are indeed concerned about the allegations and the matters at the Taro landfill site. I'm happy to mention that Mr Skarica and Mr Doyle have been talking to me on a number of occasions with regard to this matter in the last week or two. It was the result, actually, of Mr Skarica and his consultation with my ministry official that we really got enough information to show discrepancies with regard to what was going on at the site. Therefore, we have at this time launched a full investigation and we are looking into the matter to determine what the facts are. After that we will determine what is the appropriate process.

Mr Christopherson: I'm pleased, of course, as a local member, to hear that you are investigating, but your answer does not go far enough and I don't think you're dealing with this seriously enough.

One of the headlines in today's Stoney Creek News is, "Taro Clipped on Cyanides: Charges Possible After Ministry Caught Unaware Hazardous US Cyanide Sludge Going To East Dump." In addition to your ministry investigation, there are also allegations of possible criminal wrongdoing, and therefore I think you owe it to the public to ensure the OPP are brought in to investigate these allegations.

Lastly, justice not only needs to be done, in terms of the health of our community, but justice needs to be seen to be done. Once again, this issue is big enough and serious enough, involving the health of the citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth, that you have an obligation to commit today that there will be a full public inquiry into this matter. Minister, will you commit to these three requests that I'm making on behalf of the citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth?

Hon Mr Sterling: Of course we will determine what the appropriate process would be in the future after a full investigation takes place. It would, I think, be imprudent to make any promises as to what might be the next step when we don't know all of the facts in relation to this particular matter. I know that my investigation branch will seek the help of the other police forces. They work co-operatively with other police forces when needed. We will do a full, thorough investigation of this, and whatever action has to be taken will be taken to preserve the environment and to preserve what's happening at the Taro landfill site.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, this goes much further than you think and that you're indicating today. At the press conference this morning some very serious allegations were made and information revealed, and some of that information suggests that there are likely hazardous wastes going into other dumps across Ontario, not just in Hamilton, that there's no accountability any more, that there are no records, that the testing in Hamilton had been done by the company itself, and that there are hazardous wastes coming from the United States and going to other dumps.

You have to commit today very seriously to reviewing a hazardous waste document that was supplied to you by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy on your whole inadequate hazardous waste policy. But most important now, will you commit to a full investigation into what is going on with this self-regulation and hazardous waste going into other dumps across Ontario? Will you commit to that today?

Hon Mr Sterling: As I said, we are taking full action with regard to this particular matter. The manifest system or the system of controlling hazardous waste has not changed since the last administration was there. If this investigation shows that there are problems associated with that, we will address them.

1410

BREAST CANCER

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question to the Minister of Health. We're looking for some more straightforward accountability from you. You know full well that on the emergency issue there was a report that established your government was at fault. That report said October 1996 is when things got worse.

In a similar vein, today is Breast Cancer Awareness Day, and it's very important that there be awareness created because we're sliding in our fight against breast cancer. I want to particularly draw your attention to the standards of the society of radiation oncologists, which says that treatment should take place when radiation treatment is required, and a large part of that is for breast cancer patients; it should be within four weeks. Minister, I hope you're aware that women in this province are waiting as long as 15 weeks to get that treatment. The situation is getting worse.

I want to know, in a very clear-cut fashion - some accountability on your part - what will you do to change that trend and make sure that people do not have excessive waits for breast cancer radiation treatment?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Certainly the issue of breast cancer is one that has been identified as an issue of priority and concern for our government. If you take a look at the additional funding that has been made to the health system, you will see that $24 million was invested. It was to provide additional breast cancer screening to ensure that the number of deaths in women between the ages of 50 and 69 would be reduced by at least one third.

I can personally assure you that we will continue to do everything we can to make additional dollars available in order that we can continue to provide the breast screening program, to provide the radiation services, in order that we can reduce the number of deaths and provide the appropriate treatment.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I want to test you on that. Tell us today whether you're going to respond very clearly and take some accountability for the fact that earlier this year 33% of women seeking radiation treatment got it within the four-week standard. It slipped down in August to 26%. What Tom McGowan, the chief radiation oncologist at Cancer Care Ontario, says is that the only way to stop falling behind - we're losing; one more week is being added to the waiting list every three months - is more funding.

Cancer Care Ontario asked you, Minister, not the federal health minister, not somebody in another country, but you, Minister, for more funding, a small increase to be able to do some of that catch-up. They've been waiting since the beginning of the fiscal year. It's now October. We've heard from women experiencing the delay, seeing the nurses not available. I have letters here that I'd be happy to share with you. I want to know just very simply, will you respond to Cancer Care Ontario? Will you provide the funding to reverse the trend and shorten the waiting time for breast cancer radiation treatment?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Perhaps the member is not aware of the fact that we have had dialogue and conversations with Cancer Care Ontario and they know that they are going to be getting the funding that is required in order that those waiting lists can be reduced. They know that.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the minister responsible for children. A groundbreaking study on early childhood education is being released today by the Caledon Institute. In the speech from the throne, your government announced the appointment of world-renowned expert Dr Fraser Mustard. Last week, in the estimates committee, the Minister of Education and Training said how important Dr Mustard's appointment is. You should be aware that Dr Mustard supports early childhood education but also places high value on community schools and parent resource centres. His views are very much in line with the findings of the Caledon Institute, yet your government's funding formula forces the closure of community schools and child care centres and parent resource centres located in them.

Given the pride your government seems to show in appointing Dr Mustard, will you make a commitment today that you will embrace the recommendations of Dr Mustard and make a commitment to implement them and change the funding formula to keep community schools and child care centres open?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I appreciate very much this question from the member for Algoma. Yes, our government is very pleased with the appointment of Dr Fraser Mustard and the Honourable Margaret McCain, the former Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, to chair the early years study; actually, the first of this type of study in the history of the province from the perspective of which that group is working.

We are looking forward to the report and their recommendations, which they are proposing to present to us by the end of December. They have, as you know, been working and meeting since June. From the work they've been doing with the already available research and the people who they are in the midst of consulting, we are looking forward to a very helpful report from that early years study.

Mr Wildman: I find the minister's answer somewhat perplexing in light of statements made by the government and actions taken by the government in the last three and a half years. The Premier once said that full-day early childhood education was "the stupidest recommendation I've ever heard."

The government has made a number of cuts. You've eliminated the early years pilot project of the Ministry of Education and Training. The government made junior kindergarten an optional program and cut funding. The government cancelled the capital program to build new child care centres in schools. The government's new funding formula eliminated future funding for full-day senior kindergarten, which now only serves about 10% of the kindergarten students in the province.

Will the minister make a commitment today to reverse the government's policy of the last three and a half years, promise that the government will reverse the cuts it has already made to early childhood education, and give Ontario families the opportunities they are seeking for their children?

Hon Mrs Marland: The education funding formula which our government announced this year gives school boards the option of providing junior kindergarten or flowing that money into other early learning opportunities, actually up to grade 3. The purpose of having the early years study, and particularly of having it at arm's length from the government, is that we will receive the expert advice from this study. Frankly, for me to pledge anything in terms of policy to you at this point, as the minister for children, would be certainly to prejudice the outcome of the report that we are anticipating from Dr Fraser Mustard and the Honourable Margaret McCain.

TOURISM

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. I've noticed in Niagara that tourism seems to be up significantly. There were record crowds at the Canal Days in Port Colborne and the Marshville Festival in Wainfleet; the Peace Bridge is very busy; the Friendship Festival was well attended; and the wine route in Niagara seems to be becoming increasingly popular.

Tourism, as you know, is a very important component of the economy in Niagara. What is the ministry doing to promote tourism in Ontario, and Niagara in particular, to help tourists take advantage of Ontario's natural attractions?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I would like thank the honourable member for Niagara South for the question. Certainly tourism in Ontario is way up. In fact, in the Niagara area the number of US border crossings was up 5.1% during the first half of 1998 compared to the same period in 1997. Visitors in the Niagara region travel information centres are also up 2.2% during that same time period. Of course, the low dollar is the major contributor to that. But another reason is the fact that our ministry has been working very hard to capitalize on this opportunity and to make sure that everyone in Ontario knows they have a lot more to discover in our great province and that they spend their tourism dollars right here.

1420

Tourism plays a major role in our economy. Our friends across the hall don't seem to agree with that. It employs over 400,000 people. It contributes almost $14 billion to our economy. Tourism equals jobs - I'd like to have the members of the opposition concur with that - and $120 million has been put aside, unprecedented in the history of the province, to promote -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Hudak: The minister mentioned $120 million to help promote Ontario's natural attractions. How is that being targeted to promote tourism, and is there any impact on the Niagara Peninsula in particular?

Hon Mr Palladini: If you have a quality product, you have to market that product. Part of this money has been used to put together tourism ads that you see presently on TV. The fall campaign showcases Niagara's beautiful wine region. These ads will attract Ontarians as well as people who live outside of the province to come and see that Ontario truly has more to discover. Money is also allocated for an events fund, which will be used for development and promotion of festivals and community events throughout the province.

Speaking of festivals, this past weekend I was in Kitchener-Waterloo with my colleagues Gary Leadston, Wayne Wettlaufer and the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer celebrating the 30th year of the Kitchener-Waterloo Oktoberfest, North America's biggest Bavarian festival. Credit must be given to all the volunteers who helped make this a great success. It brings in over 700,000 visitors and contributes over $18 million to our economy. Tourism is big business. I encourage everyone to come and visit Kitchener-Waterloo and enjoy Oktoberfest; it's wunderbar.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Your staff confirmed again yesterday that you are not providing any money to heat, light or clean what you have arbitrarily decided are extra spaces in our school system. You cut the funding to maintain those spaces on September 1 even though you have agreed that school boards can't shut down schools to get rid of those extra spaces for at least a year. If the boards don't close schools, they're going to have to find millions of dollars somewhere else to keep the spaces open.

In Hamilton-Wentworth, to take one example, you've decided that there are almost 15,000 supposedly unneeded spaces. The cost of maintaining those spaces, according to your formula, is over $8 million. That's $8 million that you have basically stripped from the Hamilton-Wentworth board's budget. You want to claim that you are not forcing boards like Hamilton-Wentworth to close schools. If you want to claim that, will you tell us where you think they should find the $8 million they would need to keep those so-called extra spaces open?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): What was also confirmed yesterday, through the estimates process, is that the amount of spending through the school system in 1998-99, this school year, will be in the vicinity of $15 billion, whereas last year it was about $14.4 billion, which in my way of reckoning, far from being a cut, is actually an increase of about $600 million that's going to be spent in the schools across Ontario.

It's also interesting to note that in 1989, the last full year the Liberals were in government, the spending in our school system was under $11 billion. It has gone up considerably in the successive years.

Quite simply, the funding formula allocates, on a fair basis across Ontario, funding for operations and maintenance - gives a little more funding for remote and rural areas, where the cost is higher than in large urban areas - to each board based on the number of students that board accommodates. Then it's up to the boards to determine how they spend that money, which schools stay open and which schools they no longer need.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Minister, you failed to answer the question from the member. Very clearly the situation we have in Hamilton-Wentworth is that, according to the board, 29 schools fall under your magic zone of 70%. Based on their best estimates at this point, based on the figures you have provided, we are now looking at a potential closure of 10 to 15 schools in Hamilton-Wentworth as a result of the formula you have forced upon the boards. It is a cost of $8 million. You know the boards do not have $8 million to play with in their budget, so the choice very clearly becomes that either they're going to close these 10 to 15 schools or they're going to have to cut programs so dramatically, to the tune of $8 million, that they simply cannot function.

These closures are not due to enrolment, not due to the reasons schools have been closed in the past. They're due to this magic formula you have now imposed upon school boards. Minister, will you today guarantee that you will give the $8 million necessary to the Hamilton public school board to keep these 10 to 15 schools open?

Hon David Johnson: It wasn't too long ago that the Liberals were claiming that 10,000 teachers would be fired in Ontario, and now we all know that's completely wrong. They were wrong then. The Liberals indicated that there would be 10,000 fewer teachers in the province of Ontario. Wrong again. The Liberals have claimed that there would be $1 billion less spent on education in Ontario, and we know that's wrong. There will be more money spent on education in Ontario.

Some of the boards have indicated - Thames Valley, for example, was looking at some 20 closings. Now they say there will be no closings. Ottawa has indicated this year that there will be no closings. St Catharines had indicated at one point that there may be some 30 schools closed; now they say that's not so.

School boards, as they had when the Liberals were in power and some 136 schools were closed, in conjunction with their parents and their communities, are making these decisions based on reasonable grounds.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): To the Solicitor General: You've been familiar with option 4 policing for a good chunk of time now - back in the spring I talked about it happening down in Niagara when we talked about your so-called safety zones - but you've only just recently become aware of how significant it is. What it's symptomatic of is police forces that are seriously underfunded and that have to send cops out there doing fundraising because they don't have enough resources as a result of your government's downloading, and they find themselves short-staffed with longer and longer response times with greater risk to the community and greater risk to police officers.

When are you going to understand that option 4 policing is about your abandonment of police forces and your government's downloading and your refusal to assist in the proper funding of Niagara Regional Police Serviceand police forces across this province?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): With respect to the so-called option 4, both the Minister of Transportation and myself have indicated that we have officials taking a look at what's happening in a number of municipalities in the province with respect to this so-called option and taking a look at the kinds of individuals who are being processed. This is one factor.

I know the Minister of Transportation has expressed his concern, as I have, with how this option deals with repeat offenders and the fact that they can avoid the penalties attached with repeat offences going through the justice system. That is a serious concern and we are taking a look at it.

There may be indeed benefits, which we're prepared to consider, with respect to first-time offenders, as there are with other diversion programs. We're quite prepared to look at that sort of approach, but no decisions have been taken.

With respect to commitment to police, I don't think there has been a government in the history of this province that has been so committed to improving policing in Ontario and in this country. Our program to put 1,000 new police officers on the street is a very clear indication of that commitment.

Mr Kormos: You still don't understand what option 4 is all about. Three, four or five police officers at a time are staffing a speed trap, the sole purpose of which is to generate revenues for that particular police force because they've been underresourced by you and your government. These cops don't want to be staffing radar traps. They want to be out there responding to reports of crime and conducting criminal investigations, but criminal investigations are being set aside because police forces, the Niagara Regional Police Service among them, are so seriously underresourced and understaffed.

Option 4 is a symptom of your government's downloading and your government's abandonment of police forces. Niagara Regional Police is shy 100 officers still; greater and greater response times; increased risk to the welfare of the community, the safety of the community and the health and safety of police officers. Why won't you recognize that that's what option 4 is all about and that it's because of you and your government?

1430

Hon Mr Runciman: If you talk to any serving police officer, they will clearly tell you how ridiculous that kind of accusation is. Serving police officers, men and women across this province, know they have not had a government as strongly supportive of policing in this province as this government sitting here today in Ontario. They can tell you of demonstrations on the lawn not too many years ago, when the NDP government was in power - 10,000 police officers -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Runciman: I do want the extra time, Mr Speaker.

There were 10,000 police officers on the front lawn of Queen's Park complaining about the NDP government, that would not allow their representatives access to the government, while others had clear and easy access.

This government is committed. If you look at the money -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Welland-Thorold and Lake Nipigon, come to order.

Hon Mr Runciman: There's money we've been putting into a whole range of activities in policing: the anti-biker-gang squad, organized gambling, the violent crime linkage analysis system, the upgrade to the DNA labs and 1,000 new police officers on the streets of this province. No government could be more committed to strengthening policing in Ontario and in Canada than the Mike Harris government.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. As you know, the constituents of Bruce are very concerned about the changes affecting that community as a result of changes at Ontario Hydro, most specifically, those related to the Bruce nuclear power development site. As you know, we've experienced the shutdown of the heavy water plants, we've experienced the closure of Bruce A, and we all know that the refurbishing of Bruce B is underway.

The employees, the businesses and the citizens are concerned about the layoffs and the transfers and the effect this is having on their personal lives and on the economic stability of the community. Could you please give us an update of what Ontario Hydro is doing?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I thank the member for Bruce. I know she cares passionately about the people she represents in the Bruce, and she has done an excellent job in making those representations to this government and to Ontario Hydro. It's paying off for the member and for the people of her community. Ontario Hydro recently issued its new nuclear report card for the Bruce. Although progress was slightly behind schedule, the report card looks better than ever we've seen in the history of Bruce nuclear.

