Journal des débats 1997-déc-02 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise today in the Legislature to urge the government to take action and ensure that Bill 83, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, be passed in a timely fashion before the end of this session.

On Thursday, October 17, 1996, I introduced Bill 83 during private members' business. This proposed legislation ensures that consumers will not be asked to pay for services they did not request. In essence, this proposes to end what is known as negative option billing, a practice that has received widespread media attention and has raised the ire of consumers across Canada.

Bill 83 puts the consumer first. It's up to businesses to market their products positively. If the service they are offering is confusing, then businesses have an obligation to explain it and let the consumers decide whether they want it or not. This is the free market in action, people making choices, informed choices. Unfortunately, unscrupulous businesses have used the practice of negative billing to rip off customers and will continue to do so until legislation is put forth to end this. Not informing and not giving customers the choice is simply not fair.

I've been waiting for over a year for this bill to move out of the committee stage and for it to return to the House for a final vote. I have worked, in cooperation with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, to amend Bill 83, and it has received all-party support.

Because I believe it is a very important piece of legislation, I ask the government today to bring this bill forward.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to thank all those who went to the wall over the last number of weeks on Bill 160: the parents, school boards, school administrators, other community individuals and groups and brothers and sisters in the labour movement.

Your presence at rallies, meetings, hearings and on the picket lines were invaluable in the effort to slow this government down so that the broader public might have a chance at more fully understanding the implications of Bill 160.

It became obvious to all of us that what Bill 160 is about is diminishing seriously the resources available to educate all of the children of Ontario in keeping with our commitment over the years as a province to provide all people with the opportunity to be the best that they can be.

Bill 160 will give the government the tools they need to remove another $700 million to $1 billion from elementary and secondary education in this province.

Today I, on behalf of my caucus, say thank you and put out a warning to you to be vigilant, because in one of the groups to be hurt are those we care so much about and they are our special education students. Mike, Dave and government caucus members, we will not stand for that. That is completely unacceptable morally, ethically and practically.

We must continue the fight. We must ask the tough questions. We must keep the government's feet to the fire. I ask you to participate in the petition referendum campaign.

SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Last Friday, the minister responsible for women's issues announced $660,000 in grants to organizations and groups across the province. The grants are for programs and projects to prevent violence against women and their children, promote women's economic self-sufficiency and help women through the transition from crisis situations to economic self-sufficiency.

I'm pleased that two organizations from the riding of Perth were included in the announcement. Optimism Place in Stratford will receive funding to develop a model to improve and complement existing services available to abused women in rural areas and to provide a peer support program. Women in Rural Economic Development, also known as WRED, also of Stratford, will receive funding to assist rural participants to acquire business skills through training and practical experience as well as to establish two cooperative community businesses. These two agencies have done wonders for the women of Perth county and the surrounding areas. They have set a standard in their program development. I encourage others to take note of it.

As the government we have made a commitment to safety and wellbeing of people of the province. In supporting these programs, we are fulfilling a part of that commitment. I would like to congratulate the minister for encouraging innovative solutions to support women in their communities and members of WRED and Optimism Place for making these programs work for the women of Perth county.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): This week is inauguration week for the over 600 municipalities in Ontario. Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the inaugural meeting of the council for the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, led by the former member for Ottawa West and now regional chair, Bob Chiarelli, and the inaugural meeting of the council of the city of Ottawa, led by my former colleague on that council and now mayor, Jim Watson. As well, inaugural meetings were held in the city of Nepean, led by Mayor Mary Pitt, and in Gloucester, led by Mayor Claudette Cain.

Amidst the celebrations accompanying the inaugurations were words of warning regarding the challenges facing municipal councils and their taxpayers over the downloading of provincial services as a result of Bill 152, including words of warning from my colleague regional chair Chiarelli, who said, "This council will be severely challenged this year because of provincial downloading and internal pressures to keep taxes from going up." The cost of Bill 152 to municipal taxpayers was an election issue throughout Ontario. Now we have new municipal councils with new mandates but no new numbers showing the full impact of Bill 152 on municipal taxpayers.

I call upon this government to meet with the new municipal councils and come clean with the cost of Bill 152 to municipal taxpayers so that they can make the appropriate decisions to maintain the services taxpayers need. We heard plan A back in January, plan B back in May, plan C in August. We hear there's a plan D. Come clean with the taxpayers of Ontario and talk to your municipal councils.

1340

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): With the anticipated passage of Bill 152, public health will be downloaded to local municipalities. This indeed will have a negative impact on delivery services, especially in northern Ontario.

Some programs will be cancelled. Speech pathology and audiological services will be a thing of the past. Northerners, one more time, will have to pay more just to obtain the same services that most people around here, namely southerners, take for granted. Health care providers in my constituency call our office daily. They're exasperated by this government's determination to cut services.

The community of Longlac, for example, is desperate for a family physician to provide the most essential of services to the people of that community.

The community of Geraldton, located some 300 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay, is on the waiting list for ambulance calls simply because there aren't enough beds available in the largest urban centre, that of Thunder Bay. This is inexcusable.

Furthermore, decisions are made in the back room, in the Premier's office, with little care given to the essential service, that of health. Northerners have contributed to the public purse and have fought and waited for decades to be treated like human beings. The opportunity is there. The wait is ours. We've waited too long.

AMETHYST AWARDS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I rise today to alert the House that this is the fifth year of Amethyst Awards, which are being presented on December 3. The Amethyst Awards are presented for outstanding achievement by Ontario public servants. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate two of my constituents who were part of a seven-member team being distinguished this year for their efforts within the Ministry of Transportation.

Joanne Austin and Kelly McCleary, along with the rest of the team, have been honoured with the 1997 Amethyst Award for the development and implementation of the Accident Information System, known as AIS. AIS provides detailed information on every reported collision on Ontario provincial roads. On a daily basis, ministry traffic staff can now analyse trends and collision data on both a provincial and regional level. The system created initially for central region use has now been adopted by all Ministry of Transportation regional traffic offices. The development of this project in-house has promoted team participation by the sharing of knowledge and expertise all those involved. By improving the quality and accessibility of information available regarding collisions occurring on our roadways, this team has provided a valuable service to the public.

The Amethyst Awards give us time to reflect on the varied accomplishments of Ontario public servants and the roles they play in improving the lives of the people of Ontario. I wish to congratulate my constituents and their team for their efforts in improving the data management of accident reports. Thank you.

HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): As the Conservative government of Mike Harris continues to make major cuts in hospital funding in the Niagara region and urges hospitals to discharge patients more quickly and more sickly, a crisis in home care services has arisen, with patients being informed that the frequency and number of such services will be reduced significantly.

As a result, visits from community nurses and rehabilitation personnel such as physiotherapists will be reduced and homemaking hours will be cut. Many patients and their families will be unable to cope with these circumstances and the additional suffering will mean a return to hospital or to long-term-care beds.

The Harris government has squandered millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on self-serving political propaganda advertising but penny-pinches when it comes to care for our seniors and others who are vulnerable in terms of personal health.

The Niagara District Health Council found in a study in 1994 that the Niagara region would need $16 million in extra funding annually to bring per capita spending on community health services up to the provincial average. The Harris government has fallen far short of this need and the vulnerable will suffer as a result of the Conservative government's desire to pay for an income tax cut that benefits the wealthiest in our province the most.

Mike Harris and the unelected whiz kids in his office must instruct the Minister of Finance to allocate sufficient funds to the minister responsible for seniors to meet these genuine human needs in Niagara and across Ontario.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yesterday might have marked the third reading vote on Bill 160 and government members may think that this issue has gone away never to come back again, but that is not the case. People across this province are rallying together in communities from northern to southern Ontario, from eastern to western Ontario, banding together along with the New Democratic Party to put together a petition to put this government under the pressure it needs to be put under, in order to have a referendum on this most public, important issue.

In point of fact, on Friday of last week, my colleague Len Wood and I were in Hearst kicking off the referendum campaign. On the very first day, over 10% of the population of Hearst had signed that petition and I'm confident that that kind of progress will continue.

The campaign continues. On Saturday of this week, on December 6, from 9 o'clock in the morning until 12 o'clock in the afternoon, people will be coming to the Timmins Gold Mine Tour to participate in picking up their petitions in order to get together, in order to organize, in order to mobilize, in order to find out more about what's going on with this government's education agenda.

I invite all those people that are watching across the province, and particularly those living in the city of Timmins, to come on Saturday, December 6, from 9 o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock in the morning at the Timmins Gold Mine Tour, in order to be able to mobilize and to pick up your petitions to participate in this most important referendum campaign.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I rise today to speak on an important issue for all parents: pedophiles around our kids. This week I will be introducing my bill, the Protection against Pedophiles Act, for second reading.

Joseph Fredericks was on probation for abduction and assault. He was released into the Brampton community. He applied to coach junior baseball. In the meantime, he abducted, sexually assaulted and killed Christopher Stephenson. Minor hockey coach Graham James sexually assaulted many young boys, including NHLer Sheldon Kennedy. He had a position of trust over children and took advantage of that trust. Graham James and Joseph Fredericks are a parents' worst nightmares and there is nothing stopping pedophiles from being involved with children.

My bill requires any organization that has employees or volunteers looking after children to first obtain a letter from their local police force certifying that the applicant is not a convicted sexual offender. The applicant goes to the police station, signs a waiver to the police, pays a small fee and obtains a letter certifying that he or she does not have a sexual offender record. That letter is given to the employer or minor sports group.

Big Brothers and the Ontario Women's Hockey League already have such a procedure. The procedure is supported by Metropolitan Toronto Police and scores of police officers. My bill gives all minor sports and recreation groups a tool to try to protect our kids. I urge this House to support my protection against pedophiles bill.

WEARING OF RED RIBBONS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I request unanimous consent to wear the red ribbon symbolic of the fight against AIDS.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Unanimous consent to wear the ribbons? Agreed.

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With your indulgence, I'd like to make a further submission with regard to the points of order raised earlier regarding whether or not Bill 164 is in order. The reason I'm raising this today, and I'll provide you a brief summary in writing, is that I have received in my office a copy of a submission made by the government House leader to you with regard to the points of order raised previously in the House. I would just like to respond briefly to the issues raised in this matter.

The government House leader makes the argument that the point of order I raised originally under standing order 51 is not a problem because of precedents in this House. They refer to Bill 108, which is currently before the committee of the whole House. The government House leader argues that since an amendment that has been put by this party to Bill 108 in committee of the whole House was previously dealt with in the standing committee, if my argument holds, then that proceeding is out of order. That ignores the fact that the very purpose of committee of the whole House is to go through clause by clause and deal with amendments. It's often, through precedent in this House, quite proper to deal with amendments that were previously debated and voted on in standing committees.

The fact is that on Bill 149, if the government wanted to make further amendments, all they had to do was go to committee of the whole House and they wouldn't. What they needed to do was bring in a new time allocation motion which would allow them to refer the bill to committee of the whole House. But they didn't want to do that because of what had happened with Bill 108. The fact is that it's in committee of the whole House and the government doesn't want to deal with the amendments to that bill that are before the committee, and they didn't want this to happen to Bill 149 because they knew that by referring it to committee of the whole House for further amendment they were opening up the whole bill and they might have a major debate in committee of the whole House. Mr Speaker, I submit to you that their argument is specious with regard to Bill 149.

1350

The other point I would make is that the government House leader argues that at one point Erskine May argues about whether or not a motion or a bill can be substantively the same. This is not about that. We are not dealing with a motion here; we're dealing with two bills. Erskine May makes the argument that a motion cannot be substantively the same as a bill. Well, fine. We're dealing with two bills here, which in my view deal with substantively the same issues, not a motion and a bill. So that is not applicable either.

Also the government House leader argues that Bill 164 doesn't really amend anything in a way that contradicts what has been done previously on Bill 149 or Bill 160. In fact they say these new amendments in Bill 164 simply add to the previous amendments.

I would just draw your attention to one final thing. Bill 164 amends amendments, in our view, made to Bill 149 which speak directly to standing order 51, which I cited previously. For instance, schedule F, section 3: "On the later of the day this section comes into force and the day the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997 (No. 2), being Bill 149 of the first session of the 36th Legislature, receives royal assent, section 71 of that act, as numbered in the version of Bill 149 reprinted as amended by the finance and economic affairs committee, is repealed," etc.

They're repealing a section that was amended in the committee. Because the consideration of Bill 149 was time-allocated and the government had passed an arbitrary deadline that the government had laid out for itself for amending the bill, the government is attempting to bring in amendments by the back door, which is the original submission I made.

The standing committee considered this bill under the time allocation motion and made certain decisions regarding amendments. This is a similar situation to Bill 160. It was also time-allocated. The deadlines set by the government for amending this have been passed. As a matter of fact, we suggested they might be extended and the government House leader refused. The decisions regarding this bill were made by the standing committee under the time allocation motion. We followed the procedure. The government is simply trying to amend it over again.

I would argue that you should consider these points in relation to the government House leader's submission before making your final decision.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'll be extremely brief, because this matter has been dealt with on a number of occasions. Let me just say that what is happening here, in the opinion of the official opposition, is that the government is attempting to do by the back door what it should have been doing by the front door. In other words, it has had two bills before the House, Bill 160 and Bill 149, which could be amended if the government wanted to. The government had the opportunity to seek the unanimous consent of the House, which I'm certain it would have received, to go into committee of the whole to solve any of these problems, to make any further amendments.

The government chose not to do so. The government chose not to amend, with the permission of others, and I think they would have had it, their time allocation or closure motion to enable them to make the changes to the bill and has now brought in a third bill, under a disguise of a name that nobody recognizes, which is in fact an omnibus bill dealing with other pieces of legislation and trying to fix the mistakes and the rush that the government was in on these other pieces of legislation.

I hope you take that into account. That's a very simple way of putting it, but I think that's a very succinct and reasonable way of putting it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. I will take those into account. Government House leader.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I will be brief. I was somewhat heartened by the House leader for the third party and his support for some of the contentions which I put forward in my particular submission to you. I think the primary comfort that I found from his submission was that he, like I had during our experience in this Legislature, on many occasions during the committee of the whole House considered the same amendment which had been put forward in the standing committee which had previously considered that bill. Therefore, in sum total with regard to our submission, standing order 51 should be interpreted in that narrower context than in a larger context.

I would also point out to the House leader for the third party that while part of Bill 164 dealt with some of the matters that were dealt with in the previous bills, it is in fact a very, very minor part of Bill 164 in total. In fact, it probably would represent less than 5% of that bill in terms of its total context, because it's a very large bill, as the member opposite knows.

I believe that, contrary to the intent of the House leader for the third party, many of his arguments in fact buttress the arguments which I've already put forward to you.

The Speaker: On the same point of order, the member for Downsview.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Just two brief comments. First off, standing order 51 clearly states, "No motion, or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can again be proposed during the same session."

The government contends that this is not a motion or amendment. I'd just like to draw your attention to Bill 164 which states quite clearly that if Bill 149 has not passed, then Bill 164 is deemed to amend 149. So by the government's own argument, it is viewed as an amendment and therefore standing order 51 ought to apply.

The other point I would make is authorities which the government also cites from paragraph 656 of Beauchesne and I will read that for you:

"An act which has been passed by both Houses and given royal assent may be amended during the same session by the introduction of a new bill; but" - and this a key point, Mr Speaker - "no amendment can be made to a bill which has passed the Commons or both Houses and has not received royal assent."

We submit that this obviously has not received royal assent and clearly the government's arguments are not in order with respect to this.

In conclusion, the reality is the government is proceeding very quickly, is not thinking through what it is doing and therefore has created this mess we're now in.

Mr Wildman: The government House leader again finds comfort in the comments I made earlier, that I agree that amendments dealt with in a standing committee can be reintroduced and dealt with again in committee of the whole. Nobody is debating that.

The point is this: The government for some reason, I suspect it has to do with its experience on Bill 108, does not want to go into committee of the whole. If the government wants to amend Bill 149, then bring in a time allocation motion change and go into committee of the whole.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I beg leave to present the fourth report, 1997, of the standing committee on the Ombudsman.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Does the member wish to make a brief statement? No.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 1997

Mr Spina moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr89, An Act respecting the City of Brampton.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE

Mr Tilson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 169, An Act to amend the Family Law Act with respect to the rights of spouses in a matrimonial home / Projet de loi 169, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le droit de la famille en ce qui concerne les droits des conjoints au foyer conjugal.

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

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): With this bill an unmarried spouse, as defined by the Family Law Act, will now be able to obtain an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. Currently he or she does not.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), Mr Hoy and Mr Phillips exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

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

DEFERRED VOTES

SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 152, An Act to improve Services, increase Efficiency and benefit Taxpayers by eliminating Duplication and reallocating Responsibilities between Provincial and Municipal Governments in various areas and to implement other aspects of the Government's "Who Does What" Agenda / Projet de loi 152, Loi visant à améliorer les services, à accroître l'efficience et à procurer des avantages aux contribuables en éliminant le double emploi et en redistribuant les responsabilités entre le gouvernement provincial et les municipalités dans divers secteurs et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme «Qui fait quoi» du gouvernement.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1402 to 1407.

The 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

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Dog

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Carr, Gary

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Silipo, Tony

Skarica, Toni

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 74; the nays are 47.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that this bill do now pass and be entitled as in the bill.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Property taxpayers are extremely worried. The bill that just passed dumps social services on to property taxes. I heard you yourself on a radio interview say it's wrong to put these social services on to property taxes.