There's much work to be done, but the progress that has been made to date has been exceptional. The credit goes not only to the honourable member but to the people she represents, the employees of Ontario Hydro, who have done a tremendous job of laying up the heavy water, refurbishing units that needed to be brought up to speed there and operating four of the units that continue to operate there. Some 2,950 staff remain at the Bruce station to assist with the layups of units 1 to 5 and the decommissioning, and to operate units 5 to 8; 210 staff are working on improvement projects; and 530 employees have to relocate, and we're helping them to relocate.

Mrs Fisher: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that. It is an update with regard to Ontario Hydro. I was wondering if you could expand a little bit on what Ontario Hydro and the government are doing for the community at large with respect to these layoffs.

Hon Mr Wilson: As the honourable member knows, because she has been actively involved in the community consultations, about 300 people have participated in 15 consultations to date. The community, through such organizations as the Bruce Community Development Corp and the Impact Advisory Committee, is working very hard, with financial assistance from my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Honourable Noble Villeneuve. Some $250,000 was given to the community.

I understand from the honourable member, who gave me an update just yesterday, that the final strategic planning document should be ready by mid-October. The vision for that community will be set forward, and how it diversifies its economic base. The government will respond appropriately to recommendations where we can, I assure the honourable member.

In the interim, Ontario Hydro has met its commitments to the Bruce nuclear energy centre by providing a stable supply of low-cost steam until the year 2003, something they had sought under previous governments for many years and never got.

Ontario Hydro has also lowered the cost of electricity to that area, to the Bruce Energy Centre, in the hope of attracting more businesses to create more employment in that area. I want to thank again the employees of Ontario Hydro for their co-operation in this.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. To follow up on the press conference that occurred this morning with regard to the Taro site, there were clearly some very serious concerns raised, some very serious allegations raised, as to what was being dumped, particularly in relation to hazardous waste, at that site, potentially affecting the health and well-being of the residents in that area.

What came through very clearly is this: This information was obtained by citizens who were able to get the manifest from the American side of the border of what was being brought into Canada and what potentially was going to that site. Your ministry was not aware of what was going on at this site until you were advised by the citizens and representatives of that community that they had these documents from the United States. You had no mechanism for inspecting what was going to that site. You had no mechanism for controlling what was going to that site. You had no mechanism for ensuring that what was coming over the border was then matching what was going into that. You were asleep at the switch; your ministry was asleep at the switch.

Can you tell me how you, as Minister of the Environment, responsible for the environment in Ontario, did not know the discrepancy that was going on and clearly allowed this potential hazard to slip through the cracks of your ministry?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): As I mentioned before, this matter is under full investigation. The member opposite should know of course that transboundary transportation of hazardous waste is a federal responsibility.

Mr Agostino: I just cannot believe the arrogance of that answer of yours. Very clearly we have a very serious situation here. Very clearly the allegations have to be investigated; I understand that. What doesn't have to be investigated is clear: that your ministry does not have in place either at Taro or any other site across Ontario a mechanism for inspecting what goes into the landfill sites. You simply allow self-monitoring. You rely on the company providing you with the information and you do not have in place any checks or balances as the Minister of the Environment to check that the information is accurate and that material going to the site is what should be in there and not hazardous waste.

That has nothing to do with the federal government. That has nothing to do with all the investigations being carried on. It is a system you have in place because you have cut your staff by 40%, because you no longer have inspectors, you no longer have the staff to follow through and monitor.

Can you tell me specifically what steps your ministry took at that site to inspect the material that was going in and certify that it was meeting the criteria in the certificate of approval?

Hon Mr Sterling: As I mentioned before to the previous member who asked this question, the manifest system that is in place now with the present government is the same manifest system that was there in the previous government. There are checks and balances within the system. There were in fact people at the Taro landfill site who were checking these particular manifests.

I might add that this matter was brought to the attention of Mr Skarica and Mr Agostino and Mr Christopherson back in May. It was Mr Skarica who took real action to find out what was happening. He's the MPP who took action on behalf of the people of Hamilton-Wentworth. He's the reason this got to the attention of my staff. My staff, once they received solid information, took immediate action, called a complete investigation, and we are going to get to the bottom of this.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

1440

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister responsible for children's issues. You are the one who is supposed to be taking care of the children of this province. You ought to be concerned with your government's pathetic response to homelessness. Nineteen per cent of Toronto's homeless are children under 16.

Your government can blame the federal government, you can blame the kids, you can slink away by saying that the issue of homelessness is too complex, you can shelter yourself by saying you provide millions for shelters, but without a home the homeless cannot begin to deal with other problems. At some point, you have got to acknowledge that you need to invest provincial dollars in housing those kids. Tell us that you care enough to do it.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I will refer this to the minister responsible for housing.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Housing.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the member opposite, and congratulations on -

The Speaker: You said to me this is to the minister responsible for housing.

Hon Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I didn't finish. The Minister for Community and Social Services is responsible for this area of housing.

The Speaker: Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was looking forward to my colleague's answer.

This is indeed a very serious issue and we recognize that as one of the reasons why we established a task force that consulted with municipalities and with agencies which deal with people who find themselves homeless -

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Margaret, you are not a receptionist, you are a minister.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, come to order, please. Thank you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: - so that we could improve what this province is doing to support families and those who find themselves homeless, in co-operation with the federal government and in co-operation with our municipal partners.

That's why we've increased the spending we have available for supports for people who find themselves in homeless situations. That's why we are working so diligently to get families off welfare. We've had great success in doing that. There are 133,000 fewer children who are stuck on welfare today than there were three years ago. That is very much a good-news story. We've increased funding for the mental health supports for individuals on the street who need that, and there are a number of other steps we have done to spend that $100 million - it will be $104 million actually because we will be increasing funding for these supports.

We recognize they are very important. We've listened very carefully to what the municipalities have told us about this. They need resources, but they also need those resources in a more flexible manner. It's a message we've heard loudly and clearly. That will be another step in -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Marchese: You could see through that referral that they don't have a clue who the Minister of Housing is, and neither do we, frankly, on this side. I've got to tell you, this is another example of how your government isn't just going too far, too fast. It's going in the wrong direction.

You have given a tax cut to the wealthiest people, but you think housing homeless children is just too expensive. You try to shove the responsibility on to municipalities while downloading $600 million in costs to them. You hope that the private sector will jump in, but you're the only people in the province who think they will.

Minister, which is better, taking back the tax cut from a few wealthy people and housing those 19% of the children or letting them keep the tax cut and putting the kids in motels? Which do you think is more important?

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the things we think is very important is if someone has a job, and if someone is in a low-income job, for example, the last thing the government should be doing is going to that person and saying: "Oh, gee, congratulations. Let's take some more of that money for taxes." If the honourable member would like us to take the 655,000 low-income individuals who no longer have to pay Ontario income tax and add them back to the tax rolls, perhaps he should say so. If he would like us to take the 41% tax break that we've given families in low-income circumstances and increase their taxes 41%, perhaps he should say that.

We recognize that families are better off working. That's why our economic reforms, our education reforms and our welfare reforms are helping those families get into those jobs, and then we're letting them keep more of that money because they know what to do with that money better to help their children than a government bureaucracy created by the honourable member across the way.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order to request unanimous consent for a statement for Breast Cancer Awareness Day, because breast cancer affects eventually one in nine women in Ontario.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent for a statement right now? An all-party statement?

Mr Kennedy: An all-party statement.

The Speaker: Agreed? No.

PETITIONS

FATHERS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): "Whereas children need the unfettered presence, care, and love of their fathers, and fathers want to have, care for and nurture their children after marriage breakdown as well as before; and

"Whereas marital separation is the end of the conjugal and financial relationship between a father and mother; and

"Whereas fathers experience misandry in the family courts of Ontario and other institutions which is depriving them of their children and subjugating them financially; and

"Whereas statutory recognition of these facts will reduce the burden of legal costs on families and the government, eliminate fatherlessness, cut down on self-destructive behaviour by separated fathers, reduce violence, and produce healthier and happier children with a greater sense of belonging and commitment to society;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass legislation:

"To ensure that no father is deprived against his will of the opportunity to fully and completely parent his children regardless of the father's marital status (unless the father has put the children's welfare at risk and all available alternatives have been exhausted); and furthermore,

"To ensure that no father who is willing to care for his child is required to pay for the cost of child care provided by his child's mother when the child is under her care and not his care (unless the father has put the child's welfare at risk and all available alternatives have been exhausted), in particular for the cost of food, clothing and shelter."

I have affixed my signature in full agreement with this petition.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to draw your attention to standing order 59(e) and today's proceedings. You will note that scheduled for today in the House is debate on the time allocation motion on Bill 55, and at the same time in the standing committee on estimates we have scheduled debate of the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training. Under rule 59(e) it states, "No estimates shall be considered in the committee while any matter relating to the same policy field is being considered in the House."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Let me just give you a couple of quick points before you go on.

First of all, can I get some order from the members, back here especially. If you have a meeting, why don't you do it outside. Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Lincoln and two ministers.

First off, I don't know what's to be called; it says "TBA" to me. Until it's called, I don't know.

Secondly, the standing committee on estimates has been cancelled.

Mr Wildman: OK, that's fine.

1450

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions regarding the closing of the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital.

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Hamilton and the surrounding communities, beg leave to petition the government of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has announced the closure of Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario through the Health Services Restructuring Commission is divesting its responsibility for mental health care without hearing from the community first; and

"Whereas community-based mental health care providers will bear the brunt of this ill-fated decision by being forced to meet what is sure to be an increased demand for their services; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is not adequately monitoring community-based mental health services for their effectiveness, efficiency or whether they're even delivering the agreed-upon programs in the first place according to the 1997 annual report of the Provincial Auditor; and

"Whereas the community pays the price for cuts to mental health care;

"Therefore we, the citizens of Hamilton and area who care about quality, accessibility and public accountability in mental health care for all Ontarians, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately set aside all recommendations to divest and/or close Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital and the programs and services it provides; and

"Further, to call for full hearings to seek community solutions to community issues and to democratically decide the future of mental health care for the citizens of Hamilton area."

I proudly add my name in continuing support to these petitioners.

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 103 people.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospital expenditure is underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population of over 200,000; and

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and other desperately needed services; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged that additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Minister of Health to provide the appropriate level of funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west end and restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

I add my name to this petition.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government's `downloading' to municipal taxpayers is directly responsible for the $36.3-million shortfall to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth; and

"Whereas the Harris government `downloading' is directly responsible for creating a property tax crisis in our region; and

"Whereas the Harris government, while boasting about its 30% tax cut which benefits mainly the wealthy, is making hard-working families, seniors, homeowners and businesses pay the price with outrageous property tax hikes and user fees for services; and

"Whereas city and regional councillors are being unfairly blamed and forced to explain these huge tax hikes," - and I would point out that Councillor Gerry Copps is in the public gallery today - "Hamiltonians know that what's really going on is that they are being forced to pay huge property tax increases to fund Harris's 30% tax giveaway to the rich; and

"Whereas homeowners, including seniors and low-income families, are facing huge property tax increases ranging from several hundred to thousands of dollars; and

"Whereas the Harris government `downloading' has led to huge property tax increases for business that will force many small and medium-sized businesses in Hamilton-Wentworth to close or leave the community, putting people out of work; and

"Whereas Hamilton-Wentworth region is proposing that the Harris government share in the costs of an expanded rebate program, worth about $3 million region-wide;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris government immediately eliminate the $38-million downloading shortfall that is devastating and angering homeowners as well as killing businesses in Hamilton-Wentworth."

I continue to support my constituents by signing this.

SCHOOL PRAYERS

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I have a petition for the government of Ontario.

"The Grand Orange Lodge of Ontario, being a firm supporter of the public system and the Protestant faith, does with the undersigned hereby petition the government of Ontario to reinstate the Lord's Prayer in the public school system of Ontario."

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Sudbury Regional Palliative Care Association announced at its annual general membership meeting on October 13, 1998, that it must, regretfully, close its doors; and

"Whereas the Sudbury Regional Palliative Care Association has announced that this action is necessary due to a lack of financial resources; and

"Whereas, unless adequate funding is secured immediately, services currently available from this organization will cease effective December 31, 1998; and

"Whereas because of the lack of financial commitment from the Mike Harris government, many more long-term care providers throughout Ontario have and will continue to cease their services;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to recognize the valued work provided by the Sudbury Regional Palliative Care Association, and furthermore, that the Minister of Long-Term Care commit the required financial assistance to ensure that this organization continues to provide the necessary palliative care services to the residents of the Sudbury region, as well as to all Ontarians."

I sign my name to this petition.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Up in the spectators' gallery, on the opposition side, is Jessica Mulley, a committee clerk from Westminster. We'd like to welcome her. She's sitting next to Donna Bryce; of course everyone knows her. Welcome.

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 55 people.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

LEGAL AID

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

"Whereas Paul Bernardo is a convicted murderer and is currently serving a life sentence for the murders of teenagers Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy; and

"Whereas there is concrete evidence in the form of videotapes that Mr Bernardo, along with his ex-wife, Karla Homolka, held their victims captive prior to murdering them; and

"Whereas despite this concrete evidence the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that Mr Bernardo may secure a publicly funded lawyer to file for an appeal of his murder convictions; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers will therefore pay for Mr Bernardo's lawyer and court appeal;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to encourage the federal government to amend the Criminal Code such that Ontario taxpayers are not required to pay for legal appeals initiated by convicted felons."

I've also signed the petition.

1500

ADOPTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to present a petition that was given to me by Rik Davies and his wife, Linda, with respect to adoption issues.

"Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario (ARCO) brings together various organizations to recommend reform of Ontario adoption law based on honesty, openness and integrity;

"Whereas existing adoption secrecy legislation is outdated and unjust;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; these rights are denied to persons affected by secrecy provisions in adoption laws of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts in Ontario;

"Whereas 20% of persons in Ontario are directly or indirectly affected by restricted rights to personal information available to other citizens;

"Whereas the adopted person's right to his/her birth identity is rooted in a basic and fundamental human need;

"Whereas most birth parents did not ask for lifelong confidentiality; it was imposed upon them involuntarily;

"Whereas research shows that not knowing basic personal information has proven harmful to adopted persons, birth parents, adoptive parents and other birth relatives;

"Whereas research in other countries has shown that unqualified access to information in adoption satisfies the overwhelming majority of the parties involved;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act" as follows.

I'm pleased to sign my name to this.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition sent to me by June Huston, the president of the Pass Lake Historical Society, and I'm grateful she sent it to me. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm very pleased to sign this petition as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 55, An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, when Bill 55 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the standing committee on general government;

That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(h) shall be permitted;

That the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet for one day at its regularly scheduled meeting time for the purposes of public hearing organization;

That the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill at any time during its regularly scheduled meeting times as deemed necessary by the committee and for four days during the November recess;

That, pursuant to standing order 74(d), the Chair of the standing committee on general government shall establish the deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with the clerk of the committee;

That the committee be authorized to meet for a further two days, one day of which may fall on a day other than a regular meeting day of the committee, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and that the committee be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on the final day until completion of clause-by-clause consideration;

That, at 4:30 pm on the final day designated by the committee for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and not later than November 26, 1998, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill, and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a);

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration or not later than November 30, 1998, whichever is earliest. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of such time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That the vote on third reading of the bill may, at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House, be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "Deferred Votes"; and

That in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the divisional bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Mr Speaker, I'm going to share my time today with the members for Guelph, Simcoe East and Middlesex, and consequently restrict my comments because I did have the opportunity to speak at the second reading of the bill.

I am looking forward to the public hearings. The ministry has been in consultation with many of the stakeholders over a period of the better part of two years now, and in that regard I would particularly like to note the efforts of the member for Middlesex, who has played quite a key role in assisting the government to bring the apprenticeship legislation current.

Members of the House by now will know that the current legislation we have is dated I believe 1964, well over 30 years old, at a time when conditions were considerably different. Governments, through those succeeding years, have not had the time or the opportunity to bring the apprenticeship legislation up to date, yet we live in a whole new world as we approach the 21st century, the new millennium.

There are many demands for new trades. Cable networking is one example of a recent trade that has come upon us. In agriculture there are new trades being developed. In all walks of life in the province of Ontario there are requirements for new skills and new trades to keep current with the economy again as we approach the 21st century.