All the numbers you've produced show you are dumping $660 million of new costs on to property taxpayers. David Crombie and Mike Harris's handpicked panel told you not to do that. The question is, we know you have one-time funds. Will you commit today to convert those one-time funds to permanent funds so that you are not dumping $660 million of a new tax on to property taxpayers?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What the member from the Liberal Party fails to state is that we are giving $2.5 billion in tax room by taking half of education off the property tax.

The funds he's talking about are permanent funds. We committed that we would have $570 million in permanent funds available to assist those municipalities that need help. We said it would be there. We said the Who Does What trades would be revenue-neutral. They are revenue-neutral. There is no such thing as a tax increase that would result out of those trades. We have said that repeatedly. The funds are permanent, as I said, and we are taking $2.5 billion of education costs off the property tax.

Mr Phillips: The numbers you have produced show you're adding $660 million on to property tax. I want to follow up, because I think the bill you've introduced to gag municipalities tells the whole story. You have introduced a bill that tells local councils and municipalities that when they send out their notice for property taxes, when they are going to explain your downloading, they cannot put any message in there that you have not personally approved. You must personally approve all messages that go out in the property tax bill.

He's shaking his head. This is the bill, and the public should be aware that it says: "Contents must be used by the municipalities for taxing purposes...must be in the form approved by the minister. Any additional items would require the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs."

My question to you is this: Why are you gagging the municipal politicians when they want to inform their taxpayers of why the taxes are going up in their municipalities?

Hon Mr Leach: I have never heard anything so silly in my entire life. What we've asked -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Leach: Again, that is a ridiculous statement. There is absolutely no reason why any municipality in the province that wants to include information attached to the tax bill cannot do it. If they want to put on bar charts or graphs or letters or whatever they choose to do, it's within the power of the municipalities to do that.

What we've asked for is a uniform tax bill so that every municipality in the province would be able to compare numbers to numbers. But if they want to include additional information and include it with the tax form, they can do that. They can put any message they choose to put, any message, as they can do now.

Mr Phillips: You don't know what you're talking about. This is your own document, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: The caucus should listen carefully to this. It says: "Any additional items would require the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing." Any additional items: That's exactly what -

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: Just so the public understands, this is the government information, what the government says: "Municipal tax bills: Any additional items would require the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing."

The fact is that no one trusts you any longer. No one trusts the Premier any longer; no one trusts you any longer. The question is this: Do you or do you not have the authority when this bill passes to approve any additional items that go out on the tax bill?

Hon Mr Leach: That's absolutely incorrect, 100% incorrect. We have asked for a uniform tax bill, there's no doubt about that, but there is nothing to stop any municipality in the province from putting any information that they choose to place with that tax bill. If they want to show charts, if they want to use bars, if they want to use narrative, whatever information any municipality wants to provide to their taxpayers with their tax bills is at their prerogative - anything. To insinuate that we're trying to stop a Hazel McCallion or a Mel Lastman from providing information to the taxpayer is just too silly to talk about.

1420

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Premier. Mr Premier, I'd like to ask you today to stand accountable for the bill that you and some of your back bench just passed, Bill 152, and the impact that it has and what the overall -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Can I ask the government members to come to order, please. Thank you. Member for York South.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Premier, we need you to stand accountable for the Harris health system and the growing mess that you have created, including some of the measures that have happened today. The Premier has authorized a fundamental change in the health system by downloading public health, by getting rid of, in the face of the advice of experts, one of the essential components of our health system.

When Dr John Gray of the OMA says that water supply contamination, outbreaks of diseases like tuberculosis, hepatitis and meningitis may become difficult to track and treat under a fragmented system; when the Ontario Medical Association believes you are compromising the health and safety of Ontarians; when Dr Duncan Sinclair said to you last week in Kingston that the move to get rid of public health is plain stupid, that it's the wrong idea and that bean counters have won the day, then it's time for you to stand accountable to the people of Ontario and explain why you're abandoning public health and pushing us back 50 years by dumping it on the municipalities. Premier, will you stand accountable?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Health can explain.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I just want to indicate that under the changes that have been made in the legislation, the mandatory programs for public health are going to include a more comprehensive listing than has existed in the past; in fact we will continue to set the standards and we will continue to ensure that those standards are going to be met.

Mr Kennedy: The minister had an opportunity in her first actions as new Minister of Health to strike a departure, to stand up for health care in this province. Every expert in this province talking about a vision or a future for health care says public health has to be there.

Minister, you say those mandatory programs are going to continue, but what won't continue is the money that used to fund them, 100% funding. For example, last week we were told, and all members should know this, the Sexual Health Network has said we're going to have problems with STD. Today we have heard from AIDS activists who say that Bill 152, which you've just allowed to pass, which you didn't intervene on, means that successful, integrated, community-based response to the AIDS epidemic is threatened.

Minister, tell us today how many people are working on enforcement of those standards that you're going to be putting into public health authorities in this province. How many people are working on them, so we can have confidence that these important services are going to continue?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The same number of people who have worked on those standards in the past will be working on them in the future.

I also want to indicate to you that if medical officers of health have a concern about issues in their regions, they have a responsibility to report on those concerns. As I indicated to you yesterday, the Ministry of Health is spending $49 million on AIDS, and that doesn't include all the hospital visits, the drugs and the hospitalization. As you know, that is well in excess of the $42 million that is being spent by the Canadian government. We are leaders in the field of what we are doing in the area of public health.

Mr Kennedy: The minister full knows that we were leaders until Bill 152 was passed. If you speak to your chief medical officer of health, you will learn there is not one person yet hired to deal with the enforcement of public health standards in this province - not one. There is no enforcement mechanism put together yet.

When you say to us that we have that kind of advancement, elsewhere in the country there has been a drop in terms of the average age affected by AIDS. Here we still have a general problem. The epidemic still has significant issues. Needle exchange programs only exist in three of the municipalities that are coming together in Metro Toronto. There is a good likelihood these programs are going to be lost. These were 100% funded, guaranteed programs by the province.

Minister, stand today and tell us how you will ensure that these and other public health programs are not going to be lost, since you missed your chance and didn't oppose Bill 152 or have it changed to protect the health of Ontarians.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I have every confidence that public health is going to continue to be protected in Ontario. As I indicated to you, we will continue to set the standards. The public health employees will continue to be employed in the local municipalities and regions, as they have been in the past.

I just want to indicate to you, if I take a look at the mandatory programs for public health that have existed in the past and are going to exist in the future, they include a number of key sexual health issues such as family planning, sexually transmitted disease prevention and education and HIV-AIDS prevention and education. Boards are going to be obligated to comply with the mandatory programs listing for public health.

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

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Premier. On September 22 of this year, the day your Minister of Education introduced Bill 160 into this Legislature, the Minister of Education said that the new education funding formula would be available by the end of October. We are now into December, Premier, long past October, and we still have not seen your education funding formula. Can you tell us when the Minister of Education and Training is going to make the education funding formula available, including the education funding formula for the stub year, which begins in a mere four weeks?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): That's a good question. Let's ask him.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I wish to assure the leader of the third party that both those formulae will be ready soon. The ministry has been working very diligently, through a somewhat challenging period of time, I might say, over the past month and a half. But I'm sure in this House we would all agree that the key is to get it right, so the leader of the third party will be assured that both the funding, which is the stable funding for the stub year, plus the funding formula for the year beginning September 1, 1998, will be available in the very near future.

Mr Hampton: This is incredible. This is a government that says it cares about education. This is a government that says it wants to improve the quality of education. Yet the boards of education of this province still don't know what their budgets will be for the period between January and June 1998. What incredible incompetence.

We've talked with education finance officials and they've told us very clearly that what they've seen so far would be a $220-million cut, an 11% cut for most boards across this province. Will you guarantee the parents, the students and the teachers of this province today that when you eventually provide that funding formula, it will not reduce the current school boards' operating budget? Will you make that guarantee?

Hon David Johnson: This government has made the guarantee of stable funding through the stub year, beginning on January 1 of next year through to the end of August, that there will be no cut in grants or taxes in the revenue associated with grants or taxes for the stub year. Stable funding, the same kind of funding the boards have today, would be carried through into the stub year right through until September.

Mr Hampton: I note the careful choice of words. The minister says, "the same kind." He doesn't say, "the same funding." He doesn't say the government will continue the current funding envelopes at the current rate. He merely says that the funding will be of the same kind. What people across this province are beginning to understand is that means a cut.

Let me review the situation again. The stub year begins in four weeks. You haven't told school boards how much money they're going to have. In another five or six weeks your government is going to set the tax rate for the education portion of municipal property taxes behind closed doors, and you haven't told anyone about that either. A mere five months later the new boards of education will be starting their first full fiscal year under the new funding formula without knowing anything about it.

Minister, what are you waiting for? Is the problem that you can't figure out how to make your funding formula work for students or teachers, or are the cuts so bad -

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

Hon David Johnson: The Minister of Education is working on this to ensure there is fair funding, recognizing the stable funding that's been guaranteed through to September of next year, through the stub year period, with no grant cuts and no tax cuts through that period of time. This is being worked with various officials from various boards. Those various officials have been communicating with the Ministry of Education employees. Their views are being taken into account. There was a consultation period earlier this year. The consultation input carries on. It's coming to an end in the very near future. The boards are being guaranteed their funding and it will be announced in the very near future.

1430

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I want to ask my next question of the Premier. I'm reading from your Bill 164, that portion of Bill 164 that will amend the Municipal Act and will essentially gag the municipalities, will essentially stop them from including detailed information in their property tax notices about how your government is raising their property taxes.

Premier, what I don't understand is this: Why does your government want to gag the municipalities? Why do you want to have a section in the Municipal Act that essentially censors the municipalities, that stops them from communicating in the way that they would like to communicate, in a way that would be appropriate for them to communicate with their citizens? Why are you trying to do this?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Mr Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance - it's his bill, not mine.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Bill 164 does no such thing. It permits a standardized tax bill form to be sent out. It does not prevent any municipality in this province from including other information along with the tax bill.

Mr Hampton: I want to quote from this because what it says is, "A municipality shall not include other information on the notice" -

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Read the legislation then.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I appreciate the government member's assistance, but I think the leader has a pretty good idea about the question he wants to ask, so if you would just allow him to place it, this would work a lot better.

Mr Hampton: It says, "A municipality shall not include other information on the notice unless expressly authorized to do so by the minister." This is about censoring information. This is about stopping municipalities from providing information to their citizens and to their taxpayers.

Just to give the Minister of Finance an example, we understand that you're $200 million short on funding for seniors' housing and social housing within the greater Toronto area alone. That's what the auditor pointed out in his recent report. Is that the kind of information you want to stop municipalities from getting out? Is that the kind of information you want to censor by means of this amendment?

Hon Mr Eves: Consistency in tax bills when we're undergoing assessment reform in Ontario makes perfect sense to me. There should be one standardized tax form for every municipality. But I repeat what I said in response to his initial question: There is nothing in the bill that prevents any municipality from including any other information it wants. It can't be on the form - he understands that, I think - but they can certainly put anything else they want in the envelope with the tax bill.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I don't think he gets it.

Mr Hampton: Oh, I get it. I get it very well. Some of the government backbenchers say that we don't get it. Well, we get it very well. The problem is this amendment doesn't talk about allowing municipalities to explain the tax situation. It says, "A municipality shall not include other information on the notice." It's very specific. This amendment -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Minister of Community and Social Services, I'm not going to warn you again. Member for Durham East, I'm not warning you again. Will you come to order, please. I'm not kidding. Come to order.

Mr Hampton: The government has just forced through their downloading bill which will have the impact of downloading $1.4 billion on municipalities. What I don't understand in a free and democratic society is, what does this government have against municipalities informing their citizens? Why do you want to stop them from including explanatory information on the tax bill? You know that citizens will read the tax bill. You know that citizens will go through that tax bill. Why are you trying to gag municipalities from including relevant information on that tax bill that will explain it is you who is raising taxes, that will explain it is you who is -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: There will be one consistent, transparent, understandable, standardized tax form in Ontario for all municipalities. I quote from the act. We're talking about the form of the notice. The sections you refer to all talk about what can be on the actual tax form, but there is nothing in the bill, and I repeat for the third time, that prevents every municipality in this province, if they want to, from including any kind of explanatory document, piece of paper, notification, whatever you want to call it, along with the standardized tax form. There is nothing that prevents that whatsoever. There is no censorship at all in that provision.

QUINTUPLÉES DIONNE / DIONNE QUINTUPLETS

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Monsieur le Premier ministre, laissez-moi vous situer. Le 28 mai 1934, une date à ne pas oublier, un miracle s'est produit à Corbeil en Ontario, tout près de chez vous. D'une pauvre famille francophone naissaient les quintuplées Dionne. En 1935, elles devenaient les enfants-tutelles du gouvernement de l'Ontario, un gouvernement libéral. Durant la période de tutelle, elles ont été totalement exploitées. On estime les retombées économiques aux quintuplées à plus de 500 $ millions. Avec ces argents, la province a bâti Quintland.

Le 25 novembre 1997, vous avez refusé toute assistance financière. Quelles sont les possibilités de reconsidérer votre décision ?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Attorney General will respond.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): While the government is very sympathetic to the Dionnes, based on the facts it is very difficult to justify conventional compensation in this particular situation.

The government's responsibility for the Dionnes ended 53 years ago in 1944. Up until that time, all actions and accounts of the Dionnes' guardians were approved by the courts of the day based on the law that existed at that time. Trustees were appointed by the courts; courts approved every account involved with the Dionnes. Certainly we have had discussions with representatives of the Dionnes and have conveyed this to them.

1440

Mr Grandmaître: I'm pleased that the Attorney General has spoken up on this issue, because the family has written to the Attorney General eight times and he never had the decency to return an acknowledgement. Today he's saying, "We're washing our hands."

I want to remind you of what the now Premier of Ontario said back in 1995: "If I'm in a position to be able to address this issue following the upcoming provincial election, I will do it." But then a year after, in 1996, he wrote, "As you have been informed, unfortunately, due to a busy schedule, I am unable to commit to a meeting at this time and I have therefore forwarded your request to the Attorney General."

Mr Attorney General, have you ever met with any member of that family?

Hon Mr Harnick: The Premier asked me to review this matter. We have communicated with representatives of the Dionnes. We have thoroughly researched the facts and law pertaining to this request. While I of course have the greatest sympathy for the situation -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly every action that has been taken has been based on the laws that existed 53 years ago. Trustees were appointed by the courts. Trustees' actions and accounts were approved by the courts of the day. That is why we have, in discussions with the Dionnes, offered to involve the Dionnes, and recognizing their place in history, by naming a research fund into children's issues in their honour.

We would very much welcome, as we've indicated to the Dionnes, input into the establishment of this fund, the creation of the fund, to do research into children's issues. That is something we would very much welcome.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. I was part of the government you wrote to and you raised the issue of the Dionne children. We were a government that actually began to do some research as to what had happened. In that letter you stated that if you were to become Premier, you would do something to address the serious issues.

When we were the government we discovered that the previous governments of Ontario had put in place trustees who were supposed to look after the children. We know that the government of Ontario profited to a large degree from the notoriety that the Dionne children achieved.

Premier, what I want to ask you is this. You were an advocate for the Dionne children when you were leader of the third party. A lot of information has been discovered. What has changed your mind and the mind of your government?

Hon Mr Harris: I never advocated compensation. What I advocated was to take a look at it, investigate this, give it a thorough hearing and make sure an appropriate response is given. I asked the Attorney General to do that. The lawyers have done that. They've been in contact with lawyers and representatives of the Dionnes. Those responses have gone back to the Dionnes. We're still waiting to hear back, as I understand, the lawyers for the Attorney General to do it. I have fulfilled and honoured the commitment I made to the Dionnes.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Monsieur le Premier ministre, vous avez du nerf - comme on dit en français, du front - tout autour de la tête. Vous avez dit durant votre temps dans la campagne de 1995 et avant que si vous étiez dans une situation pour aider les Dionne, vous seriez pour le faire. Vous êtes le premier ministre de la province. Vous êtes dans une position de les aider et vous refusez.

Monsieur le Premier ministre, on demande une autre fois : êtes-vous d'accord, allez-vous dire «oui» à mettre en place une enquête publique pour voir ce qui était arrivé aux fonds fiducières pour les quintuplées Dionne ?

Hon Mr Harris: I guess this is maybe the 500th call for a full-blown public inquiry into things. We are dealing with lawyers through the Attorney General, with lawyers and representatives of the Dionnes -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: There have been very different suggestions as to what the requests have been in the paper. Anybody who reads the paper would notice significant contradictions. I read one article where they say, "We don't want compensation, we want an inquiry." Another one says the opposite of that. You're asking why we haven't given compensation. There's a lot of contradictory information out there.

I think this is a very sensitive issue. I have honoured my commitment to have a full look at it. We have not said no to looking at an investigation as to what happened. We have had the lawyers for the Attorney General look at whether there is any basis at all for taxpayers' money to now come forward, and we are following that legal advice.

The Speaker: New question, member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Maybe I'll get a question. It's to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Interjections.

Mr Murdoch: What can I do?

The Speaker: Order.