I am delighted that through the public hearing process we will be talking about ways and means that the various industries - by industries I mean those people who may be concerned with the tool and die trades, for example, and machinists, cooks and bakers, or any number of skilled trades we have in the province. The people associated with those particular trades, the workers, the employers, will have a stake in defining the standards, in determining what makes sense within their industry.

These are people who have knowledge born from experience. They will assist us not only in terms of setting standards but also in terms of marketing, if you will, their particular trades, because there are just so many opportunities for our young people. Many of our young people, of course, go to post-secondary education, whether it's college or university, and many other people go into the workforce. As a matter of fact, over half the young people coming up would migrate directly to the workforce from secondary school as opposed to going to university or college.

1510

There are many opportunities in the trades, and unfortunately there's a shortage in many trades of skilled workers. I think I recounted my experience of visiting an automotive parts manufacturer in Newmarket and being told, and this was earlier this year, that the business was booming, that they had many orders, but they were unable to accept all the orders they were receiving because they simply did not have the skilled workers required to fulfill those orders and, as a result, some of the staff were being asked to do a good deal of overtime because there was a shortage.

There's good news and bad news when you do overtime. Some people find the time requirements onerous, but then of course they're being paid for it, and some of them, I think four of them, earned over $100,000 last year as a result of all the overtime they put in. All power to them, and I think it's wonderful to see people coming through the trades making that sort of money, but at the same time it points out that there is a shortage and that this particular company was experiencing that shortage and needed more skilled workers to fulfill all the orders coming their way.

That is true in other industries as well, but it seems in the automotive industry it's most pronounced. In the automotive industry a good percentage of those in the skilled trades have been there for many years, and there's one statistic that about 40% of those involved in the automotive trades will be retiring within the next five or six years. That's going to leave a tremendous void, a void that we need to come to grips with.

As a Legislature and as a government, we need to put in place training procedures, various steps, so that young people will understand the wonderful career opportunities that are there in the skilled trades, and if they have the interest and the ability, they will find no impediments to achieving the skills necessary to participate in that way.

That's what this bill does. That's what the bill that's before us today that we have unfortunately had to time-allocate -

Interjection: Why is that unfortunate?

Hon David Johnson: Because we've had three good days of debate and there is no sign from the opposition parties that they're prepared to allow this to proceed. You would think that after 30 years the opposition parties would understand that some action needs to be taken, but unfortunately they haven't yet come to that conclusion. The opposition parties, you would think, would want the general public and the various stakeholders to be able to be involved in public hearings, but yet they stall it. After 30 years they stall it here in the House. They stall the public hearings.

We're intent that those public hearings go ahead and that's what we've done today, introduced the time allocation motion that will allow those public hearings to proceed so we can hear from the stakeholders and allow the legislation to proceed so we can get on with revitalizing the whole apprenticeship system and encourage more young people - people of all ages, frankly, but more young people in particular - to have the opportunity, a wonderful opportunity, in the trades and bring Ontario up into the 21st century as we approach that 21st century.

I'm pleased to kick off the debate with just those few general comments, and I know that our members for Guelph, Simcoe East and Middlesex will have a good deal more to say as well.

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): It's my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 55. For those who are viewing, this bill is entitled An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act.

To begin, I think it's important to note we had really good news in our constituency office yesterday. The Statistics Canada figures arrived for unemployment and, once again, we had smiles on our faces because in Guelph our unemployment rate is down to 6.4%.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): That's very good.

Mrs Elliott: Yes, it is really good news. It's well below the provincial average of 7.3% and of course Ontario is doing very well, below the national average of 8.2%.

Due to our economic policies, our low-tax policies, our incentives for small business, a whole series of initiatives that we've undertaken since we've become government, we have definitely helped Ontario become the place to invest and to create jobs and we are seeing that. In the last month, 85% of the jobs created in Canada happened right here in Ontario.

I talk about jobs because the prospect for growth and for economic well-being in this province is very positive, and skilled trades is one of the areas where we expect economic growth to be very significant. These jobs come through, for the most part, apprenticeship training. Our workforce here in Ontario is world-renowned and we want to make sure and make every effort that that stays that way.

The jobs that come through skilled trades and as a result of apprenticeship provide very challenging work and a very positive career. Top performers in the skilled trades earn very good salaries. I'm told by the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association that, with a bonus, a leading tool and die maker can make between $40,000 and $90,000 a year.

The other thing that's interesting about the kinds of jobs these apprenticeships lead to is that the jobs, the trades, the work is interesting. My understanding is that electricians, for instance, are learning to wire smart houses, or those involved in auto service technician work learn how and are re-educated as new types of computerized vehicles and parts and so on come on to the market. These are the kinds of jobs that are interesting, well paying and highly desirable.

We're in a province where jobs are being created, where the economic prospect is very bright. Why is this government introducing this legislation? Well, I come from the area of Guelph, part of the Golden Triangle, the technology triangle, and I've met with my chamber of commerce, I've met with representatives of companies like Blount, like Guelph Tool and Die, like W.C. Wood. They tell me that they have been faced with difficulty in finding skilled workers.

There is also a demographics problem at work here. We have more and more skilled workers close to retirement. In the auto parts industry, for instance, more than 70% of the present workforce is over the age of 40. Many workers in refrigeration and air conditioning trades are also close to retirement. It's not just a new problem. I can remember representatives from Linamar indicating that they have, on more than one occasion, been forced to leave the province to find skilled workers.

We take this very seriously in our government and we know that it's important to undertake change to make sure that we have the kind of skilled workers this province needs and wants. We know that it's important to help our employers keep pace with change, and that highly skilled workers attract investment and are well able to take their place in this world with good jobs and take care of their families.

I'm very pleased to stand in the House today in support of Bill 55. I think this is a bill that will directly benefit the young people in my community and all across this province, because it is going to help create an updated apprenticeship training system and, as the minister stated a few moments ago, will replace 30-year-old legislation that doesn't reflect the modern challenges of today's economy.

When I was doing some preparatory work for these remarks today, I was very interested to learn that 50% of the students graduating from high school go directly into the workforce. That was surprising to me. For some reason, I naturally assumed that more students went on to post-secondary education than that. But I think it's very important to recognize that fact because it's to these people that apprenticeship is particularly important, and it's a large number of our students to whom we are speaking through this legislation today. Some 13% of our young people are looking for work. Many of them might not be aware of what kind of apprenticeship training is available, where it's available, and they may not know what a good career it can lead to. They also may not realize how many employers are looking for good workers to train.

Our job as a responsible government is to ensure that Ontarians have the right training and that they are able to fill the highly skilled jobs our economy needs to expand.

1520

The legislation is old, as I said. It's due for an overhaul. The fact is that some ministries have been well served, such as the high quality of training in the construction industry, but the reality is that apprenticeship training isn't just about the construction industry. Manufacturers train apprentices. In the automotive service and repair business, apprenticeships occur. In the expanding tourism industry, for instance, which relies on skilled workers such as chefs, cooks, bakers, in all of those areas, apprentices are trained. Of course, particularly important for my area, the Guelph-Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge area, high-tech industries definitely require apprentices because the work is so highly skilled and complicated.

One-size-fits-all legislation, a one-size-fits-all approach to training, doesn't work, and that has been the approach of the current act that needs to be reformed. The skills are too demanding, the needs from various groups are too demanding and too diverse, and I believe the legislation that's being proposed does in fact do this much better.

Not only must apprenticeships be able to serve the needs of the all-important apprentices who are undertaking this challenge, but they also need to speak to the needs of the employers. They have to be able to extend to new jobs when these young people are trained. They have to be able to adapt to new industries as they develop. I mentioned earlier new car manufacturers constantly bringing out different computerized parts. I guess the word I'm thinking of here that must fit and does fit into this new legislation is "flexibility" for apprenticeships.

Apprenticeship is a very effective way of providing training in the workplace. It is driven by not only the workers but the employers and the unions, and it provides real-life training for apprentices. For those who may not know a lot about apprenticeship, I would just indicate that it provides on-the-job training. Apprentices attend classroom training at colleges or at recognized training providers to further their skills. Some 75% to 90% of apprenticeship training takes place on the job, and classroom instruction ranges from 10% to 25% as part of the training.

An apprentice becomes a skilled worker once he or she has completed the training requirements in the provincial standard for that trade. There are over 200 apprenticeship trades in Toronto: 67 trades have a specific regulation, and in 30 of these an apprentice is eligible to be certified to work in any province or territory in Canada.

In this legislation, and by virtue of the fact that we have brought it forward, we are indicating to the people of Ontario that we see apprenticeship as being very important and essential to developing a flexible, highly skilled and modern workforce for this province.

The systems in the legislation today are simply too rigid. Bill 55, if passed by this House - I'm assuming that it will be - puts quality and safety first. It encourages more employers to train. It gives employers and workers more responsibility for training. It creates a flexible training system to meet the needs of more industries and eliminates red tape.

The thing that's interesting to me about Bill 55, which I didn't know before I became familiar with this, is that it doesn't talk about wages. Collective agreements are the places where wages should properly be set for apprenticeships. For instance, in the construction industry the collective agreements do put in the hands of the employer and the workers greater responsibility.

Apprenticeship has been with us for a very long time. It began in Europe centuries ago. I guess - what is the old line? - practice makes perfect. People have realized that on-the-job training, learning from the masters, is a very effective way, and it has been part of our work culture actually since Upper Canada was established, in the 1700s and 1800s. It has lasted not only here in Ontario and in Canada but in Europe before that because it was effective.

I was interested to know that in 1998 there are 48,600 apprentices working for more than 26,000 employers here in Ontario and that means there are also 517,000 certified skilled workers in our workforce. This is a very significant workforce and it's a very significant group of people that in our daily life we probably forget about but that we must rely on every single day.

I am pleased to be able to stand in the House today to support this legislation. As I said earlier, I think this legislation will help young people who are entering the workforce, not only in my riding but in ridings all across this province. I think it will help ensure the potential of apprenticeship training into the new century that we are facing.

I think it's very important that through this legislation we will help create a new generation of skilled workers. Those workers are needed to keep our economy strong and to help it grow. I think the track record our government has had in helping the province of Ontario get back on track and get back on its feet is very strong. This legislation is a piece that will strengthen this initiative and I am very pleased to stand in the House today and support Bill 55.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to rise and speak on Bill 55. It's something that over the years I have really been concerned about and have really wanted to happen. Finally, today, we have the chance to get up and to discuss it.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the compelling need to bring skills and people together and to create greater employment opportunities in this province of Ontario. If Ontario's industries are to be competitive on the world market, we must have a skilled labour pool to meet industrial and technical needs. I believe Bill 55, An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, will build Ontario's labour pool through workplace apprenticeship programs.

The formal certification will expand opportunities for Ontario workers and increase the competitiveness of Ontario businesses. We know Ontarians want to work, we know many ambitious young Ontarians want to work in a skilled trade and we know that apprenticeship training can and does meet the needs of both employers and employees.

Apprenticeship programs need to be adjusted and restructured to meet society's requirements. Our labour force deserves the skills and technology training to give them a career in construction, industry, service and automotive power.

Earlier this year, the Minister of Education and Training, my colleague Dave Johnson, announced funding which enables an apprentice to obtain a loan to cover the cost of equipment and tools for their chosen trade. Our future labour force can now invest in their own future.

With the passing of this bill, Ontario will establish a stronger role for industry in our apprenticeship program. Youth unemployment is being recognized by this government. We are addressing the situation with creative and innovative programs that will not just employ our youth, but give them a lifelong career.

We recognize many employers are desperate to hire skilled workers. I have seen this first hand in my own riding. We know we must bring our employers to the table, we know we must bring our unemployed youth to the table and we know we have to bring our secondary school system also to the table.

We have consulted with stakeholders. Together we have found a solution. We are reforming our secondary school system and with Bill 55 we are revamping our apprenticeship training system, giving industry a stronger role. We are introducing a new funding strategy to ensure apprentices can access quality training. We are developing a win-win system for Ontario students.

In my riding of Simcoe East, Georgian College accepts referrals to the college from the field consultants of the apprenticeship branch of the Minister of Education and Training. Depending on the trade, the apprentice receives in-school training over two or three years, attending school for blocks of time which vary from eight to 15 weeks each year, or for one day each week for 40 weeks.

At the Owen Sound campus, Mike Trainer, director-manager of corporation contract and apprenticeship training, explained how he and his staff went out into the community to hear the needs of employers. Mr Trainer stressed how important it is for educators to find a way to plug into a community and to be responsive to the community's employers' needs.

1530

Bill 55 will guarantee a system that is more responsive to technological innovations, changing labour market requirements and ever-evolving training needs. According to a 1998 Angus Reid survey, we will need 30% more skilled tradespeople and technologists in the next 10 years. Apprenticeship programs will have a positive impact on current and projected workforce shortages.

In the fall of 1997, the Industrial Research and Development Institute in Midland formed a working partnership with Georgian College and became a national leader in automotive studies. My colleagues the member for Mackenzie-York, Mr Klees, and Mr Wilson and Mr Tascona were at the announcement of that $3.8 million that Minister Eves announced in the last financial statement here to go towards that very project. I was so thrilled to be there at that Georgian College site on that day when that announcement was made, because I firmly believed over the years that the 32 community colleges in this province were to be zeroed in on for skills development and skills training whereby we would train our own workforce. Other countries in the world have been doing this for years. Finally, we are now going to do it, long overdue.

I commend Minister Johnson for bringing this legislation forward so that our own people will be trained here in this community. This partnership will produce graduates with expertise in automotive manufacturing, auto parts design and tool and die skills. There are some 27 facilities in the county of Simcoe that are producing parts for the automotive industry.

I've toured the plant of Barrie Welding in Barrie, where they had robots from the Honda plant in Alliston that they were modifying in our own plant in Barrie. That industry has expanded something unbelievable with the technology we have today. To be repairing robots in the city of Barrie was really amazing to me. That company has gone from fewer than 50 employees to approximately 175 employees today.

There are a lot of things taking place with regard to tool and die and skills. The four people who own that company bring in people in the summertime, students from high school, and they work and put in their time and within three years after they're done school they are full-class tool and die makers, making in the area of $65,000 to $85,000 a year. But they work hard, and they've had the experience and training from the people who own that company. I think that is a major plus for what's happening here, and Bill 55 is going to expand on that across the province.

Reinhart Weber of Midland, the founder of the institute that I was just mentioning that's in partnership with Georgian College, knows the value of apprenticeship programs. Mr Weber has been building and strengthening the skills workforce at Weber Tool and Mold since 1960.

Georgian College's hospitality and tourism program offers food preparation and cook apprenticeships as well as general carpentry, millwright and welder fitter. The Sundial restaurant in Orillia is one of many businesses that has contributed and benefited from the hospitality program for many years. The Georgian College programs and the Owen Sound program in particular have tripled in the past three years. For example, Hobart Food Equipment has a total workforce of 200 and recognizes the apprenticeship program as an investment in their own future. Hobart is paying to train 14 employees through the Georgian College program today.

Apprenticeship programs are important not only in Ontario cities but also in our rural areas. When asked what he attributes the great success of the Owen Sound program to, Mr Trainer explained, "A survey among the students revealed they were taking the local apprenticeship course because it didn't interrupt their family life, they didn't have to travel many miles to Toronto and they could afford to continue the skills training while looking after their families in their rural Ontario hometown."

To me, these comments reveal that by updating and strengthening the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act through Bill 55, we are building and strengthening our families and our communities. This kind of strength is stronger than any forged steel. This kind of strength will take our province into 2000 and beyond, with a predictable future of employment for everyone. This kind of strength will expand opportunities for all Ontarians. This kind of strength will give my grandchildren an Ontario to be proud of.

Bill 55 offers a practical alternative for our young people who want to enter the workforce. They will develop the skills that are in demand. We will know they are in demand through the establishment of committees composed of representatives of employers and employees in different occupations. These committees are the eyes, ears and voices of our communities.

The goal of Bill 55 is to double the number of apprentices from 11,000 to some 22,000. Apprenticeship laws have not been updated for over 30 years. These changes are long overdue and will bring our apprenticeship laws up to date. Bill 55 will encourage more industry, labour and business involvement in setting apprenticeship policy.