1450

NORTHERN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): As I said, my question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. A lot of us here have travelled the north quite extensively - I did with a lot of my fellow members - and we saw at first hand the deplorable shape that the highways were left in by both these governments over here, the deplorable shape that these governments left the highways in. I think, Mr Speaker, you might have been with us.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Murdoch: Thank you again, Mr Speaker. As I said, we witnessed at first hand the deplorable shape that both these governments left the highways in. This prompted the minister to put $200 million in the last budget into the highways for the north. I would just like to ask the minister if he has kept his promise and done some work on the northern roads.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank the member for Grey-Owen Sound for his excellent question and having the courage to stand by it and to see that it was delivered.

I'm pleased to inform the member and the House that it is true that we are living up to another commitment. We've promised $200 million in extra funding for northern roads over the next five years. During this past construction season alone, our government spent $141.6 million on northern road improvement. I recognize that the opposition might not be interested in hearing this, given the fact that they left the roads in such a deplorable state in northern Ontario during their 10 years of government in this province, but this past year 36 projects were taking place. We saw the reconstruction of 532 kilometres of highways and repairs to 14 bridges. Northerners deserve that, and it's long overdue.

Mr Murdoch: I appreciate the answer, Minister, but I still, believe it or not, receive a lot of calls from a lot of the friends I have in the north because they feel they need someone down here to look after them. The members who are elected up there have a tough time doing that for some reason; I don't know why that would be. Would the minister give us some specifics on some of the places he's going to get some more of these projects done?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Again I thank the member for his excellent, insightful question. I'll just read off a few who will benefit from safer roads in northern Ontario for the members opposite who might want to refresh their memory, for those who have seen for the first time in years a record amount of money being spent in northern Ontario on highways.

In northeastern Ontario there were 20 reconstruction projects alone from May to August of this year. These projects included - I'll just list a few for the viewers at home and the members of the House - 66 kilometres of reconstruction of Highway 11 in the Tri-town area, 23 kilometres of reconstruction on Highway 66 from Kirkland Lake, 19 kilometres of Highway 17 to Espanola, the Abitibi River bridge on Highway 652 east of Cochrane.

In northwestern Ontario there were 16 highway reconstruction projects: 64 kilometres of reconstruction on Highway 17 from Wawa to White River, 36 kilometres of reconstruction on Highway 72. The list goes on and on with good news from the Harris government for northern Ontario.

CASINO WINDSOR

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. The minister will be aware that on October 1 of this year, his predecessor and I had an exchange in the House with respect to an audit that is being conducted at Casino Windsor, the permanent casino site. The previous minister appointed that announcement in response to a number of concerns that had been expressed about potential cost overruns, allegations of cost overruns, at that site.

On October 1 of this year, your predecessor indicated to me in this House that the full content of that audit would be made public. Is it the minister's intention today to confirm that in fact the full audit that's being conducted at Casino Windsor's permanent casino site will be made public when it's completed?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I certainly would like to thank the member for that question. There's no question that we are doing a very extensive audit; Price Waterhouse is conducting it on our behalf. I have not been privy to the information that has been derived from it, so nothing has really been shared with me, but I want to say to the member that we have a commitment as a government to make sure that the taxpayers of Ontario get full value for their money. If there are irregularities, I'm sure the audit will bring those out.

There are situations within that audit that we might not be able to share with the member or with the people of Ontario. I can only say to the member that once I have disclosure on the audit, certainly I will share it with my colleagues at the executive council level and see what can be done.

Mr Duncan: Today the minister's assistant was quoted in our local media as saying that in fact you will not release the full report. Minister, you may be aware by now that the city of Detroit has three casino initiatives coming on stream. We think the results of that audit should be made public so that the public can know that we're in a position to compete. Will the minister today agree to release the full results, and will you confirm that today in cabinet you and your colleagues approved the development of a second casino site on the so-called western anchor site that will include a theme park or at least some kind of tourist attraction? Will you tell the House today what your plans are to ensure that the revenue stream your Treasurer has projected from Casino Windsor will be in place in three years and that Windsor can continue to compete effectively and keep the casino dollars in Ontario?

Hon Mr Palladini: I share the member's optimism. I believe we are going to make a business case out of Windsor. There are certainly opportunities within the city of Windsor that the people of Windsor will benefit from. This government has full intentions of taking a look at how we can best come together and come up with a business plan that might facilitate an additional casino, certainly, but there are some things that we have to consider before we get to that point. I have every intention, along with some of my other colleagues, to get together with the people of Windsor to see how we can best facilitate that. So I'm certainly on your side.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Minister of Health. I've just returned from a visit to Street Health, which is a health clinic for homeless people in downtown Toronto. The visit is part of our Dialogue for Change, which examines the effect of the Mike Harris cutbacks and crackdowns on real people in Ontario.

The street nurses and their clients asked me to raise with you today the plight of homeless people, who frequently lose their identification and their health cards because of the constant moves and the lack of security they experience.

As of January 1, 1998, your crackdown on health cards will mean that even emergency treatment is denied to those who have no health card. Doesn't that policy violate the Canada Health Act, which guarantees emergency health care to anyone living in Canada?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I certainly want to indicate to you that health care will continue to be provided for those individuals. I continue to give you my assurance that this indeed will happen.

1500

Mrs Boyd: I hope, then, that the minister will explain to us how that is going to work. That certainly is not what is in the policy that was released by your predecessor. It certainly is not what the street nurses have been led to expect. They have been demanding a meeting with you to bring before you the serious situation faced by their clients.

We're talking about extremely vulnerable people who because of your cutbacks have mental and physical health problems that are already threatened by their lack of housing, by their inadequate nutrition and by their lack of security. Yet you're saying there's no problem.

Quite frankly, I just saw the lineup at the Street Health clinic of people who are desperate to try and get their identification. They need a birth certificate first, and we all know how long that takes and how much that costs. Then they have to wait for your ministry to issue a health card. They're under the impression because of the policy issued by your predecessor that they will not have emergency care. Will you explain to us how you are going to resolve this matter?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I just want to reiterate one more time that emergency treatment is not going to be denied to any individual. In fact, I'd like to quote from a letter that was written to the past minister. That is from Dr Bob Frankford, who is now with Seaton House. He says:

"The inability of homeless individuals to obtain health care because of lack of health cards has often been commented on. I would like to commend the ministry for coming to Seaton House recently to provide and make photo health cards available. Your staff were helpful and patient. The initiative was considered very successful."

I would just repeat again that we are in the process of ensuring and we are making every effort to ensure that those individuals have health cards, but I would also indicate to you that emergency health care will not be denied to any individual.

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation. The county of Northumberland, which is my riding, will be receiving several highways from the provincial government. They are concerned that these transfers appear arbitrary and unfair, as all highways in Northumberland except for the 401 will be transferred to the county. Can the minister explain to my county council the rationale used for deciding which highways would be transferred?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I thank the honourable member for Northumberland for his question. As usual, he is sticking up for the rights of his community. But there has been a great deal of misapprehension about this issue and I welcome the opportunity in the House to set the record straight.

These decisions were not taken lightly and in fact they are not arbitrary nor are they unfair. This process was started by Mr Crombie. Mr Crombie and his commission originally identified some 9,000 kilometres of roads that serve primarily local rather than provincial traffic.

This determination was based on sound technical criteria that included the type and volume of traffic on the highway, the destination of that traffic, the existence of parallel provincial highways and the types of communities that the roads linked. The ministry then reviewed these 9,000 kilometres. I'm pleased to report that 3,400 kilometres of those highways are being transferred, and we commit to maintain a cohesive provincial network.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The minister will also know that some of the municipalities receiving these transfers are concerned about the amount of compensation they will be receiving from the government. Can the minister please explain how the level of compensation has been determined?

Hon Mr Clement: I can tell the honourable member that this government is committed to dealing with municipal partners fairly and I believe that the compensation that will be paid to the municipalities is fair. We have set aside $270 million as a one-time unconditional grant to municipalities receiving roads.

My ministry conducted a very thorough examination of the roads being transferred and identified any existing capital deficiencies that would need repair within the next five years. Based on this information, the municipalities were given the funding to help pay for those repairs and, in addition, were able to get funding for any maintenance work for a one-year period.

I can also tell the honourable member that additional funding is provided to those municipalities receiving a disproportionate increase in the size of the road system. I want to inform the honourable member that each compensation package contains an additional amount of money for contingency, to make sure that -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, official opposition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, your health services destruction commission steamrolled into Hamilton last week and devastated programs and facilities for seniors, the disabled and the mentally ill. You will close the psychiatric hospital, St Peter's and Chedoke.

Minister, these recommendations are going to abandon many of our most vulnerable citizens, but particularly it's your attack on the mentally ill, people who use psychiatric facilities, that is going to be absolutely devastating to our community.

You have offered token Monopoly money at this point for the services that are now provided at the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. Your commission has recommended that the services be done at St Joseph's in Hamilton. However, the funding commitment does not match the need. You are currently providing $44 million for operating costs for those services at the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. The recommendation for these same services at St Joseph's is $25 million, a shortfall of $19 million.

Minister, will you guarantee today the same amount of funding for those programs at St Joseph's that -

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

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Yes, you're right. The ministry did receive the interim report from the Health Services Restructuring Commission, as you know, and the commission recommended some changes. It also recommended some significant reinvestment in the Hamilton-Wentworth community and we are now awaiting the final recommendations. As you know, there is an opportunity now for those who reside within the boundaries of Hamilton-Wentworth to respond to the commission's report, and they have until January 5, 1998, following the final report we receive from the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Then we'll have an opportunity to move forward and make the implementation possible. I can assure you we will move forward in such a way that we will address the needs of the Hamilton-Wentworth community.

Mr Agostino: Minister, your commission and your former minister have always worked on the basis that the money taken out of one service would be guaranteed and reinvested back into that same facility or service, in Hamilton or any other community. You are now shortchanging us $19 million. The president of St Joseph's Hospital, Allan Greve, said, "The moneys allocated to support the services presently done by the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital are insignificant."

The evidence is clear. The mayor has come out and expressed concern as to what's going to happen. You are abandoning individuals in our community who need psychiatric care. You're offering token Monopoly money right now that doesn't come close. I'm shocked that you would not stand up today and guarantee that the same money will be given to services. You are also recommending housing the criminally insane, people going in for an assessment, in an acute care hospital, in St Joseph's Hospital.

You're doing this with a $19-million shortfall. You will not be able to guarantee the safety of those patients and the patients in the acute care hospital. You cannot guarantee the safety of the community because you're not giving the hospital the money to run those programs. Again I ask you, Minister, will you guarantee now that St Joseph's will receive the $44 million presently allocated to the HPH to run those same programs?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's very important to understand that the initial directives we have received from the Health Services Restructuring Commission are interim directives. Obviously the community now has an opportunity to make a response. As I indicated to you, that is going to occur on January 5, 1998. However, I personally want to assure you that there are no plans whatsoever to close any of the facilities until we are sure we have the appropriate spaces in place.

I also want to indicate to you that I can appreciate your concerns regarding the mental health and psychiatric services that are going to be needed in your community, but I have indicated that we will be embarking on a comprehensive review of mental health services in Ontario and we will certainly be taking into consideration your concerns and the concerns of everyone else.

1510

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Minister, this morning you said to the media that no community would get a charitable casino if it didn't want one.

I know you're aware that in my community of Beaches-Woodbine, through extensive consultation, the community has indicated its opposition to a charitable casino and also to the expansion of video lottery terminals. They participated in a referendum along with the rest of the citizens in the municipality of Toronto, who said no to those two items, as did communities in municipality after municipality by referendum.

I've asked members of your government what action you will take. The member for Scarborough Centre, for example, on a CBC panel gave an assurance that he believed your government would respect those referendum results.

Your government decided to have these charitable casinos and force them on to communities. Now the communities and the people have said no. Will you take action to stop all process on the development of casino proposals with the proponents that you have awarded those contracts to?

Hon Mr Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I did say that, but I would like to turn the question over to my colleague Minister Tsubouchi.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Once you've said, "I did say that," you've got to answer the question.

Hon Mr Palladini: I just want to say to the honourable member, I certainly did say what I said this morning. To my understanding, the municipality certainly has the right to say no to a charitable casino, so I stand by what I said.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The gambling strategy gets more interestingly bizarre with every day that goes by. First the Premier says, "No more casinos until we have a province-wide referendum," then, boom, out of the blue we have 42 charitable gaming casinos imposed on communities. Then communities have their own referendum and they say no, yet you still continue to say that you're going to impose them.

My own community had a referendum on a full-scale commercial casino. They said yes. The municipality said no to your charitable scheme, yet you won't come across with what they want.

What is your strategy? Where does democracy come into this picture? What does the voice of the people mean? Will Sault Ste Marie get a full-scale casino or will you impose the smaller charitable-type casinos on every community across this province against their wishes?

Hon Al Palladini: Mr Speaker, I would like to turn this question over to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for an opportunity to respond, certainly to the first part of the question. We've been very consistent in terms of what we've said. We've said we wouldn't force any community to take a charity gaming club if they didn't want one, but we've also been very clear and consistent as well by saying that any plebiscites or any of the referenda that took place over the last several months were really information for the local councils.

We've agreed to abide by the wishes of the council. We hope as well that the councils embark upon having full information about what we are doing. This includes communicating with all the various parts of their community, which means of course the ratepayers in their community, the charities and the local BIAs, to make sure they will truly reflect what their communities want.

It's also very important for them to understand the consequences as well. Clearly, at the end of March of next year, the three-day rovers are going to cease to exist because they have not worked. We want to implement a new accountable -

The Speaker: Thank you, perfect; right on time.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a number of petitions I present to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the provincial government, through Bill 160, has continued to undermine the democratic functions of the Ontario Legislature by removing decision-making from the legislative process to the regulatory powers of cabinet;

"Whereas the provincial government has ignored the majority of public opinion against Bill 160;

"Whereas the provincial government, in an act of vindictiveness against teachers who protested against Bill 160, has introduced amendments to remove principals and vice-principals from their federations and thereby deny them collective bargaining rights;

"Whereas it is clear that the government's agenda is to cut at least $667 million from education spending and further undermine public education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to conduct a vote of non-confidence in the Ontario government and to call for a provincial election."

Once again, these petitions are signed by literally hundreds of concerned citizens, and I affix my signature in full support.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): This is a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"To Premier Mike Harris, Minister William Saunderson, and members of the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas Mike Harris during the 1995 election promised voters he would not allow more casinos without holding a community referendum;

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government of Ontario has designated the Beaches community as one of 36 new permanent charity casino sites without holding a referendum;

"Whereas Mike Harris says these permanent casinos are simply replacing roving charity casinos;

"Whereas roving charity casinos can only be set up for a maximum of three days, can't stay open all night, have no more than 30 tables and take a maximum bet of $10. On the other hand, the new casinos are permanent, operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, with 40 tables, 150 video slot machines and maximum bets of $100;

"Whereas Mike Harris dismisses concerns, saying the total number of gaming days in Toronto won't change;

"Whereas the nature of gambling will change dramatically with the introduction of the highly addictive video slot machines and much higher dollar volume operations, it being evident by the government's estimate that the new permanent casinos will see about $1 billion a year wagered;

"Whereas Mike Harris says the new permanent casinos will be safer and more accountable;

"Whereas at the Windsor casino extra law enforcement resources were provided by the province and the Harris government has made no such commitment for the new casino in the Beaches;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease any bids for the Beaches casino site, to fully consult with the community, and not to force a casino site on the community against its wishes."

I am in full support and affix my signature.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I have a very unusual petition to present to the House today and it's from the parishioners at St Joseph's church in Bowmanville. They've signed the white ribbons against pornography and sent them to me asking to present them to the House.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness; and

"Whereas abortion is not therapeutic; and

"Whereas abortion is never medically necessary; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require elective procedures to be funded; and

"Whereas there is no right to publicly funded abortion; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility and the authority of the province exclusively to determine what services will be insured; and

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

"Whereas the availability of abortion at public expense leads to the use of abortion as a means of birth control; and

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

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

"That the Ontario provincial government remove abortion as a service or procedure covered under the provincial Health Insurance Act."

On behalf of members of the parish, I'm pleased to present and sign this petition.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that's signed by hundreds of constituents throughout the Kenora riding. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"As parents, grandparents and community members, we recognize all our children deserve the highest-quality education. Bill 160 is not in the best interests of our children.

"We, the undersigned, recognize that whereas Bill 160 does not enhance the quality of education, it only facilitates the government's power grab; and

"Whereas our community members promote children first; and

"Whereas Ontario teachers have the best interests of our children at heart;

"Be it resolved that the passage of Bill 160 be delayed while the government works together with educators, boards of education, parent councils and concerned citizens through the democratic process to achieve an educational system that truly benefits our children and preserves local autonomy."

I've attached my name to that petition as well.

1520

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by approximately 120 residents of Toronto, London, Sarnia, Stoney Creek, and other communities in southern Ontario. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas many questions concerning the events preceding, during and after the fatal shooting of Anthony Dudley George on September 6, 1995, at Ipperwash Provincial Park, where over 200 armed officers were sent to control 25 unarmed men and women, have not been answered;

"Whereas the officers involved in the beating of Bernard George were not held responsible for their actions;

"Whereas the Ontario Provincial Police refused to cooperate with the special investigations unit in recording the details of that night;

"Whereas the influence and communications of Lambton MPP Marcel Beaubien with the government have been verified through transcripts presented in the Legislature;

"Whereas the trust of the portfolio of native affairs held by Attorney General Charles Harnick is compromised by his continued refusal for a full public inquiry into the events at Ipperwash;

"Whereas the promised return of Camp Ipperwash to the Stony Point Nation by the federal Ministry of Defence and the serious negotiations of land claims by both the provincial and federal governments could have avoided a conflict;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that a full public inquiry be held into the events surrounding the fatal shooting of Dudley George on September 6, 1995, to eliminate all misconceptions held by and about the government, the OPP and the Stony Point people."