In supporting Bill 55, we are seeing, we are listening and, most importantly, we are acting. This action has been long overdue. I can't stress that enough, because we are importing workers from other parts of the world when we should be training our own people in this province to do those jobs that are out there and that are needed.

I say amen to a bill that has been well-thought-out. I'm sorry we have to bring closure on the opposition to get this bill through the Legislature. I would have thought every member of this Legislature would have enthusiastically endorsed this legislation.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I'm pleased to join my colleagues from Guelph and Simcoe East in debate on the motion before us today and to compliment them on their comments this afternoon. I know in particular the member for Simcoe East routinely raises the issue of apprenticeship initiatives, whether it's at the post-secondary level or at the secondary school level, where he has been responding to issues of concern and opportunity with respect to new opportunities within the skilled trades field.

I too want to speak in support of the motion this afternoon and re-emphasize some of the central themes to Bill 55 as we discuss that this afternoon, as we deal with the motion that would not only take us to deal with the closure item but take us to public hearings on this particular matter.

It's the government's point of view that the strength of the apprenticeship training system lies in a system that is founded in our workplaces. It's in that context that we need training provisions in this province that are reflective of real workplace needs, training initiatives that are led by employers and employees alike, as we continue in a collective effort to ensure that all the skilled trades' needs in this province are being met both currently and well into the future.

We've heard a lot about the declining pool of skilled tradespeople in this province and the need for us collectively, whether it's trade unions, government or industry representatives, to move in a direction where we're creating a positive climate for new opportunities for young people. As well, I might add, because often we forget those individuals who because of a particular circumstance are seeking retraining or new career directions for whatever particular reason, that they too have the opportunity to access the rewarding opportunities that exist in the skilled trades field.

It's in that context that we as a government think the apprenticeship should be led by industry, which is inclusive of employers and employees, whereby employers and employees would have a greater say in determining and establishing responsibility for training in this province. It's in that context as well that we raised the issue of wage and ratios. We've had a number of colleagues in this House raise the issue of that particular aspect, that very clearly the government feels confident in the ability of our provincial advisory committees to deal with those specific issues. Those people who sit on those specific committees which are equally represented between the worker and employer clearly have the best expertise to bring conclusion to some of those issues and position themselves to make appropriate recommendations to the Minister of Education and Training.

1540

It's in that context as well that the government of Ontario envisions a broader and perhaps clearer mandate for our provincial advisory committees so that their decisions, the issues they're dealing with as groups, as representatives of their particular occupation, are being very clearly heard and understood by those in senior levels of government and that those decisions are reflective of their particular area of concentration.

I want to emphasize as well we've heard concern expressed about the red seal program. I mentioned at the outset in my comments at second reading on this bill that at no point in time is it the intent of this government or the intention of this bill, nor the expectation that would flow from it, that the red seal program in this province would be compromised. Very clearly, we are committed to a higher standard of apprenticeship training, a standard that is clearly reflective of the quality initiatives that I know both employers and employees want to pursue, and standards that will lead to safe working environments for employees and certainly safe environments for consumers of their particular trade or product, and, as well, moving in that regard to ensure that the appropriate standards are in place to protect and safeguard against that particular issue.

We heard a lot about the minimum age requirement and we want to re-emphasize again today that in fact Bill 55 speaks specifically to the age 16 requirement as the minimum standard for entering into a training agreement.

There are specific items that are in the bill. To re-emphasize the issue of wages, I heard the comments of opposition members about deregulating wages, and pursued that issue and have pressed the ministry to provide me with assurances that in fact there are locally negotiated conclusions taking place.

Just to give an example, in the tool and die sector, if we applied a minimum wage requirement under the Employment Standards Act - which, as all members will know, is approximately $6.85 per hour - to the standard of 50 hours per week, that leads us to a calculation of just over $17,000 for a starting salary. In fact, figures from the Canadian Tooling Manufacturers' Association show the actually negotiated starting salaries for tool and die makers average approximately $26,000 per annum. So the market in some sectors is already dictating a higher standard than would be expected should the minimum wage be applied.

I think we've heard a lot about specific examples in terms of worst-case scenarios, but the reality of today's workplace is recognizing the skills that these individuals bring to their trade each and every day and, in that context, the employer responding appropriately with specific wage levels.

My colleague from Simcoe East made reference to young people as part of this process. The process that quite frankly has to extend beyond Bill 55 is the initiative or opportunity that we have collectively, whether through the Ministry of Education and Training, our partners, industry employers and employees collectively coming together to better market the opportunities that exist for young people in this province with respect to skilled trades.

As part of this package, as a government, as a ministry, we've attempted to capture that comprehensive approach to apprenticeship training and reforms whereby we've introduced and provided additional monies through the Ontario youth apprenticeship program in the sum of $1.4 million of new money that is available to school boards in this province to help create programs within the secondary school setting for our students. It's at that period in their life that they obviously need to be made aware or have the opportunity to pursue new opportunities in the skilled trades area.

Clearly, the government's objective is not only to double the number of apprentices in this province, as my colleague from Simcoe indicated, but, through immediate action in the form of the OYAP that I just spoke of, our intention is to increase the number of young people at the secondary school level participating in apprenticeship programs from approximately 1,000 individuals, where it is currently, to 2,000. Very clearly, we are developing a comprehensive plan that involves the secondary school panel, it involves the post-secondary level, it involves trade unions in this province and employers alike as we collectively recognize. There will be differences in how we arrive at the conclusion, but I think there's a sound understanding of the need to do more in terms of filling the void that we are projecting or anticipating with respect to skilled trades in this province.

It's in that context as well that the Ontario Federation of Labour has raised concerns. In my second reading debate comments I went on at length to try to respond in a progressive way to those concerns and to ensure the people of this province that, first of all, the skilled trades sector is an important sector to our economy. They're a talented group of individuals who bring a high level of skill to the workplace each and every day. They make a significant contribution to the economy of this province. Certainly in that context I can assure the people of this province and, as well, my colleagues in this Legislature that in no way are we introducing legislation that would compromise that skill level, that level of commitment that is brought to the workplace each and every day on behalf of the employees and employers in this province.

As well, it's important to emphasize that standards and quality of training will be maintained. It's a very key element in terms of the overall component that we're dealing with currently with respect to apprenticeship training.

To conclude my comments, I wish to add that this area has been consulted upon considerably since approximately 1996, when this matter was brought forward. To those in opposition who suggest the consultation was inappropriate, I would simply say that there has been considerable debate, including myself, my predecessor from Wentworth North, the Minister of Education and Training himself, whether it's through meetings with employers or trade union representatives or advisory committee members themselves in terms of where we want to be in the future. So there has been substantial dialogue.

Yes, there will be areas of disagreement. I understand that and respect the positions of those who find themselves in opposition to this bill. But I think it's important to realize that that dialogue has continued repeatedly over the course of the last year and a half. Certainly it's dialogue that continues today within the Ministry of Education and Training and with skilled workers in this province in terms of the certification process and their vision of the provincial advisory committees. It's a consultation that I feel has contributed substantially to the strength of this bill and it's in that context that I rise today to speak in support of the motion. I conclude my comments at this point in time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate?

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Mr Speaker, may I say in starting that I'd like to share my time with the member for St Catharines and the member for Kingston and The Islands and we'll be using our full time.

I'm glad to have an opportunity to say a few words, but I think it's only appropriate to start by saying that it's unfortunate that once again the government has put forward a time allocation motion - there's no other word to be used than a "closure" motion - to basically stifle debate on this very important piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it's something this government uses with extraordinary regularity and it simply stifles debate. In our caucus we had many members who wished to speak on second reading debate. I was one of them and I'm glad that I'm being given an opportunity today to express some of my concerns about it at this time.

It's something that I think the people of this province are seeing with way too much regularity, the government deciding enough debate has taken place, "We want to force this thing through."

I recognize that the government has agreed to public hearings, and we're glad to hear about that. Certainly that is something that needs to go forward, although I still would maintain very strongly that we needed more time to debate this on second reading.

It also feeds into the fact that there have been such extraordinary rule changes in this Legislature that this government has put in place which have absolutely changed the ability of all the members of the Legislature to speak and to make their case on behalf of their constituents on all the legislation that's gone forward. The fact is, the government now has changed the rules so considerably that the amount of time one is able to debate is not there, as you know very well. The government now is adding extra sessional days, without the benefit of question period, at the end of the day. This is something that the government members won't be talking about but it's a matter of great concern to us. It's something that I think the people of the province should be concerned about and something we really would very much like to change.

1550

Having said that, I am glad to have an opportunity to make some reference to Bill 55. I made a few comments during second reading debate when I had a two-minute response opportunity and tried to indicate some of the areas we are very concerned about. Some of those areas were related to the whole mandated wage rate, the whole question of tuition fees, the minimum education values and the fact that they were to get rid of those. These are obviously areas we had great concerns about.

I'm particularly pleased, though, today to have an opportunity to respond to and at least get on the record a letter that has been sent to me and which happened just after second reading debate was concluded and the time allocation motion was put in place. It was sent to me by the Carpenters Local Advisory Committee in Thunder Bay, in my riding, from Vincent Young, the chairman of the local advisory committee, who really wanted to have an opportunity to have some of their concerns put forward on the public record. I am more than pleased to do that. I want to have that chance to do so on their behalf because I think they express a number of the concerns that are being expressed by all members who have looked at this piece of legislation very carefully.

They do recognize that some changes need to be made. We hope that when the public hearing locations are decided Thunder Bay will be one of the locations that the legislative committee is able to come to. As usual, there will not be an opportunity to go to enough communities. We would prefer to have far more opportunity for people all across the province. I hope that Thunder Bay would be considered.

Let me go through some of the areas that Mr Young has expressed to the Minister of Education. May I say it was nice to finally hear the Minister of Education make some remarks in relation to this bill. One of the more unusual aspects of Bill 55 was the fact that the minister did not speak on second reading. I know that was of great concern to everyone in the Legislature. So, short as his comments were today, it was good to at least see him standing up here making some reference to the legislation that he is pushing forward so strongly.

The aspects of Bill 55 that Mr Young, on behalf of the Carpenters Local Advisory Committee in Thunder Bay, has put forward are ones that need to be on the record. They met and discussed the changes very carefully. They have a number of concerns, and they all deal with aspects of the legislation that are very important; for example, the aspect of the allowance of part-time, contract and self-employed workers to become apprentices. This gives us some concern about supervision and the training of those who would be there for only part of the time. That's an obvious concern. The Carpenters Local Advisory Com-mittee in Thunder Bay makes the point very strongly that for the self-employed or piece workers, you wonder where they will be getting their on-the-job training from if they are indeed self-employed. I think that's a very legitimate concern that needs to be expressed.

They also are concerned about the elimination of the minimum training time. This organization feels strongly that the present program, with a minimum of two years, certainly makes for a better journeyperson rather than having an apprentice rushing through the course. Again, that seems to make a great deal of sense.

Let's bear in mind that one of the key aspects of a piece of legislation such as this should surely be to increase accessibility. We understand that. But it needs to be absolutely balanced with the need to make sure that the training is done in an appropriate manner. A lot of the concerns we have are related to the fact that this does not increase accessibility but in fact sets up some barriers to accessibility. These are issues that need to be discussed.

Other comments made by Mr Young in his letter to the Carpenters' District Council of Ontario and to the minister are that they feel "that allowing an apprentice to go to school when it is convenient for them would be disastrous, as our local advisory committee has had to take a hard line in not allowing apprentices to defer when scheduled for school."

The issue of restricted skill sets: I think that's an important one. As you know, previously all certified skilled trades were compulsory and anyone working in the trade had to be a registered apprentice or a certified skilled worker. Now, of course, the new act says that certain skills or skill sets may be designated as restricted so that some portions of the job need not be performed by apprentices or journeypersons, so it can be done without training, with training in a component of that job. This is something that concerns the Carpenters Local Advisory Committee in Thunder Bay as well. They feel that this would in essence set up a fragmentation of the trades, "allowing a person to become trained in only one or more segments of the trade and not becoming a truly qualified journeyperson." I think that's a very legitimate point that needs to be brought forward. If the public hearings are in Thunder Bay, I hope they have an opportunity to make those points.

There was some concern expressed also about the creation of new apprenticeships. They feel very strongly that while there may be needs for new apprenticeship programs - they're not arguing the possibility - the government should very clearly not be establishing programs that duplicate existing apprenticeship programs or trades. That's something that needs to be listened to very much by the government.

On the issue of wages and ratios, there's a very strong sense that guidelines need to be set out, especially in the construction industry, so that union and non-union contractors bidding for jobs would have to do so under the same terms. That is something as well that makes a great deal of sense.

On the issue of minimum education, they acknowledge that eliminating the education minimum might work for some apprenticeship programs. The particular group in Thunder Bay that wrote to me feels that in the carpentry trade grade 10 is the minimum that should be allowed. But the local advisory committee in Thunder Bay requires an applicant to have grade 12 math, as they have found that apprentices without grade 12 math are, generally speaking, having a hard time when it comes to doing the required schooling.

These are all points that make it very clear that many aspects of this particular piece of legislation need to be at the very least altered, and if they are not altered, it could be quite frankly disastrous, it could have very negative implications. These are points that we've all tried to make very strongly. I'm certainly glad I've had an opportunity to express those on the record on behalf of the carpenters' local advisory committee in Thunder Bay. The other members who will be speaking in our time today may make reference to others.

The issue of tuition fees is one that concerned us a great deal. There's no question that we have seen what has happened in this province as this government and the previous government increased tuition fees to post-secondary students in a dramatic fashion. One cannot help but have a great deal of concern about the tuition fees that are being imposed on the apprentices. Again, is this going to increase accessibility? It sure looks to me like it could be a barrier to accessibility. Those are some of the issues we have.

The whole aspect of the minimum education standards also seems to be very much at odds with what the government should be looking for in terms of the education of the people in this province.

Those are some of the issues I am pleased to have had an opportunity to put on the record. I again express regret that we're in the position where we are debating a time allocation motion. I hope the government will realize this is not what the people of the province want. Those are certainly some of the issues I'm glad to have had an opportunity to put forward. I now happily pass on to my colleague.

1600

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm delighted to participate in this debate. I'm really sad that the government has again thought proper to introduce a cut-off on this debate. It's a very important piece of legislation, but it misses the mark in its content, in its direction. While I was here and I was glad to see the minister address the House for a few minutes, I have to say in all honesty that the government just can't have it both ways. They can't make decisions in the backroom over there and then come back into this House and say, "Look what we are doing."

With all due respect to the Premier and the minister, this piece of legislation will not do anything to lower the 14% to 18% unemployment rate we have among our young people. This piece of legislation is mainly addressed to the 25-, 26-, 27-year-old so-called journeymen or apprentices. This takes the incentive away from some employers to really go out there and attract those young people and give them good training, qualifying them for a good skill and the long-term assurance of a steady position. It is more demeaning than anything else. I can't understand why the government has been picking on all the students. It has been picking on the mature student, adult education; and now, with this piece of legislation, it's picking on the 25-, 26-, 27-year-olds, those very people who need the best of assistance when they are at a time in their lives when they want to or have already set up families, have engaged in perhaps some of the biggest expenses of their lives, purchasing a home, and they don't have the security of good training, a good, skilled job, a job with future possibilities.

The government recognizes that to teach someone a good trade takes between three and five years. This particular piece of legislation does not allow those youngsters this type of training. This piece of legislation does not revitalize the present legislation; it does not encourage, as the minister said, or attract young people to these training schools. There is one wonderful training school in Scarborough. They may have to close because of funding cuts. Can you believe that?

Instead of providing funding, instead of supporting good, established training schools, where students would get proper training and proper attention, this piece of legislation does absolutely nothing, because the government retains no control, no supervision as to what happens in those places of employment where these young people are supposedly being trained. They are left at the mercy of some unscrupulous employers, because they will be providing training up to a certain standard and then will use them as cheap labour.

This bill does nothing but provide cheap labour. I would say it's very demeaning to all those young people who are looking to the government for a hand up, to provide some assistance so they will learn a good trade, a good skill, so they may go ahead and start up a family, buy a home, buy a car and have the security that they will have a good, reliable, permanent job, instead of half qualifications, if you will. This piece of legislation does not provide any legislative teeth. It's all done by regulation.