I support the call for an inquiry into the tragic events.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the students of College Avenue Secondary School, disagree with Bill 160 to the fullest extent; we are having no say in our education and in our futures. To say that we do have is having little to no impact on government officials. We would like the government to listen to the students of Ontario and to take into consideration that it is our lives that they are dealing with. The government needs to understand that our education is crucial. We care about our education and futures and therefore need some say as to where they are going. We would like the government to take this seriously. We strongly urge you to listen to the students and to vote no against Bill 160."

It's signed by 150 of the students of College Avenue Secondary School in my riding.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition sent to me by OSSTF District 1. Notwithstanding the fact that Bill 160 has passed, their voices should be heard.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 160 is detrimental to our education system we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: That Bill 160 should not be passed."

It's signed by parents and students of Essex South.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"Whereas Bill 160 is detrimental to our education system we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: That Bill 160 should not be passed."

I add my name to that petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 162 people.

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

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass a bill empowering municipalities to enact bylaws governing dress code and to continue to urge the government of Canada to pass legislation to reinstate such partial nudity as an offence."

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I am pleased to present a petition for the member for Durham West, Minister Ecker. This is from a teacher at the Scarborough Board of Education, a petition against Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's a properly and duly filled out form. I'm pleased to present it to the House today.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas we wish it to be known that we are in total disagreement with Bill 160; furthermore, we believe that our government was based on a democratic system, not a dictatorship;

"We, the undersigned, petition that a referendum be held concerning Bill 160: Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly instruct the Minister of Education and Training to hold a referendum concerning Bill 160."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I would ask you, Speaker, to consider the rotation that just took place. I think something may have gone out of order. I'd ask you to review that if you would.

I have a petition regarding Bill 160, similar to the ones I've introduced before. These are another thousand citizens. It was coordinated by Liz Ruffell and Donna Bandow. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, ask you, Mr Dave Johnson, Minister of Education, to withdraw Bill 160 on the grounds it is flawed legislation that will lead to flawed education and (a) allow uncertified teachers to teach in the classroom; (b) cause a loss to kids of thousands of teachers and increase class sizes; (c) reduce teacher preparation time, which translates into less teachers and less time for students; and (d) allow the provincial government to set the educational tax rate without provision for debate in the Legislature or at the local school board level."

I add my name to these thousands of Hamiltonians.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I have a petition here on behalf of many of my constituents regarding their concerns about education in Ontario.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am pleased to add my name to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the provincial government is abandoning its responsibility to provide good care for people who live in long-term-care facilities by defunding and deregulating the sector; and

"Whereas the resulting staff shortages lead to loss of quality care, decreased resident security and more workplace injuries; and

"Whereas the selloff to for-profit operators of the care for our frail elderly residents raises questions about accountability, accessibility, working conditions and quality of care and pits frail residents against profits; and

"Whereas the provincial government has a responsibility to ensure that funding, staffing and standards provide a level of care which promotes dignity and respect for those who live and work in long-term-care facilities;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to provide adequate funding for the care of residents in long-term-care facilities, to establish and enforce provincial standards for care in Ontario long-term-care facilities and to impose a moratorium on the selloff of care for vulnerable residents to the for-profit sector."

This is signed by 60 citizens of the province. I agree with the petitioners and I have signed my name as well.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): I have a petition here from a number of concerned residents in my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"We require a resolution to the pay equity issue for Red Cross homemakers in Ontario."

I am pleased to affix my signature.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the ministry of medicine through its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is restricting access to alternative cost-saving treatments for patients of the province; and

"Whereas two recent reports commissioned by the Ministry of Health called for increased OHIP funding to improve patient access to chiropractic services on the grounds of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and

"Whereas over one million Ontario adults now use chiropractic services annually, increasingly those with higher incomes, because of the cost barrier caused by government underfunding; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has shown blatant disregard for the needs of the citizens of Ontario in restricting funding for chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

This petition is signed by a large number of constituents, mostly from the Espanola-Massey-Spanish area, and I'll affix my signature.

1530

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I just wanted to address a comment to those who were giving petitions. The member for Hamilton Centre will be particularly interested in this. You made a statement and I didn't want it to go unchallenged. I did make a rotation. There was no one standing up. I made another rotation. I called on the member who had indicated that he had had one before. He wasn't standing up, and there was someone standing over here. You may have thought that I had not followed in rotation. No one from either of the parties here was standing and so I didn't recognize them.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Mr Speaker, I just want to thank you for agreeing to review it. That is what I requested and I accept your explanation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Government notice of motion number 54.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the time allocation that has been called by the government House leader for debate this afternoon. I have given you some written explanation of my concern. This motion time-allocates debate on Bill 161, a bill that's related to Bill 160, the education bill that was passed yesterday by the government majority. I draw your attention to the motion, which says, "...when Bill 161 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 for third reading."

Then it says, "...third reading of the bill shall then immediately be called and the remainder of the sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill."

You'll note, Speaker, that this time allocation motion appears to allow for two things that violate the standing orders of the Legislature: first, that the bill be allowed to pass two stages in one sessional day. This is in direct violation of standing order 78(b), which reads, "A bill shall not pass more than one stage on one day if opposed by 12 members standing in their places." This time allocation motion does not allow the House to be tested in the manner set out in standing order 78(b).

Second, the time allocation motion allows no opportunity for amendments to be made to Bill 161. In my recollection, this has never been done before in this place.

Our standing orders allow for all bills to pass through either a standing committee or committee of the whole House in order that they may be scrutinized and changes or amendments made to them if necessary. How can members of the assembly who may have proposed changes to this bill, which our party does have, submit them for consideration?

For instance, this bill allows for the payment of $40 a day to parents who have children 13 years of age or younger in the school system in Ontario without any receipts. Obviously, that is one of the amendments that we would have liked to put to the bill. If the government is serious about wanting to reimburse parents for costs incurred, we would like to know that those costs actually were incurred. Accountability, I think, calls for that. So our caucus wanted to put an amendment.

Other amendments we would have considered with regard to the provisions of the bill deal with how individual members of federations are to be protected.

This, in our view, is a serious violation of the rights of the members to scrutinize legislation in committee and to present amendments for debate even under time allocation. We believe this is a right of MPPs that is entrenched in the standing orders.

Beauchesne states that each stage of a bill - first reading, second reading, committee, report and third reading, all these stages - performs necessary functions. I refer you, Speaker, to page 195 of Beauchesne.

The function of the committee stage is to consider the details of a measure and propose amendments. The function of the report stage is used to amend specific clauses. The function of the third reading stage is to review the bill in its final form after, and I quote from Beauchesne, "the shaping it has received in its earlier stages."

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: The member from Scarborough is giving a treatise on my comments.

This time allocation motion is the latest evidence that this government wants to curtail debate on important legislation and use essentially anti-democratic tactics to achieve their end in passing legislation quickly.

I ask the Speaker to review and rule on this point of order before the debate proceeds this afternoon.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, further to the point of order - and I appreciate the member for Algoma having sought a way in which to present the concerns as a point of order which can be subject to your review - the fact that this bill is now being time-allocated and that there will be no opportunity for amendment and no opportunity for discussion on a clause-by-clause basis I think is cause for very real concern perhaps in two particular respects.

One is that the bill contains what is commonly known as a basket clause. You will understand that there have been a great many public questions raised about exactly how this payment to families is to work. As the member for Algoma has indicated, there is a real concern about the non-receiptability. There are amendments that would be considered in clause-by-clause to clarify the way in which the payment is to work. It's quite clear that the government itself has not given sufficient consideration to how to make this work, because the basket clause exists and it's a clause that gives the Minister of Education and Training the power to issue such directives to boards and establish such procedures as he or she considers advisable to carry out the intent and purposes of this section.

Quite clearly, this is a basket clause that would be subject first to clarification and secondly to amendment. We have, as an opposition party, been extremely concerned about the granting of broad, sweeping general powers to act through regulation.

The second area which continues to be a public concern raised as recently as this morning is the unanswered question of costing of the payment and who is responsible for the costing. It has been indicated that it will be public and separate school boards that will be responsible for the costs. They are concerned about cost overruns and the effect of any cost overrun on their operating budgets. Of course, with no longer any taxing power, they simply do not know where the dollars will come from. I think that's an important question that has to be asked.

All of these issues would have been addressed in a committee hearing or clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There is a growing concern in this House, and I suspect outside of this House, that we are starting to have the government of the day trying to circumvent what we feel would be the normal procedures. You heard an earlier argument today, which I won't repeat, on Bill 164, where we felt the government was trying to do by the back door what it should have been doing by the front door; in other words, bringing in another bill to amend two controversial bills they did not want to send to committee of the whole.

Now we have a circumstance which clearly violates what my understanding of the spirit of the rules of this House is, and I believe probably the letter of the laws of this House or the procedures of this House, even under the changed rules brought in by this government.

One that we have to deal with is that I can't think of any time where we've dealt with two stages of a bill in one day without consent. There has always been consent of the House when that's the case. Some days there have been three readings in one day, but it has always been with consent, to give that time for due consideration.

1540

The second is to remove all ability to offer amendments to legislation, which I think is important. If you don't have an amending stage, then the government doesn't have time to reflect on anything in a piece of legislation, the public input that comes in. When you have a piece of legislation of this kind, the public tends to, even on an unsolicited basis, send in information and helpful hints to government and opposition as to how legislation can be amended, changed or improved. This time allocation motion is going to deny that opportunity to members of the House, and indirectly to members of the public.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): My contention, of course, is that this time allocation motion is within the standing orders of the Legislature. This is not anti-democratic in any way, shape or form. The standing orders clearly give the majority of the Legislature the authority to either send a bill through the committee process, to the committee of the whole House, or not. That is clearly within the standing orders for us to decide or not to decide as a majority of the House. If in fact the majority of this House felt that this should go to the committee of the whole House or to a standing committee, then they would vote against this particular time allocation motion.

During the second reading of this bill, none of the concerns raised today by the opposition House leaders and opposition members, or very few of them, were raised during the debate on Bill 161. In fact, the debate centred around another bill, Bill 160.

This bill is a relatively short bill with I believe about 13 sections in it. We do not believe as a government that each and every piece of legislation must go through the committee process, particularly bills which are relatively short and relatively straightforward in terms of their focus and their direction.

I would like to turn now to previous occasions, and I refer to Speaker Warner's ruling on Bill 150 in 1992. In 1992, on Bill 150 it was moved that "the Speaker shall put the question forthwith on the motion, which question shall be decided without amendment or debate." That motion was unprecedented at the time. It provided for no further debate with regard to third reading and there was a vote required immediately by the Legislature. There was no time allowed during the time allocation motion for debate, so we had a time allocation motion in which there was no time between when the motion was made and a particular vote was taken.

Speaker Warner ruled that the motion was in order for the following reasons: Standing order 46 requires written notice and a full day of debate on a motion and makes no mention of a minimum time requirement for third reading debate on a bill. The closure motion moved under then-standing order 45 can be moved without notice, can be moved by any member and is non-debatable. A time allocation motion under standing order 46 can be moved only by a government minister upon written notice and provides a certain measure of balance. While it doesn't provide for minimum debate on third reading, it does specify that a motion cannot be moved until there have been at least three days of debate at second reading. We have had three days of debate at second reading on Bill 161.

Speaker Warner concluded, quoting from the 21st edition of Erskine May at page 409:

Time allocation "may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate."

The provision of the time allocation tabled and ready to be debated this afternoon as well - and I believe the House leader for the third party talked about another standing order - talks about this particular one, our time allocation motion today which, as filed with you, says, "...notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House." Mr Speaker, it is my contention and our contention that this bill falls within the standing orders.

I'd also like to draw your attention to a precedent in the House of Commons, in their Journals, where there is a precedent with regard to where a time allocation deals with more than one stage of the bill. This was in 1971, and I'm referring to 1013 in the Hansard Journals of the House of Commons. At that time there was a time allocation motion for the reporting stage and third reading in one day. In that motion it set conditions and exact times for those motions and the extension of new motions and when those votes would be called. I believe that concludes our contentions that this time allocation is in order. We're ready to debate it.

Mrs McLeod: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is this a point of privilege?

Mrs McLeod: Yes it is, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I've got to deal with the point of order first. You do take it. But I don't take it in the middle of a point of order. I'll take it immediately following it. Member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The government House leader is arguing a very novel argument that if a majority of the members of this House wish this bill, Bill 161, to go to committee, they should vote against this motion. That's a very odd approach. All time allocation motions that we've had in the past in this House have allowed for some sort of committee consideration for amendment.

To suggest that in this particular case you can't have a committee unless you vote against the time allocation motion is quite novel and unusual. I just refer again to standing orders 71(b) and (c), where it allows for, in the new rules this government brought in, bills to go to committee or to committee of the whole for consideration and amendment and even allows for 12 members to stand in their place to refer a bill to a standing or select committee.

Surely it is quite unprecedented for the government to introduce a time allocation motion which does not allow for any amendments. This is the first time we've ever had that I'm aware of where the government has argued that it is perfect and it cannot make any mistakes in the drafting of legislation and therefore doesn't need to consider any amendments. Surely the government is not that arrogant.

We've seen over many, many pieces of legislation the need for the government to amend its own legislation. This is the first time we've had this kind of a presentation to us, and I think it's quite unacceptable that we should not be able to have at least the opportunity to propose some amendments that would improve this legislation for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: I'd like to thank all the members today for their submissions today with respect to the point of order. Basically I see two points of order: one with respect to the amendments and the second with respect to the standing orders and dealing with the two particular processes in the same day.

With respect to the amendments, let me just say I can cite you dozens of examples - and I think even the opposition members would know - of where this House has dealt with a bill in order and not had it sent anywhere for amendments. This would not be what I would consider to be precedent setting with respect to dealing with a bill before this House. Therefore I don't find that a particularly compelling argument with respect to the amendments.

1550

With respect to the time allocation motion, the difficulty I am faced with at this time, and it's a very, very problematic situation I find myself in, and I read through the books and I hear all the examples and I will do it again today, but as you read through these - you understand that they were written some time ago.

I'll do it with the first journal entry I have here. This is Erskine May:

"The House has adopted the standing orders, which are permanent rules for the guiding and the control of the House in the conduct of its business. The standing orders do not form a complete code of procedures for the House to discharge its functions. They may be supplanted from time to time by sessional orders or special resolutions to facilitate the progress of business through the House."

If you see that, "They may be supplanted from time to time by sessional orders or special resolutions," in essence you may have a time allocation motion that can supplant your standing orders. When this was written, I think that was a fairly interesting argument. It says, "...from time to time." The difficulty you're faced with is that it's no longer from time to time; it's on a fairly routine basis. I think we'll all admit that. I don't think I'm speaking out of any outrageous side to suggest that it's a fairly routine proceeding to go with time allocation.

I say not on any government's list; I think we can all remember back to days in all three parties' being when time allocation motions were introduced and dealt with on a fairly routine basis. So when I review the context of what I measure my decisions by, it is somewhat difficult at times to rationalize this or at least square that circle.

"Standing orders are not safeguarded by any special procedure against amendment, repeal or suspension. They are passed by a House by a simple majority and may be altered, supplanted or deleted by a simple resolution in the same way." So in essence your standing orders are there but they can be changed by a simple majority of this House. At whatever period of time this House wants to supplant them, change them or ignore them, they can, and it's just that simple. That was Edighoffer.

We then move into the other expert on allocation of time orders, and that's Erskine May, page 408. I'll read this to you as well, and I think you can understand the conundrum.

"In many sessions in order to secure the passage of particularly important and controversial legislation, governments have been confronted with the choice, unless special powers are taken, of cutting down their normal program to an undesirable extent, or of prolonging the sittings of Parliament, or else of acknowledging the impotence of the majority of the House in the face of the resistance of the minority. In such circumstances resort is had sooner or later to the most drastic method of curtailing debate known to procedure, namely, the setting of a date by which a committee must report, or the allocation of a specified number of days to the various stages of a bill and of limited amounts of time to particular portions of a bill."

When they speak there, they're speaking with a great degree of, I think, reverence. That's a time allocation motion. They're suggesting that this is very unusual; it's "special powers," and "undesirable." You can read into that that when they wrote this they're saying, "My goodness, this is something that governments have to do when they're being held hostage because they can't get legislation through." I read that and I understand that that's a time allocation motion. I do not speak of just this government. I think we can all imagine what it was like in opposition or wherever you were. Many time allocations were brought forward.

Interjection.

The Speaker: That's right, they suspended the standing orders. The government House leader is perfectly correct.

I'm now left with the decision. Frankly, as Speaker, there is no decision. Time allocation motions suspend the standing orders of the House. They suspend them, so whatever rules we have lived by up until this point in time, they're suspended, and inserted in their place is the time allocation order.

It seems to me that you're looking to me, on points of order, to rule against a time allocation motion. In the vernacular, there's nothing wrong. All the books say there's nothing wrong.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members for Algoma and St Catharines.

There's nothing wrong. Those are the rules. That's how they're written, that's how they're examined, that's how they're drafted and that's how standing orders get suspended so time allocation motions may be adopted.