My time is about ended. I just wanted to mention some of the most salient points in the legislation. I would like to go into further detail. Cut off debate? I encourage the government, let's go to public hearings, let's hear what the public has to say and bring it back to this House. Hopefully, the government will see the light and make the necessary changes and provide regulations with the legislation that will provide some real skills to our young people.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): It's somewhat of a sad moment once again in this House that we're dealing with a time allocation motion. I believe this is about the 15th or 16th time this government has invoked closure. We should reflect on that for a moment. Closure is when a government cuts off the democratic debate that occurs on a particular piece of legislation. As a matter of fact, I'm wrong: It's not the 15th time the government has invoked closure; it is the 29th time this government has invoked closure.

You may recall - and the people of Ontario may be interested in this - that up until about 10 or 15 years ago, closure was almost unknown in the democratic parliamentary system. The way the democratic parliamentary system works is that the people's representatives on both the government side and the opposition side can talk as long as they want about a particular bill in the hope of changing the minds of the other people within this chamber, trying to talk some sense into them. That was the whole idea. The whole idea of the democratic parliamentary system is so that people can talk out their differences and come up with some sort of common understanding as to how things should happen and what kind of laws ought to be passed.

What unfortunately has happened is that it has become more and more customary to cut off debates. This bill has had I believe three days of debate in this House. When we say three days of debate, I'm sure the people of Ontario would think: "My golly, a day is a long time. It's 24 hours. A working day is eight to nine hours a day. Have they really talked about this bill - let's say for three days - for 24 hours?" It should be quickly pointed out to them that when we're talking about a day of debate, we're talking about somewhere between two and three hours of total debate by all parties in this Legislature.

This is a very important bill, and the government has once again invoked closure on it. I dare say that this would have been one of those bills where the government didn't have to invoke closure. It could have approached the two opposition parties after a certain amount of debate and said, "All right, let's send it to committee, let's have some public hearings on this bill," and there would be no need for closure at all.

I find it very ironic that when this Legislature was called back into session on September 28, there were two principal issues that the government wanted to deal with as quickly as possible. Number one, it wanted to deal with the school closure situation, the fact that there were more than 200,000 children in this province who were not going to school, and on that issue all parties agreed. We literally spoke on that bill to send the children back to school and to have the matter settled by arbitration in one day, because all of us felt it was important that the education of our school children should no longer be affected in a negative manner, and so the House agreed by unanimous consent to sit until midnight that night.

I would have thought that on the day following that, two weeks ago on a Tuesday, the next bill that the government would have called would be the second most important reason we came back to this House, and that was to deal with your assessment appeal mess and the taxation mess that you caused out there. Do you know what has happened? We've been back here for two solid weeks. We've had night sittings just about every night in this House since then. By my rough calculation, we have had about 15 different sessions in this Legislature, and not once has the property tax appeal bill, which is so necessary for the people out there who feel they are paying way too much in taxes, been called.

I know the squeeze play that the government is putting on. You may recall that that bill talks about a final appeal date of October 31, and we are now on - what is it? - October 12, so I think we're about two weeks away from October 31.

Mr Ford: It's the 14th. You're two days behind.

Mr Gerretsen: It's October 14. I'm two days behind. All right, I'm wrong. It is October 14 today. If that's the best way that you can correct me in this House, then I'll give you that one.

The point is that the government is putting on the old squeeze play. They're basically saying, "We will call that bill just at the very last moment so people have the right to appeal until October 31, but we will allow as little debate on that bill as possible." That's the game plan. The minister of privatization knows that's the game plan; we all know that's the game plan.

1610

What's the reason for that? Why would the government allow three days of debate on an apprenticeship bill and only one day of debate on the property tax bill? Do you know why? The government knows that it has messed up the property tax situation of this province so badly, it has already had six different bills introduced. The moment one bill gets passed and is given royal assent, it is immediately necessary to bring in another bill to basically fix up the mess that has been created by the last bill.

The government knows that it's going to come under some severe attack from the members of the opposition, and hopefully from some of their backbenchers as well. I am sure there are some government backbench MPPs who must be feeling just as much heat from their constituents, from their small commercial individuals and small businesses whose taxes have gone up anywhere from 300% to 400% to 500% as do members of the opposition.

The government ought to be taken to task. We on this side of the House have been telling them for the last year that when you bring in major amalgamation schemes and you bring in major current-value assessment rearrangements and you bring in the downloading scheme of new services on municipalities - which you keep saying is revenue-neutral and the municipalities keep telling us is not revenue-neutral, that it is costing the municipal taxpayer a lot more money as a result of the downloading - that is all way too much for the taxation system in this province to absorb. Now you've seen the results. The small business individual is getting hurt, not just in my community, but in your community and many communities across the province.

That is why it is necessary for you to bring in Bill 61 in order that these small business individuals and residential property taxpayers may have the right to appeal. So I am asking you, why don't you call that bill? Because I know that the moment you call it back into the House, you'll probably put some time allocation on it. You'll invoke closure once again, as you've done with this bill.

Wouldn't it be nice if all of us came to this House one week and knew exactly what we were going to discuss on the Monday, the Tuesday, the Wednesday and the Thursday? Wouldn't that be great?

If you look at rule 55, minister of privatization, the rules actually allow for that, where the government House leader gets up on Thursday and tells exactly what the business for the next week is going to be. That way the ministers could get ready with their prepared statements, the government backbenchers could get ready with their prepared statements, the opposition critics could even get ready with their usually unprepared statements. We don't have the resources that you have to have all these speeches typed up by ministry staff.

But wouldn't it be nice? We could even publish a schedule in the local newspapers and in the local media and say to people: "If you're interested in property tax appeal legislation, tune in on Tuesday afternoon. If you're interested in the apprenticeship bill being discussed, tune in on Wednesday evening."

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Which is right now, by the way.

Mr Gerretsen: No, it's not right now. You see, the minister responsible for privatization still doesn't get it. We are not discussing Bill 55 today, sir. What we are discussing is your closure motion to basically silence the opposition and silence this House. I am sure there are many government backbenchers who would love to say something about Bill 55, but they too have been silenced.

It's really unfortunate that a member of the executive council, a cabinet minister, still doesn't know we are not really discussing the content of Bill 55 today. We are discussing the fact that you have invoked closure for the 29th time. It started with the very first one, Bill 7. You may recall Bill 7 way back in 1995, which the labour movement in this province was extremely upset about. Who can ever forget Bill 26, on which you invoked closure on December 12, 1995? It just goes on and on and on.

I find it very unfortunate that the people of Ontario and the media of Ontario aren't more interested in this kind of issue, that the silencing of the democratic system is taking place in this House on an ongoing basis with just about every bill.

I can guarantee you that if the government House leader would put a plan into operation and would put it to the other House leaders and say, "Look, this is what I would like to accomplish; let's talk about how many days of discussion we want on this bill and that bill," you could come up with something. But no, you like to play the role of trying to, I don't know, trick the opposition or trying to catch us off guard by not letting anybody know what you're going to call from day to day, and then all of a sudden these closure motions just appear out of nowhere. Closure is not something that ought to be accepted by the people of Ontario.

I know the spin that you've put on Bill 55, that it's such a wonderful bill. Well, I have heard from people, not just people within the labour movement, who do not think it is such a wonderful bill. The whole notion that you would start charging tuition fees in apprenticeship situations, when it's already difficult, according to your own information that you've been spinning here for the last number of days when this bill has been discussed - you've already been spinning this notion that you can't get apprentices into the program under the current law and that's why we take in qualified tradespeople by way of immigration into this province and into this country.

How do you think the situation is going to be helped by charging tuition fees? How do you think it's going to be helped by removing the minimal education standards that are currently called for? How do you think the situation is going to be helped when you allow part-time and self-employed workers to become apprentices? Who is going to supervise them? I'd like the member for Etobicoke-Humber to answer me. Who is going to supervise a self-employed worker as an apprentice?

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: I see. I'm glad that answer is not on the record, because I think you're wrong in that, sir.

Mr Ford: I'm always wrong.

Mr Gerretsen: He's always wrong. At least I will give this to the member for Etobicoke-Humber: I have finally met an honest government backbencher in this House. The government member for Etobicoke-Humber just admitted by his own statement that he is always wrong.

Hon Mr Sampson: I don't think he's going to put your support in his householder.

Mr Gerretsen: You know, it's amazing how much the minister for privatization always has to say by way of interjections at moments like this. He always has these tremendous interjections and yet whenever he's asked a question in the House during question period, he never seems to have the answer. He always has to refer to another real minister - I'm sorry, to another minister.

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: I know, that was almost below the belt but not quite there.

But I would ask the people of Ontario to get involved about the issue of closure because our democratic institutions and principles are at stake here. We should not allow a government with a huge majority - which was only supported by 45% of the people, not by the vast majority of the people in Ontario as you have been spouting over the last three years - to at will bulldoze itself over the opposition. That's the reputation you've got out there, that you're bulldozing over the opposition and you're bulldozing over everybody in a bullying sort of way, whether we're talking about education, whether we're talking about health restructuring. Just think about what happened today, the headline story in not only the Toronto Star but also in the Toronto Sun, that just about every emergency ward in this city was over capacity last night and for a large part of this month.

If you're a government backbencher and you're not upset about that - if there's one issue that everyone in this province can relate to it is good, quality health care and the notion that if you need those emergency kind of treatment services they're out there for you. When I read in the paper and when the people of Ontario read in the paper that 17 out of 19 hospitals couldn't accommodate people under those kind of circumstances, I think it's an absolute tragedy for this province and it's something that we should collectively try to do something about.

1620

Mr Ford: I think so too.

Mr Gerretsen: Absolutely. It is not something that, quite frankly, we should play politics with. Let's call a spade a spade and let us admit the fact that our health care system is under a tremendous amount of stress and what you've been doing to that system isn't going to help the situation at all. The mantra that you've been spinning is, "We're closing hospitals across the province, but we're taking that money and we're putting that money back into community care services," and it is not happening. Now, I don't agree with the closing of hospitals at all, but even if I were to take your theory that somehow that money is being taken out of hospitals and you're putting it into community care centres, even if I were to take that, you're not doing that.

In my own community everybody thought that once the government decided to close the Hotel Dieu Hospital - which was objected to, by the way, by over 65,000 people who signed petitions about that. It's an institution that has been around for 153 years, that has given good, quality care to the people not only of the Kingston area but throughout southeastern Ontario, and basically the sisters have been told to take a hike. "You're no longer needed in the health care system." At least some people thought, "With the closing of that hospital, the government is going to live up to its word and put that money into the community access centres." You know what's happened? Some 2,000 patients who are currently receiving those services there can no longer be accommodated. Why? Because of lack of money.

Your house of cards is falling down. Whatever you said before about "We're going to take money out of the hospital system and put it over there for community and home care" just isn't working out. I think you ought to be ashamed of that, in the same way that you ought to be ashamed of bringing in a closure motion again, for the 29th time.

I'm sure that our House leader, the member for St Catharines, will have something to add to this.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I thank the previous two members for illuminating the House on many of the issues surrounding this time allocation motion. For the public who watch this program assiduously each day, a time allocation motion, of course, is a motion which closes off debate, which chokes off debate.

Here we are in a relatively light legislative session, where the government has the House sitting both in the afternoon and the evening, and of course committees are sitting throughout the day as well in the morning and the afternoon and sometimes the evening, where members have a multiplicity of duties to undertake at various times during the day and the House is sitting on all these occasions. Yet we see still another closure motion closing off debate. What is particularly perturbing about that is the government has already changed the rules of the Legislature to make it easy to bulldoze any legislation, any motion, any bills it sees fit through this Legislature.

It's interesting, although we're not supposed to talk about what goes on within our caucus meetings, this morning somebody asked me the question, "Why don't you negotiate with the government for" - and I can't of course talk about what it was about. But I said: "There are no chips to play. There is no negotiating that can be done. The government has declawed the opposition completely."

When you go to a House leaders' meeting - I just came from a House leaders' meeting - the government essentially says what it's going to do and the opposition has no say. That's not the way it has always been in this House. There has been an opportunity, or at least an effort, to reach a consensus among the three House leaders and the three whips who meet together at those meetings, in times gone by. What it resulted in was perhaps some additional time for debate on a piece of legislation or perhaps a concession in terms of committee hearings.

They might want to go to Ingersoll, for instance, and we might insist, having received a letter from one of the government members, that we go to Ingersoll or Monkton, Ontario, Stratford even - I never mention the one that the Speaker likes me to, but I will some day - one of these municipalities where there might be hearings. We used to be able to get that concession out of the government. Today, under present circumstances, the opposition has no opportunity to try to influence legislation.

In the debate over the changing of the procedural rules of this House, I remember quoting the present House leader, Norm Sterling. I'm not even going to try to paraphrase what he said; I'm going to try to capture the essence of what he said and I know he wouldn't disagree with me. I wouldn't misquote him on this issue.

He essentially said that it is absolutely necessary for the opposition to be able in certain circumstances, in certain conditions, to bring the government to a halt, to force the government to make certain changes. Not forever, because a government is elected and it is allowed to govern. I accept that fact. I may not like it but I accept the fact that that is the case when a government wins a majority. That's how we play under the present rules. People will say, "If only we had proportional representation, these people wouldn't be in power," and so on. But we're not under that system. We work under a system where we were elected all going under the same rules.

I accept the fact that a government can pass its legislation. My objection is to the fact that this government has, as they would like to say, streamlined the rules of this House - I would say rigged the rules of this House - in such a way that the government has an easy time getting legislation through.

As I warned members on the government side, if another party, let's say the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party, were to win the next election and were to form a government, I can tell you it would be difficult, though there are some of us who would fight hard for this, to change the rules back to make this House more democratic. It's very hard to persuade a subsequent government to change the rules back when they've been the victim of those rules and when they see how expeditiously government business can be carried out.

In business it is necessary to be expeditious. I accept that. I don't expect that businesses are going to have a democratic system of the kind we have in this House. They shouldn't have, necessarily. I think they try to be as democratic as possible, but they're running a business and that's a different thing, and I appreciate that. However, there are some people who say, "We should apply the same procedures in business in this House." Just as I think it would be inappropriate to use the rules of this House to run a business, I think it is inappropriate to run the rules of this House using business tactics, because it's essential that you have all points of view heard and that there actually be some listening taking place.

I think one of the greatest losses we've had during the years of the Conservative government of Mike Harris - take away the other legislation; we can agree or disagree on that - has been the diminishing of the role of the elected Legislature and the - perhaps "assault" is too strong a word, but certainly I'll use that word for now - assault on democracy and the democratic system which I see having taken place.

I have a concern about some aspects of this bill. We're talking about the time allocation motion as opposed to the bill now, though I know that the Speaker is quite flexible on that and some of them have done that.

The other thing that has happened is that this government with ease now uses closure motions. There was a time when the news media would have been interviewing the government House leader and the Premier and the opposition House leaders about the use of closure. It was considered to be a unique circumstance. It was something that was certainly uncommon and something that was viewed as a disgrace by many in the news media. You people get away with it easily today. It gets easier and easier to - I'm using the wrong terminology if I say "commit a crime," but if you said, for instance, that when people commit crimes it gets easier and easier, well, it's easier and easier for the government to use this kind of procedure in the House to limit and close off debate.

Mr Ford: Talk about Ottawa, Jim.

Mr Bradley: The member for Etobicoke-Humber should run for the federal House. All he says when he interjects constantly is, "Look at Ottawa." I think if for some reason he's not successful in getting the nomination in Etobicoke Centre, and my friend Doug assures me he's got a lot of people signed up, that he should consider running in Ottawa, because all he talks about is Ottawa. I think that's quite legitimate.

But I was elected to the provincial House so I deal with provincial issues. I may have a view of procedures within the House of Commons, but I was elected to this House and that's what I'll have to speak about. Despite the suggestion of my friend Doug Ford that I deviate from that, I'm going to talk about this House.

1630

The public should be concerned about the continuing diminishing of the power of elected bodies. You see, we are the only people the public can get at. They can't get at the civil service and they can't get at the advisers to the Premier, the 20-something and early-30-something whiz kids who really control this government. They can't get at them but they can get at us. That's fair ball, that's fair enough that they can get at us and express their views and hope that somehow we, as elected people, can influence what happens in this Legislature.

Every time the government brings in a motion of this kind it restricts debate on a piece of legislation. There may be merit to parts of this legislation - in fact, there is. There's some merit to this bill and there are some things with which we would disagree pretty substantially. My objection is to the fact that this government has decided it has had enough, doesn't want to deal with this legislation any more; it simply wants to rush it through the Legislative Assembly. I guess if they wanted to, they would have no hearings. The two opposition parties requested at the House leaders' meeting that there be hearings to be held across the province so those who have views on this subject may express them. There are some in favour and some against.

I should express a concern that the news media - that is, the people at the top echelons - are not more interested in the democratic procedures within a Legislature. They consider those issues to be boring. You know what happens? If a reporter or a columnist here at Queen's Park tries to talk about procedural rules, I can tell you the editors at the top, whether it's the electronic media or the print media, simply say, "Get lost." Doug's quite right. He said they say: "Get lost. We don't want to hear about it." And yet I consider one of the most important legislative changes made by this government - and it has made many legislative changes - was the motion changing the procedural rules of this House, greasing the skids for legislation, allowing the government to move very rapidly, very drastically and without looking at the consequences of its actions.

I put this attack on democracy, which I consider these motions to be, in tandem with the bill the government passed some time ago allowing political parties to spend far more money in election campaigns and to collect far more money from political action groups, from corporations, from any sources possible, and deregulating or allowing the sky to be the limit on certain undertakings by political parties and candidates. I think that works against democracy.

The Americans have seen a system which has caused them a lot of problems. There were even allegations of inappropriate fundraising taking place within the White House itself, and both major political parties in the US have engaged in fundraising that is absolutely appalling. People running for the House of Representatives in the US spend almost all their time fundraising and they become beholden to groups and individuals who make large donations to political parties. I become very concerned about that. I don't think it's healthy for a system to be controlled by money.

If the governing party in this Legislature goes out to an election campaign and convinces the people, without having this unfair advantage, that their policies are correct, then I have to accept that result. When the people in a democracy speak they are always right, because that's what the essence of democracy is. But what is happening is that the government, through its legislation, is weighting the game out there, if you wish, the political game, so much in favour of the governing party or in this case in favour of a party which clearly caters to the large business interests and the powerful interests in this province.

They have the money. They can contribute to political parties. The people who are on welfare, the people who are in the lower echelon of our society, who may be scraping to make it through - the working poor, as they're sometimes defined, and so on - don't have the money to contribute to political parties. Huge corporations do, and they contribute to the parties, and powerful interests do. What I worry about is that if we allow by law more and more money to be contributed to candidates and to parties, then money has more of an influence in the system.

I've been reading a bit about the American election campaign that some of us will watch with some interest - particularly when you're in a border area you tend to see some of the stations coming across from the US - where essentially an election campaign is boiling down to who has the money to put on these catchy television commercials: whether it's negative or positive advertising, who has the money to do it.

Mr Ford: It's a lot more complicated than that.

Mr Bradley: I suggest to the member, I wish it were. The member for Etobicoke-Humber said, "It's a lot more complicated than that."

I think what happens is that those of us who are acutely interested in the political system tend to read a lot about it and perhaps tend to watch television programs and listen to radio programs more extensively than the public who don't have the time or the same acute interest, so the bombarding of the airwaves with catchy commercials tends to have an undue influence on the outcome of elections. I can tell you that some of the ones south of the border are extremely negative at this time, but they are effective, so they raise a lot of money and spend a lot of money.

I prefer an election campaign to be won at the doorstep, where we go to the doorsteps, we go to public meetings, we put out a lot of print material that people can judge and say, "I agree with this party," or that party, or, "I like this candidate," or that candidate. That's fair, that's objective, and that is not happening. It's part of what I see happening with this kind of motion this afternoon.

If we look at campaigns and the pre-campaign area, I think governments of all stripes in all places should be severely restricted on the kind of government advertising they can do. I'm seeing at the present time - others may see other governments elsewhere who may do the same thing, and that's fine - a government spending millions of dollars on self-serving, partisan, congratulatory advertising. Those ads about education that people are seeing on television are paid for not by the Conservative Party; they're paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario. Now I see the Minister of the Environment is going to try to trumpet some new program he has out there without the program even being in effect.

I think there should be a body, whether it's the Provincial Auditor or an ombudsman of some kind, which should be able to pronounce on what is political propaganda and what isn't. For example, it's quite legitimate for a government to put an advertisement in a newspaper saying that there will be public hearings on Bill 61 or 62 or whatever, and, "If you want to comment, following is the way you can do so." Quite legitimate.

Or they may say there's a public meeting. I saw this on the changes to the Family Support Plan Act. They were having a public meeting at which people could have access to officials, I think of the Ministry of the Attorney General. It's quite legitimate to have that advertised and say, "If you want it explained, come on out."

But nobody can convince me or any objective person that the barrage of political propaganda - I saw one in the paper again today. The Premier has his mug in the paper and he's congratulating some company on creating jobs. I'm happy whenever there's a job created in this province. I don't think it's necessary for the Premier to have his face in an ad paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario. I think, regardless of what party is in power, that we in this Legislature should ensure, as individual members, that governments can't get away with that. Number one, it's a squandering of taxpayers' dollars, and I am sure the taxpayers' coalition and the National Citizens' Coalition are about to launch an attack on this. I haven't heard it yet, but I'm sure that's going to happen, because I know they're fair and objective people who wouldn't just see indiscretions and expenditures by NDP or Liberal governments; I'm sure they would look at all governments. So I'm expecting any day now to see the launching of an attack on that.

I think that is an abuse of public office. It gives the government an undue advantage. It squanders taxpayers' dollars unnecessarily. It's an unnecessary expenditure, and it's an attack again on the democratic process.

I also worry - I know the government members would be worried if I didn't mention this - about the concentration of ownership of newspapers in this country.

1640

One person, Conrad Black, a constituent, I am told, in York Mills - I think it's York Mills or Don Mills; the government whip told me it's his constituent - has control over, at my last count, 58 out of 104 newspapers. It may have varied a bit in this province. He owns those newspapers because he owns Hollinger, and Hollinger controls Southam. He has already said he is dissatisfied with what he called either middle-of-the-road or leftist pap that he used to see in newspapers. So Conrad Black, who has always had - I know, Doug, you'd be disappointed if I didn't mention Conrad - a very right-wing point of view, an ultra-conservative point of view, of how issues should be handled, now controls all of these newspapers.

Whether it's Conrad Black or somebody else, I am concerned when one person controls all of these newspapers, because you can start to see his philosophy permeate the newspapers. I don't think he phones the newspaper up and says to the publisher or to the editorial page editor, "You must do this or that," but it's known that that's what he wants. In an effort to try to please Conrad Black or Mr Radler, who is the henchman for him who works out of Chicago, they start to do what they think Conrad Black would like. So we start seeing newspapers which have less investigative reporting, which do not want to annoy anybody who is an advertiser, which see the shareholders as being the most important.

If you're looking at it from a straight business sense, one can understand that, but I think people who are in the media have a greater obligation to the public good and that indeed we should see some of the vibrant newspapers that we've seen in the past. I think it's very unhealthy when one person controls it.

I look at the Ottawa Citizen, for example, which I guess is the prime paper before the National gets launched, and who they hired for their editorial writers. They were the same people who sit back there behind the government, advising the government, the 20-something and early-30s-something whiz kids who have all the answers. They get them from the Fraser Institute, they get them from the research department of Mike Harris or the research department of the federal Reform Party, which is probably the same research department, and they end up writing editorials.

Does anybody expect that those editorials are going to be even-handed and fair to all points of view? They're not going to be, because those people have a very narrow point of view of this world. I've seen them on television, when they put them on television. When they want the right-wing view, they bring in one of these people. They've been schooled in the Fraser Institute, and there they are, large as life, making pronouncements.

At least I can accept my friend Doug Ford, the member for Etobicoke-Humber, who sits across there - he's a man of some considerable experience. He's obviously not 20 something or early-30s something. When he has formed his views, with his experience and so on, I may disagree with him, and I do very often, but at least I can see that he has lived his life, he has had a lot of experience out there and his views have been formulated through his own life experience.

When you bring in the YPCs, who have all the answers, and put them in charge of the government or put them in charge of the editorial boards of newspapers, you're hardly going to get a point of view which is even-handed and based on experience; rather, it's going to be straight right-wing ideology. I think that's unhealthy. I would think it's unhealthy if it were left-wing ideology. I very much distrust the ideological who see things only through the ideological eyeglasses.

I worry about that ownership of newspapers, and I've said that on a number of occasions and will continue to say that in this House.

To go back to the procedural rule changes, first of all, I should say I'm going to go back a step. With all the rule changes that have been made, it should be unnecessary for the government to bring in more closure motions, because they've got control of the whole process. Yet, as the member for Kingston and The Islands said, they brought in 29 closure motions. Now, what the rule changes do is, first, restrict debate. Debate on any bill is now restricted naturally by the amount of time that's allocated for debate on any piece of legislation. Second, they now get a two-for-one deal. In the British parliamentary system, it used to be thought that for every day scheduled for debate, that you could count as a day of debate on a piece of legislation, you had a corresponding question period. We don't have that. We have two days of debate counted for one question period.

That's unhealthy. The question period is when the government is most accountable. I can tell you, ministers hate question period. I was a minister. You don't like question period as a minister. The opposition loves question period. But it's important that government be accountable, not only here but outside in what we call the media scrum.

They changed the order of procedures so that what the government wants happens first, and if the opposition attempts to delay anything, to perhaps gain some minor concession from the government, what is lost is question period as a result of the rules changes.

As I mentioned, they have taken away the bargaining chips. There is a trend in all government that I see - I hope it will be reversed, but in all government - of taking the power from elected people and giving it to this cadre of unelected advisers to government. I see it in various provinces, I see it certainly here in Ontario. I sit in this Legislature. It probably happens in lots of places, but because I'm elected to this Legislature, I deal with it here.

I resent the fact that, whether it's a government member or an opposition member, all of us are subordinate to the political advisers to the Premier in the province, whether it's Tom Long who happens to be a guru in the Conservative Party, or Guy Giorno, who is the chief whiz kid on the government side, and there is a John Toogood who is in the government area. There are a number of people who have influence. I kid the Minister of Transportation that he had more power when he was a whiz kid advising a political party than he has as an elected member and perhaps even as a member of the cabinet.

I think that by passing this resolution this afternoon, allowing for closure of debate on another piece of legislation, you've put another nail in the coffin of democracy in this province. That's not overstating the fact. The problem is, it's hard to reverse once it's in effect because future governments kind of like the efficiency that the last government gave them in terms of rules changes.

I hope the government members take this back to the caucus, that they challenge the Premier, and particularly that those who know they're not heading to the cabinet will challenge the Premier on this, and I hope we won't see another one of these closure motions in the days to come.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): This is an opportunity for me to put a few words on the record concerning the closure motion that is being brought in on Bill 55. I don't understand, and our caucus doesn't understand, at this point in time why the government has to bring in closure. As a previous speaker said, this is 29 or 30 times now that closure has been used in this Legislature to cut off debate, to try to muzzle the opposition parties on various bills that come before the Legislature. This is a habit that has been followed over the last number of years.

I guess it's because, when we do start debating Bill 55 and get into some of the details of it, we find out that the Ontario Federation of Labour groups are unhappy with what's in Bill 55. Some of the construction companies are unhappy with what's in Bill 55 because it's actually going to lower the standards, lower the wages and it's going to mean less funding and higher fees.

This is what this government has been attempting to do since it lowered the income tax rates for the wealthiest people in this province. They've given people in this province who don't need the money a tax break of up to 30% and, in turn, they're going to charge fees and tuition to students from age 16 up. Of course, we had fees and some charges that were involved with apprentices before, but now they're going to be able to increase them whenever they feel like it. It will be the first time ever that apprentices are having to pay tuition fees. The ratio between journeymen to apprentices is now in the law and they're going to put that in the regulations and in the guidelines for employers. The two-year minimum for contracts has been dropped.

1650

A lot of changes have taken place, not only in this particular bill but in a lot of other bills that have been brought before this House. As I said earlier, when we should be getting into a full debate on Bill 55 and looking for two or three weeks or a month of public hearings right across the province - I'm sure that people in northern Ontario would love to be able to bring forward presentations on Bill 55, An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act. But actually, in the present form, until we see all the regulations - and we've asked for the regulations. We've asked that the regulations be brought forward before this bill is put out for public hearings so that we'll know what's in the regulations and what changes are going to be covered in there. They haven't been brought forward.

We put a lot of blame on this government for cuts and changes that have taken place, but during the time that the Liberals in Ottawa changed the Unemployment Insurance Act there was $40 million per year on an annual basis that was removed from apprenticeship programs throughout Ontario, even at a time when we have, from what I understand, about 26,000 employers in Ontario and about 48,000 apprentices involved in the training programs. Most of these are in unionized workplaces, where I came from in my background. I went through a four-year apprenticeship program to become a millwright.

My fear is that some of the people who have been on shift work for a number of years and who want to be able to transfer into a day job or a journeyman's job as a tradesman are going to be left out in the cold with Bill 55, unless we see some of the regulations and find out what the wages are going to be.

Before Bill 55 came forward, apprentices started out at a percentage of the tradesman's rates, and as they proceeded through one, two, three and four years of apprenticeship on-the-job training, they got up to the tradesman's rates, which in a lot of cases in the pulp mills, paper mills, sawmills throughout northern Ontario are pretty good wages. I was pleased that during the 30 years I worked in the paper mill it provided enough income to support my family.

The mill is still going strong, even though it had been through rough times during 1989-90. In 1991, with the NDP government at the time, we managed to put an employee ownership together and worked with the unions and the membership and our government, and with Tembec. Spruce Falls now is thriving and it's the backbone of the town of Kapuskasing.

Throughout a lot of the other areas, it's not only jobs in industry, it's jobs in construction. Tradesmen are needed and we know that it's better to find them and train them within Ontario than to go outside the province.

One of the concerns that has been brought to my attention is, are we following a failed pattern? Alberta and some of the southern states brought in changes to the apprenticeship program like Mike Harris is bringing in here now. They've been a failure, and now they're looking at going back to some of the old rules and regulations that were in place before they made the changes, to try to make it better.

Public hearings are one of the ways of strengthening the bill without leaving it dangling out there, where nobody's happy with it. If the apprenticeship program in Bill 55 is going to mean it's a threat to public health and safety, consumer protection and the environment, there have to be some amendments brought forward. I'm sure we're going to hear that, now that the government has been pressured enough by our party and by the other party to agree to public hearings before it's brought back into the Legislature on November 26 for third reading.

There are a lot of other issues that this Legislature should be dealing with. We should be dealing with the threat of over 600 schools across Ontario, 100 in Toronto and another 500 spread around the province, that Mike Harris is going to force to close because of changing the formula for education. The school boards are not going to be able to keep these schools open. The Minister of Education should be trying to find ways and means of making sure that the funding formula is fair. No government has ever before set a deadline of December 31 to make announcements and decisions on closing schools.

No government has ever before announced or threatened or started closing down 35 to 40 hospitals right across the province and cut the operating budgets of all the other hospitals. I know that in all my hospitals - and I have a number of them: Moosonee, Cochrane, Smooth Rock Falls, Kapuskasing and Hearst - all the operating budgets have been drastically reduced, and at the same time this government is doing nothing to find the doctors that are needed to make sure we have healthy people and that people who do get sick in the north will be treated and looked after in the north.

It's a sad situation when we look right across the province and see the high unemployment. This government came to office in 1995 saying, "We're going to create 725,000 new jobs," and now we find out that we lost more jobs in the months of August and September than were created. Youth unemployment is well over 15%. I don't believe that standing in this House and debating closure or time allocation on Bill 55 is going to do anything to create the new jobs needed right across this province just to compensate for some of the people graduating from high schools, colleges and universities, let alone the jobs we've lost over the last three years of this government. As I said, I don't think the answer to full employment in Ontario is Bill 55 or the time allocation that is on Bill 55.

I look at some of the ways this Conservative Tory government is trying to raise money. When they promised the 30% tax cut - and a lot of people I've talked to have said: "Where is it? I haven't seen it." You hear them advertising it on the radio and TV, "Check your paycheque; you must have got a cut in your income tax," but people are saying they haven't seen it. Yet they're saying it's out there.