I can only say to the members of the House that it seems to me, and I don't think this is unreasonable, that we've dealt with a lot of time allocation motions. I just say to them that maybe the House leaders could get together and discuss another process or at least alleviate the process to some degree, if that's where the frustration is.

I can only say to you that standing on points of order and requesting me to rule time allocation motions out of order -they can very rarely be out of order because they suspend the very standing orders that we live by.

The motion is in order. Bill 161 is in order.

Mr Wildman: With respect, Speaker, this is not done frivolously. I understand your position, but this was only introduced two weeks ago. You haven't been held hostage.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, if you considered that I suggest it was frivolous, I don't, and I would never consider the point of order frivolous.

Mrs McLeod: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: My point of privilege is relevant to that, because the government House leader, in making his arguments as to the challenge we've made to the time allocation motion, suggested that the concerns raised by the members of the opposition had not been raised previously in second reading debate on the bill. The implication is that our concerns being raised today were simply dilatory in order to delay the time allocation motion proceeding.

In fact, the government House leader was not present when I participated in second reading of the bill. If he were to review Hansard he would know that I raised the concerns both of the regulatory powers of the minister under the basket clause and of the uncosted implications of the bill and the liability of public school boards to pay for that. I would expect that the minister would correct the record by withdrawing his statement, which is not borne out by Hansard.

The Speaker: Again, that's something the minister will review. I didn't hear that and I would not request him to withdraw it now unless he deems that he in fact said that.

Now I guess we're at the government House leader.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I believe I moved government notice of motion number 54.

I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 161, An Act to provide fairness for parents and employees by providing remedies relating to the province-wide withdrawal of services by teachers between October 27 and November 7, 1997 and to make a complementary amendment to the Education Act, when Bill 161 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 for third reading;

That the order for third reading of the bill shall then immediately be called and the remainder of the sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:45 pm or 9:15 pm as the case may be on such day, 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, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 5 minutes.

Mr Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Labour, the member for Simcoe Centre and the member for Simcoe East.

I have just moved time allocation for Bill 161, the Fairness for Parents and Employees Act. As government House leader, I would prefer not to use time allocation to move bills through the legislative process in a timely fashion. However, it has proven to be virtually impossible for the government to move important legislation through this House and fulfil its mandate without using time allocation.

As my predecessor and colleague Minister Johnson has noted before, we're not the first government to be forced to use time allocation legislation. Indeed it was the NDP government that in 1992 codified the time allocation process through changing the standing orders of this Legislative Assembly. The same NDP government then went on to allocate some 23 pieces of legislation. How many of us remember Bill 40, An Act to amend certain acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment? How many of us remember Bill 48, the social contract?

1600

The Liberals, without formal provision for time allocation in the standing orders, which were changed after their particular time in office, moved time allocation on five bills.

To date, our government has allocated time on 15 bills including Bill 161. Clearly, the NDP holds the record for allocating time on the most bills.

Mr Wildman: You're only halfway through. At this rate it will be 30 or 35.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Algoma.

Hon Mr Sterling: All three recognized parties in this House have relied on time allocation to ensure passage of important legislation.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma, the member for Lambton.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: We'll wait. We've got ample time. Minister.

Hon Mr Sterling: Bill 161 is an important piece of legislation. Bill 161, the Fairness for Parents and Employees Act, protects the rights and interests of children, families and employees who were adversely affected by the teachers' illegal strike. By ensuring the expeditious passage of Bill 161, we can help to alleviate the financial hardship of families affected by the teachers' strike. By ensuring the expeditious passage of Bill 161, we can protect the rights of those teachers who chose to stay in the classroom, who chose to do their legal duty.

The motion before the House today will enable us to do that. The motion provides for the completion of second reading of Bill 161, for the immediate debate on third reading of Bill 161 and for a timely vote on third reading of Bill 161. To date, the debate on Bill 161 has primarily served the opposition parties with an opportunity to extend debate on Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act. We have already spent three days in this House on that extended debate. That bill passed third reading yesterday.

While I have been able to address the procedural aspects of Bill 161, I will now permit my colleague the Minister of Labour to speak on the more specific aspects of Bill 161 and the importance of this bill receiving third and final reading as quickly as possible so we can be fair to those teachers who crossed the picket lines and wanted to go and protect the children they were teaching in their classrooms, and also to reimburse parents who by the acts of this illegal strike had to take money out of their pockets to pay for day care.

I yield the floor to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): As the member for Durham Centre and as the Minister of Labour and above all as a parent, I am pleased to support this motion on Bill 161, the Fairness for Parents and Employees Act. This motion will allow this Legislature to move swiftly to address the concerns of the parents, guardians and taxpayers of Ontario.

It is my sincere hope that as a Legislature we can proceed expeditiously to third reading and proclamation of this important legislation. Therefore, I once again ask all three parties in the House to give unanimous consent and support the passage of this bill.

Since first reading, a large number of members have indicated support for this legislation. In fact, even the Liberal education critic and member for Fort William has publicly expressed her agreement with the rebate provisions for parents in Bill 161. It is reported in the Chronicle-Journal in Thunder Bay on Wednesday, November 26, 1997:

"McLeod said Tuesday she doesn't grudge the rebate, just its timing. `The province hinted at the rebate during the strike. It was a way of saying to parents, "Don't worry, we'll compensate you for any inconvenience or cost."'"

If passed, this bill will provide fairness to the working families of Ontario who were adversely affected by the province-wide strike. These parents and guardians suffered hardship and inconvenience and had to shoulder additional burdens. Bill 161 will provide financial relief to a maximum of $400 per family - I emphasize $400 per family, not per student - for the hardship experienced by parents and guardians during the strike.

Mr Wildman: It doesn't matter if they were inconvenienced or not. You're going to give them 400 bucks.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma, it's the last time. I don't need to remind you again.

Hon Mr Flaherty: It would also prohibit the dismissal or discipline of parents and guardians who missed work to care for their children during the province-wide strike by teachers' unions, and it would protect those teachers who chose to stay in the classroom from reprisals by their unions.

It is time to move forward with this legislation as quickly and efficiently as possible. This much we owe the people of this province who experienced hardship, financial stress and disruption of family life because of the strike.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Brantford, I won't warn you again. I hope it's clear.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Since the introduction of this bill on the first day of the current session of the House, the working families of Ontario have been waiting for financial relief for disruptions caused by the strike by teachers' unions. There have been hundreds of calls to the Ministry of Labour, to the Ministry of Education and to constituency offices all around the province from anxious parents and guardians who wish to apply for this financial relief.

We want to keep our promises to the parents of Ontario, promises made on October 24, 1997, at the beginning of the two-week, province-wide strike by the teachers' unions. At that time, the government of Ontario promised, first of all, to make payments of up to a maximum of $40 per day per family to the parents of school-age children to help alleviate the impact of the strike; second, to protect employees who had to care for their children during the strike; and third, to protect teachers who refused to participate in the strike from union reprisals. Bill 161 keeps the promises we made. It is a demonstration to the people of Ontario of the commitment of this government to working families, to employees and to children.

During the two weeks of the province-wide strike, the parents of this province and their children were forced to take unusual and unexpected measures to deal with inconvenience and disruption. Additional burdens were placed on parents' shoulders because many teachers chose not to go to work. Additional costs were incurred by working families to cover child care responsibilities. In some cases, parents had to stay home from work, thus potentially losing income. Often other family members, such as grandparents, travelled to the homes of their grandchildren to help with looking after children who could not go to school.

The children of this province were denied access to their schools, to the education they are fully entitled to, the education paid for by their hardworking parents. Employers were required to work around the child care needs and responsibilities of their employees. I urge the Legislature to move quickly to pass Bill 161 and to provide relief to the working families of Ontario.

I would like at this time to review the important elements of this legislation. Bill 161 enables the government of Ontario to help to cushion the impact of the strike on the parents and guardians of school-age children, and also to protect from reprisals the employees of this province and those teachers who honoured their agreements and went to work in the classroom. Our proposed legislation deals with each of these promises, these commitments, in three sections.

1610

Section 1 of Bill 161, the Fairness for Parents and Employees Act, would provide for a payment of up to $40 per family per day that an eligible child was unable to attend school because of the strike. This means a maximum of $400 for families whose children could not go to school for the full 10-day period of the strike.

The payment would also apply if children were unable to attend school because transportation, that is, the school buses, was not available; or if special education programs or services for special needs children were not available; or if children did not attend school because in their parents' opinion - and I emphasize in their parents' opinion - they would not have been safely supervised at a school or school-based child care centre or nursery school.

The payment is available to affected parents and guardians, including those mothers and fathers who would normally stay at home - stay-at-home moms and stay-at-home dads; those who had to enlist the help of relatives and parents who are themselves students in colleges or enrolled in training courses but were forced to miss classes during the strike in order to look after their children.

For the purposes of this legislation, "eligible child" refers to, first of all, school children 13 years of age or younger; second, children in child care facilities or day nurseries located in schools that were closed due to the teachers' unions' strike; or special needs students in secondary schools. The money for these payments comes from the savings school boards have accumulated as a result of not having to pay striking teachers who did not go to work.

The school boards will have the following responsibilities: identifying the appropriate school days; determining if students were prevented from attending classes because of the strike; and administering the payment to eligible households.

Should Bill 161 be approved by the Legislature, parents and guardians will immediately be able to apply for payment through their children's schools and the school boards. There will be an application form available at all schools and school boards in Ontario. The application form will also be available from the Ministry of Education Web site, and I am happy to note that many public libraries in the province provide free access to the Internet. This will broaden the immediate availability of the application form.

It is also possible to apply for the payment without the application form, by writing to request the payment. A parent can write to the school board to request the payment, but it is important to note that all the information required on the form must be included in such a letter.

The provincial government will not require that receipts be submitted with application forms. A preliminary opinion from Revenue Canada suggests that these payments will not be taxable. However, it is wise for parents to keep any receipts they may have. There will be a final decision from Revenue Canada if and when this bill becomes law and Revenue Canada reviews the bill in its final form.

There are two exceptions to eligibility for this payment. First, teachers who participated in the strike and the co-parents or co-guardians of their children are not eligible to apply. Second, the families of eligible children attending separate schools in York region may only apply for payment for school days missed during the first week of the strike; that is, before November 3. On November 3 teachers at the York region separate school board started a legal strike. This payment will not be made for school days missed because of that legal strike.

If and when Bill 161 is passed by the Legislature and is proclaimed, the government will make the final form of the application available on the Ministry of Education Web site and in electronic form to school boards. We shall inform families through the media and through school boards of the date on which application forms will be available and state what the deadline will be for returning application forms. I urge parents and guardians to take note of the deadline date when it is made available so that they make sure that if they do wish to complete the form, they complete it and submit it in adequate time, within the deadline. Advertisements will be placed in papers - daily, weekly, French and English - across the province with this information.

Once parents and guardians have sent the completed application forms to their school board, the school boards will be responsible for ensuring that parents receive payment. This procedure will be straightforward, the form is straightforward, and parents will receive payment as quickly as possible. I am confident that school boards will deal with this task in an efficient and expeditious manner.

The working families of Ontario suffered many unforeseen difficulties because of the two-week province-wide strike by teachers' unions. This payment acknowledges the additional burden they shouldered because of the teachers' strike. We will make every effort to make sure that parents and guardians have every opportunity to make this application for financial relief. We are determined to ensure that the working families of Ontario are not harmed by the strike action of the teachers of Ontario.

With respect to section 2 of Bill 161, it provides for protection for employees. Bill 161 will also ensure that employees are protected from dismissal or discipline if they couldn't work because of additional child care responsibilities during the teachers' strike.

The government knows that the employers of Ontario responded positively in helping their employees deal with the effect of the teachers' strike. I heard of numerous instances in which employers and employees worked together in order to minimize the impact of the strike, to make it possible for parents to look after their children. This legislation is a way of offering protection, where needed, to the workers of Ontario.

Under this legislation, an employer is not required to pay salary or wages for work not performed because of the teachers' strike; however, employees are protected from discipline or dismissal because they were unable to carry out the duties of work during this disruptive strike.

Employees in unionized workplaces will use the grievance procedure in their collective agreements to deal with improper dismissals or discipline during the strike. Employees who are not unionized and who feel they have been dismissed or disciplined improperly during the strike should file a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which will be empowered by this legislation to deal with this issue.

I would again like to commend the employers and employees of Ontario for responsible, cooperative measures undertaken in the workplace to deal with the disruptive impact of the strike.

Section 3 of Bill 161 provides for protection of teachers against reprisals. Bill 161 will prohibit teachers' unions from initiating reprisals against any of their members who refused to break the law and who did not participate in the strike. Under this proposed legislation, no teachers' federation, nor any branch or affiliate, will be permitted to take reprisals against any member who, first of all, did not support a teachers' union in preparing for the strike; or did not withdraw services or continue to withdraw their services; or crossed or attempted to cross a picket line established in connection with the strike; or counselled other teachers against striking or assisted other teachers who did not strike.

1620

That is the substance of Bill 161. It is important enabling legislation that takes us beyond the disruptions to the working families and the workplaces of Ontario caused by the two-week strike. This is the fundamental reason for supporting the motion that allows the Legislature to move forward with Bill 161.

During the strike this government took a number of steps to reassure young families, working families, and to help them deal with the situation. Bill 161 is this government's formal acknowledgement of the difficulties experienced by the working families of Ontario because of the teachers' strike. We know that families pulled together during this disruption. Grandparents came to look after children. Neighbours helped one another to look after the interests of children. Employers showed patience and understanding. This government is determined to protect the rights and interests of all those children, families and employees who were adversely affected by the teachers' strike. We are also determined to protect teachers who chose to go to work and stay in the classroom.

We made specific promises and we are keeping them. It is important that we are able to keep those promises to the people of Ontario as quickly and efficiently as possible. We want parents and guardians to receive their financial relief as soon as possible.

I urge all members to show their concern for the working families of Ontario by fully supporting Bill 161 and its swift passage into law. By giving this legislation speedy passage, we can help to alleviate the financial hardship of families adversely affected by the teachers' strike and at the same time protect the rights of employees and those teachers who chose to stay in the classroom. It is time to move forward with improving the education of the young people of this province. Bill 161, by providing the necessary and promised closure on this unfortunate strike by teachers' unions, is a positive step towards that direction.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I am very pleased to follow the House leader and the Minister of Labour in supporting this motion. I certainly commend the minister for taking this action in a very trying circumstance. At this time, I'd like to deal with some issues that have been raised.

I got a letter from a trustee within the county raising a number of concerns. I want to deal with it in terms of some of the comments made in this letter, which I find quite interesting and borderline amusing. It deals with the situation historically; money that has not been used to pay teachers during a strike has been returned to its origin. I guess you could use the analogy that if you're in a legal strike, obviously the teachers wouldn't be working or board personnel wouldn't be working, depending on the trade union, and of course the board wouldn't be required to pay them during that legal strike.

What we're having here is an illegal strike taken on behalf of employees of the board. Certainly the board has not paid them, because they withheld their services. I think the important point here and what we have to re-emphasize is that teachers, as well as other people who work for the board at the board offices, are employees of the board. It's the board's responsibility to staff their schools, to ensure that their people work. When their employees withhold their services illegally, it's the board's responsibility to make sure that they return to work.

What we found out during this illegal strike is that the boards did none of that, though I have to re-emphasize it's the boards' employees and it will be the boards that have to deal with their employees now that they're back from an illegal strike on a day-to-day basis because they have a collective agreement between the teachers' union and the members of the teachers' union and the board. To re-emphasize that point, we're dealing with the school board and the teachers' union and their obligation, when they sign a collective agreement, to follow through and work through the collective agreement and not withhold their services illegally. What happened here is that they withheld their services illegally.

What we're dealing with here is a unique situation which has been identified by this government, and I think the Minister of Labour has taken very responsible action to try to deal with the people who were put out in this situation. Who was put out? Well, number one, the students were put out. Obviously they couldn't get an education, which they have a legal right to have. Obviously the parents were put out, especially if they have young children, in dealing with their day care needs.

Certainly that's something this bill addresses directly on two fronts. It directly deals with it because we are dealing with those costs that are incurred that would not normally be incurred. They had to seek day care or other ways of trying to deal with their children's needs because they were working. In those circumstances, because these are school children who are not being allowed to go to school because of the illegal strike - principals and vice-principals, though they're required under the Education Act with respect to the running of the school, withheld their services. Why? Because they're members of the teachers' union. They withheld their services, even though under the Education Act they're supposed to be there. The individual teachers in the classroom withheld their services, also illegally.

In terms of scrounging around, in terms of the inconvenience the Minister of Labour mentioned of trying to get someone to look after their children, they also have to get to work. So they try to get to work. We also put in protections for them if in fact they do have difficulty with their employer. I think that's a very responsible action to take, to make sure there are no actions taken against a parent inconvenienced by an illegal strike in terms of making sure their children are cared for because they can't go to school because of an illegal strike. That seems to me to be a very fair compromise.

Most employers, if not all of them, obviously were very responsible throughout the whole situation, because it was a very difficult situation when you have to work for a living to pay for your mortgage, to pay for your expenses and at the same time you've got your children, who aren't being allowed to get an education, and you've got to find them somewhere to go.

I find it very ironic, I find this almost nonsensical in terms of saying, "Return the money to us, the board, even though we didn't act within the law and exert our rights at the labour relations board and force back to work the teachers who withheld their services under the guise of their teachers' union in an illegal strike." They could have done it within 24 hours of the illegal strike starting by going to the labour relations board. What did they do? They did nothing for two weeks until the unions called off the strike.

We've got a situation where boards should be looking to take action against their own teachers' union. This is between the individual school boards and the teachers' union. If the individual school board decides to bring a grievance against the individual teachers' union, so be it. It's the board that's out with respect to expenses. The board may be out with respect to this kind of situation they're facing now. But the bottom line is, don't say this was a historical situation, because quite frankly this was the first illegal teachers' strike that I'm aware of in this province, ever.

What we're dealing with is, essentially the opposition parties are saying: "We're going to put our heads in the sand. We're not going to say to the board, `Take responsibility with respect to your own employees.'" That's a bit too much responsibility for them to take. The bottom line is for the school boards to look after their employees, make sure they're at work and make sure the teachers' unions follow the collective agreement. They didn't do that.

The other situation I find a little bit simplistic is that the trustee says they're receiving calls from parents who have children 13 years and above and people who aren't going to get benefits from Bill 161; they're against that. How ludicrous. As the member for Simcoe Centre, I haven't received one call with respect to that type of situation. I would challenge the other members to say if they got any calls from people saying, "We don't want parents who were put out, had their children outside of the classroom, had to find day care or some way to look after their children, to get any kind of compensation." I've never heard that before. I not only find that situation nonsensical, but I can't believe that parents would be taking that position against other parents. I think there's a lot of empathy on behalf of all parents who have students in the school system and want them to be educated.

1630

Another part of this letter which I find quite amusing is: "What are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to fill in PA days? How are we supposed to deal with this? Now we've got to pay money that we never pay in the first place but now we have to pay it to the parents who were affected by the system because we never acted responsibly as trustees and as a board to make sure the situation ended. We don't want to make sure that they have any protection whatsoever. We want to make sure their life is inconvenienced on a continuous basis."

It's the board's decision to decide what they're going to do to ensure that the education of the students that was lost is maintained. They'll have to work that out with respect to their system, because the boards are responsible. That's why we have trustees who are responsible: to make sure the board system works. When trustees advocate the role they did during the illegal strike, don't come to me as the member and say, "Well, it's not right that we have to pay the parents out of the money we saved." As a member, it is totally offensive to hear that type of rationale.

The other point that's raised is, why are parents not being asked to submit receipts as proof of the expenses incurred? They take great offence at that, that they're not going to be in a position to put in receipts. At the same time, the complaint is, "The board is going to have so many claims we're not going to know how to deal with this." The minister has indicated that there will be a form that will be used to deal with the situation. But at the same time you make that statement, "You should be required to put in expenses and put in written receipts," at the same time saying, "We can't handle the workload," in terms of ease of administration, the act clearly states that no receipts are required, none whatsoever.

When you look at that situation, certainly the board would have knowledge of which students who are covered by the act would be impacted and would make arrangements as long as they got a legally authorized, filled-out form from the ministry and submitted it to the board. That's a very, very easy determination on their part. If they want to increase the workload they have, then obviously you would have a situation with receipts. It's totally nonsensical to ask for receipts in this situation. The board knows which children were affected. The board will know which children are affected and covered by this bill. So the boards have a responsibility.

I want to reiterate this so it's very clear in the public's mind: The act clearly provides, "A board that receives a completed application submitted by the prescribed deadline shall pay the applicant the amount to which he or she is entitled under this section." The board has to pay. So let's make sure there is no misunderstanding. The board has to pay and the board understands that. It's in the law.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma.

Mr Tascona: But where there is an exception - and we have to make this clear to the public - with respect to who is eligible, if an eligible child ordinarily resides with a parent or guardian who is a teacher who participated in the province-wide withdrawal of services, the teacher and any other person with whom the teacher ordinarily resides who is also a parent or guardian of the child is not entitled to payment in respect of that child for the school days on which the teacher participated in the withdrawal of services. That's a clear exception to this situation.

It's unfortunate that teachers withdrew their services in this situation. It's unfortunate the students were impacted because of the withdrawal of services. It's also unfortunate that we saw the board system break down, because they made a conscious, intentional decision not to follow through with their duties and did not force the workers back to work. That's why we have a Labour Relations Act, so that where there's a withdrawal of services during a collective agreement, you go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and have those workers come back. That didn't happen in this situation.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Why didn't you go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board?

Mr Tascona: The government can't go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. We're not the employer. The board of education is the employer responsible for the employees, responsible to make sure the collective agreement is adhered to. That's why we have the Labour Relations Act.

Mr Pouliot: They are in the wilderness.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Lake Nipigon, please. Member for Cochrane North, you're not in your seat, and the member for Algoma.

Mr Tascona: There's a statement made there in the letter that says, "What about the dangerous precedent that this sets for future labour actions?" That's in the context of paying the parents who were inconvenienced by the withdrawal of services and had to find somewhere for their children to be looked after. That's a dangerous precedent in terms of dealing with this.

The dangerous precedent that was set is that we had a province-wide strike with respect to a bill and with respect to a duly elected government which has a right to govern. What they were trying to do was to make sure this government did not govern, trying to break them, quite frankly, in the guise of democracy. Democracy is when you're dealing with a free election, being able to cast your ballot in a secret way. The essence of democracy is that we have a changeover of governments in this province, but once that government is elected, they have a right to govern. That is just a fact of life. Some parties govern poorly, as we know from the past. Others govern with the conscience of the people.

What we're dealing with here is a dangerous precedent. Of course it's dangerous when you withdraw your services illegally during a collective agreement, especially when you're dealing with a collective agreement that was entered into freely and you're impacting students. What are you trying to accomplish here? You've denied them 10 days of education. That's what the unions and their members have accomplished. What solutions do they have with respect to getting back those 10 days? I'd like to see what they're going to do with the boards of education.

But the dangerous precedent, even more far-fetched, is that the boards of education did not follow through with respect to the rights they have under the Labour Relations Act and abdicated their role as the employer with respect to their employees. The boards of education have a responsibility under law to make sure that the trade unions, with their members, honour that collective agreement. If they decide not to do that, then what we have is a system in which this happened: For 10 days the unions decided to run the education system, for 10 days they withdrew their services and for 10 days the boards of education did nothing. They did nothing to protect the education system in this province. They did nothing for the parents of this province. They did nothing for the children of this province. To take the position, "Oh, we don't think they should get anything because we saved money during this illegal strike," which they could have ended within 24 hours, to me just smacks of the type of attitude we've got to correct in this province.

School boards, in terms of a dangerous precedent, should never be in a position again where they decide, "We're going to let a legal strike last as long as the unions decide they want it to go on." What kind of precedent is that?

When we talk about school boards and the role that trustees play, trustees have to play a role, which is the protectors of education. They have to make sure that their employees honour their collective agreements. As a member and as a citizen of this province I don't ever want to see a situation again where there's a withdrawal of services in the education system, where the school boards do nothing to protect the system and the trustees abdicate their role with respect to protecting the system.

We have a bill here, Bill 161, which makes it mandatory for school boards to pay that amount of money to parents who were impacted by the strike. Certainly teachers should not benefit from that. They withheld their services. Why should their children be put in the situation of another parent who was impacted by that strike? They're excluded from this.

1640

I've never heard from anyone in my riding who disagrees with Bill 161, who disagrees on the basis of age, saying: "Well, my child is 14. I don't get anything from this. You shouldn't get it because your child is 13 and under." That is ludicrous. I haven't heard anything with respect to parents who were inconvenienced by this strike, who had to fear for their children, had to fear for their jobs. As a parent myself with young children, I can imagine what the parents were going through trying to make sure they could go to work, do their job and at the same time trying to make sure their children were looked after and trying to get an education for them. How can you balance that as a parent? It's a very demanding prospect, especially if you are a dual-income family: Both parents are working, you're trying to get your children looked after, you're trying to get your job done and you're trying to get your children educated.

Certainly it was an historical strike, certainly it set a dangerous precedent, but I would say the far more dangerous precedent in this situation was when the school boards with their trustees abdicated their position and abdicated their responsibility. After all, at the end of the day parents should look at the school boards for leadership to make sure they make sure that their employees follow their collective agreements so we can have an education system that works.

That's all I have to say on this motion. I think this is an exceptionally fair gesture on behalf of the government. I commend the Minister of Labour and I give the floor to the member for Simcoe East.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill 161, An Act to provide fairness for parents and employees by providing remedies relating to the province-wide withdrawal of services by teachers.

The last few weeks have been very stressful for the children and their parents or guardians. Ontario is a very large and influential province in this young and comparatively small country. However, because of our size, Ontario has great influence over this country. As Ontarians, we hold our heads high and proudly compete successfully, on an international scale, with any other countries in the world.

Because of this, we have put a great deal of emphasis on our education system. We believe it is the right of every child in this province to have the best possible elementary and secondary school education. I believe the recent upheaval has had a negative impact on our school children and has been an unnecessary inconvenience and hardship for parents and families.

Parents had to ask their employers to adjust work schedules or allow people to work at home. Some took unscheduled vacation days. Throughout, the employer had to exercise flexibility and understanding. I think we need to thank both the parents who made the adjustments and the employers who showed caring, tolerance and cooperation in accommodating the needs of parents with school-age children. Both have experienced undue stress.

Bill 161, introduced November 17 by my colleague the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Labour, will provide fairness for parents and employees by providing remedies relating to the province-wide withdrawal of services by teachers between October 27 and November 7, 1997. Bill 161 makes a complementary amendment to the new Education Quality Improvement Act. This bill also protects employees who had no other choice but to miss work to care for their children during the recent teachers' strike. This legislation will ensure that employees are protected from dismissal or discipline if they were unable to work because of the additional child care responsibilities during the teachers' strike.

The third part of Bill 161 protects those brave and loyal teachers who stayed in the classroom.

The media is now echoing the public's question: "What was accomplished by this teachers' strike?" Let's look at what we learned.

We now know that this government, with taxpayers' money, puts about $1.1 billion into the teachers' pension fund yearly. This represents almost 10% of Ontario's current education spending.

We now know that the teachers' pension is protected by an up to 8% inflation increase yearly, and I have been told by people in my riding that at least two retired teachers, husband and wife, are receiving pensions in excess of $100,000 a year.

We now know that there is $1.8 billion surplus in the teachers' pension fund. This is expected to increase to $8 billion by the end of 1998, according to Christina Blizzard's column.

We now know that the unions were in control of the education agenda.

We now know that this government is taking our classroom education back to a strong position of basic learning, with a province-wide core curriculum and provincial testing.

We now know that parents, teachers, principals, vice-principals, students and the community will have a greater say in our education system through parent councils. Parent councils were created by the former NDP government as outlined in memo 122 from April 1995, which I believe was put out by Dave Cooke at that time.

We now know that many of this government's reforms are not new ideas. After all, there have been 24 separate reviews on education in our province, including the Sweeney report, again commissioned by the former NDP government and released in February 1996.

We now know that Dave Cooke, co-chair of the Education Improvement Commission and the former NDP Minister of Education, supports most of the education reforms being put forward by this government. We all heard John Sweeney, the former Liberal Minister of Education, on Province Wide on Sunday night, and he said the government should get back control of education, which we lost some 20 years ago. That's the former Liberal cabinet minister.

We now know that nearly all other provinces in Canada have made changes to their education system. This government is the first Ontario government in the last 10 years to show enough courage to make the improvements needed to support our students in the classroom.

While I admit we may not have done everything perfectly and we may still find room for improvement, this government does have a plan that is strong enough, and we're willing to take the risks to make the changes that are needed and that will support and strengthen our classroom education.

Our children are eager for knowledge and education. They want and need to learn about themselves, their country and the fast-changing world they play and live in and will one day work in. We, as legislators, educators, employers and parents, are obliged to stay the course and protect our students, providing them with every opportunity to achieve the highest possible learning.

Reforming and expanding our education system is not new. It has been happening since the beginning of time, and we have always designated educators to teach and educate our children.

I believe Ontario's classroom education reforms give our students intellectual and moral training, enhanced by the experience of community professionals. The new province-wide school curriculum will provide systematic instruction and will encourage our students in the development of character and mental powers, thus fulfilling the dictionary's definition of "education."

Bill 161 shows this government's desire to support parents and guardians of students. Bill 161 demonstrates this government's commitment to local school boards in asking them to accept responsibility for the actions of their employees and the effect those actions have had on their clients, the students of this province.

Bill 161 illustrates this government's desire to protect and care for Ontario's most valuable asset, our children. In Simcoe county alone, this past strike affected approximately 21,000 families. During the strike parents had to spend extra money and parents were inconvenienced. This situation was repeated across Ontario.

I don't understand why the members in this House would have objections to supporting Bill 161 when it's for the benefit of the parents and the students who were put out during the teachers' strike.

While Bill 160 was being debated and there was a lot of discussion, as the MPP for the riding of Simcoe East, I had the opportunity to listen to many concerns from all sides of the issue, and as we know, as legislators, it's our duty to listen. I presume it was at least two to one or three to one who were in support of Bill 160. We heard the voices loud and clear of many people who were opposed, but that wasn't what my riding was receiving, so we heard -

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Seventy per cent opposed it.

1650

Mr McLean: That depends on what poll you want to take, but from what I was hearing in my riding and in my office, yes, we had a great many people who were for it.

The update with regard to the education reform is simple - the five things Bill 160 will do to improve the quality of education for Ontario students - require teachers to teach in the classroom on average at least four hours and 10 minutes secondary, and four hours and 20 minutes elementary per day; prevent boards and unions from raising class sizes above 22 secondary and 25 elementary; increase the instructional year by 10 days secondary and five days elementary; ensure that each school has a school council composed of parents, teachers and other community members; ensure student access to a range of qualified professionals to complement, not replace, the role of teachers in the schools.

I can look back many years ago when my father was the secretary of the local school board. My father hired the teachers and some of the members within the community ran the school. The Penetanguishene Protestant Separate School Board is a prime example of a school that is run by the parents. They elect the board from among the parents. They operate the school. They hire the teachers. That is a school that has had one of the lowest per capita student-teacher ratios in the province.

The main concern I have is the fact that the principals, the teachers and the parent councils have to get back to being involved in running the schools. Get it away from the boards and the government, and elected trustees will have the supervisory power, but I'm still saying the school councils have got to be the key with the principals and the teachers.

When we look at supporters of Bill 160, we can read about Herman van der Veen of Oshawa, a long-time member of the Canadian Auto Workers union and occasional letter-writer, who had come to watch Bill 160 pass. He's now retired. He said the protesters remind him of both his union and the NDP. "It's always their way or the highway," he said. "I'm tired of those people telling me how to think."

Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With apologies to my distinguished colleagues and friends, I find the remarks provocative indeed.

Mr McLean: I also found intriguing the columns that were written with regard to the truth about education reform and legends of Bill 160.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Who is the columnist?

Mr McLean: The name is Blizzard. The member for St Catharines laughs about that, and I don't know whether he's read it, but it can certainly give you a pretty good scope of how things have been misinterpreted.

I look at the one ad in the paper and it says that education is being taken away and the parents will have no further say. There could not be anything further from the truth. That's exactly what we're wanting to do: give the say back to the parents in the classroom. I think that is so important and I don't know why any member in this Legislature would not want to support giving a family $40 a day.

Mr Wildman: Let them collect. I am in favour of it. Good Christmas bonus.

Mr McLean: The member for Algoma says, "Let them collect." Well, I hope he will vote for this legislation. I really regret that our House leader has to bring in closure motion. I was here when there were about seven closure motions brought in between 1985 and 1990, about 17 brought in between 1990 and 1995. I regret that any closure motions have to be brought in, but it seems to be the way the Legislature is working now. I regret that because I believe we should be back where we were debating on a friendly basis and not the way we have been in the last while.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to put some of these things on the record today with regard to Bill 161. I hope the opposition will see fit to support this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Bill 161 which, as you know, and I'll say from the beginning, is totally and completely dependent on the fact that Bill 160 has passed in this House. I know you'll forgive me for making the odd allusion to Bill 160.

Let's put this out where it really belongs. What this bill is about is it's a bribe. It's a bill that is put out there to give people money to make them feel better about the government, which they feel very badly about because of Bill 160 and some of the provisions of Bill 160. There are people out there who agree with parts of Bill 160, but I thought they were being quite reasonable in that a lot of the people, parent groups and so on, asked when everybody debated the bill and we looked at all aspects of the bill, that the government proceed with those aspects of it that were necessary to be able to accommodate the amalgamations which were to take place by the end of this year. But they asked that the government postpone those parts of the bill which they believe would be detrimental to education.

What we had yesterday in this House was a very sad day for Ontario. You'll notice, Madam Speaker, and you were observing, as I was, that it was much more a day of sadness than a day of anger, though no doubt it was repressed anger that was out there among the many people who were concerned about many aspects of Bill 160. Even members of the clergy from various faiths sent letters to the Premier asking him to reconsider. The reason they sent them to the Premier, and to the Minister of Education, but largely to the Premier, is that they know that virtually all decisions of this government are made in the Premier's office. The ministers know it as well. I feel bad for the ministers. We have some talented people on the government benches. I won't name names this afternoon, but we have -

Mr Wildman: It won't take long.