To compensate for that, now we see that the students are being charged additional taxes. They're trying to raise over $800,000 from people who apply for OSAP. Every time you make a written application for OSAP, Mike Harris and the Minister of Education are saying, "We want $10 for our general revenues." If you phone or ask any questions on it, they're saying they want to charge $2 for that. So in total they're trying to collect about $800,000 in taxes from the students, and it's going into the general revenues in Ontario.

1700

There are a lot of other issues and bills that we should be dealing with. One of the concerns is that a promise was made by the Conservative government that they were going to bring in and debate Bill 161 to make sure that people had enough time to appeal their property tax assessments, since the Minister of Finance and the Premier changed all the assessment rules out there and brought everything up to current value assessment. It made it almost impossible for the municipalities to get their tax bills out on time and to go through the appeal process. That bill is sitting on the back burner. The government talks about it. In question period they say, "We wanted to get that through in one day," yet they haven't brought it back into the Legislature to be debated.

Here we are now, dealing with time allocation on Bill 55. I agree with some of the previous speakers. With the rule changes that have been made in this Legislature, at 6 o'clock at night we can adjourn the Legislature and at 6:30 we can have another day of debate, from 6:30 to 9:30. With these rule changes that have been made, there should be no reason why this government is so incompetent that they can't get their legislation through without having to use these types of tactics. For those listening out there, this time allocation motion that we're dealing with here today - they've used that 29 times in the last number of months.

When the Minister of Education started out debate on this time allocation motion, he set aside one day for organizing of the committee and four days for public hearings, but I don't believe that is enough on a bill that could drastically change the way the apprenticeship programs operate in Ontario. Think about it: What are the wages going to be? What tuition fees are going to be charged? What number of apprentices are going to be working with the tradesmen to learn the skills? Those are all rules and regulations that are being changed in this bill. We should see the regulations.

That's one of the requests I make here this afternoon to the government members: Bring forward the regulations so we can see what the intention is of this government. Is it that all apprentices will start off at minimum wage, they'll have tuition fees to pay and there are going to be other user fees that the government can change or increase at any time they feel like it?

It's just to compensate for the money they're giving back in a tax break and the damage they've done to health care, education and communities. Some communities right now, especially in the north, are saying, "They've dumped the highways on to us, the Trans-Canada Highway that's going through the north, they've dumped the land ambulances on to the taxpayers," all the dumping that is taking place. Right now we're at the point of, where do we get the dollars? Do we fill a pothole in the road or do we close the library or do we close the arena? Because the money is not there.

All the government grants to northern Ontario have been cut off - well, they will be completely cut off within another year and a half. Right after the next provincial election there will be no more grants for northern Ontario. They need some assistance from general revenues, because first of all we have extreme winters in the north, we have long distances between communities and there are added costs in northern Ontario that some places in central or rural southern Ontario don't have. It's impossible to raise the property taxes enough to compensate for the lifestyle that people would like to continue to lead. It's all as a result of dumping and downloading all the services that should be paid out of general revenues.

At the same time, money that could have been spent on health care and education is being given away in a phony tax scheme, a sham. Our party is saying, why do that? Why not make a cut-off point at $80,000? The people who are making $80,000 and more shouldn't get that tax break, and there would be money out there to have a good health care system and education system and make sure that the communities stay healthy. But that is not the case.

Even today during question period the Minister of Health was unable to explain why she was caught off guard when all the hospital emergency wards had to close over the long weekend. They were swamped with ill people turning up at the emergencies and they just had to close their doors. There were only one or two emergency wards open, and the ambulance drivers were being used as something like taxi drivers, driving around trying to find out if they could find an emergency ward that was open to treat the ill people. That's a sad situation in Ontario, when we have the wealth and we have the dollars and it's just being squandered by the Conservative government. The Liberals in Ottawa are not helping by cutting off $40 million annually to the revenue program.

Hon Mr Sampson: Who did that?

Mr Len Wood: It's the Liberals in Ottawa. Now we see Paul Martin on the news today saying he has a surplus. Why doesn't some of that surplus come back into the province of Ontario to help out with health care, education and communities?

When we were in government Brian Mulroney started doing that to us, back in the early 1990s. Now Chrétien is continuing on the same trail and Mike Harris is doing that in the province of Ontario. You can't blame everything on the province of Ontario when you find out what the Liberals are doing in Ottawa, but that's the time for another election.

I know there are a number of other people from my caucus who would like to speak. I put some of the concerns I have on the record. As a former apprentice, going through the millwright trade and becoming a tradesman, and then getting elected to this Legislature, I know the changes that are being made with Bill 55, if there are not amendments brought forward, are not going to be good for the employers, the employees or the people in the province of Ontario.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to pick up where my colleague from Cochrane North just left off and express, as he has done, the dismay we have in seeing the government once again resort to a time allocation motion to deal with a significant piece of legislation, but, interestingly enough, one on which there has been reasonably good debate so far and I think one which certainly we in the New Democratic Party have been saying to the government is a major piece of legislation that requires full discussion, not just in this House but in committee, and requires hearings not just here in Toronto but throughout the province.

On that score I'm happy that the government is actually responding. I think they're moving a little bit too fast on this in terms of what needs to be done. I'm concerned that with the bill going to committee, as I gather it will do certainly as a result of this time allocation motion, and with the opportunity the committee will have to look at this bill, not just through its regular sittings while the House is sitting but with the addition of this week of break that will take place - and I use that term loosely, because it's a break in terms of the House not sitting but a week in which the committees at least will be sitting to deal with this bill and potentially other pieces of legislation.

I'm glad that opportunity is there. I have concerns about how quickly the government wants to get this bill back. I think November 26 is the time line they're setting for final committee consideration of clause-by-clause. That's the general government committee to which this bill will be referred, assuming that this motion this afternoon passes.

1710

The problem I see with that, as I said, even though I'm happy about the fact that it's going to committee and that there will be an opportunity for people from the Ontario Federation of Labour, people from the various construction trades and others who are interested in this bill and who have very particular and strong views on this to come forward and to again admonish the government for what it's trying to do here, as well as perhaps give them the occasional kudo for the pieces they maybe have gotten right - as happy as I am that there will be an opportunity for this bill to be addressed in committee, I am concerned whether we can deal with the issues that have to be addressed quite frankly in the time between now and November 26.

One of the things that worries me particularly about this bill is that there actually is not a lot in the bill. There are some pretty fundamental pieces that are significant, some of which are quite disturbing. My colleague from Cochrane North mentioned a few, and I want to touch on a couple of those. But one of the things that I think he also mentioned and that we have noted - certainly our critic, Mr Lessard, our colleague from Windsor-Riverside, made this comment repeatedly in his comments on second reading of this bill in this House - is that it's a very skimpy bill in terms of what's in the legislation.

It will eventually replace, when this is passed, the existing laws and regulations which are now found largely under the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act by repealing that legislation. It sets up a whole new scheme of apprenticeship in the province, but a lot of those details will not be in legislation. A lot of those significant pieces will be set out in regulation.

One of the concerns that we have, and certainly one of the concerns that people from the Ontario Federation of Labour and others have raised, is knowing what is going to be in those regulations. We find this more and more the case with the way in which this government chooses to act. They will bring forward a piece of legislation which has some of the skeletal pieces of whatever the area of reform is that they want to engage in, and then they leave a lot of the very important pieces to be sorted out in regulation.

People out there may say: "What's the big deal? What's the difference? At the end of the day, it's all the law, whether it's in the legislation or in the regulations." The basic problem and the basic difference, Speaker, as you well know, is that we don't get an opportunity here in this House to actually discuss and debate, nor do we get the opportunity to do that in committee, the regulations that come under any piece of legislation. There may be the occasional attempt or possibility of doing that through things like the estimates committee etc, but it's very limited.

When we come to a situation like this where we have a major revamping of the apprenticeship program in this province and we have a government that is intent on, in effect, putting a lot of the very important details - I say "details," but they're not really details, because with details one could understand that you can't put all of those pieces necessarily in the legislation. But a lot of the important rules that will govern the conditions under which the apprenticeship system will work and under which apprentices will be asked to function will not be in the legislation, and that is a concern. That does not make for good public accountability, because the regulations can simply be passed by cabinet behind closed doors. There's lots of what the government calls consultation, there's lot of sitting down and listening to what some groups like the Ontario Federation of Labour and other groups may have, but at the end of the day there is no public accountability in the same way that there is to a limited extent in terms of legislation going forward.

I know our colleague Mr Lessard will be doing this as we get into committee, so I again say to the government, and particularly in this case to the Minister of Education, who is responsible for this piece of legislation, and to his parliamentary assistant: We want to see those regulations. We want to know what you're intending to put into those regulations. We would like to see those important pieces of this new system out in front of the public. We want to see what the government intends to do so that people can react to that as well, because that's going to be as significant as, perhaps more significant than, what actually will be in the legislation.

Having said that, let me just reiterate how unfortunate I think it is that the government has chosen once again to resort to a time allocation motion to deal with this bill. This is one where there was I think reasonable debate going on in the House. I certainly assume that if that had been allowed to carry on, there would have been some sort of agreement around when to get this bill out to committee. But once again the government has chosen to set the tone, set the rules, set the pace, decide that three days of debate on second reading was in their view sufficient for this bill and that now they wanted to bring in the time allocation or closure motion that ends debate on this and that dictates the timelines the bill will follow as it goes from here to committee and then back, as I said, by around the end of November, to become law before Christmas.

I think we are going to again see a situation in which the government will miss important pieces both because of errors and, quite frankly, because of its intentions. This is where we get again into what the government is doing here, because as Mr Wood has just reiterated and certainly Mr Lessard, our critic, has put on the record, we and groups like the Ontario Federation of Labour have some very significant concerns with what we are seeing come forward in this piece of legislation. We see this as a very significant step by the government to, in effect, deregulate the apprenticeship system.

I think we could all readily agree that we need a very good apprenticeship system in this province. I think we could all also agree that there are some good things that are happening through our apprenticeship program but that there are some significant improvements that need to be made.

I can recall, going back to at least about 1981 or 1982, when as a member of the Toronto school board at the time we actually spent quite a bit of time looking at the needs in a number of areas of trades and other areas in terms of the apprenticeship system. We actually sent forward a proposal to the then Tory Minister of Education, Bette Stephenson, who was responsible for this area at the time, proposing that the government take some stronger action, put forward some monies, some funds, but also come up with some revamping of the rules that would put a greater responsibility on to the companies that reap the benefits of the education and training that we provide in our system to actually come up with some funding as a way to complement the public funding that goes in. It was not even an idea that we came up with on our own. In fact, we copied the idea, if I can use that phrase, from the experience that has been going on in a number of countries.

The notable example that we looked at was the situation in West Germany, as it was then, and Germany as it is now, where there has been for some time, and I believe still exists today - I haven't had a chance to update myself on this in terms of whether that system is essentially the same, but I don't think it has changed very significantly. In effect, there is an obligation in law for public and private companies to actually contribute in two ways that they can choose. One is by taking on a certain number of apprentices in the various functions that they perform, because it's a whole range; it's not just the construction area but it's in a whole range of areas. If companies choose not to do that, then they are asked to contribute a certain amount - I think it's determined by the size of the company and various factors like that - into a national fund that then gets redistributed to help support the apprenticeship program, to help pay for the apprenticeship system and the apprenticeship program.

That is based very much on the belief that it makes sense to invest in our young people in providing them, obviously, a good classroom education, as we want and need to do, but also in providing them, where the interest exists, in addition to the classroom experience, with a real series of on-the-job experiences which then works into an apprenticeship program and which can result in people coming out of that system very well qualified after a reasonable period of time to be able to carry on that particular trade.

That is something that certainly I believe needs to happen here in this province. That proposal was turned down at the time by the then Minister of Education, Bette Stephenson. What we are seeing and have seen since then have been some improvements in the system, but what we see now, as I understand it, is a setback to the system that at least we've had the ability to build up over a period of time.

1720

That is because of a number of the changes that are in this legislation. One of the things in here - my colleague Mr Lessard touched upon this in his comments earlier on last week when this bill was in front of the House on second reading - is that we are going to see a system that is deregulated, that reduces some of the standards that are there.

We have a concern, for example, around the issue of at what point young people should get into apprenticeship programs. We were concerned earlier that the government seemed intent in their discussion paper to actually eliminate both the existing age of 16 years as well as the grade 10 as a minimum to be able to get into an apprenticeship program. The bill as we have it in front of us seems to have put back in the age of 16 as a basic requirement, but it says nothing about the educational requirement; that is, it doesn't say that a student has to have completed grade 10 before they can enter an apprenticeship program. I have to tell you, as a former Minister of Education and as a former school trustee, that's something that concerns me.

I think I understand the argument that some people might make, which is: "What if students have not completed grade 10? They still ought to be given the opportunity to come into a particular apprenticeship program, because then they can learn a trade." But I don't believe it takes away at all from that valid goal and objective to say that our young people need to be supported in achieving at least that basic grade 10 requirement, because I think what's going to happen when young people don't do that is a whole set of other skills that they should build as a result of that grade 10 credit requirement or grade 10 level are also not there, and they may not be there even as they finish the apprenticeship program. My concern is that then they might find, further down the road, when they're young adults or older adults, that there are some things they have missed, there are some things they need, whether it's language proficiency or literacy levels etc. I think it behooves us not to encourage a situation in which we say it isn't necessary for someone to have at least a grade 10 education.

I'm prepared to listen to the other side of this and quite frankly even prepared to say maybe there needs to be some flexibility in that, but at some point, before we say to someone, "You're an apprenticeship, you've done the apprenticeship program and you now can go up to the next level," there has got to be some understanding that grade 10 is at least the basic requirement. I worry if we are beginning down a road that dilutes that to the point where what we are doing is condoning or encouraging a situation in which young people leave the formal school system without even that basic requirement.

I recall back to the days when I was on the school board and many a student who was leaving without their grade 10 education under the leaving-school-early programs that existed then and still exist today. It was heart-wrenching to see these young people leave school for a whole variety of reasons and often go into a variety of not particularly intriguing or challenging jobs and then find themselves, a year or two later, regretting that they had done that.

I just don't want to see us, through the apprenticeship program, encouraging that kind of situation to happen. I hope this is one of the areas that gets looked at, because I think it is one where, while we all agree that we want to open up the doors as much as we can to allow and encourage our young people to at least experience, and if they are particularly interested, to continue and become seriously involved through the apprenticeship program in learning a trade, that is also something that should never be looked at as a replacement for the formal - maybe "formal" is not even the right word - the more academic skills that our young people also need to learn. Somewhere there's got to be room for both of those things to be done.

As I say, I know that is an issue that's going to be addressed. I do think that is for me one of the major issues that is here, but there are others, and I just want to touch on a couple of them.

One of the things that we are concerned with, and this is an issue that's been raised by the Ontario Federation of Labour and others, is that this bill will allow for the payment of lower wages than exist now through apprenticeships. I think that's something that we start off by saying we don't agree with what the government is doing here and that's something that needs to be looked at.

The other equally important issue is what is happening to the ratio between the number of apprentices and the journeyperson who will be in charge of or responsible for coordinating those programs. It comes to an issue that you cannot have a good system in place if you increase the number of apprentices that each journeyperson is going to be responsible for.

It doesn't sound very different, in one aspect, from what the government is doing in the classroom situation. This is, after all, the classroom equivalent in terms of the apprenticeship program. There the government is trying to do a lot, including a lot of ads, as we know.

The government says it's asking teachers to teach just a little bit longer, it's not asking for teachers to teach more students. But the reality is that one of the outcomes of what the government is doing, unless there is some flexibility left at the local level to be worked out between teachers and school boards, is that we will see a situation in which teachers will not just be teaching longer or teaching more, which many of them said they're quite happy to do, but will be forced to teach more students.

I keep saying every time we deal with an issue of education that when it comes to education, our primary concern should not be quantity, our primary concern should be quality. That is, we should be striving to do the very best that we can do and, quite frankly, worry second about how much that's going to cost.

Obviously the dollars that we spend are important. Obviously we want to make sure that they are spent in the wisest way possible. But never do I believe that we should be prepared to sacrifice for the sake of some dollars the quality of what we want to do, and the improvement in that quality.