Mr Bradley: The member for Algoma tells me it won't take long to name them, but I'll be more charitable to say there are some talented members on the government benches who reside in the cabinet. I feel bad for those people, and I'll tell you why I feel bad for them. They will try to do their job. They'll bring forward ideas; they'll let people they speak with have ideas. The way they would like to see it happen is that these ideas come forward for consideration by the cabinet. But that's not how this government works, because I was reading an article by Guy Crittenden of the Globe and Mail called "Inside Ontario's Revolutionary Politburo." The other part of it said, "The Harris Kremlin."

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Not slanted at all.

Mr Bradley: I always thought that the Globe and Mail was trying to be impartial. I think the Globe and Mail in fact - correct me if I'm wrong - may have supported Bill 160 in principle. But they were talking about the Harris Kremlin, and here's what Guy Crittenden had to say about it:

"With few exceptions, insiders say that Mr Harris's reliance on a couple of close aides and the unprecedented centralization of power in his office - referred to by some as `the bunker' - are the cause of the malaise. And it's a sickness that could threaten the Conservative Party's hopes for re-election.

"One former member of a senior minister's staff (most of the people interviewed for this article requested anonymity for fear of losing their jobs) summed it up this way: `Harris has adopted an arm's-length, chairman-of-the-board management style. The dysfunction this has led to may be his undoing.'"

That's somebody right within the government. They want to remain anonymous, quite obviously, because they don't want to lose their job. They know heads will roll if they are prepared to speak out publicly, because the style of this government is to intimidate. The style of this government is to bully.

1700

The article goes on to say this: "To do all this" - this was talking about the revolutionary agenda that the right-wingers, the extreme right-wingers who occupy the non-elected positions in the Premier's office - their views; they wanted to implement it - "in such a short time, Mr Harris has played fast and loose with the democratic process." That's obvious again this afternoon with yet another closure motion coming before the House. "He has surrounded himself with a cadre of young, fervently ideological advisers to do his bidding. Grass-roots supporters who thought the party would emphasize democratic debate, plebiscites and local decision-making have been shocked. In the Harris Kremlin, power flows from the centre. (Indeed the term `the centre' is now an ominous fixture of party newspeak, as in the oft-repeated phrase, `No one knows what the centre is thinking.')"

We have a few ministers in the House; they will know what I'm saying, because it says, "Thus, ministers are often kept in the dark, making them little more than salespeople for initiatives cobbled together in the Premier's office. Stories abound of ministers caught in the crossfire of Mr Harris's flash temper, his staff's fiddling, and the pressures from their own portfolios."

I am here to express sympathy and concern with ministers who are confronted with these 20-something and 30-something whiz kids - not elected, never had to meet the electorate, never had to stand for election - who have all the answers. At least some of these people here who are of that age have had to meet the electorate, at least have to run a constituency office. I'll give them that much credit. I would pay much more attention to what they would say independently than I would the whiz kids in the Premier's office.

I'm glad to see today that we had two members of the government who had the intestinal fortitude to stand and vote against the government. These two, Gary Carr, the member for Oakville, and Toni Skarica, the member for Wentworth North, were individuals who didn't simply flinch or jump when the government whip cracked the whip. They were individuals who were prepared to stand up for their principles, for the people. They are people who are obviously sick and tired of Guy Giorno and all of the whiz kids telling them what to do. Because they were prepared to stand up today, others in the caucus were not as friendly to them as they might be.

I worry about this because I know there were other members of the government caucus who wanted to vote against the government. My friend Bill Murdoch, who fulminates in the hallway very often, huffs and he puffs and makes a lot of declarations about the government. I thought Bill would get up today and vote against the government after all he's had to say. Unfortunately, all he got out of it was a question. They let him ask a question.

I know government members are going to say, "You're trying to make mischief and, you know, the opposition always says this." I admire Gary Carr and Tony Skarica for what they did this afternoon. They stood up to the bullies in the Premier's office. They stood up to the whiz kids. They stood up to the intimidation of others whose job it is to make them vote as the government wants them to.

I only wish there were more members of the government caucus who were prepared to do that. Unfortunately, as I suspect, we're going to have 61 parliamentary assistants over there because it seems there is a price to be paid for this and there are going to be people who are going to get special positions and they will give them some special favours, but here were two individuals who were prepared to stand up, in principle, against the bullying Mike Harris government. For that they deserve the applause of members of the Legislature that they received this afternoon.

Let's look at who some of the people are who create the policy for the government, who tell the government members - I know how tolerant the speakers have been all afternoon of government members and I know you are equally tolerant now. It says: "Tom Long: a corporate headhunter whose preppie appearance belies a strong ideology and keen intuition for the pulse of the middle-class electorate." Leslie Noble -

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think the whiz kids bill was passed two weeks ago and maybe the member should speak to Bill 161 and the time allocation, which we are talking about.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Member for St Catharines, I remind you about the bill. We are speaking to the time allocation, I believe, on Bill 161.

Mr Bradley: You are absolutely right, Madam Speaker. We are speaking to a time allocation motion and I am informing the House who has composed the time allocation motion. I am sorry it has offended my friend from Niagara Falls who has come to the defence of the whiz kids for some reason. But I want to tell you who wrote this time allocation motion, who influenced the government to bring in this time allocation motion. That's why I mentioned Tom Long, and now I mention Leslie Noble, "a tough and intelligent women who elbowed her way into the Tory boys' club to become one of its top strategists."

What does the article say about Guy Giorno? "Any discussion with insiders about control from the centre quickly turns into a debate over the relative strengths and weaknesses of director of policy Guy Giorno, who was all of 29 when the Tories came to power. Nicknamed `Rasputin'...he is, some say, the ultimate insider, a right-wing true believer who sidelines any ministerial move that doesn't jibe with his ideology."

I am concerned because I know many of the members of the cabinet, even some of the newer people. I am concerned when I see that nothing can get through without the thumbs up from Guy Giorno. I asked before, what riding does he represent? What constituency elected him? What group of people in this province elevated him to this position so that he can dictate to my friends who are in the cabinet? I am here on your side when you fight against the Premier's office.

There is one I haven't mentioned, John Toogood: "The Premier's economic policy adviser, he was recently promoted to assistant director of policy. The Tory Youth graduate and Giorno protégé still looks too young to shave."

There are lots of people in there, I guess, who have input and I think what's bad for our system, what's bad for our democratic system, is that these people are now in control of this government. My friend Al Leach, when he wants to bring something forward, has to pass it by the whiz kids. When my friend Noble Villeneuve, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, whom I have known for many years, wants to bring forward an initiative, it's got to be approved by Guy Giorno and John Toogood.

I am prepared to trust the judgement of an elected member more than I am the unelected people, even though my friend from Lake Nipigon says I am overreacting when I say that.

1710

I want to go back to Bill 161 and its predecessor, Bill 160, which brought about Bill 161. Yesterday there would have been people on the government side - they like to celebrate. You see, there's a certain collegiality when you put the boots to somebody. What has happened is they would all be signing - I'll bet they had a Bill 160 and they're all signing Bill 160 and hooting and hollering and toasting the champagne to it. If you have acute enough hearing, you would have been able to hear the champagne glasses being tinkled together in the Albany Club. I would say that would be the case. In the Albany Club there would have been a celebration.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: I have provoked many members of the government side. I understand that, because they know where the support for Bill 160 would have been.

I want to look at yesterday, at what it really meant for Ontario and at this bill that comes out of that bill from yesterday. What it really means is that the government is taking an unprecedented amount of money out of the education system. I disagree with that, but I'm going to tell you something. I would have at least admired the government, I would have at least given credit to the government, if the government had been up front. Last time I said this my friend from Etobicoke-Humber nodded in agreement, or he was nodding off at my speech. I don't know what it was, but I think he was nodding in agreement when I said: "You know, if it was about taking money out of the education system, then be honest and up front about it. Say that's what it's about."

One of the articles is by Carolyn Abraham and Richard Brennan. It's called "Harris Whiz Kids Have Tiger by Tail in Teachers' Strike." Here's what is says: "Education minister Dave Johnson, who has been the government's prominent public face during the strike affecting 2.1 million students, is receiving many of his marching orders from the so-called whiz kids in the Premier's office, Southam News has learned." Remember, Conrad Black owns a lot of Southam News.

"All in their 30s, Leslie Noble, Alister Campbell and Tom Long spearheaded the Premier's election team but have since been recalled as Harris's closest advisers despite having careers outside Queen's Park.

"Noble is a tough-minded strategist who runs her own communications business and has appeared on television to defend the government's position in the dispute. Campbell is an insurance executive. And Long, former president of the Ontario's Progressive Party, is a corporate headhunter."

Mr Maves: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't think any of these people are the brother of the leader, as the leader of the Liberal Party's brother is their whip over there, I think. At least the people who work in the Premier's office aren't related to their leader.

What I just said is irrelevant to the debate, just as what the member for St Catharines -

The Deputy Speaker: He has a point of order. Your preamble was not connected, to the member for St Catharines. It is a point of order. Do come back to debating the bill before us.

Mr Bradley: I will come back to debating the bill, which of course is related to who composes the bill. That's why I'm on to this.

I'm not going to use the language it says in here because I don't want to use it. Here's what they told the government to do: "They told the Premier he should `kick the teachers'....'" I won't say what, but that's what it says. It's five letters.

"But their hard-line stance has so far led to a series of public relations follies, and government insiders resent the fact that no one has been held accountable.

"`With these guys, everything is a bumper-sticker policy. They live in a rarified, privileged environment,' the source said...."

It goes on and it talks about the centralized control. I may not quote all of it because it's making many of the government members uneasy.

Here's what they said about the money issue, and I think that's important because this is about money: "There was also a `huge, furious fight' in the Premier's office about whether the communications strategy should mention money. And those who `didn't want to talk about the money won.'

"But that decision was completely undercut when a leaked government document exposed a government plan to cut $667 million out of education. The Premier then confirmed up to $700 million could be extracted, undermining his own education minister, who had repeatedly told the media there was no target reduction for education.

"`They had hoped just to skate around the money issue, but, of course, they couldn't,' the source said."

That's the whole issue we're talking about. The government members were told. When they go to their meetings they said, "Make sure you tell the people this is not about money, that we're not cutting money out of education." And then the leaked document came out. This is the document which showed the draft, as the government likes saying, contract for the new Deputy Minister of Education.

Mr Pouliot: Veronica Lacey.

Mr Bradley: Veronica Lacey, as my friend from Lake Nipigon says. It stated she had to take $667 million more out of the system. This is over and above the $533 million - that's over half a billion dollars - the government had already taken out of education, and the cementing of the $425 million that was taken out of the education system as a result of the social contract.

You people remember the social contract. You were critical of the NDP about the social contract and the fact they took $425 million out of education - all kinds of howls about that - but what do you do? You cement those savings. You cement the extraction of that money, of which you were critical before.

Here's the government taking well over $1 billion out of the system. It is most unfortunate that the government would do that. They said it had nothing to do with money. I want to say to you that their bluff was called probably most on the last day for amendments. At least they had a last day for amendments. With this time allocation motion, the opposition or the government or anybody else cannot propose any amendments. They can't be considered because of the time allocation motion.

The day before the last day the government had allocated through their last closure or time allocation motion, the teachers' federation said: "You are trying to accomplish the following goals: You want to see more contact days with the students; you want to see more time in the classroom between teachers and students. Here's how we think you could accomplish that then. Why don't you reduce the number of professional activity days? We think you could do that." They proposed that, and then said: "Though it will have some consequences, you can reduce the number of examination days. That will provide more direct contact. By the way, we're prepared to advocate as well that you lengthen the school day so there's a lot more time of contact with the students."

What they did was they called Mr Harris's bluff. When they called their bluff, what happened was the government then had to admit it was all about taking money out of the system. Why didn't the government say that in the first place? Why wasn't the government up front about that? At least people then would have said, "Well, we agree or disagree, but we know what the motivation of the government is." Instead, as I've mentioned from this article, the whiz kids said: "Don't mention it in the communications strategy. Let's tell our members to go out to their meetings and say it has nothing to do with money." Then they were caught. That's most unfortunate that this is what it was all about.

If you really believe over there that you can take well over $1 billion out of the system, which has already had money taken out of it, and that you can still have a system which delivers the same kind of education to students in this province, then you are wrong. I think a lot of government members know that. I know that and I know my friend the member from Brockville, where they're closing his psychiatric hospital, would agree with me. I'm on his side in trying to save the Brockville hospital from the axe of Mike Harris. Even though Mike Harris said during the election campaign, and I quote, "Certainly, Robert" - he meant Robert Fisher of Global TV - "I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals." And then he closed all kinds of hospitals, including the psychiatric hospital in Brockville.

I want to tell the member from Brockville, Leeds-Grenville and other areas that I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him as he fights - no doubt he has to do it behind closed doors; I can do it openly - to retain the psychiatric hospital, the largest employer in Brockville. I'm on his side. I well recall his beloved mother making an observation on this and I agree entirely with her. She can be proud of her son because I know he's going to be standing up to this government as they try to close the psychiatric hospital.

But that has nothing to do with Bill 161. I was only responding to the barracking from the government side.

1720

What happened was the government tried to portray the whole education debate as a fight between the teachers of Ontario and the government of Ontario. Indeed the whiz kids said: "This is a good target. Maybe we can paint a picture" - you heard some of it in the speeches today - "of privileged people. Let's paint a picture of privileged people. Let's stir up all that resentment that people felt for a long time, particularly in our own circle" - the extreme right-wing circle - "against the teachers."

But I'm going to tell you that they found out something different. What they found out was that this is not a fight between the teachers of Ontario and the government of Ontario. Bill 160, which necessitates Bill 161, is a fight between those who believe in a strong, vibrant, high-quality, publicly funded education system and those who do not. I'm afraid the right-wing little group that sits in the Premier's office does not.

Did you notice the question yesterday that was asked by the member for Windsor-Sandwich? She asked the Minister of Education whether the government was in favour of charter schools. I didn't know that Dave Johnson, my good friend from East York, was such an athlete, but he put on a skating performance in trying to answer that question that was second to none.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): He is a good skater.

Mr Bradley: I'm told he is a good skater by my friend M. Beaubien from Lambton. He skated around that because he knows, whether he agrees with them or not, that little group in the Premier's office, the right-wing ideologues, the people who have never had to be elected, strongly believe in it. They know that if you underfund and defund and discredit a public institution, that opens the door for privatization.

That opens the door in this case for private schools, which are charter schools. When you get into that system, as they have in many states in the United States, unfortunately the wealthy people, the privileged people, are able to afford to send their children to it and the public school system is not, so the public school system becomes in disrepair.

That's most unfortunate because the publicly funded system is one of the few equalizers in our society. None of us can guarantee - none of us, whether we would say it or not - the outcome of individuals. We cannot guarantee that. That's a Utopian goal. We'd like to see it but it can't be done.

I made this speech along with my colleague from Welland-Thorold, who was there as well, at Ridley College. Ridley College is a private school. The tuition there would be quite substantial. We were asked to speak to the students. I said that the role of the publicly funded school system was to provide equality of opportunity, that if you come from a very poor home and you go into that publicly funded school system, you have a chance of being able to achieve, maybe not the Horatio Alger story from south of the border but at least you have some kind of chance to succeed. I think all of us want to see that.

That's why I worry and that's why so many parents worry. That's why so many friends of public education worry when this government continues to pull hundreds of millions of dollars more out of the education system.

What happened was a major protest from people who are not militant. I know many of the people. We've all, as students, had our teachers. We know many of them in the community. We're not talking about a militant group. We're not talking about a radical group. It's very hard to get those people to be radical or militant. We're talking about a moderate, and I would describe them in a general sense as being a pretty small-c conservative, group of people in our society. This government managed to make militants and radicals out of some of them and to make them take extraordinary action to defend public education.

This wasn't a pay dispute going on between the government and the teachers. This was not a normal labour dispute. This was people defending a public education system.

I was surprised, I want to tell you, genuinely surprised, by the individual teachers I spoke to who I know to be very moderate people who were concerned enough to take pretty extraordinary action to defend public education, and that's what happened. There wasn't one of them who wanted to be outside of the classroom or outside of working with their students. I couldn't find one. But that's what happened. I've met many of them over the years.

I remember there was dispute - I'm going to say in 1973, Bud - in this House -

Mr Wildman: It was 1974.

Mr Bradley: It was 1974. We had in this House a dispute between the government and people over regulations related to teachers in the province. I remember one teacher who at that time believed strongly in authority and she stayed in on that one when a lot of people went out. That was her nature and no one resented that, because that was her nature, that was her philosophy. Do you know something? She was out this time. This is a very cautious person. I only mention one but there were so many of them in that category who are very cautious people and that's why they were concerned. They were out there to defend the education system.

They had some considerable support because the whiz kids didn't realize that these are brothers and sisters of people, that these are mothers and fathers, that these are daughters and sons and so on. I want to tell you, I was very surprised that some of the people I spoke to I thought were calling me to chastise me for being opposed to 160, and I mean people I know who are long-time Conservatives, some of them not even in education, who said to me: "You know, my daughter," or my son or somebody in the family or my next door neighbour, my best friend, "is a teacher and I know something about the education system. I've supported the Conservative Party in the past when it was the Progressive Conservative Party but this group" -

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: I'm quoting them; I'm quoting these people. Not me. I've never supported the Progressive Conservative Party. Don't worry. I know you are very worried.

These were people who said, "I've supported the Conservative Party in the past." These are relatives of members of Parliament. I mentioned Carol Jones, who appeared at the public hearing in St Catharines, former constituency assistant to Bob Welch, a revered former Deputy Premier in this province, a former Minister of Education and a person who campaigned for the Conservatives in the last election campaign in Lincoln. She was absolutely furious at what she had seen. Bud Wildman was there; he saw that.

When you can turn someone around that much - and there were many in education who have supported you over the years. I'm going to tell you, within the teaching ranks there are a lot of Conservative people who have supported you over the years. Almost to a person now, they do not because they don't see you as the Conservative Party any more; they see you as something right of that - we in the opposition like to say the Reform Party. They just don't see you as the Conservative Party. I'm wondering how my friend Paul Harris would have reacted in education.

I think even the people who agree with this government, or its general direction, would say the government's moving too quickly, moving far too drastically. It's not looking at the consequences of its actions; it's being reckless. Even supporters of this government today, who may well vote for you in the next election because they strongly support the kind of policies you're bringing forward, are very worried about that. Even when they agree with you, they're very worried about the style of government. They're worried about the intimidation; they're worried about the bullying aspect of it.

When you see presidents of hospitals or administrators of hospitals, the people from district health councils pulling their punches, being very quiet because they're afraid that if they take drastic action by speaking out they're going to lose their institution or lose some of their funding, when their silence is almost demanded, you become very concerned.

The Minister of Education has suggested to us several initiatives the government has taken. Unfortunately, most of them are not in the bill. He lists several things that the government is doing, and they're not in the bill.

1730

There are some myths I want to share with members in a short period of time, but I want to say before I do how concerned I am about this time allocation motion. What we have today is yet another time allocation motion, but this one prohibits any amendments from being introduced. Second, it breaks a time-honoured tradition in this House of not dealing with two readings of a bill in one day without unanimous consent of the House.

I was very concerned when I heard the Speaker say that in his judgement today, as a result of his reading of the rulings, the government could get away with this, because mark my words, this government's got some other schemes up their sleeve in terms of time allocation. The member for Etobicoke nods knowingly and smugly over there about that, but I tell him, you know, you can win it for the moment, but you have to understand what the long-term consequences are for our democratic system. You can sit there with a smug smile and that's fine.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Talk to Chrétien about all the promises. Tell us about the promises, Jim.

Mr Bradley: All you do is talk about the federal government and so on. I ask the member, all members, to consider what is happening in this Legislature, to consider that you have a time allocation motion today that prohibits any amendments to Bill 131; that you have a time allocation motion which allows the government to move through two stages at one time in the bill; and that you have the whiz kids, the ones who changed the rules - Guy Giorno, who wanted to rush through these rule changes - now contemplating new and more radical and more drastic time allocation motions which would sweep the agenda completely at one swoop. I look out and I say, how many government members in their heart of hearts are concerned that that's what this government is about?

You know, if after a full democratic debate you win the day, that's fine. That's the way the system goes. People have aired their views, aired their concerns, and then if it unfolds and you win, as you will with your large majority, despite the fact we had two members today who stood defiantly against Mike Harris and the government on the issue - I know that they become very concerned about that.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: So did Nunziata.

Mr Bradley: I know that if members were concerned about the federal Parliament that they would run federally and make their case there, but we are elected to this Parliament and we must make our case here. So those who are very concerned about what they might see in the federal Parliament should start turning their attention to this Parliament, to their government, because I'm going to tell you something: People in opposition will fight this battle.

I'm going to tell you, when governments are handed these rules, it's very hard to convince them to change them back and that's why, when you see your government House leader embark upon yet a new and different and more radical course, the saner voices in cabinet and in the caucus should be cautioning against that because it can be used by another government against you. That's one consideration, but it's just not good for the democratic system.

I hope you'll do that. I don't expect you to applaud or agree with me outwardly today. I just hope you will go back and mention that to the people who are responsible for this.

What we are going to see, the Minister of Education pointed out - the Minister of Education said that what it's all about is 7,500 teachers are going to be given their pink slips. They're going to be sent out the door in education.

Well, it is. He said that. My friend, Mr Villeneuve, a good friend of mine, nods no. I stood there in the hallway over -

Hon Mr Villeneuve: That's attrition.

Mr Bradley: No, wrong again. I know the members are not trying to misrepresent the position. I want to tell you that these are permanent job losses. These are permanent positions gone. Yes, as people retire over the years, new people will come into the system, but these are positions gone. Go back and ask the Minister of Education. As a result of your so-called preparation time issue, you will -

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Earl Manners got to you pretty good, didn't he?

Mr Bradley: No. I'm telling you, it is your own minister who conceded that 7,500 positions will be gone. Let me tell you how many schools are going to close in your riding. The schools are going to be closing in riding after riding, neighbourhood high schools, and you people are going to be called to account. I want you to go and ask him how many schools in your riding will be closed as a result of Bill 160. I'm going to tell you, a heck of a lot of them.

I don't think anybody thought of that. Listen, if you thought this was good and they should close, that's one thing. That's fine. That's your opinion. But I hope you know that that's the result, those 7,500 positions that the Minister of Education admitted to disappearing completely from education as a result of the prep time provisions. That's what happens. When they're gone, I want you to ask him, are they gone permanently? If he's honest with you, which I hope he will be, he'll say yes. When you ask him, "Is that going to result in schools closing?" he'd better tell you "Yes, it is." If you agree with that still, that's a position to take; I understand that. But at least know that that's a consequence of Bill 160.

Now, I am going to give some time to my friend from Algoma because as a result of the time the government took, and there was not a split of time, my friend from Algoma hasn't had a chance to speak. So I'm going to momentarily turn it over to my friend from Algoma to have an opportunity to speak, because I know the member for Fort William will want to speak next day, when we actually consider the bill itself.

Before I do - you know how David Letterman has his 10 best or 10 whatever it is he uses out there - I'm going to read 10 important things you can believe about Bill 160:

(1) That the bill has nothing to do with curriculum, standardized report cards or testing. That's not in the bill, despite the fact that the minister gets up and says that.

(2) That Bill 160 allows the government to cut the cost of education by cutting teachers. It guarantees there will be fewer secondary school teachers teaching more classes to more students. That means less time for individual students.

(3) That small secondary schools will be unable to offer a full range of programs because of the reduction in staff. That's a fact.

(4) That Bill 160 does not mean smaller classes. The bill enshrines the status quo as the average class size across the new amalgamated boards.

Mr Beaubien: Who wrote that?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: His friend Earl Manners.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Bradley: That means there are going to be classes of 35 and 36 students in some places. With reduced funding and 25,000 more students per year, even maintaining the status quo will mean gutting other school services like special education support.

(5) That Bill 160 puts our educational leadership into limbo and may destroy it altogether as principals and vice-principals are forced to choose on April 1 whether they return to the classroom. That was the vindictive clause. Remember, Mr Snobelen announced proudly, "We're going to have teachers and principals in the federation." He announced it proudly.

Mike Harris said, "We'll get back at them, we'll fix their boats," and he did. He took them out of that. You break the collegiality and you break the teamwork of education.

(6) That Bill 160 leaves the door wide open to turn the management of schools over to parent councils, which are no longer to be advisory. This is exactly the opposite of what parent councils want and is a response to those who do not believe Bill 160 goes far enough in dismantling public education.

(7) That Bill 160 means virtually total central control of education whether by regulation or legislation. There will be little, if any, flexibility to meet local needs.

(8) That Bill 160 allows the minister to take over school boards and fire boards' officers and employees if the minister feels there are "concerns about the board's ability to meet its financial obligations." Decisions made by the minister cannot be reviewed by the courts.

(9) That the Minister of Finance can raise $6 billion in property taxes by regulation, with no debate or vote in the Legislature.

(10) That the bill allows the delegation of more powers to the Education Improvement Commission, and in many places the commission's decisions cannot be challenged in a court of law.

The bottom line: You cannot improve education with fewer dollars and fewer teachers and you cannot bring about positive change when you make enemies of those who deliver education services on the front line, the teachers of this province.

1740

Mr Wildman: I want to express my thanks to my friend from St Catharines for leaving some time so that I could speak on behalf of my caucus on this time allocation motion on Bill 161. Because of the time allocation motion and the new rules of the House, it makes it very difficult now for members of the third party to have time to speak on time allocation motions and bills that are time-allocated. I know that many members of the majority may not think that's important, but in fact the members of this assembly are elected to represent their constituents, and I think it's most unfortunate that under the rules passed by this government it now denies one group of the minority, on a regular basis now, the opportunity to speak on legislation that is put before the House by the government. That's the result of the rule changes that the government has brought in, and it's most unfortunate.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): You never did that yourself.

Mr Wildman: I'm not talking about time allocation when I say that, I'm talking about the rule changes. The rule changes are what produced the situation in this particular case that I'm referring to, and it's unfortunate because it means that a significant number in the minority do not regularly get an opportunity to express their views in an assembly that is supposed to be designed to ensure that all of the views of various groups in the province have the opportunity to speak.

Mr Preston: You get to speak more than I do.

Mr Wildman: I guess that demonstrates how seriously you take what I'm saying. I say in all sincerity that it is most unfortunate that we have this kind of situation.

I want to speak directly for the very few minutes that I have to the time allocation motion on Bill 161. I've had the opportunity to speak on Bill 160, so I won't belabour that.

I am very distressed at this motion. It's not on the basis of how many times time allocation has been used by the government but on the type of motion that we have before us. This is a time allocation motion which, in my view, is largely unprecedented. I understand the ruling by the Speaker. He's quite right. It says right in the time allocation motion, "...notwithstanding the rules of the House," so the government, if the majority votes for it, can do this. What this time allocation means is that the government can move forward with Bill 161, with all of the stages, in one day and with no committee and no opportunity for amendment. This is unprecedented and most unfortunate.

In the past we have moved bills forward through more than one stage in one day with unanimous consent. But this is the government, one side, the majority imposing that procedure on the House if the majority votes for it, and I suspect they're going to. That's most unfortunate.

I must say I'm puzzled by the introduction of this time allocation motion. Bill 161 is not a bill that has been stalled in this House. Normally that's what time allocation is moved for by the government. If a piece of legislation has been brought before the House, has had extended debate and the government can't move it forward, then the government as a last resort moves to time allocation. This bill was only introduced on November 17. It has only been before the House for two weeks. It has not been stalled. There has been lots of other legislation that I know the government has been frustrated about getting through that has been before the House for months and months. There are some bills that have been before the House for a couple of years. This bill has only been on the order paper for two weeks.

Why is it we have a time allocation motion? I suspect I know the reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that the government is trying to get this through and it's been stalled. It's simply because this government feels so beleaguered by the opposition on Bill 160 that it's trying to get this through as a PR move at the same time that Bill 160 passes the House. That's the only reason this is being introduced. They want to be able to hand out the 400 bucks at the same time that Bill 160 becomes law, and that's the only reason we have a time allocation motion today on Bill 160.

They've hit the principals and vice-principals in Bill 160 by moving them out of the federation, despite the commitments of the previous minister, and now they want to hit the boards and the other teachers. This takes the money away from the boards, makes the boards responsible for administering a program that has no receipts and no accountability, and it also hits the teachers, because everybody else who has children in the system, whether they were inconvenienced, whether it took them more money, whether they had to pay for child care or not, gets a Christmas bonus under Bill 161, but not the teachers. This is a good way of whacking them again. "Let's get them."

That's what this is about. It's not about having legislation stalled in the House that the government can't get through, which is why we have, unfortunately, a time allocation rule. This legislation has only been before the House for two weeks. It hasn't been stalled.

I shouldn't admit this, I suppose, but you could argue that this has been debated on November 20, November 24 and November 25 in the House at second reading.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Three days.

Mr Wildman: Three days, which is usually, by convention, the minimum that is required before a time allocation motion is introduced. So you could say by convention, three days, you can move to time allocation. It's the minimum, not the max.

But this is the first time we have a time allocation motion that says not only are we going to move forward on this bill at second reading, we're going to do second and third reading on the same day and we're not going to have any committee, we're not going to have any amendments and no possible amendments. The fact is that this is an unprecedented move. The government is not only muzzling debate by this, but it is trying to do it in such a way that it makes it impossible for us to improve this legislation.

There are some things in this legislation that we could support, frankly. We think it's a good idea to have legislation in Ontario that makes it possible for parents to take time off work to look after their children in special circumstances, or other relatives in special circumstances, and not be penalized by their employers. We think that's a good idea. As a matter of fact, in the United States the President introduced the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and passed it.

My question, though, is, why will we only have this kind of legislation in Ontario for two weeks? Why don't we make this permanent? Why don't we protect employees of all employers in Ontario who meet distressing circumstances and have to take time off work? Why are we only doing it because of this particular situation? If you really believed in protecting the rights of employees and in protecting the family, why not bring in this legislation in a way similar to what our American friends did in moving this bill through Congress?

1750

Mr Beaubien: You want to Americanize the system, don't you?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Wildman: The member for Lambton apparently doesn't like anything American. I don't understand.

Mr Beaubien: Thank you for putting that on the record, member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: Is he opposed to things American, as if they can't do anything right? I don't understand what he's saying.

The question is, why wouldn't we protect employees throughout the year? Why wouldn't we do it for the future? If it's such a good idea, and we think it is, why not bring in legislation that protects the workers? But this only does it for two weeks. It doesn't do it on a permanent basis.

We wanted to be able to put an amendment to this legislation that would have made it permanent, not only applying for two weeks. But this time allocation motion doesn't allow for that, it doesn't allow for any amendments. It doesn't allow the members of the assembly to consider improvements.

There has been a lot of debate about the $400 for parents of children under the age of 13 or students with special needs in secondary school. I really have sincere concern about the question of accountability. I think if parents are to be reimbursed for expenses they incurred as a result of the disruption of classes because of the teachers' protest, they perhaps should be reimbursed and for that reason I would not be opposed to this, but I think there should be some accountability. Why are we not requiring receipts? Why are we saying to people, "You can collect this money whether it cost you a cent. All you have to do is apply, and as long as you've got a kid under the age of 13, you can get the money." Why are we doing it? I thought this was a government that believed in financial accountability. I thought this government wanted to ensure that we didn't waste money.

We wanted to be able to move an amendment to deal with that issue, but because of this time allocation motion, no amendments are allowed. The government could, I suppose, have considered the amendment, listened to the debate and voted against the amendment if they didn't want to have receipts, but no, the government isn't prepared to do that. The government says: "Not only are we not going to require receipts, we're not even going to allow you to debate it. We're not even going to vote on it, because we don't want any amendments to this legislation."

Why? The government wants to get this legislation through because Bill 160 passed yesterday and they want them both to pass at the same time. That's the only reason. There is absolutely no excuse under the rules of this House, even the onerous rules imposed on this House by this government, for this time allocation motion to be moved today. The legislation has only been on the order paper for two weeks. It hasn't had extended debate. It hasn't gone beyond the three days. There hasn't been any extended debate on this legislation. This government is just saying: "The Legislature is a nuisance. It takes us too long to get things through that we want. We don't like to have debate."

Democracy is messy. It means you have to sit there and listen to people who disagree with you. You can't just have a Red Army Chorus of everyone agreeing with you in your Kremlin. You can't do that. Even in Mike Harris's Kremlin, it's not just the Red Army Chorus. Here we do allow for some people to disagree and to argue. But you people don't like it. It's messy, it's a nuisance, it takes too long. The problem is that it's democratic and you guys don't understand that. You'd rather just get things through.

There was an expression in the 1930s, and I want to be careful how I say this, "You can get the trains running on time if you don't have anybody who can disagree with you." You can get the trains running on time all right. There's no debate. There's no holdup. You just get things done.

The problem you run into when you operate a government in that fashion is that at least sometimes the people at the top giving the orders are not right; they sometimes make mistakes. In a system like this, where you're just worried about getting the trains running on time, the people actually operating the trains, operating the system, are afraid to say when the guy at the top is wrong. As a result the system breaks down and there are serious mistakes made that not only affect the people running the trains and the person setting the schedule for the trains, but affect all the passengers and everybody who lives in the vicinity of the track.

I don't think anybody sitting in this Legislature should feel comfortable about being compared with the government to which I am currently at this moment comparing them. In order to get the analogy, they have to know something about history.

The government should think very seriously about a situation where they are suggesting: "As long as we get the bill through, it doesn't matter if we're muzzling debate in the Legislature, because the Legislature is irrelevant. It's not important, it's not efficient." That's how this government tends to treat the assembly. It's wrong. It's unfortunate. It doesn't make it possible for the members who are elected by the people of this province to properly have their say and be able to see and hold their government accountable. It doesn't make it possible for the government to vote down amendments put forward by the minority if they don't accept those amendments. It simply says: "We won't bother with amendments. We won't bother even discussing them." The problem with that is that your legislation has to be perfect, because if you don't allow for debate and amendment, you can get the legislation passed and it may have serious flaws within it. That's the problem.

If you bring in a bill like this and you say, "There will be no debate about amendments. There'll be no amendments necessary," what you're saying is that the bill is right; it's perfect and there are no problems with it right from the start. Frankly, nothing works that way in human society. No matter whether we are premiers or members of the opposition, members of the cabinet or members of the back bench, we all at times make mistakes. That's why we have system set up that allows us to catch those mistakes and correct them in committee. Your time allocation motion is preventing that with Bill 161. It's a major mistake and it's unnecessary. That's why it's so unfortunate. That's why I regret what you're doing.

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

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1759 to 1804.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved government notice of motion 54. All those in favour, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion, please rise.

Nays

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 72; the nays are 25.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1809.

Evening sitting reported in volume B.

2 décembre 1997