I say that when it comes to classroom education, and I believe that and say that equally when it comes to the apprenticeship program. If we want a good, sound apprenticeship program, we ought to be prepared to invest in it. Charging young people tuition fees is not exactly an inducement or an encouragement for them to take part in the apprenticeship program. Being able to charge even more than was previously the case is not going to do that. Having more apprentices to each journeyperson is not going to exactly encourage the various unions and others to become more heavily engaged in this. Dropping the two-year requirement, which is another provision of this bill, is not going to encourage good quality results.

So those, and a number of other things that I could go on about, are all reasons why we believe that the direction the government is going with this bill is wrong. I know there are some things in here that some people will find appealing and agreeable, and that's fine. That's what the committee process will help us to sort out. At the end of the day, I would be happy to say to the government, "You got it right in this area," that's what comes out of the process, "but you're still absolutely wrong in these important areas."

But I just hope that the government, as it goes out to the committee on this - and maybe, given that we're now just months away from the next election and the government seems to at least be intent on trying to give the impression that they are in a listening mode as opposed to simply telling everybody what they think is right for them, whatever the group might be or whatever the issue might be, whether it's health care, education or in this case the apprenticeship program - I hope that the government is now, whether for good intentions or bad or whatever motives, prepared to actually seriously listen. Because if this bill is going to go out to committee, even in the short time that the committee will have on this, they will hear very clearly from the people who are the day-to-day experts in this area of apprenticeship what the real problems are with this bill.

I've just simply outlined a few, my colleagues have as well, but there are people who will be able to go into greater detail. There are people whose expertise I hope that the Minister of Education and his people look at seriously.

More significantly, I hope the political will is there. For whatever the reason, I hope the will is there to actually listen to what inevitably will be heard. That will say to the government that the apprenticeship program needs to be improved but that this particular course of action that the government is taking is not the way to do it.

1730

This is major area. We know that there are some 48,000 apprentices working now and more than 26,000 employers who are involved, and most of these are in unionized workplaces, I'm glad to say. So we aren't talking about a very small program, we aren't talking here about a very small initiative. We are talking about a pretty significant piece of the way in which we help prepare our young people for what lies ahead. We know we need to do a better job of training apprentices in the various trades and we know we need to do a better job of encouraging young people to see that as a very viable option.

I can tell you, because it's something I see in my own extended family situation, I know perhaps most closely the situation within the carpentry area that has been most affected. We have and still continue to have an aging population in terms of the people who are qualified to do those jobs and those tasks. So it behooves us to do a much better job to encourage our young people to see getting into an apprenticeship program and into one of these trades as something that is viable, something that is sensible, and also as something that is going to be economically a good thing for them because they will come out of that with a good trade, a certificate to be able to work in a trade that will allow them not just to put food on the table but to take care of themselves and their families in a reasonable way and to do it in an honourable fashion, to do it knowing they can say, "I am a skilled tradesperson in this area." That has to be seen, in the public psyche, as important as saying, "I am a doctor" or "I'm a lawyer."

But having said that, I also don't want to see a situation in which we are now, through provincial legislation, purporting to in effect lower the standards for apprenticeship programs, because that would simply enshrine even more the notion that somehow being in a trade is not as good as being in a profession.

I say to the government, think hard about this. Think hard about the message you are sending to young people and to society in general when you give the impression, and perhaps even more than the impression, that you are prepared to sacrifice formal education or the academic part of the education in exchange for the skill area of the training. To me, it doesn't have to be a trade-off.

Quite frankly, I think it's a marrying of those two that results in the very best situation we can have, where young people are given the options, are encouraged to look at these options as very viable and are then in effect encouraged, not by having tuition fees charged but by seeing that the system is prepared to invest in a two-year or sometimes longer training period for them that complements what goes on in the classroom with some on-the-job experience and training under skilled tradespeople who are there in large enough numbers that they can look after and guide these young people through these trades; at the end of which our young people can come out of that with a skill they can be proud of and that they can then use to earn a good living to be able to take care of themselves and their families.

That would be a very good step forward. But what would not be a good step forward is if this government simply retains the skeleton of what we have in front of us in Bill 55 today, rushes through, makes perhaps one or two changes and then comes back and says, "We listened, and by the way, we haven't changed anything because we think we're right." That would be wrong, and I hope the government doesn't take that course of action. Time will tell.

I'll sit down at this point, because I know that others of my colleagues want to speak on this as well, but I'll be looking forward to what happens in committee and what comes out of committee most significantly.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to yet another closure motion that this government has brought forward. It's extremely disappointing for all of us that this government appears to be so afraid of a thorough debate in this House of a bill that is as important as this one.

It is always puzzling to us why the government is so all-fired bent on passing these things within a very tight timetable when most government members can't even bother to be in the House to hear the debate. I wonder, Mr Speaker, if you would check to see if there is a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is there a quorum present?

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for London Centre.

Mrs Boyd: I think this is a really important issue, the fact that the government keeps making these motions to try and force through legislation that deserves a thorough discussion. If there is any kind of saving grace to it, at least we are assured that the government is committing itself to hearings on this so that the issue will be thoroughly discussed at the hearings.

It's extremely important for us to recognize that there are many people in our society who see this bill as a continuation of the government's unremitting attack on education, and there are those who have waited and hoped for a long time that the commitments the government members have made within their own constituencies and indeed to the trades organizations were going to actually be embodied in legislation.

In our community we meet, as a group of members, frequently with our local community college, and the issue of apprenticeship has been one of the major topics of conversation brought forward to us by the college personnel and by the students' council as a real issue. Invariably, the government attacks the federal government members because of the lowering of support for apprenticeship that the federal government has done, and that's certainly true. That's part of the problem we have with apprenticeship in this country: We do not have leadership on the part of the federal government that would require businesses to participate in decent, well-funded apprenticeship programs.

The attitude of the federal government to the whole apprenticeship program is a horrible problem. But of course when provincial governments think something's important and they're faced with that kind of action on the part of the federal government, they have some choices. Certainly in our community we were led to believe that this was an issue that was very important to our local members and that they would personally take some leadership in terms of the apprenticeship question.

The bill we're today voting on closure for is very far from the representation of the kind of program that was necessary to strengthen apprenticeship in this country. There is no logical reason why we in this province, we in this country, cannot have a very fine apprenticeship program that gives status, gives quality jobs, to those who work in the trades.

1740

I have maintained for a long time, as my colleague from Dovercourt suggested, that the issue of status is a very real issue and that many of us forget how heavily we rely on people who practise the trades, how much our safety and comfort rely on the skill they bring to their job.

Certainly, as we go into a more and more technologically sophisticated age, it is extremely important for people who work in these trades to have the flexibility and the knowledge base and the ability to learn that are going to stand them in good stead in the future. So the fact that the bill itself does not require at least a minimum of grade 10 is going to continue to be a problem, not just for us as opposition but for all the people out there who understand how desperately we need well-trained tradespeople and how this particular bill militates against that kind of skill and training.

It is extremely important for us to really understand the age bump that is there in so many of our trades now. We do not have a lot of time to build up those skills among the younger generation and we have a very substantial problem already in some of the trades because there are not people there to take the jobs available. In fact, one of the things that really makes me very angry about the Liberal federal government is the fact that they encourage tradespeople to come from other countries to fill those jobs but they will not use some of the employment insurance money, some of the HRDC resources, to ensure that this kind of program is well financed. To me, that is just not conscionable.

Having said that, for the provincial government then to give way to the pressure groups, and they are very noticeable groups, who have wanted them to water down the requirements, to deregulate the salaries, to take the burden of having a decent ratio of journeymen to apprentices out of the picture - they have completely caved to that lobby and ignored both the people who are willing to participate with them in improving this program in all the trade groups in the labour movement and the people in the community colleges, the people in the private training area who are there as resource people and who are telling the government that what this does is drive down the status of the trades and make it a situation where instead of having highly skilled, well-respected people who will earn a good living and, frankly, pay good taxes, the kind of training program being put in place is designed to create an underclass.

Of course we've seen this before. We've seen many actions by this government that appear to be absolutely focused on having a large pool of disposable labour, disposable labour that is not able to rely on collective agreements to have a decent standard of living, that is casual in its nature, that can simply be sent away when their particular skill is not needed and then be expected to be so desperate for work, given the efforts of the government to ensure that people become desperate when they're unemployed, that they will come back and work for even lower wages and less protection.

If anyone in the government thinks that in the long run this is the way we build an economy that's based on value-added kinds of industries, that's based on the skills that are needed in the next millennium, they're dreaming in Technicolor.

That is the real problem with the bill. It's the problem with the government's determination to push the bill through. I always like to read these particular motions because it often says to me that there must be something in the government's mind that we haven't quite got our sense around. I'm really I interested in the with which the government is insisting on getting this bill through all the processes by December 1. The time limits in the time allocation motion that we're debating today clearly indicate that the government is absolutely determined to have this bill in place by the time the House rises on its calendar date, at least, of December 10. It makes you wonder what the rush is, because it doesn't seem to match any of the other timetables that we think there ought to be.

Every piece of the bill is relaxing standards, relaxing regulations that frankly, if anything, should have been made more stringent. There has been a recommendation for a long time that the academic qualification ought to have been a grade 12 qualification. Experts are telling us that young people coming up through school today need to be looking at a situation where they will have at least four or five changes of the kind of work they do during their work life. If we're going to prepare them for that kind of changed society, they need all the skills they can get.

It seems to me that a government that is relaxing some of those rules, that is not prepared to insist upon a good academic base - we're not talking about an academic base that prepares people to go for a PhD someday, but we are asking for an academic base that's going to enable people to do a thorough report if they need to, based on the kind of work they're doing, that is going to allow them to have the mathematical skills to do the drafting, the planning, the measuring they are going to need to do, that is going to give them a very clear understanding of what their place is in society and the importance of work in that society. That should be a very important issue.

It seems to me that what the bill will do is undermine the kind of compulsory certification of trades that we have had. It's going to do that even though the complaint about apprenticeship for a long time has been that it's not stringent enough, that it doesn't give sufficient training for people to have the kinds of skills they need for today. In any other western country, certainly in the European countries, where the skilled trades are given status and importance, as they should, as being an essential part of the economy, you would not find this kind of erosion of standards that we're seeing here.

I suppose that given what we see in every other area, particularly of education, with this government's actions, that's what we need to look forward to. We need to look at the whole package of how this apprenticeship bill fits into the kinds of actions that the government is doing. The education system that it envisions does not really prepare us for the future, but in fact is prepared to divide us into goats and sheep, is prepared to set up a situation where there is a huge pool of people who are so desperate for work that they will agree to the erosion of their working conditions. That is what this government has as an ideal.

1750

Mr John L. Parker (York East): In the time available this afternoon before we are called to a vote, I thought I might just touch on some of the issues that have already arisen in this afternoon's discussion.

One of the themes I have heard repeated at some length is the theme that this government is intent on pushing legislation through, that somehow there is something unusual in the haste with which this government is moving legislation forward, particularly this legislation. This is, after all, a motion for time allocation, a closure motion. This is the government saying that this bill has been thoroughly debated and it's time to bring the bill to a vote so the bill can proceed on to the next stage, in this case the stage of public consultation in the committee process.

Let's look at the record of this government in moving legislation through the process in comparison with the records of two other recent governments. In the 361 sessional days that this government has sat so far, the government has passed 89 bills. That's a rate of about one bill every week, or 0.25 of a bill every sessional day.

How did the Liberals do under David Peterson, in the three-year government of David Peterson, the 34th Parliament? The government sat for 297 days and passed 183 government bills, more than twice the number of government bills that this government has passed through the system, in fewer sessional days. They were cranking bills through this Legislature at a rate of more than one every two sessional days. This government is allowing, on average, a full four days of sessional debate at second reading, four days of debate in the House for each bill that it passes through.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The point has just been made or attempted to be made that this government allows four days of debate per bill. I've got a sheet right here with 29 bills on it -

The Deputy Speaker: That is a point, but it's not a point of order.

The Chair recognizes the member for York East.

Mr Parker: I appreciate that the truth does hurt for the member for Kingston and The Islands. Maybe he would be interested in some other statistics. Let's talk about the amount of time given to second reading of bills under this government. On average, in the first session of this Parliament, government bills have received four hours and 50 minutes of debate time in this House. During the second session, the session that we are currently in, government bills are receiving, on average, five hours and 33 minutes of debate in this House.

Let's compare that with the Peterson Liberals, where government bills got barely over an hour of debate on second reading in the first session, one and a half hours of debate in their second session. In the third session - guess what? There was no third session, because the Peterson Liberals looked at the polls, looked at the economic conditions, knew it was time to turn tail and run, called a snap summer election, and got what they deserved.

Third reading time: This government has given two hours and 10 minutes on average on third reading of government bills. How much time did the Peterson Liberals give on third reading? Seven minutes during their first session. During their second session they were twice as good, better than twice as good: 15 minutes of debate time on government bills on third reading. That's the record of the Peterson Liberals.

I don't know how the member for St Catharines could have survived in the House under those conditions. He probably never got nearly the air time that he's getting for free from us these days, with all the debate that government bills get in this House day in and day out, constantly, throughout the term of this government.

By comparison to the NDP, you might be interested in knowing how the Bob Rae government did. They certainly did better than the Peterson Liberals but far short of the Harris Tories. During the Rae government, government bills on second reading got, on average, just less than one hour and 30 minutes in debate time. Again, what's the Harris record? Four hours and 50 minutes on average. The Bob Rae NDP government: one hour, 28 minutes. The Liberal record was one hour, eight minutes.

On third reading, the NDP had, on average, 48 minutes during their first session. The Liberal record, remember, was seven minutes for a government bill in their first session. The Harris Conservative record: two hours and 10 minutes' debate time on third reading during the first session.

So when you want to talk about ramming bills through, when you want to talk about allowing the process to run its course, when you want to talk about allowing this House to debate bills fully and to have the bills thoroughly reviewed before this House, neither the NDP nor the Liberals have anything to teach the Harris Conservative government.

How about committee time? We all know the importance of taking the process out to the people, out of the confines of this building, going out on the road and taking the bills out to the other communities around the province to give other people an opportunity to participate in the process, to consult, to express their views and to have their thoughts brought forward.

The Harris government total committee travel time: 773 hours, 29 minutes. How about the Peterson Liberal government committee travel time outside the confines of Queen's Park, out into the province, out into the other communities, consulting with the people? The Harris government is 773 hours, 29 minutes; the Peterson Liberals, 349 hours, 45 minutes, about half as much. How was the Bob Rae NDP? A lot better than the Liberals, not as good as the Harris Conservatives: 645 hours. The Harris government, 773 hours plus; the Peterson Liberals, 349 hours committee travel outside Queen's Park.

So when we want to talk about consulting, when we want to talk about debate, when we want to talk about giving the process an opportunity to examine government bills thoroughly and to debate them thoroughly, this government stands second to no one in this decade in allowing the process to run its full course, in allowing bills to be thoroughly debated, analyzed and taken out on committee.

This government certainly has no lesson to learn from the previous Bob Rae government, and I'll tell you something else, Mr Speaker. Neither the Bob Rae NDP nor the Harris Conservatives have anything to learn from the Liberals as far as consulting the people is concerned. The Peterson Liberal record is the worst record of any government in this decade.

Mr Speaker, I urge you to call us to a vote.

The Deputy Speaker: Notice of motion number 31: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1800 to 1805.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, David

Kells, Morley

Leach, Al

Martiniuk, Gerry

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Ross, Lillian

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed pleased rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Curling, Alvin

Gerretsen, John

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lessard, Wayne

Martin, Tony

Morin, Blain K.

Phillips, Gerry

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 20.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

It being approximately 6:08, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1808.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

October 14, 1998

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRE

EMERGENCY SERVICES

WHITE RIBBON AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY WEEK

SCHOOL FACILITIES

EDUCATION FUNDING

JEFFERSON ELORA CORP

EMERGENCY SERVICES

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

SCHIZOPHRENIA

WEARING OF PINK RIBOONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EMERGENCY SERVICES

HAZARDOUS WASTE

BREAST CANCER

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

TOURISM

SCHOOL CLOSURES

POLICE SERVICES

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

HAZARDOUS WASTE

HOMELESSNESS

PETITIONS

FATHERS

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

ABORTION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PROPERTY TAXATION

SCHOOL PRAYERS

PALLIATIVE CARE

ABORTION

LEGAL AID

ADOPTION

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION