36e législature, 2e session

L037 - Thu 1 Oct 1998 / Jeu 1er Oct 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION (THE HAGUE CONVENTION) ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE (CONVENTION DE LA HAYE)

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION (THE HAGUE CONVENTION) ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE (CONVENTION DE LA HAYE)

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

MAHATMA GHANDI

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

OKTOBERFEST

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF DE L'HOLOCAUSTE

GERMAN PIONEERS DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR DES PIONNIERS ALLEMANDS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICERS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

CANCER TREATMENT

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ACADEMIC TESTING

FIREARMS CONTROL

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HIGHWAY 3 BYPASS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ABORTION

STUDENT SAFETY

PROPERTY TAXATION

ELECTORAL REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

GERMAN HERITAGE

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

ABORTION

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

VISITORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSTRUCTION TIME: MINIMUM STANDARDS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES HEURES D'ENSEIGNEMENT : NORMES MINIMALES

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

JAIL CLOSURES


The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION (THE HAGUE CONVENTION) ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE (CONVENTION DE LA HAYE)

Mr Cordiano moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 23, An Act to implement The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption / Projet de loi 23, Loi de mise en application de la Convention de La Haye sur la protection des enfants et la coopération en matière d'adoption internationale.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm very pleased to be given an opportunity to discuss my bill this morning. At the same time, I'm also disappointed. I'm disappointed because the minister has not in her wisdom seen this bill through to ratification.

I'm going to discuss the bill in some detail, but before I do, I'd like to say this: There are few occasions as a member of Parliament when an issue like this comes along and a situation like this comes along where constituents reach out and ask for your help. There are few times when something reaches out and touches your heart, something that is very emotional and very touching.

This is one of those occasions. It's very gratifying for any member of the House, as I'm sure all of you will discover from time to time in your careers, however short or long they may be, when you get the opportunity to do something like this.

This legislation is simply designed to facilitate the adoption process, the adoption of children from other countries by families in Ontario. It is a unique opportunity for a minister to actually do something which would empower individuals in Ontario to do that, to accomplish their goals, to realize their dreams.

I would say to the minister, and this is why I'm very disappointed and I think many people are disappointed today, that she has it within her power to allow these individuals in Ontario - actually, what she would be doing is allowing these individuals to create their own families. They want nothing more. They're not asking for more. They're asking for the opportunity to be able to create their own families, these people who have gone through an emotionally difficult period of time, and I can appreciate that. When my wife and I were thinking of having children, it was some time before my wife was able to conceive and there were some difficulties. I know the difficulties and the emotionally gut-wrenching period of time that you go through, being denied the opportunity to have children.

I think when two people, two loving individuals, want to be given that opportunity, they should not be denied that opportunity by this House. That is exactly what the minister is doing, denying many individuals the opportunity to form their own families. I can't for the life of me understand why the minister is getting in the way, why the minister is preventing these individuals from moving forward.

Admittedly, there aren't thousands of people out there - there may be hundreds of people out there - who are looking to adopt children from around the world. The Hague convention permits these adoptions to take place and furthermore ensures the protection of children. That's why this is so important, that's why we need to ratify this piece of legislation, so we can ensure that children are protected, that there are not going to be abuses taking place either in the host countries or here in Ontario. No one wants to see that happen.

At the same time, by not ratifying this bill, we are precluding those families from adopting children in those countries to which the Hague convention applies. There are many countries to which the Hague convention applies. The minister has suggested that there are very few cases that we're dealing with. There are many countries that have signed the convention. I've got the list in front of me: total number of ratifications, 21; total number of signatories, 33. And the list is growing, by the way. So we're not talking about a small number of cases. We're talking about a significant number of opportunities that are being missed.

This bill is truly about children and their protection. It's about children like Irena Evangelista, who is here this morning in the members' gallery. Hi, Irena. Sam and Sabina - she is their child - who are my constituents came to me and told me about the difficult situation they found themselves in, the kinds of delays and roadblocks that were being put in their way. It was as a result of a press conference that was held, and my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville and I intervened on their behalf at this press conference. I think we put a little pressure on the minister and I think all of the people who were assembled at the press conference put a little pressure on the minister, and the federal government intervened to ensure that there was a memorandum of understanding signed on behalf of the 31 families who were caught up in this bureaucratic nightmare.

Of course the minister at that time agreed to go along with it and, yes, the minister has suggested to me that in principle she agrees with the ratification of the Hague convention. However, that's not good enough, because we have as of yet not seen this convention being brought forward in this House to be ratified. As a result, there are many other families that are being denied the same opportunity the Evangelistas were given as a result of that memorandum of understanding. They are being denied the opportunity to create, to form, their families. I can think of no other thing we could do that is worse than that, to prevent people who desire to do so from forming their own families.

I say to the minister, and I don't say this in a partisan way, I just cannot understand for the life of me why we have not ratified this act. So I would appeal to all members of this House: Put the bureaucratic niceties away. Don't be bamboozled by the arguments you have been given that somehow there need to be changes to the Child and Family Services Act before we ratify the Hague convention. Don't allow yourselves to be taken in by that kind of discussion, because it is not necessary. This is stand-alone legislation. This bill would ensure that the adoption process would proceed. It would ensure the protection of children. It would ensure that we could move forward, and at the same time would not preclude the minister from moving forward with her own program, with her own changes to the Child and Family Services Act, whatever those may be. I am a little concerned that as of today I have not heard the minister really and truly explain what's getting in her way. It's beyond reason.

1010

Therefore, today I would again, on behalf of the Evangelistas and on behalf of many of those families who would like to adopt and who are being prevented from doing so, implore members to support this piece of legislation. I ask you to do that because this is one of those rare times when we could, as individual members, reach out and help people directly, and that's what I'm asking you to do. It's nothing more. These families are not asking for anything. They're not asking for resources. This is not going to cost any additional dollars. They are not asking for the state, the government, to help them raise their families. They're doing that themselves, just like any other family in Ontario. They're simply asking for the chance to create and form their own families. I can think of nothing that is more desirable than that for our province to fully be behind and support.

I ask each and every one of you to dig deep down inside and think about those families, think about those children. That's what we're here to do today, and I ask you to support my bill.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to congratulate the member for Lawrence for bringing this piece of legislation before the House. As many members will know, this is a subject that is very dear to my heart, since my wife Anne and I have a little girl named Tiana, whose Chinese name is Tiantian, who is from Yangzhou, China. She is four years old and is a wonderful addition to our family.

We were fortunate as a family to have the opportunity to travel to China and bring home a wonderful addition to our family. So we are now members of a group in the Sault Ste Marie area called Canadopt, which is a very large group locally. There are about 30 children. It's a veritable United Nations of children from every nation conceivable around the globe. We meet from time to time and the children all know each other and enjoy each other's company. They are, all of them, not only wonderful additions to the families to which they belong, but to our whole community.

The experiences of the parents in making these adoptions are very wide and different and varying. In our case, we had the opportunity to work with an organization called Children's Bridge, which arranges adoptions of Chinese children. It was relatively quick and we were very fortunate. However, other parents who have adopted from eastern Europe, Latin America, have not had the same experience. They have in many cases experienced long, long delays. In some cases - thank goodness, only a few that I'm aware of - they've had to deal with private adoption individuals and groups in these countries, sometimes involving members of the legal profession, sometimes involving members of the health care community, and have found that they may have in some cases spent a great deal of money and found that they did not in the end have the opportunity to bring a little boy or a little girl home. That is very tragic.

In other cases, they haven't had that terrible experience, but they've had enormously long delays. It's taken years for them to get the final approval to bring home a child and they have found that they've had to spend even more money than they might have originally anticipated it was going to take. In many cases, these are people who desire to have a child so much that in some ways they are vulnerable to exploitation by those who might not have their best interests, or the best interests of the children, at heart. That's why it's so important for the Hague convention to be ratified.

Along with the member for Lawrence and the member for Windsor-Walkerville, I've been trying to put pressure on the minister for some time to have the Hague convention ratified. Over the last couple of years I've had considerable correspondence with the Minister of Community and Social Services about the Hague convention. Most recently, I have received a copy of a letter that she signed in which she says: "As I have indicated in earlier correspondence, this government supports the Hague convention on intercountry adoption and it is my intention to introduce intercountry adoption legislation as quickly as the legislative agenda allows." That's dated September 14, 1998.

The important phrase in this is "as quickly as the legislative agenda allows." The minister repeatedly says she supports the acceptance of the convention, but she keeps saying, "It will happen as soon as possible, as quickly as possible." The question is, when? Thirteen countries have ratified the convention, that I am aware of. There may be more.

Mr Cordiano: Thirty-three now.

Mr Wildman: Thirty-three now? OK. In Canada, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories have all passed enabling legislation. Ontario hasn't done that. The minister keeps saying she supports the convention, but it hasn't happened.

We want to ensure that children adopted abroad and brought to this country are going to find loving homes that will fulfill their lives and fulfill the lives of their parents. We don't want to allow exploitation of these children. We want to ensure that they are protected, both in the host country, in Canada and in Ontario. All of us want that. That's why we need the legislation.

I would mention, though, that it's important to recognize that there are countries that are not signatories to the convention and from which many children are adopted into Canada. China, the home country of our little girl, Tiana, is one of them. China has not signed the convention. Neither has Russia, two major nations around the world.

I think legislation that is brought in will have to not only ratify the convention and implement the central authority called for in the treaty, but also ensure that adoptions for countries that are not signatories to the convention are regulated properly as well. I would hope that we could move forward quickly.

This is not a partisan issue, it really isn't, and I don't believe the minister believes it's a partisan issue. All of us, whatever political party we are from, recognize that there are loving parents, or potential parents, who want to have children and want to provide loving, nurturing homes for those children, and there are many, many children around the world who need that love and care. We should be doing everything we can to facilitate that, to make it possible, to protect the children and protect the interests of the families in general.

Ratifying the convention is a move in the right direction in Canada. We now have to implement it. We have to do it. We also have to ensure that children being adopted from countries which are not signatories to the convention are protected and that the parents involved in adoptions in those countries are protected.

We have a wonderful opportunity here to move forward and to express our collective will as legislators in Ontario representing the people of this province, to say: "We believe we should be helping these families. We should be ensuring that they are not exploited, that they don't face inordinate delays, that we are helping these children who can so enrich the lives of their parents, of their families and of their communities." We should be helping these children have the opportunities they would never have if there weren't loving parents in Ontario who wanted to care for them.

1020

I think about the situation in China where there are so many little girls every year who need to be adopted. The official line is somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 little girls every year in China. The reality is probably many, many times that. There are many parents who would like to have the opportunity to care for one of those little girls and to make her one of their own, part of their family. That's true in many other countries.

We have an enormous opportunity here to act in concert on behalf of the children, on behalf of the families, to protect them and their parents. I again congratulate my friend from Lawrence for bringing this matter before the House and hope that members from all parties would support it.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I appreciate the opportunity this morning to make a few comments on the bill from the member for Lawrence in adopting the Hague convention. I think it's worthwhile to look at a little history. The Hague convention that governs international adoptions was passed in 1993. At this point in time, only 19 countries have signed on to the Hague convention. It is a very complex issue, this whole area of international adoptions. The federal government is involved in the granting of visa status and so on. The provincial governments are involved.

The situation in Romania I agree was intolerable. We ran into bureaucracy at the provincial level, the federal level, the Romanian bureaucracy. The rules got changed in the process of the game and about 31 constituents, one of whom was mine, were negatively impacted. We now of course have signed a memorandum of understanding with Romania. Hopefully that particular issue involving those 31 families is over. We do need to go further.

Mr Cordiano's bill, very well intentioned, unfortunately only deals with about 20% of the intercountry adoptions that affect the people of Ontario because the Hague convention involves so few countries. So 80% of the intercountry adoptions that we process through Ontario will not be covered under the terms of this bill or under the Hague convention.

It would be wise if the government of the day addressed the complete issue instead of a small piece of the issue because the whole area of international adoptions is one that is growing as we become more aware of children in other countries of the world who are starving, who are not being treated properly. We have people in our country who would love to provide them with good homes and with the love they deserve. The whole area of intercountry adoptions is growing and it is becoming more and more complicated. I have constituents of mine involved in an adoption from China that is very complex, that they're having struggles with.

It would be wise if the government of the day looked at the entire issue and said, "Let's bring forward some legislation that not only deals with the issue of the Hague convention, but deals with the total issue of intercountry adoptions."

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Do the right thing, Jack, for Christ's sake. Forget about the bureaucrats.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Mr Carroll: It's interesting that the member for Lawrence would talk about an opportunity that doesn't present itself that often in our House for all of us to agree on. There's no question that all of us agree on the intent of this legislation. It also is obvious that the legislation should go a little further and encompass all intercountry adoptions.

We're not going to oppose the legislation. What I would like to see and what I assume will happen now is that as a result of the conversation from the opposition and the unequivocal support from the third party, should the government introduce some legislation in the near future that deals with 100% of the issue regarding intercountry adoptions rather than just 20%, the members of the opposition parties will see fit at that time to endorse that legislation that may be put forward by the government and give unanimous support to quick passage of that legislation through this body.

We support Mr Cordiano's intention. We think it's an admirable one. We all agree with it. We just believe that we need to go further and possibly his bill will be some impetus for us to go further. We would expect complete, quick support by all members of the opposition when that legislation does come forward.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to join the debate. I first became involved in this debate on January 2 of this year when constituents of mine called me with respect to their situation. Anne and Greg Lecours had begun the process of adopting a baby from Romania in early 1996. After two years of bureaucratic struggles and difficulties of every sort imaginable, the Lecours came to the conclusion that they needed the intervention and assistance of members of Parliament, regardless of political stripe. We ought not to make this a partisan issue, quite frankly, because I respect the views of other members of the House.

On January 3, I called the Minister of Community and Social Services and the minister responded immediately. At that point in time the minister expressed a great deal of empathy and understanding for the plight of my constituents and I was very pleased by the minister's response. I suspect the minister herself had not been properly briefed by her officials because she had indicated to me at the time that Ontario had a memorandum of understanding in place. It wasn't till later that day that I found out no memorandum of understanding was in place.

To make a long story short, this process continued for almost four months. My colleague from Lawrence, Mr Cordiano, and I were working with constituents, as I know a number of other members were, with respect to this issue. Finally in March, having asked repeatedly for the government to bring forward stand-alone legislation to ratify the Hague convention - I'll remind members of the House six out of 10 Canadian jurisdictions now have ratified. There are 33 signatories to this convention. I'll remind members that this convention protects both the children in their native countries and Canadian families adopting. The member for Lawrence and I brought these families here. That day the minister said they had finally signed a memorandum of understanding and that they were prepared to bring forward legislation. That was in late March, early April.

The member for Algoma presented us with a letter today saying the minister supports and is prepared to ratify the convention as soon as the legislative agenda will allow it. The House leader of the official opposition and the House leader of the NDP I believe have made it unequivocal that stand-alone legislation will get rapid passage in this House. It is now October of 1998 and Ontario families attempting to adopt from various countries that are signatories or have ratified - 21 have actually ratified - are still faced with the same kinds of problems.

The Lecours have their baby now, due in large measure to political interventions by a number of people. Their baby came to Canada in July of this year. It was an absolutely wonderful celebration. There is no reason why this convention ought not to be ratified by the province of Ontario today. Everybody agrees it's good public policy, everybody agrees it's in the interests of the children, everybody agrees it's in the interests of the adopting families and I for the life of me don't understand why we haven't ratified it.

1030

My colleague from Lawrence, Mr Cordiano, has brought forward a bill. I'm pleased to hear that the government members will support this bill. I hope the government will bring forward stand-alone legislation to deal with the Hague convention, legislation that's distinct from other amendments to the Child and Family Services Act so that it can get speedy passage by this Legislature.

Families attempting to adopt children from other countries go through an absolute nightmare. The family I dealt with, even once the memorandum of understanding had been in place, it turned out afterwards had been dealing with an unlicensed private adoption agency in Romania, paying US$1,000 a month to keep their child, and almost lost the adoption because of that. Again, it was political intervention by the Deputy Prime Minister of this country that allowed that baby to come here, through direct discussions with the Prime Minister of Romania.

It is in everyone's interests, and I believe members on the government side of the House share our concerns that Ontario become a signatory and ratify the Hague convention. It stands to reason that Ontario should sign the bill. Most of the families that have been affected by this are in Ontario. I believe there were 35 families in Canada in total and 34 of them, as I recollect, are here in Ontario. We've had happy endings to some long and difficult struggles in the last three months. There can be many more happy endings.

I hope and I believe the government is sincere, and I know the minister is because I spoke to the minister myself on a number of occasions about this, that Ontario should ratify this, and that's important.

I should point out to members, because none of my colleagues have, that in the case of Romanian adoptions it's the government of Romania that's insisting on provincial ratification of the terms of the Hague convention. Canada has ratified it but the Romanians correctly understand that adoption is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and they are the ones insisting on the ratification by each of the provinces.

I applaud my colleague from Lawrence on his efforts, not only on behalf of his constituents but on behalf of many other families in Ontario that have been caught in this bind. I'm pleased to support this important bill and I hope the government is sincere in saying that it will bring forward stand-alone legislation that will allow Ontario to ratify the terms of the Hague convention. It's in the interests of the kids, it's in the interest of Ontario's adopting families and it just makes good sense.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm very enthusiastic to be able to join my colleague Bud Wildman from Algoma in support of this bill.

I say to the parliamentary assistant, speaking on behalf of the government undoubtedly from a script, that this is a very fundamental human rights issue. We're talking about the rights of young children who find themselves without parents in their own country, and I don't have to explain to you the conditions they find themselves in more often than not. We're talking about the most basic of human rights for the most vulnerable and the youngest of victims of major catastrophies, of major social unrest, and yes, of violence and warfare.

You suggest to us that somehow this has to be put into a time frame, that somehow it has to be done at a point when it's convenient for the government. I understand what you say when you say that there are a number of jurisdictions internationally - it's been noted that Russia and China are two of them - that are not signatories to this convention. It's also been noted that federally Canada is, but because the jurisdiction of the province is in contrast to the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government, it remains incumbent upon each province to adopt the convention as well.

I find it difficult to understand why the government would want to somehow defer the interests of these children until it's, let's say, politically convenient for them. You've got time today. This is the opportunity for members of this Legislature, for government backbenchers not to follow the marching orders from the Premier's office and to say that they are far more interested in and far more concerned about the welfare of young, parentless, vulnerable children internationally than they are about some sort of political agenda or political timing at which the government might be able to obtain, let's say, a preferable spin, or perhaps the embarrassment that it was an opposition member who had to bring this matter forward, that it wasn't the government that took the initiative and said, "Let's put Ontario on record as being fully in support of this Hague convention on the rights of adopted children."

I've got to tell you I've been blessed in my own family. I've been blessed with siblings and with other close family members who are members of my family or I'm a member of their family by virtue of adoption. Kim, who will undoubtedly read the Hansard or is watching this now, will understand what I'm saying, as will Sam.

I understand the incredible burden and incredible hurdles that families across this province and this country go through out of their desire to bring a child into their life and to share their family with a child and to make that child their own, from any number of places in the world. There are families - I could speak very specifically about families in Welland-Thorold, in Pelham and across Niagara region - who have gone to great lengths at great expense and at great emotional cost to themselves to ensure that a young child from, again, any number of places in the world, a child whose life otherwise would be one of abandonment and one of total displacement, can become part of a family and grow and be nurtured and be a son or a daughter and a sister and a brother and a grandson and a granddaughter in a loving, caring family.

It's incredibly important that government backbenchers understand that here in this private member's hour is an opportunity for them to finally break free from the marching orders of the Premier's office. They've got a chance to say to families in Ontario that they care about the rights of adopted children and potential adoptees across the world and that they care about the families who go to those great lengths to bring them into their families. They can support this bill today and make Ontario a signatory to this convention.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): It is a pleasure to rise today and support in principle the private member's Bill 23, An Act to implement The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. I want to congratulate my colleague for bringing this matter to our attention today because it deals with one of our most precious resources, our children. Most specifically, it deals with parents by choice and the challenges they face when dealing with intercountry adoption.

I first became aware of the many issues surrounding intercountry adoption when constituents in my riding of Durham-York came to me in frustration. They asked me to help them unravel the complicated process of adopting a child from another country. While trying to assist these people in their endeavours, it became apparent to me that there is strong need for co-operation in creating a legislative framework which would support families faced with these challenges.

All children have the right to grow up in a safe, loving and permanent home. We all know that frequent movement of children from one temporary placement to another is detrimental to their well-being and development. As a society, it is our responsibility to protect our children from neglect or harm.

1040

Statistics show that the number of children born in Canada and subsequently placed in adoptive homes has declined steadily over the past decade. More and more Ontario families are becoming interested in adopting children who are born outside Canada. Procedures for intercountry adoption are complex and confusing as they involve Ontario legislation through child welfare laws, federal legislation in terms of immigration laws, as well as the legislation of the child's country.

Over the last decade, throughout the world a number of international legal instruments have been adopted in response to the growing concerns that we need to promote and protect the rights of children. In order to help individuals and organizations working at national and local levels, it is important to compile relevant international standards for the legal and social defence of children worldwide.

The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption is one of these instruments that my colleague has put forward today in Bill 23. The goal of this convention is to establish a cooperative adoption process between countries to protect the best interests of children and birth and adoptive parents. It was ratified by Canada and came into force on April 1, 1997. As the subject matter of the convention falls within provincial jurisdiction, provinces are also required to ratify the convention.

The government of Ontario supports the Hague convention and is looking at ways to implement it as quickly as possible through legislation. I am also aware that 80% of intercountry adoptions by Ontario families involve countries that are not signatories to this convention.

Because the Hague convention only deals with fewer than 20% of intercountry adoptions undertaken by Ontario residents, the Ontario government is looking at a more comprehensive legislative approach that would address the broader range of intercountry adoption issues and concerns.

Some countries - Romania has been mentioned this morning. It has ceased to process adoptions within jurisdictions that have not ratified the Hague convention. Because Ontario has not yet implemented the convention, this has caused some families in Ontario delays as well as a great deal of anguish and frustration. In the meantime, I am pleased to say that we have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Romanian government which will allow Ontario families who were waiting to adopt Romanian children as of June 1997 to finalize these adoptions in Romania.

But I think we have to pay attention to the broader issue: that we live in a world where parents, and particularly adoptive parents, must learn new parenting approaches. They are constantly looking for tools that work. These same families recognize the challenges they face as multicultural international adoptees. Some of these children come to their adoptive parents with little or no background on their biological families or their early life experiences. Some may have spent their early years in a healthy, nurturing environment while others may have suffered from emotional or physical deprivation. These same families realize that they must learn to nurture that multicultural process through the many years of family life.

It is my hope that no adoptive family, particularly a family adopting internationally, will have to search endlessly for information vital to the health and well-being of their children. Parents and parents-to-be of children of another culture have a unique opportunity to grow with their children as they build the bridge between the family of origin and the family of choice. We have to help to create a secure and level playing field for these parents by choice.

Having said that, I will be supporting Bill Pr23 in principle because I feel that as a government we need to do everything we can to simplify this process while still protecting children and their families by choice in Ontario.

Mr Gerretsen: I get very concerned when I hear the parliamentary assistant and the member for Durham-York talking about supporting in principle. We've got a bill here that's a very simple bill. It is exactly a page and a half. I know it's got an addendum of the actual convention attached to it, but it's a page and a half. It's eight sections long and there's only one section that really matters, and that is the fact that the Minister of Community and Social Services becomes the minister as the central authority that is required under the convention.

Why don't you do the right thing, give this bill second reading today and let's do something really unprecedented, give it third reading as well? We did it earlier this week with the school closures. We all agreed in this House at that point in time that it was the right thing to do to get the kids back in school. If everybody really believes that it's the right thing to do and that we approve this concept, the adoption of the Hague convention in principle, let's give it third reading. There's nothing complicated about the bill.

I get sick and tired of hearing the argument, "Well, the bill only will deal with 20% of the intercountry adoptions." OK, we'll make it easier for that 20% and we'll deal with the other 80% later on when the minister comes in with more comprehensive legislation. Why don't we make it at least easier for the 20% of intercountry adoptions that are taking place right now in Ontario and become a signatory and adopt the Hague convention?

That's all that's requested here. It doesn't require a lot of study or further detail. The bill is very simple in concept. It merely asks this Legislative Assembly to adopt it on behalf of the Ontario, then we're done with it. We don't have to adopt it in principle. We adopt it in practice and make it so much easier for wanted children to come into this country and become part of loving and nurturing families.

We have all heard stories of how adoptions have changed families, and it has changed my own family. I have a sister who was adopted some 40 years ago. She was seven years old when she came into our family and the joy and the pleasure that she brought to our family and continues to do, and hopefully we to her - she has become a completely integral part of our family.

If we can just help even one Ontario family to speed up this process, I think we're doing the right thing. Let us not get caught up in the bureaucratic claptrap of, "We've got to look at this problem from this side and that side." We can actually help individual families by simply adopting this bill and actually giving it third reading today if we're all in agreement. It's an uncomplicated bill, and I know it doesn't deal with all the other problems that are out there that we may have with respect to countries that are not signatories of the Hague convention, but at least we've started doing the right thing for the families that are directly affected by this.

What we're talking about here is a basic human rights issue. We shouldn't be talking about government and bureaucratic inconvenience. It is about the basic human rights of children who perhaps are unwanted in their home countries to have families and of wanting families to have the children they so desperately need to fulfil their own happiness in this world.

It's interesting to note that the Ministry of Community and Social Services actually has a Web site in which they talk quite extensively about international adoptions. As a matter of fact, that Web site goes on for some 94 pages. One of the interesting sections, on page 8 of the Ontario government Web site, is the area that deals with the Hague convention on intercountry adoptions.

1050

This is the ministry's own Web site. It states:

"Canada ratified the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption on December 19, 1996, which entered into force on April 1, 1997. The convention extends to five provinces: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island." It's interesting that the Ontario government doesn't say anything about the fact that Ontario hasn't signed on to this as yet or hasn't adopted the convention. "Each of those jurisdictions" - those jurisdictions rather than our own jurisdiction - "has designated a central authority to discharge the duties under the convention. The National Adoption Desk has been designated the federal central authority under the convention. Its role focuses on coordinating the implementation of the convention and facilitating communication between central authorities in Canada and abroad."

The ministry is putting out this information and basically saying to the people of Ontario and other people who have access to this Web site: "Five other provinces are doing it right. They've adopted the convention. They are part of the system and we aren't."

I think it's somewhat telling. I'm not sure what that means, whether the persons in the ministry who actually put this on the Web site really are trying to give somebody a message that maybe we should be part of it. In any event, I would urge people who are interested in international adoptions to engage this particular Web site - it's at www.gov.on.ca - and get this information. You're not only doing yourself a favour, not only making your own life more complete and fulfilled, but you may also be helping someone else, a young child in a country elsewhere.

I once again urge the members of this assembly, let us give this bill second reading, and let us take that very unprecedented step that we've already taken once this week: Let's give it third reading today as well.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to join this debate this morning. I speak in favour of this bill. I thank and congratulate the member for Lawrence for bringing this bill forward and for bringing this issue forward for debate today for us to discuss. I support this bill on second reading because I support the principle that the bill itself supports, that is, that there is a need for an international convention, an international protocol for adoptions between countries around the globe.

The Hague convention is a very important step in that direction. The Hague convention doesn't do it all. It would be wrong for us to assume that simply by adopting the Hague convention we would solve all the problems associated with international cross-border adoptions that we face here in Ontario today. The Hague convention is a first step, it's a necessary step and it's one that we should support and encourage to grow further.

In terms of the number of cross-border international adoptions in this province, to put this whole debate in some perspective, in 1996, the last year for which I have statistics, there were about 588 international adoptions in Ontario and about 20% of those would have been affected by the Hague convention if the Hague convention had been in effect in Ontario at the time. That means, to use that year's figures as an average, about 120 adoptions would be affected if this legislation were to be implemented but the other 80% would be unaffected by this legislation. I say that to indicate that all the problems we face with international adoptions here in Ontario would not be solved by implementing the Hague convention. The lack of adoption of the Hague convention is not the reason for the difficulty faced by most people involved in international adoptions.

In supporting the bill in principle, I am not saying that I accept the bill per se in its present form; I'm not saying that I reject the bill in its present form. I just want to know a little bit more about the details.

The bill resembles in many respects the draft bill that was established by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, but it is not identical to the draft bill in the uniform law conference. I'd like to know why it isn't identical. I'm sure there are good reasons why it's not identical, but those reasons have not been brought forward in the debate today. I think it's important that we go into those reasons. Obviously, the draft uniform law conference bill is not appropriate for implementation holus-bolus by each implementing jurisdiction. It needs to be adapted and made appropriate for each jurisdiction which enacts it. It's important that when we adapt it for our purposes here in Ontario, we adapt it correctly. I am not sure that we have had adequate debate on that particular aspect of it, so there's certainly more work to be done on this bill before it can go to third reading and I encourage that work to go forward.

I have a letter here from Beryl Mercer, the founder of the Saint Anne Adoption Centre in Stratford, Ontario, someone who is very experienced in matters of this sort. This letter is very supportive, again, of the principle that is represented by this bill, but it does indicate, "I would like to encourage you not to implement the Hague convention in Ontario at this time." It goes on to indicate that Alberta and Manitoba have implemented the Hague convention. They've had problems with the nature of the implementation and it is very important that when -

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired.

The mover of the motion has two minutes to respond.

Mr Cordiano: I want to thank all the members who participated this morning in discussing my legislation, Bill 23. I want to go back, because I am pulling at the heartstrings of each member. I am appealing on an emotional level because I think that's what this requires, that you see beyond the bureaucratic niceties, that you see beyond the kinds of difficulties that may exist.

There aren't that many. It pertains more to the government's unwillingness to fit this into an agenda that's preconceived and predetermined and this probably doesn't fit into your timetable. But this would not preclude the minister from moving ahead with other reforms to the Child and Family Services Act. By the way, to those members who have suggested that this only deals with 20% of adoptions, I remind them that each and every day there are more countries that are not only becoming signatories to the convention but are ratifying the convention.

Again I want to say this is about children. I talked earlier about my own children. I am blessed by the fact that I have two beautiful daughters, Lara and Natalie, and I want to wish my daughter Lara a happy birthday because it is her birthday today.

On behalf of all the children this deals with, I would say to members, please allow this to go through, bring it to third reading, and Ontario will be a ratifier of the Hague convention. I don't think we should, as a jurisdiction, be relegated to the position of some other countries which have not ratified this. Let's be a leader.

1100

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I move:

That in the opinion of this House, the government must immediately improve funding in the hospital and health system to alleviate major gaps that have developed, evidenced by chronic gridlock in emergency rooms, lack of sufficient nursing staff and massive debt being accumulated by hospitals; and

That the government must ensure that sufficient capital dollars are supplied on a timely basis to allow restructuring to occur without negatively impacting patients, which data now indicate has not been the case; and

That the government must commit to community services being in place before hospitals or beds are closed; and

That the government must strike an immediate independent review of the real impact from hospital and health service restructuring on the quality of patient care.

Today is an important day. It's important for patients not just in Windsor but for patients right across Ontario. I am asking the MPPs, especially the government MPPs, to make a very difficult decision today. I'm asking you to forget party lines and vote for your constituents. I'm asking you to seriously consider the information we're presenting that will prove there is trouble with the restructuring process in Ontario. We have evidence to that effect and we need your support on this resolution.

My resolution is calling for three important things: improved funding in the hospital system - we're talking about operating dollars; we are requiring that sufficient capital dollars are supplied on a timely basis; and we need you to strike an immediate independent review to see exactly what the effects of restructuring are on the quality of patient care.

There's no question that the support of this resolution will be difficult for some. It would mean an admission that the restructuring process has not been without problems but that you are prepared to rectify the problems. It would mean standing up for your own community, standing up for those who have told you personally that you're having trouble in your own home town, that there are serious effects from sufficient dollars not being in place at the right time.

I want to welcome Windsorites today. They're filling the public gallery. They got up at 4 o'clock this morning; they left on a bus at 5 o'clock in the morning; they trekked up the 401. I'm proud of you, because today you're representing all the Windsorites, all the residents of Essex county who have been dealing with these issues for the last three years, minimum. Today you're representing other people in Ontario, other people who come from even farther away than Windsor, but I'm proud of you. I'm thrilled that you're here and I want you to be a witness to the fact that MPPs can cross party lines to support something that is important to their own community. I thank you for being here today.

I have to tell you that Windsor is one of the hardest-hit communities, thanks to cuts to hospital budgets and this restructuring process. At this point today our hospitals in Windsor have lost $41.3 million. Any announcements of reinvestment have just not materialized. The result of that is that this past summer alone, 230 times during the months of July and August and the first week of September, we had ambulances in our Windsor hospitals that could not discharge their patients into the emergency rooms because the rooms in emergency were in gridlock; they couldn't move.

Let me tell you why this is so staggering and why I urge you to support the resolution. In 1997, if you recall, we released the report that the Ministry of Health had done itself - this is over a year ago - an internal audit of the emergency rooms, which our Windsorites will remember well. At that time it described the emergency room as "a gridlock," that "the care is fragmented and delayed." It said, "There are significant unacceptable delays to the transfer of care from the ambulance service to emergency unit staff." That is your confidential ministry report from over a year ago. I am telling you that this past summer 230 times ambulances could not discharge their patients into emergency because the situation has not changed.

Our Minister of Health was in Windsor on June 15. She promised that by the end of the summer she would make an announcement regarding the operating dollars of our hospitals. We are now at October 1. No announcement has been made; nothing has been done to rectify this. Today we are facing the same gridlock, the same unacceptable delays, not just in our emergency rooms but throughout our hospital and health system. I need your support of this resolution.

Just in case you thought this severe financial crisis was just hitting the Windsor area, let me tell you that today's resolution is being supported by the Ontario Hospital Association, which represents 198 hospitals in Ontario. What they are telling us is that, as per the second annual report that will be released shortly, over 50% of Ontario hospitals are facing deficits or accumulated debt. What this tells us is that they cannot manage the process that you are putting on them. The timing is wrong, the funds are not coming through in the right time frame and in the right place, and we need your help.

The OHA is telling you that you need to review how you are making this restructuring happen. They have said there is no question that hospitals in Ontario are facing extremely serious funding problems. These deficits are likely to be in excess of $200 million in this fiscal year. This is a serious financial crisis that our hospitals have been placed in.

I'd like to mention the Hamilton hospital, and my colleague will detail that further. They say, "There is a need for open debate on the finances of the health care system." The Hamilton Health Sciences Corp is facing massive debt and I'm saying to the members who come from that region that they must support the resolution, they must encourage their minister to come forward with funding in a timely manner. The capital changes must come through in a timely fashion. You must front-end-load those investments before you force these cuts and closures on your community. We know that your constituency offices are hearing about real patient issues, just as mine are.

When I look in the gallery today, I see some of the people here who've waited in emergency rooms. They are the ones who witnessed the time delays, the nurses scrambling, knowing that they needed more help. Our patient video that we released last spring shows Lyle Browning witnessing the diapering of patients on the ward. The nurses would not have the time to take these people to the bathroom, so they diapered them. Lyle Browning is a retired businessman who paid taxes all his life and cannot believe the situation that his health system that he waited for is in, that he knew should have been there waiting for him. Many, many people have been facing the same consequence.

Cambridge Memorial Hospital is facing a $2.2-million deficit this year. The Cambridge hospital has made its member well aware of the issues. I expect support from that Cambridge MPP, because his community requires it.

The Belleville General Hospital has supported this resolution. I ask the member from Belleville what is happening in his community and what does he owe his constituents when we come forward for a vote on this second ballot item today at 12 noon.

From St Thomas Elgin General Hospital, Mr Kondrat gladly supports the resolution. What strife and financial crisis is this hospital in because the timing of sufficient resources has not been there. It's not working like you said it might work.

The London Health Sciences Centre, the massive hospitals of London - we from Windsor envy the teaching centres in London - are looking at a $2.5-million deficit this year. They launched a postcard campaign last year, the result of which was a one-time grant. The truth of the matter is that in this fiscal year they're in the same financial bind. I expect London area MPPs to stand up for their area, because we know how cash-strapped they are and that it's affecting patient care. Every dollar that hospitals spend on financing costs is a dollar that is not spent on nurses. That cost is growing and, as the Ontario Hospital Association is forwarding, it is growing at a rampant pace, an expected $200 million of servicing fees and debt load because the government has not funded it in an appropriate time frame.

We have heard from the Clinton Public Hospital, Leamington District Memorial Hospital, the Louise Marshal Hospital, the Palmerston and District Hospital, St John's Rehabilitation Hospital, Riverside Health Care Facilities, the Pembroke General Hospital and the Kingston General Hospital. There are area MPPs from this region today. I insist that you support this resolution, because the people in the area of Kingston understand full well what has happened. The list goes on. Our own hospital in Windsor, Hotel-Dieu Grace, is facing a $5-million deficit this year and the Minister of Health broke her promise to come back to Windsor by the end of the summer for an announcement.

We need the support of all MPPs in the House today. We need you to cross your party line. We need you to stand up for the people you represent.

1110

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I too want to welcome constituents from the Windsor and Essex county community to the Legislature to watch this debate today.

We in the Windsor community are proud of our legacy when it comes to health care. I remember when I was growing up, as many people here will, the Windsor medical plan, which was the forerunner of the Ontario hospital insurance plan. That's a legacy we can all be proud of.

We were in the forefront when it came to hospital and health care reconfiguration in our community. Everyone will recall the Essex county Win-Win model, a report that was prepared after much community consultation and presented to the then minister, Ruth Grier, and the NDP government. That was a government that committed to our community that any savings that were going to result from the reconfiguration of our health care system were going to be reinvested back into our community - community services that were going to be required when one hospital was going to be closed - and changes were going to be taking place in the system. But we all know what happened to that plan.

In June 1995, when the current government was elected, all of those commitments that had been made by the former NDP government were thrown out the window. Now, day by day, we see reports in our newspapers of the crisis in health care and the long waits in the emergency rooms. Like the member for Windsor-Sandwich, I too get reports in my office and letters and phone calls from constituents who are concerned that this government is not only going too far too fast, but going in the wrong direction when it comes to their policies on health care.

I spoke to Lin Murphy about the subject matter we're debating today. She's saying that there is a lack of accountability in the system. Once a person is admitted into the hospital they have to wait for services such as pain medication and personal care. Hospital stays are less and patients are being turned out into the community a lot faster. We all know that. By and large, it is not a bad policy to have people in hospitals for a less amount of time. What has happened in our community, as in others, is that they're being sent out into a community that really doesn't have the services out there right now to adequately provide for them.

Right now we're having a strike with the community care access centre administrative workers. They have said that enough is enough and have drawn a line in the sand and are saying, "We are going to fight to protect the public health care we have always enjoyed in the Windsor area." They're fighting for fair wages, for job security and to protect public health care.

I commend June Muir and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, who are fighting on behalf of not only their workers in Windsor but on behalf of everyone in Ontario who appreciates public health care and the benefits that it provides.

We fear this government's agenda is leading towards privatization and we see that in our hospitals as well. I received a phone call from a Paul Micallef who said that he had a cataract operation recently and was required to pay user fees of $185.

We know that patients now have to pay for fibreglass casts because even though you can get a plaster cast without charge, they're never available. So you have to pay for casts.

I received a letter recently from a Paulette Kupnicki who talked about the time that she went to Windsor Regional Hospital, metropolitan campus, because she fell at work and broke her ankle. She was going to require surgery so she had to be admitted into the hospital. It took three days before an operating room was finally freed up and she was able to have that operation. But while she was there she experienced the shortage of doctors to handle the workload, the shortage of operating room availability, inappropriate nursing staff levels, low morale among the remaining staff and not enough staff to maintain appropriate levels of cleanliness. She was in the hospital and experienced severe consequences because she couldn't get an operating room. One has to wonder how that is going to improve efficiencies in our hospitals if people are forced to stay there longer because operating room space isn't available.

Our community also generously donated to complete Malden Park Continuing Care Centre. That was a centre that had been promised by previous governments. In fact, I think Tory governments had promised that hospital to our community many years ago, but it was the NDP government that finally built that hospital and delivered it to our community. It's a hospital the future of which is in severe jeopardy because of the work of the hospital closing commission and their recommendations in Windsor. We feel there's a threat that that facility is going to be privatized, and that's a threat we want to fight.

This is a motion that I will be supporting. Who couldn't support a motion that calls for improved funding and sufficient capital dollars to be supplied to communities for health care? But one has to ask oneself how a Liberal government would deliver on that promise. The NDP government has considered the issue of public health care and has issued a report. It's called Condition Critical: The Future of Quality Health Care in Ontario. I urge people to contact my office if they'd like a copy of that report.

We're having a by-election in Nickel Belt today. Blain Morin is fighting to protect public health care as the NDP candidate. He's pointing out in his campaign that even though the Liberals promised that they're going to improve the quality of health care, they failed to say how they're going to do it because they're not going to do anything about the Tory tax scheme. That's something that voters are going to be looking at carefully leading up to the next election.

I thank the member for doing what she can to fight to defend public health care in our community and the rest of Ontario. I have some questions about how that is going to be delivered but I'm happy to join her in those efforts today.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure to join the debate today and also to welcome the people from Windsor here today to have an opportunity to listen to the other side of the story and to hear what's happening in health care in this province.

I know the member for Windsor-Sandwich talks about funding in her resolution. I think it's important to look back to a quote from September 22, 1996, when her leader, Dalton McGuinty, said, "I am convinced that there is enough money in the health system." That was when this government was spending $17.8 billion on health care. Today we're spending $18.6 billion on health care. I can only assume that Mr McGuinty believes there is more than enough money being spent on health care in this province.

The reality is, we ran for office, and the Common Sense Revolution in 1994 promised health care spending would be at least $17.4 billion in this province.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please, member for Hamilton East.

Mr Newman: We've more than kept that commitment. The figure today is at $17.8 billion.

The full issue about health care in this resolution deals with credibility, and the Liberal Party has absolutely no credibility when it comes to health care.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): No hospital closures. Remember the promise?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, member for Hamilton East.

1120

Mr Newman: They have no plans for health care in this province; they only have a plan for playing partisan politics with health care in Ontario. They have a plan to create a crisis in health care in this province, and that is led by their health critic, the member for York South.

I was doing some research last night. I was sitting at my desk preparing for this morning's comments and I came across a story in the Toronto Star by Kelly Toughill, May 25, 1996. It talked about the member for York South and his predecessor in his previous occupation, Sue Cox, at the food bank. She was talking about her relationship with the member and she said, "`We would scream and yell like mad.... We would have terrible fights." Then she goes on, "Gerard has an ability to create an artificial crisis to get the adrenaline flowing."

Interjections.

Mr Newman: I'll repeat that. "Gerard has an ability to create an artificial crisis to get the adrenaline flowing." That's what's happening in this province.

We see that even in the Sudbury Star of late, on September 19:

"Kennedy would better serve voters by listing what needs to be done in the system to ensure services are in place once work is completed on the new Sudbury Regional Hospital. His fearmongering tactics are a disservice to this community."

The Sudbury Star goes on:

"Ontario Liberal Party health critic Gerard Kennedy needs to do some explaining if he wants anyone to believe his claim that $27 million will be taken from Sudbury's health care system next year. Otherwise, the statement made by Kennedy in Sudbury this week is nothing more than a cheap attempt at electioneering that thoughtful voters will see through."

That's what's happening across this province with the Liberal Party. In fact, the present CEO of the Humber River hospital wrote a letter to the member for York South, the Liberal health critic. It said, "While it is our philosophy to be open to the community and to you, as a leader in our community, your actions to date, unfortunately, demonstrate that you are not coming to us with an open mind, seeking the facts."

The letter goes on:

"In reviewing the fact sheets you distributed to the media on July 30, 1997, and August 13, 1997, and a more recent one released August 26, 1997, we find them to contain allegations of unsafe, poor-quality care and very few substantiated facts. We have reviewed each case to which you refer in these documents and have found the quality and safety of care provided was not once compromised. In fact, we found that in at least one situation our professional staff went beyond the call of duty to provide exemplary care.

"While there are many issues and challenges in merging organizations and consolidating services which impact on our patients, staff and members of the community, you seem more interested in generating fear within the community around the safety and quality of care provided to individuals regardless of whether or not the facts support this conclusion."

That's just the way that the Liberal Party handles health care in this province. I think it's important to note that tonight the Liberal health critic is having a fundraiser at the University Club, and guess who his guest speaker is?

Interjection: Who?

Mr Newman: Allan Rock, his hero.

Mr Agostino: A great health minister.

Mr Newman: They are working hand in hand to take health care dollars out of this province, charging hundreds of dollars a ticket.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, I'm not going to warn you again. Just hear me out, I'm not going to warn you again. Come to order. Go ahead.

Mr Newman: Basically, you have the king of health care cuts, Allan Rock, and Gerard "Create a crisis in health care" Kennedy working together to take money out of Ontario, and I think that's awful.

I just want to close on two facts. The member for Windsor-Sandwich talked about having the support of the OHA. I received a letter from a colleague of mine in the Legislature, from the Minister of Health, and it said:

"You need to know that my executive assistant, Perry Martin, spoke with the president of the OHA at approximately 2 this afternoon in regard to Pupatello's news release. Mr MacKinnon assured us in unequivocal terms that the OHA did not support Pupatello's resolution and to quote from the letter, `Hospitals, through the OHA and in local communities, are working with the Ministry of Health to ensure the availability of funds on a timely basis.'"

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): What kind of pressure did the minister put on him?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Member for Essex South, come to order.

Mr Newman: The member for Windsor-Sandwich also sent out a press release talking about the member for Durham West, the Minister of Community and Social Services, and said that they ought to call her. They couldn't even get her phone number right. If you can't trust the Liberals to get a phone number right, you simply cannot trust their numbers on health.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I want, first of all, to congratulate my colleague Sandra Pupatello, who has been the most passionate and outspoken critic of this government in the health care field of any member in this Legislature. This government talks about health care funding and how much they spend. Well, check your facts, boys and girls: Per capita spending in this province has gone down under your government. We're now second lowest in the country, second only to Alberta. That's no track record. I remember the now-Premier of Ontario in the election debate on Global television, broadcast far and wide, "We will close" - how many hospitals?

Mr Agostino: Zero.

Mr Duncan: "No hospitals," he said. "We will close no hospitals." Well, ladies and gentlemen, we've closed 39 hospitals now.

What the member's resolution is attempting to draw to your attention is that not only have you closed 39 hospitals, but you have reinvested hardly any of that money in community-based services. You talk a good game. You give press releases. As my colleague, who has fought passionately on this issue, has quite correctly said, there's no beef. The money doesn't flow. That's why we have waiting lists in our emergency rooms. That's why people can't get a doctor. That's why, if you need heart surgery in this province, you've got a waiting list.

Your jig is up. They see it. They see it clearly. Why won't you invest in your hospitals? The member from Scarborough spoke passionately, but he forgets to say that his own hospital supports this resolution. We have the letter right here.

This government is nothing but phony facts, phony figures, and tax cuts to the rich. If you were committed to health care, instead of Ontario being second last in per capita spending, this Legislature would agree to make us the highest per capita spending to address the crisis that confronts each and every one of us in our constituencies.

I'm delighted the NDP is joining in supporting this resolution.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would like to hear from the Chair as to the appropriate use of the word "phony" in this Legislature, because we have obviously been advised -

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I'm on my feet. I don't agree with you on that. I don't think it's unparliamentary. Continue.

Mr Duncan: Let me finish by saying I'm delighted the NDP is joining us in supporting this resolution, but I'll remind you that the NDP closed two hospitals in our city, they closed 8,000 hospital beds, and there were no reinvestments resulting.

I'm pleased to join this debate. I challenge the government members to join in this. If you support this resolution, you're saying that you support Ontario having the highest per capita spending in health care, you're saying you don't want waiting lists in emergency rooms, and you're saying that things haven't gone perfectly but we have a chance to fix them.

I applaud the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I say to the government members, use your facts properly. Let's have a meaningful debate on health care and let's invest in our health care system and repair it so everybody benefits.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's certainly a pleasure for me to rise on this particular motion. Here we have a Liberal motion that's saying they need more money, that the only way to fix it is to put more money into it. For five years they spent and they spent and they spent -

Mr Crozier: Your minister promised the money. What are you talking about?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Essex South, come to order.

Mr Galt: They doubled the budget; they doubled the spending. It's an old tax and spend and borrow philosophy that the Liberals have in this province. It didn't work in the late 1980s and it's not going to work in the 1990s.

It's interesting to note that our member just a moment ago talked about the health critic from York South, and a letter from that particular hospital said they really didn't want him there. He was trying to create a crisis and he was just playing games by going into the hospital. It was totally wrong and just not fair whatsoever to that hospital to go into it and do those kinds of things.

It's interesting to note that in the Sudbury Star they're talking about - this is just yesterday - "The Liberals are engaging in fearmongering, cheap electioneering. They offer no evidence to back up their claims, and their tactics are a disservice to the community."

A news release that the member for Windsor-Sandwich put out recently -

Mrs Pupatello: Hey, Galt, check your own hospital there, buddy. You want to call your hospital.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Member for Windsor-Sandwich, come to order.

Mr Galt: - claiming that she had the support of the Ontario Hospital Association and some 200 hospitals is totally incorrect, as we found out yesterday, as stated by Mr MacKinnon. He assured us in no unequivocal terms that the Ontario Hospital Association did not support Pupatello's resolution. How on earth could you mislead the public of this province when -

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. You must withdraw that. That is unparliamentary. You can't accuse another member of misleading the House.

Mr Galt: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.

In both cases, whether it be the critic or this particular resolution, it is creating a crisis in the province of Ontario. I have to wonder why the health critic isn't here. He's probably planning his fundraiser for this evening, charging hundreds of dollars to Liberals who believe what they're being told while this crisis is being created that they're trying to create. But I can understand why he's not here.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You doubled the contributions corporations can make. What are you talking about?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre.

1130

Mr Galt: He'd be embarrassed because they don't have a vision, embarrassed that the Liberal Party does not have a plan for health.

Down at the University Club would be an ideal place for the hepatitis C patients to go this evening just to see the kinds of games that are being played with this guest of honour, this guest of honour being the Honourable Allan Rock, a federal Liberal, first cousin to the provincial Liberals.

Mr Newman: Best friend.

Mr Galt: This is a friend. This is a person who has taken $3 billion out of transfer payments, mostly for health care. This is a person who provides less than eight cents on every dollar spent on health care here in Ontario. This is a person who refuses to help the hepatitis C patients in Ontario. This is a person who is the Liberal health critic's hero, the Honourable Allan Rock. The health critic tonight will be dancing with the federal health care executioner. He and Liberal Ontario will be hand in hand to keep money out of Ontario.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): Cheek to cheek.

Mr Galt: Cheek to cheek. They'll be dancing very, very close.

It is most unfortunate that this resolution has been brought forward looking to spend more money. There is no way that I can support this particular resolution, one that's trying to create a crisis in health care in the province of Ontario.

Mr Agostino: I'm pleased to join the debate and to congratulate my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich for this resolution.

I find it unfortunate that the government members have spent all their time simply attacking our health critic, attacking the federal health minister, but not dealing with the real issue, and that is the crisis you have caused in health care. You have gone out of your way since you have taken office to totally dismantle health care in Ontario.

As you sit there with your arrogance and your cockiness, I ask you again to go back to the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition at that time, by Mike Harris, when he said to Robert Fisher on Global, "It is not my plan to close hospitals." Do you all remember that? Why don't you ask the 39 hospitals across Ontario if Mike Harris kept his promise?

If you want facts, let's deal with the situation in my own community of Hamilton-Wentworth. Let us deal with the reality. The Hamilton health corporation as of this week faces a $38-million deficit. Scott Rowand, one of the few CEOs who had the courage to take on your government and whom you have not been able to browbeat and bully to death, said, "I don't know how to fix this problem other than an awful lot of closures and cuts to patient services." That is the head of the second-largest hospital in this country who said that, not an opposition politician. You should listen.

In the first eight months of this year, on over 1,000 occasions, ambulances had to be diverted from Hamilton area emergency rooms because they were full. Think about that: over 1,000 occasions. Your Tory members, the members for Hamilton Mountain and Hamilton West, were in the Spectator saying they are concerned about what has happened and they're going to speak to the Minister of Health. They're starting to realize what you have caused. We're hoping they will have the courage today to support this resolution, to put the partisan politics aside and understand what is happening to health care and to patients.

Your phony announcements, your money coming eight or 10 years from now, do not help the person waiting days and days in the emergency room for a bed. They do not help the senior who can't get surgery. They do not help the individual who can't get heart care.

This is what we're facing. I'm not sure you can sit there in good conscience and tell yourself that you've not had those calls, that you've not had those concerns, that you've not had those constituents come in and tell you that. You know it has happened. It has happened in your hospitals, in your community, but you're too busy playing and having your strings pulled by Mike Harris and the whiz kids in his office who will not give you the freedom today to vote on behalf of your constituents. You're going to walk away with your tails between your legs and wave the party flag while your constituents are waiting for emergency care, for surgery. That is shameful. That is disgraceful. You have caused this crisis, and I can tell you that you are going to pay one hell of a political price for what you've done to health care in Ontario.

I ask you again, have the courage to say no to the whiz kids and say yes to patients and health care in Ontario today.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm very pleased to join the debate today on the Pupatello resolution. I think there has been an awful lot of politics in this. The motive is the thing we should be examining. Why is this resolution here when it's been clearly stated on the record? The comments from the member for York South are clearly dismissed as a loose cannon, not a health critic, a loose cannon.

Let's look at my riding of Durham East. Respectfully, Dr Duncan Sinclair, the former dean of the Queen's University medical school, is restructuring health care. That restructuring, I might add, is to the credit of Frances Lankin. She started that when she was health minister and we're finishing the job. Of course it's displacing, and is a very difficult process. There's no question each of us wants to see the best level of health care in our community.

For the facts, it should be clear that Ontario spends $1,638 per person on health care. It is the highest of any province in this country of Canada, the highest per-person expenditure compared to every other province and territory in Canada. In terms of physician services, Ontario spends 18.7% above the national average. And clearly the Liberal government in Ottawa should take some responsibility for removing almost $6 billion from health care.

Gerard Kennedy is going to be schmoozing with the killer of health care, Allan Rock. There's no question, he's going to be dancing with him and the cinders will soon be at his feet.

I just want to know where the member for Windsor-Sandwich comes from. Where's her history? From my research, Madam Speaker, you'd be pleased to know that I have found out that Ms Pupatello was a member of the Win-Win committee which recommended closing a hospital in Windsor and beefing up - by the way, I'm going to quote this. She was a member of the Win-Win committee which advocated closing a hospital in Windsor. That may be the most intelligent thing she said because what she said was that to reinforce the existence of other hospitals to -

Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member opposite cannot lie in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: You have to withdraw that, member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Pupatello: I am not a member of the Win-Win. I was not on the hospital -

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. Order. Member for Windsor-Sandwich, you must withdraw. You accused another member of lying.

Mrs Pupatello: I withdraw the word "lie." Thanks, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: The reference I made - she knows full well her previous position. I just want members to know that motive is what we're about here. I question the legitimacy. Given the review from the Sudbury Star and given the review from the Ontario Hospital Association, I question your motives.

1140

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm delighted to join the debate, even though briefly, and congratulate my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich for bringing this resolution forward today. It is somewhat disheartening to hear some of the debate on such an important issue. I believe that when the Premier and the government side put out material like this, they really mean it. The fact is they cannot pull the wool over the people's eyes in Ontario here when it comes to health care because this really does not suffice to provide the quality of health care the Premier is saying in this very expensive brochure here.

I have to say that while they are perhaps not taking the issue seriously here, studying the case and how to improve it, patients are dying, Ontario people are dying. I wonder how members of the House, especially on the government side, will feel when they have to face a young widow due to the fact that at one particular hospital here in Metropolitan Toronto, for six hours they didn't know what to do with that particular patient because there was not enough staff, not enough doctors. They couldn't find one bed in all of Metro and the 39-year-old patient died on the way to Hamilton General Hospital. Why is that? At least, if we had had the benefit of providing the necessary care to that particular patient and then he had died, we would have done the best we could. We are not doing the best we can. We are not providing the best we can for the people of Ontario.

The resolution by the member for Windsor-Sandwich is more than timely because she's asking a very simple thing, what the people want. They want the necessary care provided by their own government, and we don't have that. We used to be proud of the hospitals in our communities and the care we received at our hospitals. Today they are very fearful of wanting to go to the hospital because they know that care is no longer available.

When the member for Windsor-Sandwich says, "Let's find out where we stand with the health care system today and ask for an independent review," I think the members on the government side should say, "Let's do it." If they are so right that they are sinking so many billions of dollars into the health care system, then they shouldn't have any difficulty in supporting the resolution by the member for Windsor-Sandwich today. Let's find out what the people out there are saying about the quality of health care the people of Ontario are receiving today.

Hospitals are too busy today doing fundraising to apply time to give care to patients in their hospitals. They are too busy dealing with debts in the millions. Here you have the well-respected North York General Hospital and this is what they say: "There is no question that hospitals in Ontario are facing extremely serious funding problems. The Change Foundation report to be released shortly found that over half of Ontario hospitals are running deficits and these deficits are likely to be in excess of $200 million per year."

So who is to blame here? Where are the millions of dollars they're saying they are sinking into the health care system? There is no reason not to support the resolution by the member for Windsor-Sandwich today.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have two minutes and I'd like to talk about two hospitals in Hamilton. St Joseph's in Hamilton has no deficit and has not had a deficit for five years; in fact it had surpluses. If you go into that hospital, you see and hear none of the things that are going on that Ms Pupatello alluded to. I'm not saying they're not there, but not in St Joseph's in Hamilton.

Next door there's another hospital in Hamilton. Scott Rowand of the so-called superhospital: The four Hamilton MPPs met with him at the end of May 1998. He told us he had a $19-million deficit, but according to his budget it would be in surplus by the year 2000. We tried to help him out. Within two weeks we got $500,000 for an MRI. A couple of weeks later, we gave him $5.1 million and Ms Ross here presented the cheque. What happened three months later? I read in the newspaper, as did Ms Ross and the other Hamilton MPPs - no phone calls, nothing - that he's got a $38-million deficit. Where did that come from? In three months he doubled his deficit. At that rate, by the year 2001 his deficit will be larger than the entire Ontario deficit this year. What is the reason?

You might say, "Oh, this is just Tory rhetoric." We discussed with him at that time: "You've got too much administration. You've eight vice-presidents at $150,000 each." That's more than Stelco which has 10 times the budget. If you think this is just Tory rhetoric, look at today's Hamilton Spectator. A nurse writes there, saying: "The problem with the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp is they've got too much administration, too much management. They're getting raises of 12%."

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Skarica: Before any money should go -

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): The howls we hear opposite are coming from members who individually - the member for Northumberland, the member for Scarborough East and the member for Durham East - have refused to stand up for health care in their communities and they're here making an apology for it.

Minister, let's review the facts. Sadly the member from Wentworth has joined the cacophony of apologists for this government, because these are the people who have abandoned patients in emergency room hallways. The member for Northumberland knows that in the city of Port Hope there is a hospital destined to close that the member for Northumberland refuses to stand up for. In Scarborough East -

Interjections.

Mr O'Toole: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: In this House the member for York South has put on the record that I don't support the Oshawa General Hospital or the Lakeridge Health Corporation. I want -

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Stop the clock. Member for Durham East, take your seat. I will ask all members to come to order now.

Mr Kennedy: The public can gauge for themselves the thin veneer of desperation about these people, because they know that in Hamilton - and the member for Wentworth had the gall to stand up - his government has removed $60 million.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Kennedy: I can tell you it's not about a vice-president; it's about nurses, hundreds of nurses who aren't available to provide the care. The member from Scarborough had the gall to stand up, when people in Scarborough have waited for two and three days in emergency room hallways. The hospital there, Scarborough Grace, said to him -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Take your seat, please. I'd ask the member for York South to direct his comments to the Chair, please.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Member for Durham East, I'm not warning you again.

Mr Kennedy: Madam Speaker, the salient facts are clear. I challenge each and every one of these bold members to a debate in their own community about the money that has been cut.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Kennedy: I can tell you, just as their minister was too afraid to talk about Sudbury, just as their members in Ottawa were to afraid to talk about Ottawa, no one has taken up the challenge of the debate because this is the government that has fired nurses, this is the government that's closing the Port Hope hospital, this is the government that has taken nurses out of Scarborough. This is the government today, as we stand in private members' business, full of -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for York South, take your seat. Stop the clock for a second. This is getting ridiculous. I ask all members, particularly the members on the government side, to come to order, and I ask the members on the opposition side as well to come to order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, I am not going to take any more from you today. If I hear you make one more comment, I will name you.

Member for York South, continue.

Mr Kennedy: The members of the public will understand that the train that all these members opposite are on is a train going to a certain place, and it's called two-tier, American-style health care. Their names will be inscribed on it if we ever get there.

What their shouting and the cacophony of the government side is trying to disguise are the facts. The facts are that when it comes to the actual money put into communities and taken out of communities, this is the sad roll of disgrace: $50 million from Hamilton, $28 million from Kingston, $15 million from Kitchener-Waterloo, $47 million from London, $27 million from Sudbury, $226 million from Toronto, $20 million from Windsor-Essex - a sad, sad legacy that each of you deserves.

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. Yes, we will be supporting the resolution. Let me also extend a welcome to the citizens of Windsor who are here for this important debate. Windsor, of course, is very similar to Hamilton in terms of its history and its growth and the kind of community we are. I always feel very comfortable when I travel to Windsor; similarly when I travel to the Sudbury area, where today we're having a by-election in Nickel Belt. Our candidate, Blain Morin, has been on the doorstep listening to the citizens of that riding talk about their fears about what's happening to the health care system, in particular the hospitals in this province.

Government members are very good at reading out the prepared speeches that the boys in the backroom have made up for them, but the reality is that they don't want to talk about what's happening in communities. That's why it's so important that these citizens are here. I realize that the people watching on TV can't see that, but the gallery is full of citizens who travelled all the way from Windsor to express their concern about what's happening to the hospital system, because the government won't listen. They won't deal with reality.

1150

My colleague from Wentworth North stands up and in typical Tory fashion opens his jacket, puts his hands on his hips, starts wagging a finger and saying, "The problem with the hospital system in Hamilton is the bureaucrats." Automatically, that's where they put the blame rather than listening to what's happening.

What is Scott Rowand saying? I'm talking about the head of the second-largest hospital in Canada. A headline last week in the Hamilton Spectator: "Hospitals Crippled by Huge Deficit: Patient Service Cuts Likely." He says, "For the first time in my career, I don't know how to fix this problem other than an awful lot of closures of programs and services needed by the community."

"We need more cash in the system and we need it now. And that is cash to deal with the issues that we are dealing with today. Don't ask us to do anything more because the people in the system are at their limit."

The member for Wentworth North stands up and says, "Where did this deficit come from?" First of all, it came from changes that this government made in the OHIP system which put more costs on our hospitals. Secondly, there was a settlement with the Ontario Nurses' Association. Tories, of course, don't believe that public servants like teachers and nurses deserve a decent level of pay. But for those of us who do, that's a legitimate expense.

When I show up at that hospital with a family member or one of my constituents shows up at a hospital in Hamilton we want the best professional services we can receive. You get that by paying people decent wages and benefits and providing them with training. But that's not what you see. You see a cost. How dare an ordinary working person make a half-decent living. We've seen that in every piece of labour legislation, in every change in social services, and we certainly see it here when we're talking about hospitals.

Thirty-eight million dollars, and the president of this hospital in Hamilton is saying, "I either have to stop providing services to the citizens of Hamilton or run a huge deficit." And what's happening on the Tory side? These members run around the province, pounding their chests saying, "We cut taxes by 30%." Your wealthy friends may think that's great as they're taking home $15,000, $20,000, $50,000 a year more because of that tax cut, but that Hamilton citizen who's worried about having the services they need in their hospital will be lucky if they got a cup of coffee out of that tax cut. Their property taxes are going through the roof, our schools are closing, and at the end of the day they're losing the valuable health system that we have in our community. That's not fair.

It's not fair to these citizens from Windsor. It's not fair to the citizens of my community of Hamilton. It's not fair to the people who are voting today in Nickel Belt. Your day of reckoning will come when you call a general election and people like those here today can get at you in the only way that matters: in the ballot box.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): We can all tell how passionately concerned about health care all of us are and certainly those who are visiting the Legislature today.

My colleague from Hamilton Centre is quite right that the day of reckoning will come, but it will come for both Liberals and Conservatives. It is important for the people of Ontario to understand very clearly that the Liberal federal government has taken $2.5 billion out of health care in the province of Ontario. There is nothing to choose between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to the issue of health care. They make fine statements about reopening hospitals, they make fine statements about hiring nurses, they make fine statements about improving community care but they can't tell you how they're going to pay for it.

We can. We are very clear that in order for us to deal with the mess this government has made of health care, we have to reinvest dollars, and those dollars should come from the phony tax scheme that this government has put in place that takes $5 billion to $6 billion of revenue this province would have had and gives it primarily to those who are fortunate enough to earn high salaries. We are committed to removing the tax cut from the top 6% of earners, who get more than 25% of the return from that tax cut, and to reinvest those dollars in nurses, in hospitals and in setting standards.

We believe that we can set standards in this province, standards that governments must fund, that hospitals and community care agencies must meet, and that those are professional standards should be known to all of us. That's why we've put forward a health care accountability act which includes a patient bill of rights, which entitles every citizen of this province to know what the standards of care are, wherever they are cared for, and to be able to insist through proper processes, through a commissioner, that those standards be met.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich has two minutes to respond.

Mrs Pupatello: To all of the people who came here from Windsor, I'm glad that you were here today to witness Conservative MPPs completely in denial, who would choose to spend the time today saying that there is not a problem in health care. I apologize on their behalf.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Pointing out the fact that you want to close a hospital

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Scarborough East, come to order.

Mrs Pupatello: I'm sorry that you woke up so early to get here to witness this. I want to tell you that in Ontario 50% of the hospitals are in debt. I want to say that the Ontario Hospital Association wrote to me personally of their support. No one would believe that we would stand here today while I'm attacked personally instead of dealing with the issues.

There are people in Windsor who have experienced the gridlock in our emergency rooms. We knew that there were operating problems with our hospitals, we knew that the minister promised to come back to Windsor before the end of the summer to fix them. Instead, the parliamentary assistant to the health minister chose to talk about the fact that there are no problems in Ontario in health care. All I can say on behalf of all of the people from Windsor is that no one believes them. Nobody believes you. No one believes that there is not a problem in health care. Everyone understands that the hospitals are in deficit and debt.

I remember giving Buzz Hargrove hell one day because he was calling for anarchy. All I have to say is that with this kind of attitude by Conservative MPPs, I think it's time for a revolution because that is the only thing that is going to change your mind and make you see that you will not get away with this kind of arrogance in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION (THE HAGUE CONVENTION) ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE (CONVENTION DE LA HAYE)

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will deal first will ballot item number 21, standing in the name of Mr Cordiano.

Mr Cordiano has moved second reading of Bill 23. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried

Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on social development? Is that agreed? I hear a no.

All those in favour of the question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to the question will please rise and remain standing.

There is a majority in favour. Therefore, the bill will be referred to the standing committee on social development.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will now deal with ballot item number 22, standing in the name of Mrs Pupatello.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All 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 1201 to 1206.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until counted by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lessard, Wayne

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until counted by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Boushy, Dave

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Sampson, Rob

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 29; the nays are 44.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will reconvene this afternoon at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I want to get back to the inconsistencies that exist in our health care system nowadays. People used to be proud of going to a hospital and getting the care they knew they were going to get. No longer is that the case today. It was very shameful this morning to see the government side not supporting the resolution by the member for Windsor-Sandwich, which was calling for a review and more funding to provide the care we expect, as we were accustomed to.

It is very sad, but I have to mention a particular case that happened in one of the hospitals in my area. It took six hours, after waiting more than another couple of hours in the emergency room, to get some care, and when care was provided they couldn't find a doctor and the patient died on the way to Hamilton General Hospital, because they couldn't find a bed during the six hours here in Metro.

It is a terrible, shameful situation and it can only be attributed to the funding cuts and the uncaring attitude of this government. When they got to Hamilton they found care, they found attention, they found doctors, they found nurses, but unfortunately the patient had died. It's most unfortunate that we cannot provide the necessary care. Even though it may prove to be futile, at least the care should be provided to each person.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): People in this place and across the province will be aware that today there's a by-election in Nickel Belt. The issues have been education, health care, community services and jobs. The focus on education has been telling. A program of misinformation has been blanketing the airwaves, demeaning and demonizing teachers.

Let's look at the question of secondary teachers in class 25 more minutes a day. Mary Anne Amadio from Sault Ste Marie says in the Sault Star, "In isolation the additional 25 minutes does not appear very significant. However, the reality of the proposal is very different. A high school teacher is not just being asked to tack on an additional 25 minutes to his or her workday. He or she is being asked to take on an additional 25 students including additional time for preparation, marking and conferencing with students.

"Having teachers instruct the additional class within the current teaching day not only reduces teachers, but teacher effectiveness.

"You would not ask an elementary school teacher to add on an additional 25 students to his or her current day."

We New Democrats agree with Mary Anne Amadio and we disagree with the current government and its program of attacking teachers and attacking education and the system. We believe that if they put more money into the system, if they left the teachers who were there to do the job they've been trained to do and if they stopped demeaning and beating up on teachers, we would have a better system. We New Democrats support that and we will win -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Member for Scarborough West.

MAHATMA GHANDI

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Tomorrow, October 2, is the 130th anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi, the pre-eminent leader of Indian nationalism and the prophet of non-violence in the 20th century.

Gandhi was born at Porbandar in western India. He grew up in a home steeped in values of the Hindu religion. Its chief tenets are non-violence and the belief in the eternity of all things, non-violence to living beings, vegetarianism, and mutual tolerance for human diversity. These are the principles to which Gandhi held throughout his entire life. He became the catalyst of the major revolutions of this century, revolutions against colonialism, racism and violence.

A true Moses of Asia, Gandhi's non-violent approach to liberation inspired the popular imagination of his people, whom he led to independence as a sovereign nation in 1947. His gaunt and saintly figure, holding a staff and marching silently across the Indian subcontinent, will forever be his enduring icon, especially for people suffering oppression, of all religions and nationalities.

In a time of deepening crisis of the Third World and of social malaise in affluent societies, Gandhi's ideas and techniques have become more and more relevant to us all.

It is my pleasure and great privilege to welcome in the House today the Consul General of India, Mr C.M. Bandari, and other Indian community leaders.

Namaste!

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I rise today to talk about the health travesty perpetrated by this government with respect to private laboratory services. It will hopefully be time for this government to change its mind. Small private laboratories in this province are having to take the Ontario government to court on Monday. They have to go to court because of this government's insistence on taking money away from small lab companies and giving it to other parts of the industry.

What this action of the minister means is that there will be fewer laboratory services available, and 23,000 people in Ontario have signed petitions because the labs that they get services from, the doctors they get services through, understand that access to these services is going to be compromised. In particular, seniors and disabled people who get home visits are going to find themselves without services.

We note particularly how the government official responding in the court case said that the reason they had to do this is because hospitals have been cut back: "Since they're globally funded, they create changes in patient treatment, including early discharge and discontinuation of programs within hospitals." In other words, we have a government official saying that the reason small laboratory services - Dr Joseph Kurian is here on behalf of one of the labs - have been cut back and cut out and given this unfair treatment is because the Harris government itself has cut services in hospitals. It's a shame on this province and it certainly needs to be addressed.

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This Harris government, with its passion for privatization, is abandoning its responsibility for the operation and maintenance of jails and young offender facilities across this province, and most notably down in Pelham where this government has given a green light to the establishment of a privatized young offender secure custody facility in the midst of a very unique rural, residential neighbourhood and in a building that was never designed to be a secure custody building.

Let's make no mistake about it, these are not shoplifters, these are not first-time offenders. This location is going to be run by private operators and it's going to house some of the most dangerous and disturbed young people this province has. These are people who will have been found guilty of some of the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code being placed into a setting which is in no way suitable to accommodate them.

The irony is that the government has already announced the closure of Arrell observation centre in Hamilton, which has a long record of accountability and effectiveness in maintaining security and effective treatment. We've got the Niagara Detention Centre, a 20-bed young offenders' facility that's been shut down for two years now, sitting empty. Yet this government is going to spend millions of dollars to impose a privately run and entirely inappropriate facility on a residential neighbourhood, at great risk to them and to the community and, quite frankly, at great risk to those young offenders who should be receiving effective treatment.

OKTOBERFEST

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): On October 9 the keg will tapped, kicking off the 1998 Oktoberfest festival in the Kitchener region and marking the 30th anniversary of Oktoberfest.

Thirty years ago, a small group of men and women from the Concordia Club decided they wanted to celebrate their German heritage. It has evolved into one of the most successful community celebrations in Canada.

The Oktoberfest festival is the largest Bavarian festival outside of Bavaria, the third-largest tourism event in Canada and the largest in Ontario. Today it has a staff of seven full-time and five part-time people, a board of directors of 35 elected members and an advisory council of 40 members. What is truly outstanding is the fact that 450 members work year-round on 22 committees. In addition, during the nine days of the festival, more than 800 volunteers will take part.

Oktoberfest operates from 18 accredited festhallen, which include five German clubs: the Schwaben, Concordia, Alpine, Transylvania and the German Hunting and Fishing Club, along with the 13 other festhallen operated by service clubs or private establishments.

In addition to being a successful festival, Oktoberfest has a significant impact on tourism not only in the Kitchener region but throughout Ontario and benefits over 70 different charities.

During the nine days of Oktoberfest, over 600,000 visitors will visit our region, providing a major economic impact to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

The Thanksgiving Day Oktoberfest parade will be seen by over 300,000 people lining the streets, with an additional 1.2 million people seeing it televised throughout North America.

I congratulate the men and women who work so diligently to make Oktoberfest the tremendous success it is, and welcome all of you to join in the fun.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is that an official Oktoberfest jacket?

Mr Wettlaufer: It's a Bavarian jacket.

The Speaker: I see. It's very nice.

1340

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It is difficult to reach into the mailbox these days or to open the local newspaper or listen to the radio or watch television without being overwhelmed by the deluge of Harris government propaganda paid for by the beleaguered taxpayers of Ontario.

For a government which pinches pennies when it comes to education or hospital funding, the Ontario Conservatives are more than eager to spend wildly when it comes to promoting themselves with expensive pamphlets; full-page newspaper ads; catchy, if inaccurate, radio spots; and highly partisan and slanted self-congratulatory TV commercials.

Mike Harris and his band of so-called taxfighters must have smirks a mile wide on their faces as they search the editorial pages for even one critical piece by usually vigilant and rightfully suspicious editorial writers. As long as the PCs can get away unscathed by critical comment from the watchdogs of the government scene, they will continue to waste millions of hard-earned tax dollars on patting themselves on the back.

The propaganda exercise being undertaken by Mike Harris and his regime is a disgrace, as it wastes money and gives yet another unfair advantage to a government which is already flush with funds from the rich and the powerful. The taxpayers of Ontario will remember this blatant waste of their tax dollars.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): The crisis in education which the former Minister of Education announced over a year ago is unfolding day by day. As we look across the province, we see hundreds of schools under the real threat of having to close because of this government's new funding formula. The Minister of Education tries to distance himself from that, but he knows, and people are beginning to understand more clearly, that in fact it's the new funding formula that is forcing school board after school board to have to look at closing schools; schools that are functioning, schools that are now providing good education, schools that are providing a useful service to each and every one of their communities.

In the city of Toronto we know that on the public board side they are going to be looking at some 100 to 170 schools. On the Catholic board side, 29 schools have already been identified. Meetings have taken place in some of those schools; schools like St Peter, which had a meeting last night, schools like R.W. Scott, St Raymond, St Rita, St Josaphat; schools that are offering good, solid education and that are going to be put under the real threat of closing because of no other reason than the government thinks they have surplus space. Some of these schools might have a few empty classrooms, most of them in fact can nowhere meet the kind of guidelines and criteria that the ministry has set, but most of them are going to be under the real threat of closure.

I say to the school boards, have the courage to stand up to this government and say that you will not do their bidding, and work with parents to fight this new formula which will result in the closure of many schools.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): On May 4 this House voted unanimously to demand full compensation for all victims of hepatitis C, regardless of any arbitrary date set by the federal Liberal government.

I've been informed that the member for York South is hosting a fundraiser this evening and that his guest will be none other than the Liberal Minister of Health, Allan Rock, who opposes full compensation.

Our colleague did the right thing when he supported full compensation for all victims of hepatitis C. Will he have the courage tonight, I wonder, to do the same thing when he sees Mr Rock? Dare we hope that this evening Mr Rock will experience a full and caring conversion? Dare we hope for justice tonight? Dare we hope that this evening the Liberal who cut billions out of Ontario's health care will repent?

This Harris government has put its money where its mouth is by offering full compensation for all victims of hepatitis C, while the Liberals refuse to do the right thing. The Liberals talk about "care, not cash." So why do we focus on compensation? Because this is a debilitating disease. It prevents victims from holding a job, paying the mortgage or putting food on the table. Victims deserve cash as well as care. "Care, not cash" is a catchy slogan, but we all know it's just empty Liberal rhetoric.

I say to Mr Kennedy, tonight tell your federal Liberal cousin with whom you are so intimate that Ontarians want full compensation for all victims of hepatitis C, and I concur. The victims -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF DE L'HOLOCAUSTE

Mr Chudleigh moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 66, An Act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day - Yom ha-Shoah in Ontario / Projet de loi 66, Loi proclamant le Jour commémoratif de l'Holocauste - Yom ha-Choah en Ontario.

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

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): The purpose of this bill is to establish a Holocaust Memorial Day to commemorate the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and to focus attention on other instances of genocide that take place in our world every day.

GERMAN PIONEERS DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR DES PIONNIERS ALLEMANDS

Mr Wettlaufer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 67, An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day / Projet de loi 67, Loi proclamant le Jour des pionniers allemands.

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

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): German immigrants began arriving in large numbers in Upper Canada, present-day Ontario, during the 18th century, along with other United Empire Loyalists, after the American Revolution. This bill will recognize the entrepreneurship and the industriousness of the German peoples who settled our area and did so much for Ontario.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Mr Ramsay and Mr Kwinter 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.

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICERS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move without notice of motion a motion regarding the appointment of presiding officers.

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

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that notwithstanding the order of the House dated October 9, 1997, Mr Johnson, member for the electoral district of Perth, be appointed Deputy Speaker and Chair of the committee of the whole House; that Mr Morin, member for the electoral district of Carleton East - they had Carleton; that happens to be the riding I represent -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Foreshadowing.

Hon Mr Sterling: - be appointed First Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House; and that Ms Churley, member for the electoral district of Riverdale, be appointed Second Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House.

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

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): Today is the International Day of Older Persons, and in every province across Canada and around the world this is a day when people are launching the International Year of Older Persons. On behalf of all members of this Legislature, it is my privilege to officially launch Ontario's activities for this important year.

As we prepare to celebrate the new millennium, it is only fitting that we honour the people who brought us safely through the 20th century: Ontario's seniors. Over the years our province's elders helped build our communities we live in and they continue to contribute to their strength, their diversity and their well-being.

Our vision is of a province where all seniors, now and in the future, continue to contribute to society, to age with dignity, to remain independent as long as possible and are respected for their achievements. Our government has taken great strides over the last three years towards this vision.

By listening carefully to Ontario's seniors we have taken significant steps towards addressing their health, safety and security needs. Acting upon what we have heard, the Premier has asked all ministries in our government to work together to plan for the needs of our aging society.

Further towards our vision for Ontario's seniors, I am presenting the first in a series of announcements to support and commemorate the International Year of Older Persons by introducing the community partnership projects program and the provincial legacy program for our citizens.

Several weeks ago I wrote to all members of this Parliament, encouraging them to establish international year committees in each of their constituencies. It is my honour to announce today that $2.6 million has been set aside for these community-based grassroots commemorations so that Ontario can celebrate the international year for its seniors. Through each and every MPP's individual committee in this province, and using guidelines and criteria that are being provided to all members, local projects with a lasting legacy will receive funding during 1999. This community partnership program represents a $20,000 investment that will be made available to community groups in each of Ontario's 130 constituencies.

We are also working on a provincial legacy program. The many elements of this program will include an enhanced seniors achievement award for our province; a series of projects that bring school-age children, veterans and seniors together to share their wisdom and their energy; opportunities for seniors to tell us what their vision for our province's future is; and opportunities to highlight the contributions of seniors living in our province. This program will challenge how we think about our elders today.

Ontario has strong and vibrant community organizations that help people every day. These groups, many of which are represented here today in the House, are actively planning activities to mark the international year. One timely example is the Ontario Community Support Association, which has designated October as Community Support Month. During this month I encourage all members of this House to celebrate and recognize the more than 12,000 professional staff and 45,000 volunteers who provide community support in our province every day to over 600,000 Ontarians.

It was my privilege today to join the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, Ontario's honorary commissioner for the International Year of Older Persons, and Lois Neely, Ontario's representative to the Canada Coordinating Committee for the International Year of Older Persons. We planted an oak tree here at Queen's Park. In many ways an oak tree is symbolic of life in our province. Starting out as young people, we look for shelter, for nourishment, guidance, love and compassion from our elders. Later in life we grow taller and stronger and begin to raise our next generation. Still later in life our elders are a source of wisdom and guidance for the generations that follow.

Much has been accomplished and more can be done to ensure that our elders feel a sense of their connection to their families, their friends, their community and their government. We need to remember the values our parents have shared with us through their lives. Seniors continue to make outstanding contributions to our province as parents, as grandparents, as caregivers and volunteers.

Seniors frequently comment on the need for services close to where they have lived their lives: in their neighbourhood, in their community, near their family and their friends. We all put down our roots and grow and develop in our communities and want to live our lives in the places we call our homes. We are building a continuing care system that can ease the pain of loneliness, give comfort, dignity and, yes, it should even include a little hand-holding.

This government cares deeply about the needs of our elders, and we continue to care through our ongoing work. Our government is committed to realizing our vision and honouring the promise we made to our parents that they can live in Ontario with comfort and with dignity. Together all members can renew this commitment in anticipation of 1999, but also, and more important, for all our future.

Ontario is taking a leadership role in Canada with our international year activity programs. We are reminding our nation that, as it prepares to celebrate a millennium, we in Ontario wish to celebrate the lives of the seniors who carefully and safely delivered us to the end of the 20th century. This theme, like our vision, is: Ontario, a province for all ages.

I encourage all members of this Legislature to join me in actively supporting and celebrating the contributions of Ontario's 1.5 million seniors during our International Year of Older Persons.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): As the Liberal advocate for seniors' issues, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and my colleagues in the Ontario Liberal caucus to mark International Day of Older Persons.

It's indeed fitting that we honour our parents and grandparents in this way for many reasons, not the least of which is to thank them for building a society we now find ourselves battling to preserve in so many ways.

As legislators, sons and daughters, citizens, it does us well to pause for a moment to consider the immeasurable value that has been brought and continues to be brought to our lives. They play a critical role in our communities and continue to contribute endless volunteer hours to a variety of causes.

It is also incumbent upon us to consider the increasing number of older people who are victims of neglect, abandonment and abuse and to think ahead to a future where more of us will be living longer in our senior years.

How can we build a society which cares for its elderly, most vulnerable citizens, a society which values their dignity? We look forward to 1999, the UN-declared International Year of Older Persons, and take seriously our responsibility to create "A Society for All Ages," that year's theme and objective.

Each and every one of us, and especially members of government, must take our obligation to create that kind of society seriously. To do that, we need to address the fact that here at home seniors are finding it increasingly difficult to get by on limited incomes, access the health care they need and maintain their independence. They are increasingly among our poorest citizens.

The minister has said that the Harris government has listened to the seniors and is providing for their health, safety and security needs. The unfortunate reality is that seniors in Ontario are finding themselves paying the price for some of the current government's policies in the form of user fees for drugs, longer waiting lists for long-term care and increased delays in accessing health care.

As we well know, the measure of a good society is the way in which it cares for its most helpless and needy, and the measure of a good government is the contribution it makes towards achieving that ultimate goal. It can't all happen here or in the seats of government around the world. This spirit must reach every citizen. We must alter attitudes so as to view our elderly citizens as a blessing and not a burden. We have so much more to learn in that regard.

Once again, I join my colleague the minister responsible for seniors in honouring older persons, both here at home and around the world. We look forward to making the goal of the International Year of Older Persons a reality by fostering harmony, mutual respect and mutual support across all generations, a true society for all ages.

1400

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What we'll have to ensure for seniors in our society in particular is the kind of hospital care that they are going to need from time to time.

When Dr David Foot, the author of the famous book Boom, Bust and Echo, came to Brock University in St Catharines, a student in the audience asked him, "If you could give any advice to the Mike Harris government in Ontario, what would it be?" His answer was, "Don't close hospitals." The hospitals in the area are unfortunately under the threat of the axe from the Conservative government of Mike Harris, despite the fact that during the last election campaign Mr Harris promised, "Robert, I can guarantee you I have no plans to close hospitals." Despite that, we have 35 hospitals in this province that have either been closed or been forced to merge with other hospitals.

In the Niagara region, the hospital closing commission appointed by Mike Harris is doing a study at the present time and will be presenting its report. Seniors in our part of the province - and we have the largest number of seniors per capita of any community in Ontario - are looking forward to having all the hospitals stay open and all the services that are needed in place for them.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I too am pleased, on behalf of New Democrats in the province, to rise and join in the celebration of the beginning of the International Year of Older Persons.

Those of us who have been part of the work and the celebrations that have happened for other international years know that they act as an impetus for change: for change in attitudes, for change in programs, for change in the political sphere, for change in policy. Certainly, when I think of the International Year of Women, we know that was at the very time when women were beginning to seek equity within our society and the International Year of Women gave real impetus to that effort and made a great difference in terms of uniting women around the world on their own behalf.

Similarly, the International Year of the Family drew our attention to the kinds of supports that families need within their communities in order to continue to be the stable building blocks of our society. It also helped us to recognize the different kinds of families that we have in our society, the different relationships that those families have with their communities, with one another and with society as a whole.

Now we are on the eve of the International Year of Older Persons, and of course all of us, as we grow older, understand the importance of having the kind of advice and support that our elders could give. We didn't always understand that when we were younger. In my generation the saying used to be, "Never trust anybody over 30." Well, as we passed 30 we learned and needed to learn that we needed to respect the views and the experience and the creativity of those who were older and that we needed to honour the institutions they had founded, we needed to respect the kinds of services they had developed.

While we're celebrating, we need to understand the situation for those seniors who are fortunate enough, privileged enough, to have a good income, to have a stable place to live, to have family supports around them when they need those supports as they grow frail, to have the kind of dollars they need to purchase the services that they now have to purchase that are not available to them under medicare.

We must remember that there are many seniors who do not have those privileges and that part of what we are doing in the International Year of Older Persons is examining ourselves and our policies federally and provincially and indeed municipally to ensure that we have an approach to the needs of our senior citizens that is going to enable more and more of them, ideally all of them, to enjoy the quality of life they ought to enjoy.

We know that's not the case at this point in time. We know that seniors across this province are deeply disappointed in the erosion of the services that they themselves built through their votes for progressive governments in the past, that they built through their taxes, and they are disappointed at the erosion of those services.

Governments know to their peril that senior citizens are very knowledgeable voters and that they take their democratic duty very seriously. It is not a surprise that first the Conservative federal government and now the Liberal federal government have backed off plans to reduce the incomes of seniors. It is not a surprise at all.

We should expect that the voices raised against the kinds of policies that erode health services, that erode educational opportunities, that erode our communities and the services available to seniors within our communities, that erode our ability to offer a multicultural approach to those who live within our community - we must expect that to become part of a political picture, and we must remember that seniors have the knowledge, the commitment, the dedication and the time to call us to account for our responsibility as legislators. I expect that will be a major part of Ontario's celebration of the International Year of Older Persons.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We know that the Premier and the Minister of Education were making a very important announcement outside the House today dealing with education changes. We've been told that the Minister of Education will be due back here at about 2:15. I don't know if the minister was intending to make a statement in the House, but I would like to move for unanimous consent that at 2:15, or when the Minister of Education arrives, we revert back to ministers' statements to have the Minister of Education make a statement on the announcement that he made today at 1:30.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? No.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just while I have a moment, I would like to introduce all those members in the public gallery who came from Windsor early this morning. We welcome them to Queen's Park.

The Speaker: No, that's not a point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. A study that was made public this morning says that the rich and the well-connected are getting faster heart care in Ontario. This confirms what many people have suspected all along. Your cuts and your approach to health care in our province are creating a two-tier health care system. If you've got money and you know the right people, you get better health care.

My question for you, Minister, is very straightforward: How does it feel knowing that you have created two-tier health care in Ontario and what do you have to say to those who aren't wealthy and don't have the right connections?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): What I would say is that jumping the queue at any time is totally unacceptable to this government. I believe treatment decisions must always be made based on medical need. That's why we have continued to support the development of the CCN, which was established by the New Democratic Party and has been universally hailed as being a good, innovative committee. They do have waiting lists, and we encourage them to move forward and do whatever else they can in order to ensure that people do not get treatment who are not in the most need.

Mr McGuinty: Those are fine words, Minister, but do you know why people are doing whatever they can to jump the queue? Because you have laid down the conditions in Ontario health care which breed a sense of desperation. You've taken $800 million out of our hospitals, you're closing 35 hospitals, you've laid off thousands of nurses. The number one issue today in Ontario is health care. You are breeding conditions of desperation. It's no wonder people are jumping the queue.

My question again is very simple: Why don't you simply admit that you're bankrupting our hospitals and you're creating two-tier health care? Your conditions are laying that down.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The reality is that we have put approximately $65 million into cardiac care. I am very proud to say that because of our initiatives, we have seen a drop in waiting days from 78 days to 42 because of our improved funding for non-urgent cardiac care.

1410

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary, member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Minister, you're probably aware of why the people are here from Windsor, why two buses left Windsor at 5 o'clock this morning. They needed to hear you make the announcement that you promised by the end of this summer.

In the meantime, in July and August alone in Windsor and Essex county, ambulances were not able to discharge their patients into emergency rooms 230 times in our hospitals because there was no room. You promised by the end of the summer you would come out with an announcement that would improve the operating funds for our hospitals. These people are here. They've been here this morning, fighting with this government that refuses to understand that there are major problems with your health restructuring system.

The Ontario Hospital Association tells us that 50% of our Ontario hospitals are in deficit or accumulated debt; the Windsor Hotel-Dieu Grace $5 million this year.

Minister, today the people are here in this House waiting for you to make an announcement that addresses the hospital operating dollars for Windsor and Essex county.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I am very pleased to say that we will be announcing this month the additional money that is going to be provided for the people in Windsor and throughout Ontario.

Also, we have made available to the Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital the fact that we will be providing them with a grant of up to $44,368,000.

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

Mr McGuinty: My second question is for the Minister of Education, who I understand will be here shortly, so I'll stand it down.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My questions are also for the Minister of Education.

The Speaker: Stand them down, both of them? Okay, we'll go back to the third question for the official opposition.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Attorney General. I want to find out how you plan to make certain that justice is served for a family that lives in my constituency.

You will be aware that on June 23, 1996, a woman named Claudine Rodrigues, 23 years old, was killed when the car she was in was hit. The driver of the other car was charged with impaired driving causing death, blood alcohol over 80 and possession of marijuana. I understand this was the third impaired driving charge laid against the individual over a considerable period of time.

The family then went through the unbearable experience of 34 different days that they spent in court, awaiting the trial of this individual. Tragically, on September 9, 1998, the judge threw the case out, simply dismissed it without any trial, citing "22 months, one week and one day of institutional delay."

My question is this, Minister: What are you going to do to ensure that this family sees proper justice delivered in this tragic case?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for his question. The death of Claudine Rodrigues is a tragedy, and certainly our deepest sympathies go out to her family and friends. We have met with her family and have advised them that senior government lawyers are taking a look at this case and reviewing the judge's decision as quickly as possible to determine if there are any grounds for appeal.

As you are aware, we are committed to reducing backlogs all over the province, particularly in Brampton. I'm pleased to inform the member that we have made significant progress in doing that. We've reduced the number of cases pending by about 36%. We've reduced the number of months to trial from 11 months in November 1996 to four months as of now. Unfortunately, there are still cases that aren't being reached and we are doing everything we can to ensure that the backlog is being reduced here and all over the province.

Mr Phillips: Minister, the Rodrigues family is here in the gallery. I'm sending over to you a petition with 2,300 names on it. One of the pages might take it over.

I want you to focus on this specific case. They are desperately afraid that they will simply hear more rhetoric from their officials, from their government. I quote from Mrs Rodrigues's letter to you. She said: "You have not gone through a two-year period attending 34 court appearances in Brampton. You have not pleaded on every occasion with the crown attorneys to make certain these charges would not be stayed." They are desperately afraid that all they're going to hear from their government, from their officials, is: "We're sorry, but this individual is gone. There will be no trial." That would be a travesty.

You can understand, I think, their rage. I might add, with all due respect, that your answer about other things you're doing is of little comfort to this family. I repeat, what are you going to do to ensure that in this case, the tragic Rodrigues case, justice is served?

Hon Mr Harnick: As I indicated, this case is being reviewed by the assistant deputy minister responsible for criminal law, who met with the Rodrigues family to review all the issues with them and to try and address the very question you have asked me. If there are grounds to appeal that decision, and certainly that's the issue that those lawyers are now dealing with, the appeal will be launched. I can assure you that the decision of the judge and the transcripts are being reviewed by a number of people. I hope we are able to provide the answer to the Rodrigues family so they can be assured that everything that can be done is being done. That's what we want to do. I appreciate your concern and I'm happy to work with you to ensure that the Rodrigues family understands the situation.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister must be aware of the articles in today's Toronto Star and in the Globe and Mail that point out that in Mike Harris's health care system, if you're wealthy and well-connected you get to go to the front of the line while the rest of us wait. The particular study is about cardiac care.

I want to ask about cancer care. Specifically, are you aware of the waiting list now for cancer care in Ontario? Two thirds of the patients waiting for radiation treatment do not get their treatment within the recommended waiting time. Even you should be able to imagine the fear and anxiety this creates for the 45,000 people who will be diagnosed with cancer in Ontario this year. My question is, what are you going to do about it? Create another line for the rich and powerful and let the rest of us wait?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We will do what we have continued to do. When we were elected in 1995 we found that the excellence of the health system in this province was threatened because of the lack of planning by previous governments. A good case in point is the fact that until we announced our 20,000 new beds in long-term care, there had not been a bed awarded for over 10 years. That was the type of lack of planning that we were seeing in this province.

1420

So what did we do for cancer patients? We created Cancer Care Ontario in order that they could look at the coordination and the management of cancer services to ensure that patients are going to get the services they need. We invested $24 million into cancer screening programs for women, and we know that as a result, women between the ages of 50 and 69 are going to suffer fewer deaths than had been encountered before. We have also added $16.5 million to Cancer Care Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We've invested $8.1 million into children's services, and the list goes on and on.

We are doing more -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: The minister says she is going to continue to do what she's doing. I presume that means you're going to continue to create a two-tier health care system in Ontario, one for the wealthy and another for the rest of us.

Minister, your answer is completely phony. You didn't create Cancer Care Ontario. The people who are part of Cancer Care Ontario were brought together by Ruth Grier, Minister of Health in the previous government.

You haven't given Cancer Care Ontario the $16 million they need. They still don't even know what their budget is this year. Six months into the year, you can't tell them what their budget is.

For example, in Sudbury the waiting list continues to grow. There are currently 3,000 active cancer patients in Sudbury, and that number is growing by 4% a year.

Minister, when Cancer Care Ontario doesn't even know what their budget is for this year and they're halfway through the year, when the lists are growing day by day by day, it's time for you to act. What are you going to do? You've got money for your income tax scheme. Where's the money for health care and for cancer patients?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'm very proud of what we've done when we take a look at the new cancer initiatives. We are taking services to where people need them. Our government recently announced two new cancer care treatment centres in the greater Toronto area. In fact, the commission has recommended that a third centre be set up in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. We are bringing services to the people of this province.

We have a three-year pilot project in Thunder Bay that takes a look at cervical cancer. We have targeted $700,000 to women who are currently not screened for cervical cancer. We are moving forward on every front, whether it's breast cancer, cervical cancer, pediatric cancer. In each and every way we are expanding the services, expanding the facilities, and we are bringing the services closer to home.

The Speaker: We're going to go to the second leader's question for the official opposition.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday we told you of some of the devastating effects that your funding formula is going to have on schools right across the province.

Mike Harris told us he wasn't going to cut classroom spending, but now we find that in fact he's shutting down entire schools. Your formula is going to force more than 600 schools to shut down before the next school year. I can't believe that you truly understand the disruption you are about to create in the lives of thousands of students, their parents, their families and the community. If you did understand that, you couldn't possibly proceed with this kind of proposal.

In the Toronto District School Board alone, you're going to close 180 schools. Those aren't empty schools; those schools aren't falling apart. They're being forced to close because of your formula.

Tell me, Minister, why are you so intent on closing so many schools here in Toronto and right across the province and causing so much more disruption in the lives of students and their parents?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): As I've indicated before, the province of Ontario is not closing any schools, not closing one school.

The province of Ontario gives money to the school boards, an adequate supply of money to the school boards. School boards, as they have down through the years, as they did when the Liberals were in power from 1985-90 when school boards closed 136 schools across Ontario, make these decisions.

I don't think we can necessarily rely on the Liberal research on this matter. They pull numbers out of thin air. I have a letter dated May 13 from the leader of the official opposition, Dalton McGuinty, which indicated that the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board announced recently that the funding formula is forcing them to close 20 schools -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon David Johnson: - whereas the day before, and this was in May, the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board said, "We will not close any schools in" -

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: It's very interesting that when it comes to school openings, this minister is there, shovel in hand, on time for the photo op, but he's shovelling something entirely different when it comes to school closures.

Minister, I have a very simple, straight and direct question for you. If you're prepared to attend for photo ops of school openings, I'm wondering, are you prepared to attend for photo ops of school closures in Ontario?

Hon David Johnson: If we're looking at the Liberal research, it must be an embarrassment -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The Liberal Party said that 10,000 teachers would be laid off. Wrong. Boards are hiring new teachers. The Liberals said there would be 10,000 fewer teachers. Wrong again. At the elementary level in particular, there will be more teachers in the system.

This is a serious issue. The leader of the official opposition has raised the Toronto issue. There are some 80 schools in the Toronto board which are no longer being used for public purposes. Some are empty, some are used for storage, some are rented for other uses. On behalf of the taxpayers, maybe the Toronto board would come to the conclusion that for those schools which they don't need any more, rather than wasting the money on heat and light etc - and that's up to the Toronto board - maybe they should dispose of those schools and use the money for the classroom. But that's a decision the Toronto board will make, and the other boards across Ontario, in conjunction with their parents.

Mr McGuinty: Using your funding formula, using your numbers, 600 schools in this province are going to be closed. You're going to cause disruption in the lives of thousands and thousands of students, in the lives of their parents, in the lives of their families, in the lives of their communities.

Schools are much more, as you well know, than bricks and mortar. In many ways they are a part of the very heart and soul of a community. You're about to shut them down. You are very eager to be there when you give away a bit of money to open up a school. My question again is, are you going to attend the closure of any of those 600 schools in Ontario for purposes of a photo op?

1430

Hon David Johnson: Again I would say, "Nonsense," to the mathematics of the Liberals. The Liberals indicated that there would be a billion dollars cut from education in the province of Ontario. Wrong again. In fact there are more dollars in the classroom. Yes, there are less dollars for administration, but more dollars in the classroom and more dollars in education in totality.

Earlier this week, in this very House, the critic for the Liberal Party indicated that special education funding was not flowing. Wrong again. In the Lakehead board, her own board, over half a million dollars has flowed for special education purposes.

There is an obligation on behalf of the people of Ontario for the opposition parties to get their facts right at least once in a while. I plead with the opposition party, try to get your facts right.

The school boards are given adequate money. They will make decisions -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question. We go back to two leaders' question for the third party. We have a point of order.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): For the purpose of accuracy and public information, I would seek unanimous consent to ask the Minister of Education to present his estimates of how many schools may close as a result of the funding formula.

The Speaker: Agreed? No.

New question, third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Despite what you say, it's becoming clear to people across Ontario that hundreds of schools are going to close in this province over the next year and a lot of those schools are going to be in small rural communities. What's really bizarre is that last month the Premier went out into rural Ontario and announced a $35-million grant program to keep young people living in rural communities. Has it occurred to your government that if you start closing small rural schools the next thing that will close will be the very rural communities that those schools are in?

Hon David Johnson: Again I will say that this province is not closing any schools across Ontario. Urban school boards and rural school boards are making these decisions, as they have over the years, as they did when the NDP was in government and school boards decided to close over 100 schools - over 100 schools during the term of the NDP. School boards are making the same decisions today.

This government has doubled the funding for small schools from last year and the funding for remote rural schools, recognizing that in remote areas, in rural areas, it's more difficult to achieve the same size of classes, the same size of school. There is more support for rural communities in that regard. With that extra support, those school boards, in conjunction with their parents, are making the right decisions in terms of accommodation.

Mr Hampton: This is incredible. This is the minister who has seized total control over education, who sets education budgets behind closed doors and now, when schools start to close because he has taken $1 billion out of the system, he says the bogeyman did it. Minister, it's not going to wash.

All across Ontario, students and their parents are saying they're not going to stand for this. In Dorchester, Ontario, 15-year-old Ashley Murray has said there's no way she'll bus into London. In St Mary's, Ontario, Julie Phillips writes and says there is no way they will send their child by bus into an urban school after making the decision to locate in a rural area.

Minister, it's not too late. Will you admit you've made a mistake? Will you change the funding formula so these schools don't have to close? Will you do that before you create even more chaos in our schools?

Hon David Johnson: I applaud parents and students who are involved in their communities dealing with their school boards. I think that's absolutely the right way to go. As a matter of fact, this government has indicated to the school boards that if they are intent on looking at the closure of schools, they must consult with the parents and the community and the students in that particular jurisdiction to ensure they come up with the best possible plan, because it may be that in those communities where school boards feel they should close the school, there's another solution such as the public and the separate school working together or the school working in conjunction with other community activities, other community support groups, and they can share space. Maybe there are different kinds of solutions. I can tell you that some school boards are more efficient in terms of the delivery of their services and they're more frugal, and as a result, they can accommodate a greater variety of space. These are the kinds of processes that should be involved with the parents and with the community.

Mr Hampton: This minister has the gall to talk about consultation. Most school boards used to have resolutions on the books that required them to consult with the community for a year or two years as to whether schools should be closed. You have passed rules which now require that to be done in three months, and they're your rules, not the rules of school boards. They're your rules. You are going to force the decision within three months. You are going to force that chaos, not the school boards.

Will you extend your school closure deadline beyond December 31 so that parents and students can learn about what is really happening here and what the options are? If you don't extend it, you are the one who is going to force this chaos on our schools, on our families and on our children. You extend the deadline.

Hon David Johnson: This government is not closing any schools. This government is not imposing any deadlines. There is no deadline. School boards are not under any deadline. It's up to school boards. We have indicated that there is no requirement for school boards to report by the end of this year. If school boards wish to have their inventory adjusted, then we are asking them to report by the end of the year, but there's no requirement for school boards to meet any deadline, no requirement at all.

Boards are going through a legitimate process with their students, with their parents, with their communities -

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You said no funds if it was not done by the end of the year.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): How can you say that? You sent out a deadline for those boards.

The Speaker: Members for Beaches-Woodbine and Hamilton Centre, please come to order.

Hon David Johnson: Boards are going through a legitimate process with their communities, with their parents, with their students, as they have done in past years, coming to conclusions. For the opposition parties to make politics out of this, to grasp numbers out of the air to try to gain some sort of political benefit I think is wrong. Let the communities resolve their problems and resolve the issues and come forward with reasonable solutions.

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

Mr Hampton: Again to the Minister of Education: It's your deadline for school closure and you're the one who's saying that if they don't make their decisions by December 31, they don't get the grant money. That's what's going on.

1440

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My second question is simply this: Today you made an educational testing announcement, but it's not an educational testing announcement; it's a political testing announcement. You've announced that all grade sixers are now going to have to go through mandatory testing. This is completely a politically motivated announcement. The arm's-length Education Quality and Accountability Office doesn't recommend mandatory testing of grade sixers and at no time have they recommended that. This is motivated strictly by politics.

Where is the evidence that universal testing of grade 6 students is going to improve curriculum development, going to improve teaching strategies or going to improve student achievement any more than random testing? Why are you creating yet more chaos in our schools? Haven't you created enough chaos already?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I find it interesting that the leader of the third party says that the Education Quality and Accountability Office doesn't support this. At the announcement just an hour and a half ago, the head of the EQAO was there proudly indicating the fact that the new grade 6 testing would be done across the province of Ontario as very much an integral part of the announcement and very much recommending in favour of grade 6 being tested. So I would say to the leader, wrong again.

If the leader of the third party wants to know why we're doing testing, ask the parents of the province, ask the people of the province. This testing will benefit the system, this testing will benefit the school, this testing will benefit the school boards and, above and beyond all, this testing will benefit the students of the province of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: At no time has the Education Quality and Accountability Office recommended mandatory testing of grade 6 students. They have advocated - and you know this - that random testing of grade 6 students gives them the information they need for the purposes of evaluating curriculum and evaluating teaching strategies.

This is going to cost, as we understand it, another $3 million. Isn't it enough that you've spent $2.5 million already in September on your propaganda advertising? Isn't it enough that you've taken that amount of money out of our schools strictly for propaganda? Where's the money going to come from? Which classroom is the money going to come from? Which schools are going to have to be closed to pay for your politically motivated grade 6 testing program?

Hon David Johnson: I assure all the members of the House that the money to pay for the testing does not come out of the funding formula. The province-wide testing is part of a quality program. This government is committed to improving the quality in the classrooms of the province. The testing is part of that program, the new report card is part of that program, the new curriculum is part of that program, the purchase of the new textbooks across the province is part of that, teachers spending more time in the classroom is part of that program, the caps on the average size of classes is part of that quality program.

Now, for some reason the NDP and Liberals are opposed; they have opposed each and every one of those quality enhancements to education in the province of Ontario. I don't know why. But I can tell you that this government stands four-square behind improving the quality of education in the province.

Mr Hampton: Once again you're completely wrong. No one opposes a thoughtful testing and assessment program that is recommended by people who are knowledgeable about it. What we are opposed to is politically motivated strategies that create chaos in our schools. Haven't you intruded enough in our children's lives? You've taken a billion dollars out of the system. You've completely demoralized teachers. You're shutting down schools. Schools are losing their extracurricular activities. And now, after the school year has already started, you come out and announce this politically motivated testing program, a testing program that is going to take another $3 million out of classrooms for teaching, in order to support your politically motivated strategy.

Minister, will you stop creating chaos in our schools, stop intruding in our children's lives? Will you put the money back into the classroom, where our children need it? Think about kids. Think about their learning. You can't add to learning by merely testing and testing over again. Put the money back into teaching.

Hon David Johnson: The leader of the third party says we are taking money out of the classroom. Wrong. There is more money going into the classroom. The leader of the third party says $1 billion has been taken out of the system. Wrong again. There is more money going into the education system in the province of Ontario.

Only the leader of the third party could call politicization the testing of reading, writing and arithmetic for grade 6 kids. Reading, writing and arithmetic - that's what the testing is. Somehow that involves politics. Only the leader of the third party could come to that conclusion.

This is good for the kids, this is good for the system. I can tell you that not only are we proud to have province-wide testing at the grade 3 and now at the grade 6 level, but it's my intent to broaden the testing and to include future grades in future years.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): My question is to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services and it concerns Ontario's approach to effective public safety. On Tuesday of this week, the Alberta Court of Appeal rejected a constitutional challenge by Ontario and five other provincial and territorial governments to the proposed universal gun registry.

Minister, I have spoken with a number of individuals, and indeed organizations, across this province who support Ontario's decision to participate in the challenge to the registration provisions of Bill C-68. They are concerned that Bill C-68 will divert policing resources away from the front lines where they are most needed. Will the minister explain to the House Ontario's position and reaction to the court decision on C-68?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I thank the member for Hastings-Peterborough for the question. As I said on the day of the court's decision, I was disappointed but not disheartened. The nature of the decision indicated that the case we put before the courts had significant merit, as indicated by the views of at least two of the justices.

I have indicated my encouragement to the province of Alberta with respect to launching an appeal of the decision. I hope that happens and I hope that the Supreme Court of Canada deals with it quickly.

The facts are that the federal government up to this point in time has spent -

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): This is shameful, Bob, and you know it. How come the police don't support you?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, member for Hamilton Centre.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon Mr Runciman: The reality is the Liberal government in Ottawa has spent up to this point in time $134 million and not registered one single gun. This government believes in real gun control, effective gun control, but this has no relationship whatsoever to gun control.

This is not going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Criminals do not register their guns, and this government will continue to oppose gun registration.

1450

Mr Danford: I thank the Solicitor General for clarifying for the House that this federal legislation will not keep guns out of criminals' hands. Clearly the Ontario government, along with the support of other jurisdictions across this country, recognizes that registering firearms will not improve public safety.

You mentioned in your answer that the federal government has already spent an astounding $134 million, with not a single gun actually being registered. Can the minister please outline his ministry's public safety spending priorities and how the federal money could have been better directed to promoting public safety?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'd be pleased to do that. This government has launched a $150-million program which will see 1,000 new police officers on the front lines in Ontario in the next five years. The federal government has already spent $134 million on this costly program, which will not have an impact in terms of public safety. We are hearing estimates of $500 million to $1 billion. If we just took the $134 million to enhance the Ontario program, that would mean an additional 500 police officers out on the streets in Ontario. That's enough to police communities like Windsor, London, Oshawa.

If the federal Liberal government was really committed to doing something about public safety, they would invest in front-line policing, they would crack down on gun smuggling and, perhaps most importantly, they'd do something meaningful about the Young Offenders Act.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): My question is to the Minister of Health. It was confirmed publicly last week that up to 10% of the prisoners at the Thunder Bay district jail are in need of psychiatric care rather than incarceration. This is an astonishing number, one which unfortunately reflects the reality of the decaying mental health care services in our province.

You must be aware that the legal system is trapped into incarcerating mentally ill offenders because of the lack of beds and the services to care for them properly. Surely, you must find this situation grossly unacceptable, and I trust you recognize that the cutbacks to the system, chronic underfunding and your closure of psychiatric beds in Thunder Bay and across Ontario are what is causing this unjust and disgraceful situation.

Minister, will you today acknowledge this serious problem, finally, and tell Ontarians what immediate action you're prepared to take to correct it?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I appreciate the question because, as you know, we have indicated mental health is a priority for our government. Several months ago I asked my parliamentary assistant Dan Newman to do a review of the mental health strategy in the province. He consulted with the stakeholders. We consulted with our provincial advisory committee on mental health. As a result of the consultation that was done by Mr Newman, recommendations were brought forward.

The indications are that the strategy that was in place in the province, that had been developed by the previous government, needed a tremendous amount of change. We are changing the system. We are building a continuum of care, starting with promotion and prevention, community services and of course the in-bed component. As you know, we were the government that imposed a moratorium on the closing of beds in psychiatric facilities which had been undertaken by the last government, so there are no more beds closing until such time as we have the community services in place. We have recently invested $60 million in order to provide the community support that is so badly needed and the court diversion programs that will assist.

Mr Gravelle: Minister, that's simply not good enough. It's been under your watch that this situation has deteriorated to the point of crisis. It's getting worse.

Psychiatric patients should not be languishing in provincial prisons where their conditions get worse because they're not getting the care or the treatment they need. Mentally ill offenders don't need to be locked up, they need acute-care beds, comprehensive community treatment centres, 24-hour crisis service, access to psychiatrists and a caring, supportive environment.

In Thunder Bay you've chosen not to fund the assertive community treatment teams which are ready to go. You've broken your commitment to set up a northwestern Ontario mental health agency for my part of the province and you've not dealt with the fact that we're 12 psychiatrists short in Thunder Bay.

Minister, you need to do more. You need to confirm today that you'll properly fund this needed system of care so that people who need care in Thunder Bay, Toronto and across the province are not thrown in jail instead of receiving the care they need.

Hon Mrs Witmer: That's exactly what we're doing. We are ensuring that the people who are in need receive appropriate community support, and we have not indicated or made any decision on the development of the northwestern Ontario mental health agency to date.

We continue to review that proposal. I believe we are at a point where we are about ready to make a decision, and I'm very pleased to tell you that the northwest region has received $2.4 million in community investment funding so that the community supports can be there for people who suffer from serious mental illness. We will continue to work with the northwest to ensure that you have the appropriate resources to support those people who are seriously mentally ill.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): In the absence of the Premier, I'll direct my question to the Deputy Premier. As you will know, your Premier made a promise in the Common Sense Revolution to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act within your first term of office. You will also know that your Premier promised to resign if he didn't keep any of his promises. Time is ticking away, Minister, and Ontarians who care about this issue, particularly Ontarians with disabilities, want some reassurance.

Today I would like to ask you, Deputy Premier, to commit that Mike Harris will not call an election in Ontario until an Ontarians with Disabilities Act receives first, second and third readings, royal assent and proclamation.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'd refer this question to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I just want to say that of course this government is committed to bringing in an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Over the summer, as you are well aware, we have sent out our discussion paper to over 7,000 interested parties, we have had consultations, led by me and by my parliamentary assistant, in eight communities right across the province, we have met with representatives from 283 groups and organizations and we've received over 240 submissions from individuals who want to talk about priorities for preventing and removing barriers to people with disabilities, and they want to add what could be in the legislation and what could complement that legislation. We have been moving forward on this very important initiative and we are committed to following through. You will be hearing more about that as time goes by.

Ms Lankin: You've fudged the answer. They wanted a clear commitment that there will not be an election call until this legislation is passed. Quite frankly, they are concerned that your government isn't listening.

You dragged your feet for three years and then in July you released the discussion paper that you put out and you said that the consultation had to be over and done with in the month of August. You forced it through on people and they said that's not enough time, but you went ahead and you made them respond in that time frame. After all that rush, for over a month the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee have been waiting for you to release the results of the consultation with them so they can provide you with their feedback.

The commitment I want from you now, today, is that you will release the consultation results by the end of this week to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee so they can provide you with feedback, and that you will meet with them to receive their feedback before any final decisions are taken with respect to the content of the legislation.

As you know, you've committed to introducing the legislation this fall, so there's a time crunch coming. Will you release the information by the end of the week, and will you give us a commitment today that you will meet with the committee before any final decisions are taken with respect to the content of the act?

1500

Hon Ms Bassett: I was waiting for the question. The member for Beaches-Woodbine was there for five years, and you did not bring in such an act, although the members of the Ontario disabilities committee were waiting breathlessly, trying to get you to do something.

We have taken the steps that no other government has done. We are committed to doing it. We have already forwarded my reply to David Lepofsky that we would meet with him in the next week or so. He knows that. We have the results. We are meeting with him.

You had five years to do nothing. We are not going to be hurried up one more week to get the results just because you have asked the question. He knows that we are going to meet with him. I am totally happy with what we have done -

Ms Lankin: Oh, I'm sorry, Isabel. My goodness, I expected instant action because I asked the question.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): Do you remember Gary Malkowski's bill? Your government wouldn't even support your own member's private bill on disabilities.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister, can you come to order, please.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. All too often we hear reports of deaths on our roads and highways as a result of drinking and driving. The people who are responsible for these deaths don't realize that when they get behind the wheel of a car they hold in their hands the lives of countless other people.

The good news is that tough new measures came into effect this morning that will help keep drinking drivers off our roads. Minister, I wonder if you could update the House this afternoon as to what some of these measures are.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I'd like to thank the honourable member for York East for the question. As members might know, as of midnight last night this government, which has an exemplary record on combating drinking and driving, went further to combat this tragic offence.

I'd like to acknowledge that it didn't start with this government. Margaret Marland, when she was an opposition member, carried this banner for years, and we have acted on the wise sentiments of Margaret Marland.

We've introduced mandatory education programs for first-time drinking and driving offenders, and repeat offenders will have mandatory assessment and education or treatment programs. We've introduced increased suspension periods: on a second conviction, a three-year licence suspension; on a third conviction, a lifetime licence suspension, reducible to 10 years with an interlock device; on a fourth conviction, a lifetime suspension with no appeals.

Beginning this morning, we've introduced an increased catchment period. Drinking and driving convictions will now stay on the driving record for 10 years, up from five years.

I am very proud of this record. I think it's a record that all of the members of this House can be proud of. We want to get at this problem more than any other jurisdiction and we're following through.

Mr Parker: Thank you very much, Minister. I know that all the members of this House appreciate the need to keep our roads safe from drinking and driving.

What I'd like to know specifically, is the message getting out there? Are people taking their driving privilege seriously and has there been a reduction in drinking and driving in crashes?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Why don't you tell the AG's office to get more people out there?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You want to come to order, right? Minister?

Hon Mr Clement: I do believe the message is getting out there. In the last decade there has been a 40% reduction in crashes involving drinking drivers, but that is not enough. Drinking and driving is still the largest single criminal cause of death in Canada.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all the stakeholders, in particular OCCID, MADD and BACCHUS, who have played a central role in bringing this bill into effect. I think, working together with all of the stakeholders, we can implore everyone to drink and drive responsibly. Always appoint a designated driver or hire a cab, and please, drive safely.

HIGHWAY 3 BYPASS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Just over a week ago a 20-year-old woman died needlessly. She was the innocent victim of a dangerous driver. This accident happened on a 25-kilometre stretch of what is known as the Highway 3 bypass in Essex county. There were four deaths last year, there have been four deaths this year and over 300 accidents in the two years.

There are solutions out there. You could four-lane the highway, you could have increased OPP presence, you could use photo radar. Minister, you can help save lives on this stretch of highway. I wrote to you last week and I asked if you would assemble a team of experts from the MOT, your ministry, the OPP and others. What action will you take to help stop this carnage on the Highway 3 bypass?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I'd like to thank the honourable member for the question. Of course, we did have a tragedy on that road, and obviously sympathies go out to the family, the survivors of the tragic loss on that particular stretch of highway.

I can tell the honourable member - and he asks the question in good faith, I recognize that - that this ministry has just initiated plans to initiate a planning study to develop a strategy for the future transportation needs of this particular section of Highway 3, including the possibility of future widening. I can tell the honourable member that we will look at both short-term and long-term recommendations.

My personal view is that despite the fact of low traffic counts on this particular stretch of road, we have to look at it from a safety point of view. If there's a way that we can improve the safety on this particular road, I believe that we can work together to do that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I thought it would be important to do this before I return to my constituency later this afternoon.

Next week, on Monday afternoon, we will deal with Bill 63, the Instruction Time: Minimum Standards Act, and in the evening, Bill 61, the Property Tax Deadline Extension Act.

On Tuesday, in the afternoon we'll be dealing with Bill 63, the Instruction Time: Minimum Standards Act, and in the evening we'll be dealing with Bill 55, the Apprenticeship and Certification Act.

On Wednesday afternoon, we'll be dealing again with Bill 55, the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, and in the evening we'll be dealing with Bill 53, the Law Society Amendment Act, and hopefully Bill 48, the Courts of Justice Amendment Act.

On Thursday, we will be dealing with private member's ballot items 23 and 24, and in the afternoon we will be having a Liberal opposition day. In the evening of Thursday next, we'll be dealing with Bill 55, the Apprenticeship and Certification Act.

Mr Speaker, for the advice of other members, I will be joining with the many citizens of Metcalfe at their annual fair this weekend.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You can now get back to your riding.

1510

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Mike Harris has imposed skyrocketing taxes on small business owners in Windsor because of his government's downloading debacle;

"Whereas many small business owners in Windsor who pay commercial property taxes face tax increases of more than 100%;

"Whereas the Harris government tax assessment system is confusing, chaotic and an administrative nightmare for municipalities;

"Whereas the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers called the Harris tax assessment system a `high-risk strategy' that will create `serious problems' for taxpayers and municipalities; and

"Whereas Windsor small businesses facing massive tax increases will be forced to pass on these increases to their customers, causing a decrease in business and causing the Ontario economy to suffer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to devise a fair and uncomplicated system of tax assessment."

I am pleased to join the merchants of the Riverside Business Improvement Area in signing this petition.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents. It goes like this:

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has the right to designate private corporation proposals for full environmental assessments;

"Whereas the Superior Industrial Rail proposal for a heavy industrial park on 6th Line in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, is to be located in a river valley adjacent to the Root River and over a designated aquifer recharge area;

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

"That the Legislature support the Minister of the Environment in designating the Superior Industrial Rail proposal for a full environmental assessment as provided for in the Environmental Assessment Act of Ontario."

I support these people in that request to the minister and encourage him to go ahead with the environmental assessment. I sign my name to the petition.

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 173 people. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the safety of our children is of the utmost importance; and

"Whereas the safety of students should not be sacrificed to tax cuts; and

"Whereas the provincial government has significantly cut the transportation budget for the Metro school boards; and

"Whereas under the provincial government's ill-conceived Bill 160 there is no flexibility for boards to make up for those cuts; and

"Whereas school bus service has been cut as a result, which is very hazardous to the safety of young children who now have to cross major intersections alone and walk an unsafe distance and route in order to get to school;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to repeal Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further, be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to restore meaningful funding to the transportation budget of our schools rather than risk the lives of thousands of young students; and

"Further, be it resolved that the Honourable Dave Johnson, Minister of Education and Training, takes responsibility for his government's funding cuts rather than passing the buck to school boards who have no control over provincial government spending cuts."

I agree wholeheartedly with this petition and I affix my signature hereto.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

"Whereas city and regional councillors are being unfairly blamed and forced to explain these huge tax hikes, Hamiltonians know that what's really going on is that they are being forced to pay huge property tax increases to fund Harris's 30% tax giveaway to the rich; and

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

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

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

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

I proudly add my name to those of these petitioners.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I would like to present a petition today on behalf of some of the constituents of my riding. The petition to the Ontario Legislature reads as follows:

"To introduce a proportional correction in the Ontario Election Act.

"Whereas the current electoral system allows for large majority governments to be elected in the Ontario Legislature with the support of less than 50% of the voters; and

"Whereas in a democratic election voters should be free to vote for the candidate who best represents them; and

"Whereas every voter casts only one vote, and every vote cast, whether for the winner of a constituency or not, should count to elect a member of the provincial Parliament; and

"Whereas voters have the right to fair representation in the Legislature; and

"Whereas modern democracies from New Zealand to Germany to Japan have adopted a mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system; and

"Whereas with the new redistribution of boundaries in Ontario the number of MPPs will be reduced from 130 to 103;

"We respectfully request that the Ontario Election Act be modified so that the residual votes in each constituency (ie the votes not used to elect the winner of that constituency) be cumulated with the residual votes of all other constituencies and used to elect an additional 26 MPPs. They would be selected from published party lists, in proportion to the total number of residual votes for each political party."

I affix my name to the top.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has announced its intentions of dumping the financing for ambulances, social housing and public health care services on to the backs of municipalities; and

"Whereas this irresponsible action will create a shortfall of more than $18 million for local governments in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Whereas local representatives in St Catharines and the Niagara region will be forced to either raise property taxes by as much as $200 per household or cut services; and

"Whereas Mike Harris called municipal representatives `whiners' when they tried to explain to him that his proposal was unfair and would create gaps in important services such as the delivery of public health care services; and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing accused local representatives of being opportunistic simply because they attempted to point out that the Mike Harris proposal was unfair and primarily designed to fund his ill-advised tax scheme; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government refuses to listen to the representatives who work most closely with their constituents;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris Conservative government to scrap its downloading plan, which will cause either an increase in property taxes or an unacceptable cut to important local services."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I'm in full agreement with its contents.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris funding cutbacks are having a devastating impact on hospitals and patient care across Ontario, and have resulted in an anticipated $38-million deficit at the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals; and

"Whereas the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals will receive $4 million less in revenue from the Ministry of Health and other sources; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris funding cuts are causing a crisis in hospital care in Hamilton-Wentworth, with hospitals facing huge deficits, cuts to patient care and bed closings; and

"Whereas Mr Scott Rowand, president of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp's hospitals, spoke out recently in the Hamilton Spectator saying, `For the first time in my career, I don't know how to fix this problem other than an awful lot of closures of programs and services needed by the community'; and

"Whereas Mr Rowand went on to say: `We need more cash in the system and we need it now. And that is cash to deal with the issues that we are dealing with today. Don't ask us to do anything more because people in the system are at their limit.'

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris government stop underfunding Ontario's hospitals to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and act immediately to restore funding to the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals so they can continue providing quality health care services to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth."

I am totally in support of this and proudly add my name along with those of the petitioners.

1520

GERMAN HERITAGE

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition signed by a couple of hundred people from in and around my riding of Kitchener.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of German descent have been a part of Ontario's history since the days of pre-Confederation; and

"Whereas the German culture has always been an integral component of the cultural mosaic of Ontario; and

"Whereas we wish to demonstrate official recognition of the positive contribution of German heritage in the province of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass the bill entitled the German pioneers day act and we respectfully petition the government of Ontario to designate the day following Thanksgiving Day as the date of the annual German pioneers day."

I am pleased to sign my signature.

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Diabetes Education Service in Kenora is a necessary program; and

"Whereas the Harris government has refused to provide long-term funding for diabetes education in Kenora; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has acknowledged that the program is cost-effective given the volume of clients seen and the degree of specialization required;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, join with our MPP Frank Miclash in calling upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the Harris government provide long-term, stable funding to the Diabetes Education Service in Kenora."

I have affixed my name to that petition as well.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm proud to present the first of many petitions containing the signatures of thousands of Hamiltonians fighting to save the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore we, the citizens of Hamilton and area who care about quality, accessible and publicly accountable mental health care for all Ontarians, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately set aside all recommendations to divest and/or close the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital and the programs and services it provides, and further, to call for full hearings to seek community solutions to community issues and to democratically decide the future of mental health care for the citizens of Hamilton and area."

Again, I support the citizens of my community by adding my name to this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 31 people. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition reads as follows:

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology; and

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services; and

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres; and

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of over $40 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study; and

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Renfrew North has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Correctional Services concerning jail closures in eastern Ontario. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

VISITORS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I know I am prohibited by your rules from introducing anybody to you, but I did want to bring to the attention of the members here visitors from Australia, Mr and Mrs Martin, along with Dr Ronald Groshaw, an eye surgeon from Etobicoke, who are gracing us here today because they believe in the audio signals at crossings for the visually impaired. Welcome to our House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSTRUCTION TIME: MINIMUM STANDARDS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES HEURES D'ENSEIGNEMENT : NORMES MINIMALES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 63, An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time / Projet de loi 63, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les heures d'enseignement.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill 63, the second of the education bills that the House confronts this week. I enjoyed the submissions of my colleague from Fort William; the minister, Mr Johnson; and a number of other members who spoke earlier this week to this question, which is really a fundamental part of the dispute - some would say it's a core element - currently dividing the teachers and the government.

I note in the bill that, as in most matters today, we have legislation that is essentially enabling. The bill sets out the interpretation for instructional time. I won't bore the House with a recitation of what constitutes instructional time, except to note that in this bill, under subsection (13) of section 1, the cabinet "may make regulations specifying or describing classes, courses or programs" for any of the above. In other words, we have yet again sweeping regulatory power which essentially means, in this matter as in so many others, that the old balance of educational policy in the province, a balance that involved not just the Ministry of Education, not just teachers, but local communities, has in fact been fundamentally recalibrated.

We now have in Bill 63 what we saw enshrined very clearly and very controversially in Bill 160, a massive transfer of power to the executive branch and to the cabinet in the name of the Minister of Education, who does his business from the 22nd floor of the Mowat Block in the heart of downtown Toronto.

One of my objections about the current government's approach to educational matters is simply that for the first time in 150 years we have a provincial government that has decided that massive centralization, all power to the minister, all power to the cabinet in Toronto, is somehow the solution to the complex array of challenges and pressures facing public education in Ontario.

1530

I can appreciate how, in the ideological and culture war that the right wing has managed to bring forward on the education front, the current government, Mr Johnson, Mr Harris and colleagues, would like to have it that way. They have clearly developed a transparent frustration with the fact that they have not, in the past, had all the levers, that there are these pesky local authorities, there are these talkative communities and these highly organized, very well financed and very well funded teacher federations that operate centrally here in the provincial capital, regionally out in communities like southwestern Ontario and my part of eastern Ontario and, yes, in every one of the 5,000 schools that we fund in the province. That is not a situation that the current right-wing crowd in Mike Harris land appreciate very much.

I simply make the point that Bill 63 continues the pattern of Bill 160. That pattern is power from the communities, from the local schools, and increasingly power concentrated in the executive and regulatory authority of the one Minister of Education at 900 Bay Street, the 22nd floor of the Mowat Block. I never thought, in this world of radical revolution that these Tories promised a few years ago, we were going to get this. I thought it was power to the people, not more power to the minister, more power to the educrats at the ministry. But that's what this bill does. Make no mistake about it; the bill is very clear: All of the residual authority and more goes to the centre, goes to the minister.

I say as someone who's been there, I can't imagine, even if you wanted all that power, how you are effectively going to manage the exercise of that power on a daily basis for the 5,000 schools and the two million students who go to school in communities as large as downtown Toronto and as far distant as a rural school in Berwick or Stratton in the Rainy River district 1,500 kilometres northwest of this metropolitan community in which we now find ourselves.

If there has been a success and a genius of school programming in the province of Ontario over the decade, I think it was that direction that Dr Ryerson set a long time ago, a partnership, a balance between central direction and local input and a real measure of meaningful local control. I can understand and I share with the government a certain frustration about a certain imbalance that may have developed over the past number of years. I accept my share of responsibility for perhaps allowing that imbalance to develop to the extent it did.

I am one, quite frankly, who does believe that there are important aspects of some of the reform package that the government has advanced that ought to be supported. I said that the other day; I say it again this afternoon. I, for one, strongly endorse testing. I believe in it. I think the leader of the third party made a very good point that one must understand that testing beyond the ideology, beyond the culture war, is a complex matter.

I often wonder how Mike Harris - I'd better not get personal, because that wouldn't be very nice. But you know, test scores are -

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I want to be frank. Listen, you want to see test scores? You want to see results? I'll give them to you. I want to know what you're going to do about them. Let me be very blunt. The test scores in the Annex and in Don Mills are going to be much more impressive than they will be in the Jane-Finch corridor, without a doubt.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): How do you know?

Mr Conway: Well, I can tell you that is a reality. I'm not happy about that. That's a reality. That reality speaks much more to broad socio-economic patterns than it does to the school system. I don't say that to insult anyone but it is a reality. We know that. We can go into all of our communities. I can take you into my own community in Pembroke and I can show you a correlation between socio-economic status and test scores. We all know that. If you think that some kind of debate about just testing the kids is going to be the end of that matter, you are seriously mistaken.

My concern as well in this whole debate is that it is so much more political and cultural than it is real. I have been flooded in recent days by a number of communications from absolutely irate parents and teachers about government advertising, some of which I have not seen. I haven't seen this clock ad that apparently is running. I'm going to tell you that young teachers, as well as middle-aged and older teachers, many of whom are traditional supporters of the current government, are infuriated by the misleading, and in some cases my mail would tell me, in the point of view of the teachers, malicious misrepresentation that very expensive taxpayer-funded government ad campaign creates. I haven't seen the clock ad but I'm going to tell you, I have in my hand letters that have arrived - Clasina Field, for example, writes me from Pembroke today. Obviously time does not permit me to read all of the letter, but she says in concluding:

Mr Conway, "those clockface ads are misleading and malicious. How is it possible that my tax money would be used to buy air time for propaganda that is so distorted and so dishonest? The longer this goes on, the more convinced I am this government is bent on destroying, not improving, our public school system."

That's just one of the letters I have. I have another letter received just today from a young I believe secondary school teacher by the name of Kathleen Mottershead. She talks about her experience. She's a newly minted high school teacher - I believe a high school teacher. I think she's teaching in Renfrew. She doesn't say it in the letter. Let me just read what she says and, to be fair, she has some very good questions not just for government but for her federation, for the opposition and others. I'm reading from Ms Mottershead's letter to me dated September 29 and she writes in part:

"Due to a chaotic start of this school year, I have had the opportunity of experiencing teaching both four out of four classes per day and three out of four classes per day so far this semester. I am presently teaching three" out of four, but she taught four out of four in the first week and a half of the school year earlier in September. "I would like you to know how teaching four" out of four has "affected me as" an individual, as a new secondary school teacher, she writes.

"Obviously, as a new teacher, I have much to learn and in some cases may require more time to prepare than experienced teachers. However, while teaching four classes a day I was barely able to take time to eat lunch. I was extremely exhausted at the end of the day," she goes on to write. "I was often unable to find time to" do the necessary preparation. She said she was "faced with" up to "six or seven hours of preparation" outside of her school day. This is a young teacher, very committed to her job and she is clearly concerned about the misrepresentation about the prep time issue.

1540

If one sat in this Legislature or one watched television, one would sense oneself being caught between two completely conflicting points of view. That's what you get when you get a culture war, when you get a very deeply polarized ideological conflict. That's not the way we've done business in Ontario. Those days apparently are behind us. I simply want to observe that if those days are behind us, we face a very different kind of future. When you divide to the extent that this government has divided over the school question, the divisions tend to be deep and lasting.

As I said the other day, and I repeat this afternoon, you as a government, Mr Harris, Mr Johnson and colleagues, will reap what you sow. A number of initiatives that ought to be proceeded with that are good policy - if you think that program is going to be effectively implemented with an open assault on the teaching profession, you are mistaken.

One of the real problems that central governments, whether national, state or provincial, have faced in the last 15 to 20 years is that there has been a very real gulf between program development and program implementation. The people who are developing the programs have no understanding of what it means to effectively deliver the programs on the spot. It is a very fair criticism of the government of which I was a part. The activist Liberal progressive governments of the 1970s and 1980s got themselves into very deep trouble and lost a great deal of their legitimacy because however good the intentions were, the program implementation was often much, much less than was advertised and in many cases was transparently contradictory. That which was delivered was very much contradictory to that which was promised.

We hear Minister Johnson say repeatedly: "We're putting more money into the schools. We're doing this and we're doing that." Well, I noticed the other night - and I read part of this. Let me come back to it.

Peter Hiscott is the director of education for the Renfrew county board. Peter is a long-time educator, a very resourceful, creative and deeply committed public servant and educator. I think it's fair to say, and if Peter were here he would probably want me to say, that he is not any kind of opponent of the current government. We're not talking about some flag-waving Liberal here, I don't think. I have the highest regard for Mr Hiscott.

What did he say the other night in a report to the Renfrew county board? I repeat, my boards in Renfrew county are apparently, under this scheme, boards that are to benefit. I'm told, in looking at the global numbers, the Renfrew county separate board is in overall terms apparently going to be somewhat better off and the Renfrew public board is apparently about the same. It's not quite as well off as the Renfrew separate but it's certainly not going to lose as much as some other public boards. I think it's going to be roughly neutral.

What did Peter Hiscott say to the board the other night? I'm quoting from the Pembroke Observer, September 29, an article from Carolyn Levesque about the current situation. Let me just read some of this article.

"Reduced funding has caused problems for secondary school teachers, not class size or increased teaching time as the province suggests, says public school board education director Peter Hiscott.

"Speaking to board members Monday night, Peter Hiscott said a lot of people are getting caught up in `smoky mirrors,' and not seeing the province's new `equitable' funding model as the problem it really is.

"`Using our board as an example' - that is the Renfrew county public board - `newly legislated class size isn't an issue, as we have already met the recommended 22 students per class,' Mr Hiscott said.

"As for teaching time," the director went on to note, "an addition of 25 minutes per week could have easily been addressed without dispute by adding nine minutes per class, per day."

This is the key quote. Quoting the director, Mr Hiscott, directly, "The real reason teachers are having to teach seven out of eight classes instead of the previous six out of eight is a lack of funding," said director Hiscott.

Under the new funding formula as legislated by Bill 160, there are 20 fewer teaching positions at the secondary level in Renfrew county at the public level this year and apparently there will be an additional reduction of some 20 next year. So we have a public board that is supposed to be benefiting from the new scheme saying not so, that on the instructional side the real problem is not the intransigence of the teachers or their federations, but the reality is that the funding formula, as it is specifically applied to supposedly benefit boards, is causing the problem. Twenty fewer teachers at the secondary level this year and apparently, according to this article, an additional reduction is planned for next year of something like 20 more teachers.

I simply advance that evidence from a very credible third party to this dispute and I think we have to listen to that. In noticing my time is drawing to a close, I simply want to say that the government has got to understand that whatever the macro and global take on its policy is, in its local application there are cuts where there are supposed to be improvements and there are reductions where there are supposed to be enhancements.

Alice Roy is a special-ed teacher. She wrote the Pembroke Observer on that selfsame day, September 29, 1998, talking about how expectant she was, as a teacher of special-needs kids, of what the new formula would mean for her and her class. She said: "It's a nightmare. Promises were made and the promises have been broken." There are no benefits to her special-needs kids in Pembroke and area and, to quote her letter to the Pembroke Observer, she's angry and frustrated because she believed the promises made by Mr Johnson and Mr Harris and they have not turned out to be reality.

This is not an opposition politician talking. I'm talking about teachers like Alice Roy and Kathleen Mottershead and Clasina Field. These are the people in the classrooms in an area that's supposed to benefit. There is a dichotomy here, folks. There is a very real problem.

I see in today's Ottawa Citizen an editorial about the new school funding formula for capital purposes, a denunciation from the Ottawa Citizen, no enemy at the editorial board of the current government, and a damning indictment of the government's new capital formula which it says is just flim-flammery; it says it's a scam. I'm not going to read it all because time does not permit. Folks, read the editorial, October 1. "New School Funding Flim-Flam" is an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen today, October 1, 1998.

I simply say there are very real concerns about the difference between what the government has advertised and what the government is delivering and there is a growing resentment and upset on the part of teachers and parents about the scandalous use of now over $6.5 million of public money to advertise what in many cases are transparent, and in some cases malicious, falsehoods that are aggravating an already serious and explosive situation which this government is almost solely responsible for.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member's time has expired. Comments and questions?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to compliment my friend from Renfrew North for presenting the views representing the part of eastern Ontario where he resides, views of teachers, of administrators and people involved in education: students, parents and so on.

I think the point he makes is very important. The government argued with the new funding formula that rural boards would benefit and Catholic boards would benefit. They made the argument that urban boards had been well off before and, therefore, they should be prepared to have less funding per student in order to benefit these other boards.

But it's interesting that in Renfrew county, a board that was not hit in funding, unlike Ottawa-Carleton or Toronto, and the Catholic board, the coterminous board which actually goes up a bit in funding, are experiencing serious problems. The problem is that the extra 25 minutes is not really the issue. It's not 25 minutes more that the teachers are opposed to. Their concern is that in reality it's 25 more students because they're teaching an extra class. So the 25 number may be valid but it relates to more students, not more minutes. That means that individual students have less time with the teacher, less individual attention, than they had before because each teacher is teaching more and there is a total fewer number of teachers in the system. That's the problem.

This government wants to ignore that. They want to take a billion dollars out of the system. They want to rob from the students' education in the province to meet their plans in terms of their cuts to income tax.

1550

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I just wanted to respond to some of the comments made by the member for Renfrew North, particularly the comments he was making about standardized testing and the perception that standardized testing of grade 6 students was somehow going to be an imposition, an unfair evaluation of what is happening in the system.

He made some comments which I think are accurate. Nobody could argue with the fact that if you implement the standardized testing system, there are a number of factors that can influence it. He mentioned the areas of the Annex in Toronto or the Jane-Finch corridor in Toronto. We could even take the example further across the province. But the reality is that, yes, there is a differing standard of student performance that is affected by many different factors, socio-economic factors as well as their teaching environment.

But you know what? How do you know what particular schools or districts need attention unless you have a standard to which they can be compared? That is the fundamental underlying reason for a standardized testing system. Teachers participated in the setting of those standardized tests and in the marking of those tests.

The member quotes from, God knows, everywhere: newspapers, school boards, individuals, from all over the place. The member for Renfrew North talks like he's an expert. With due respect to the individual, from your biography, I don't believe you have a spouse in the system, as your leader frequently repeats. I don't believe you have children. I don't believe you have ever taught in the system. You know something? I'm really puzzled as to where your degree of expertise comes from to criticize this process.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I'd just like to compliment the member for Renfrew North on the comments he has brought to the debate. As we know, with his background as a former Minister of Education, he has had a great amount of experience in terms of education in Ontario.

He was indicating something that I've seen a great amount of as well, and that's the fact that we have a government here that seems to have forgotten the people on the front lines, which is our teachers in the classroom, our board members, our trustees, our administration. In the examples he has brought forward, he has indicated that there are a lot of people who are not happy with the system, and again I just cannot believe, as I go through my riding and meet these people on the front lines, that this government has not realized that. They don't seem to want to deal with that particular issue.

He talks about the massive centralization of the control of education in Queen's Park. I come from an area where they have combined three different school boards, the Kenora board, the Dryden board and the Red Lake board, a massive area, and the centralization of power within that board. I've been in constant contact with the director and the members of that board just to find out the problems they are having in one particular board in the province. Again, it's not just the centralization of power here at Queen's Park that is creating a problem, it is the problems that are being created when you have a board made up of three very large areas. There's an effect on education, an effect on the learning that's going on in the classroom.

He also refers to the government advertising. I have to say that this is something I'm hearing about more and more on a regular basis as this government continues to try to put out a message which is not selling: $6.5 million in government advertising and it is not selling. People want to see something happening within the system; they want to see something happening in our classrooms.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm very delighted to have an opportunity to speak to the speech by the member for Renfrew North. I'm always struck that when people are not able to answer the logic and the passion in his arguments, they often resort to ad hominem comments.

There are very few members either now in the Legislature or previously in the Legislature who have kept their ear as close to the ground in their own constituency as the member for Renfrew North. Not only does he do that, but he also has a passion for his responsibility as a legislator to bring their views back here to the Legislature and to ensure that whatever government is in power, whether it is his party or other parties, we are aware of what the people in Renfrew North are thinking.

There are members on the government side, mostly in the rump over here beside us, who seem to think that when people are members of this Legislature and they do the kind of vigorous work that the member for Renfrew North does, somehow they're not doing a job, they don't have a profession. This member is an example of the kind of dedicated member who makes democracy work in Ontario. I find it offensive when a fellow member of this Legislature mocks the efforts that a dedicated member from another constituency makes. I would suggest to the members on the government side that if they kept their ear as close to the ground, if they spoke to their constituents as consistently as this member does, they wouldn't have the kind of hubris that is going to bring them down in the long run around what they've done to education.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Renfrew North has two minutes to respond.

Mr Conway: I thank my colleagues for their very direct observations. I want to say to the member from Brampton, he's right, I am a single person with no kids in the system. That does maybe alter my perceptions to some extent. Since I was elected - I was elected as a graduate student when I first came here - I spend, on average, many days a year in school. I happen to have done a couple of classes last week at Opeongo High School in the heart of my county. I go to Queen's University to do a number of classes every year. I'm not boasting; I know other members do it as well. So I think I understand some of what the government wants to change, and I will support it.

You're carrying forward with a number of changes that have been evolving over a number of years. I think you should be supported in that. Trust me, I am a radical conservative in some respects when it comes to testing. I would love to have had Mike Harris and John Snobelen in my class to have administered testing. I would want to know what it was in these smart people that produced some of the difficulties they appear to have had. It wasn't that they lacked the brains.

Mr Hastings: That's offensive.

Mr Conway: It may be a bit offensive, but if you want to talk about testing, let's talk about it. I think Winston Churchill failed English at Harrow. Ulysses S. Grant did very poorly at West Point.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): But he got to West Point.

Mr Conway: He got to West Point, but he didn't do very well. The fact of the matter is that General Ulysses S. Grant actually liked to fight, which was a pretty important quality in a general. I'm sure many others did much better. It turned out that Lincoln had too many of the gang that did well and didn't know how to fight or want to fight. The history of mankind is littered with all kinds of delicious examples of things that testing doesn't pick up.

Should there be testing? Absolutely. The member from Brampton is right: The public has the right to know more than it has known in recent times as to what schools are doing well and what they need to do more of to improve. I'm not opposed to that. I'm opposed to the dichotomy between what has been promised and what is being delivered, and I'm appalled by the ideological and cultural war that's ripping public education apart at the seams.

1600

Mr Miclash: On a point of order Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you check and see if there's a quorum in the House.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members. There will be up to a five-minute bell.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Boyd: I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this severed piece of the previous bill, the piece that created such a problem in the House for those of us who were as concerned as the government about the young people who had been kept out of the classroom for some time. We made the point, of course, that the legislation that was enclosed in Bill 62, both its first iteration and its second iteration, was not going to solve the fundamental problem this government has caused within the school system.

It's extremely important to be very clear who the provocateur is here. The provocateur is this government. This government has taken measures that are very deliberate and are focused on creating a crisis in the school system. They seem to think that by spending millions of dollars on advertising, by standing here and saying one thing that is palpably different from what is being experienced in communities, somehow they're going to convince the population of Ontario that's not the case. While it is quite clear from the arguments that frequently occur in here that the members of this government are never swayed by facts or logic, the population of Ontario is. That's why debate is very important in this place.

We see day after day a Minister of Education, a Premier and anybody else they can rope in from the government benches trying to pretend that somehow teachers are being unreasonable when they talk about what is being demanded of them within a school system that has seen almost $1 billion taken out of that system over the last three years. They try to argue that they're not responsible for the fact that hundreds of schools are likely to close in the province, and they think that by repeating that story over and over again, somehow the rest of the province is going to suspend its disbelief. That isn't going to happen, because you can only fool all of the people for a very short time.

The people of Ontario have already been exposed to a Premier who said that the download on to municipalities wasn't going to result in increased taxes. They heard that repeated again and again. They saw the government trot out figures that seemed to show that there was a zero bottom line. They know from their trusted municipal officials and from the very strong exposure of the discussions around municipal budgets that what it all boiled down to was that the municipalities were being asked to pick up huge amounts of responsibility without the requisite dollars, and then they got their tax bill. So they have in their hand a piece of paper now, some of it's interim, some of it's final, that is a daily reminder that it wasn't a neutral kind of download, that it in fact resulted in additional tax. Those people feel betrayed by this government and they feel distrustful. They are starting to ask very pointed questions about whether you can trust anything this government says.

Then we have a Premier who ran and said, "I have no plan to close hospitals," and a Minister of Health who set up a so-called arm's-length committee that was going to do the work of hospital restructuring, and of course is going to close - what is the tally at now? - 32 hospitals, I think.

Mr Conway: Thirty-five.

Mrs Boyd: There we are. Of course, the minister and the Premier keep saying: "I haven't closed any hospitals. I didn't do that. The commission I created, the commission our government appointed, the commission our government pays, did it." Quite frankly, there's a fair bit of case law about where the responsibility lies when responsible elected governments appoint bodies that do things that hurt their constituents. You may think that's at arm's length, but no one believes you. Everyone knows whose decisions have resulted in those hospital closures.

I would hasten to say that I do not think all of those changes are bad. I do believe we needed to restructure in the health care system and I do believe that there are ways to have made that restructuring work to improve the health care system. But you can't improve the system by taking out dollars at the same time you're trying to institute massive change. But just as in education, as in community services, this government somehow thinks that when you withdraw dollars you make services better.

That's what they did in the hospital system. While they may stand here day after day, apparently with straight and concerned faces, trying to claim that this isn't hurting the patients of Ontario, no one believes them, because in community after community our neighbours, our families, our communities are experiencing the problems that are caused by this government's policy. They don't believe a government that just stands there and says, "Smile, don't worry, everything is going to be all right," because it isn't.

When we come to education, we saw an amazing display this afternoon of exactly the same kind of behaviour. When you keep repeating the behaviours, people start really getting it. The Minister of Education stands over there and says: "I'm not closing any schools. Our government is not closing any schools." I'm sorry, folks. You're not going to get away with this one. The people of Ontario understand very well that with Bill 104, Bill 160, Bill 62, Bill 63 and whatever else you dream up tomorrow, you are reducing the educational opportunities in the publicly funded education system for the children of Ontario.

The minister had the gall to stand there and say that they want consultation. He knows very well that the deadline is set. He seemed to be pretending that somehow there was lots of time for consultation. There isn't lots of time for consultation. The figures came out the other day and the boards saw the enormity of what they have to do. In the Thames Valley school board, 15 schools are going to have to close. How can any school board do the kind of consultation with neighbourhoods that it has to do, that's appropriate, that's always been done in this province, before December 31?

1610

You can't do it, and you know that. The minister knew that when he set the rules. The minister knew that if you set the rules so that the teachers' contracts all ended on August 31, chaos was going to result, that there would be chaos, particularly when you were requiring the kind of changes to instruction time, the contractual changes that this minister decreed in Bill 160.

Talk about an agent provocateur; there he is. It's absolutely deliberately trying to sow controversy and dissension within the school system. Teacher union leaders have an obligation to represent their members and to fight against an employer that is trying to change contracts. This government has set it up so that it pretends it's not the employer and it has set up a whole bunch of poor people who are trying to manage an enormous change process within huge districts - for 5,000 bucks a year, I might add - set them up as the fall guys. What's more, the Premier and the Minister of Education, both the previous one and the current one, consistently make comments about how those well-meaning, virtually volunteer citizens are responsible for the chaos in their boards.

When in good faith school boards sat down and negotiated contracts with their teachers, worked through this problem with their teachers, with great difficulty and only where they happened to be fortunate enough to have some reserves that they could work with, this minister sent a letter throwing cold water on those contracts, telling them: "Oh no, you've misunderstood. I hear you've reached an agreement. Well, it isn't good enough, because I'm going to just add another hoop that you have to jump through." Those boards sat down with their teachers and their teachers said: "We don't disagree with spending more time in the classroom. We are prepared to increase the number of contact hours we have in our classroom. What we aren't willing to do is to take on 25 more students."

This is not an issue of minutes. As the member for Renfrew North pointed out, I haven't heard one teachers' group say that they're unwilling to put the extra minutes into the periods with their kids so they can spend a longer time on the subject matter and teach better, but that's not what the government is demanding, that's not what this is saying. This bill means a solidification of the decision of this minister that all that is possible is that you teach more students: 25 more students' papers to mark, 25 more students to counsel, 25 more students to try and make sure that they are able to meet the requirements. That's what this minister is asking. It has nothing to do with 25 minutes a day.

The teachers' unions have been very clear that they were prepared to increase the amount of time spent in the classroom; it's the number of students that they teach. All of the research in pedagogy shows that when you add to the numbers of students that you're trying to teach, particularly at the high school level, particularly in the more complex areas, you lose the quality of the contact between the teacher and the student.

What's it all about, folks? It's all about cutting costs. It's all about cutting the numbers of teachers in the system. The minister stood here proudly and refuted the notion that there were going to be lots of teachers losing their jobs. Why? There's only one reason it hasn't been the bloodbath it looked like it would be just last year. That's because the government took advantage of the fact that the teacher associations were prepared to protect their members to the extent that they could by agreeing to use pension plans for an early retirement scheme.

Pension plans are wages that people forgo. Pension plans are not some pot of gold out there that has no relationship to what people earn. Pensions are forgone wages. All through the history of the pension plan teachers accepted lower wages to have a good plan, and they did, and what did the government do up until our government gave the teachers equal control over their pensions? They frittered it away so that the returns on those pension funds were very low.

When we came into office after all those years of Tory rule - and, I might add, the Liberal era - there was an unfunded liability in the teachers' pension fund and it was a major effort to turn that around. But the biggest part of that effort was not just the government's putting back into those pensions some of the dollars that they had taken out, that they had literally removed from the forgone wages of teachers to fund many other schemes. It also meant that the management was better, the management was done on behalf of the people in the pension plan and the returns were remarkable: not the 3% that the superannuation plan had earned for years and years because the dollars were being put into government projects all over the place with no return to the pensioners, but very good returns, and the result was, of course, that in very short order a huge surplus was built up in the plan.

The teachers' associations could see the writing on the wall, could hear the beating of the drums in the background, knew they had been targeted and scapegoated by this government and knew it was important to try and make sure that attrition of some sort or another, preferably early retirement, eased the burden for people in the teaching profession. The writing was on the wall about the numbers of people who were going to lose their jobs as a result of the funding decisions of this government, as a result of the draconian imposition of Bill 160 and as a result of the kind of legislation that Bill 63 is, which limits what it means to be a teacher in school. So they negotiated that and, yes, many teachers, completely beaten down, discouraged, upset, disgusted by the kinds of attacks this government had made on the teaching profession and on their life's work, left the system.

Sure, there's a small upside, that there are a few positions open for younger teachers. But there's a huge downside. We have lost all that dedicated expertise in one fell swoop, and in the midst of the chaos of the kind of massive change that's going on we do not have the expertise, the groundedness, the sense of the ability to adjust that comes from dedicated and experienced teachers in the system.

This bill is all about making sure that the number of teachers in the system is reduced permanently. That's exactly what this is about. When you define "instructional time" the way this government defines "instructional time," what you are saying is that a huge portion of what teachers did for me when I went through school, did for all of us when we went through school, did for our children, is no longer considered valued.

Yet this minister has the nerve to try and say that these teachers, having been treated this way, should be willing on their volunteer time to do after-school programs, to do mentoring programs, to do all sorts of things, work that when it was valued, when it was seen as part of the task, when it was able to be defined as part of the task, they were more than willing to do, not directly for pay - it's always been a voluntary part of it - but willing to do because they saw it as rounding out their job in working with young people.

This government has effectively destroyed the kind of relationship that had built up over many years between teachers and their students, their students' parents and their communities.

I think the good news is that people aren't going to buy it. Parents aren't going to buy this. Every effort this government makes to try and blacken the reputation of teachers is backfiring. Parents want their children in the schools, but they want the teacher who spends so much of the proportion of their children's working hours with them to be a happy, motivated, dedicated teacher - someone who can be proud of his or her job, someone who sees their job as valuable to the students but indeed to the community as a whole.

This government is destroying that relationship, just as it's trying to destroy public education altogether.

1620

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my respectful duty here to respond to the member for London Centre and briefly remark on a couple of things; I will have time later this afternoon to make some longer comments. Respectfully, on a couple of points she made really in both areas, she should examine her own government's record.

For instance, in health care, you would certainly know that your previous Minister of Health was responsible - and I give full credit to Ms Lankin, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, for starting that.

Mr Wildman: What does this have to do with health?

Mr O'Toole: I'm responding, Mr Wildman, to comments. You should be listening to your member and you would know. She was talking about hospital closures. You would know that there were a number of beds and there was a rationalization process called the acute care study, started by your ministry, which started the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Respectfully, do your homework when you're going to blame this government. The only difference between us and you is that we're actually doing something about it. I'll cover this further in my comments during my time.

With respect to the other thing you talked about, the closing of schools, clearly the decision hasn't been made for many years. As a trustee I remember going through the very politicized issue of dealing with surplus facilities or facilities in the wrong location. Back in the old days - the funding model changed in 1982 and they were trying to swap schools between the different boards, the public and the separate boards, and there was a great outcry at that time. The history there again, member for London Centre, is that on average in each term in excess of 100 schools have been closed by the boards' decisions - reluctantly, I might add.

I'm going to point out one difference. In Toronto somewhere between 80 and 120 schools are currently on their books as capital which cost operational dollars to maintain. It's the use of capital that's being misused, and this addresses that issue.

The Deputy Speaker: I just want to remind the members that their comments are to be made to me and not to other individual members.

Mr Conway: The member from London makes a couple of essential points that have to be understood. When we say that Bill 160 and its companions, Bill 63 particularly, centralize authority, we mean by that simply this: The government of Ontario has taken on to itself at the central level all the critical questions of funding school boards.

As is quite plain from the evidence of people in the field, the fundamental difficulty with the instructional time argument is very simply this: The funding formula, which the government of Ontario has decided by itself and exclusively distributes and implements across the province, intends to force a seven out of eight in place of a six out of eight on average across the secondary panel of publicly funded education. That will practically mean that fewer teachers will be expected to teach more students in fewer classes across the secondary system. That is the reality of the funding formula. You can agree with it or you can disagree with it, but make no mistake about what the formula intends.

In the school space debate, it is precisely the same. It is a centralized formula based here in Toronto that will force local boards - and not because of decisions made in Durham or Pembroke or St Catharines - in their application of the Toronto, centralized ministry formula to close schools by the score in large cities and in rural areas. The skeptic in me says I hope and I pray that this government is crazy enough to march forward with that, because if they think they've had lightning and thunder before, get ready. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to compliment my colleague from London Centre, and I would urge members of the government to heed what she says. We are talking about an individual who has been in this place for eight years as an elected MPP, obviously has gone through the Ontario school system herself, was a parent of a child who went through the entire system and has been the Minister of Education for the province of Ontario. I would think that regardless of what party you come from or what your philosophy is, listening to the viewpoint of someone with that background and that experience can only help.

I want to emphasize, in the little over a minute I have, one of the points my colleague for London Centre raised. That's the fact that the former education minister Snobelen got caught out on videotape saying in front of a conference of education staff people that one of the things his government had to do, one of his responsibilities, was to create a phony crisis in order to justify the kinds of things they're doing. When my colleague talks about the chaos that exists, unfortunately for the government in this case it's not something where one of your ministers can merely stand up and say, "Black is white and night is day."

The people of Ontario know there's chaos out there. They know that our schools have been shut down. They know that your legislation that was passed on Monday hasn't changed a thing in terms of making the school system any better. We know now, as a result of the number of schools that are having to close, that there's more chaos coming.

All of it was by design, because then you stand up and say, "We're the only ones doing something." What you don't say is that that "something" is devastating the system, and that's why you had the phony crisis: to hide -

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Thank you. Questions and comments? The member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I -

The Acting Speaker: Take your seat, please. I just came into the chair. Just one second, please. Sorry about that. The member for St Catharines for questions and comments.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: No. I'm sorry, member for St Catharines. This is my fault. I just came into the chair and forgot to be advised as to what was happening here. It's the Conservatives' time.

Mr Bradley: But don't they have to stand?

The Acting Speaker: Well, I didn't see him. I perhaps didn't look that way. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr Hastings: An observation I would like to make regarding this bill - since we're talking about lots of things that aren't in the bill, which deals with instructional time - is that the member for London Centre was talking about how it ought to be, how it used to be. We have to move into the 21st century.

If we look back at the status quo - people ask, where has all the money gone over the years? One of the clear examples that came up during the restructuring of the Toronto District School Board relates to the cost monthly of 45 early-retired education officials, who will assume benefits from whatever age they were - 55, 56, 57 - up to age 65. The cost to the taxpayers in the city of Toronto for that particular line item in a budget is $9,000 monthly.

1630

Mr Wildman: You said you wanted them retired.

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

Mr Hastings: Yes, we want them retired at a reasonable price, not at the astounding cost that's evidenced in that particular item.

Laughter.

Mr Hastings: Isn't it amazing that the members opposite laugh at such as a minor cost, as they would consider, when in point of fact, what could that particular money have bought in terms of classroom education? Quite a lot.

The other thing that a lot of the folks across the way seem to forget is that when they make the comments about the changes in the taxation of education in this province, even those folks across the way at the time strongly and vigorously advocated that the costs of education be removed off property taxes. What has happened? Voilà. We have done that.

The Acting Speaker: The member for London Centre.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you, Speaker. It's always very interesting. Let's just be really clear about what has happened here and what this government has done. It has taken away any kind of local autonomy, any ability of local school boards to raise money. Yes, we always advocated, as the NDP, a larger share of the money to come from the province. I believe our policy is 60% of funding, a restoration of 60% of funding. But we always believed there should be some local autonomy to deal with the issues of flexibility that local communities have. You have denied that.

Your experience on the school board, member for Durham East, doesn't apply any more. Don't bring the experience you had three years ago to this debate, because the reality is totally different for school board members now because of Bill 104 and because of Bill 160. It just simply is a totally different ball game. It's got nothing to do, as it used to, with not having enough kids to have a viable school. That's the decision you made. The decision now has to do with the central body, the central Minister of Education deciding whether or not you have enough money to educate those students or whether you have to bus them for miles and miles so that you have the viable number that that minister in Toronto decided you should have in Port Perry. It's absurd. It's absolutely ridiculous.

As for the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, you know, when the day comes that you are advocating that public servants should have less of a severance package, less of a benefit when they are severed from their jobs, than public interests and corporations do -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Interjection.

Mrs Boyd: It's a Bay street formula and you know it.

Mr Hastings: Oh, big, fat government.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Further debate? The member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: In the next election my riding is just called Durham so it'll be much easier for you next term.

I would actually like to start and pay some respect to, and perhaps beg forgiveness from, the member for London Centre, not knowing that she was part of a government that fundamentally started many of the reforms admirably in education. I will review that in the course of my discussion, and I mean that sincerely.

I want to start by looking back to the member for Renfrew North. I have a lot of time for his comments. He is a well-informed member, a previous Minister of Education. In fact, when I was on the school board he was the Minister of Education, and although he doesn't remember, I had occasions to meet him. But the debate today that we're focusing on is Bill 63. For those watching and for those listening, I think it's important for us to understand that this is entirely an issue on instructional time in the classroom, and everyone here knows that this is very critical, very controversial.

If you look back, and I will in a few moments, look to the history, I think it's important to put in perspective precisely those portions of the bill, which I'll read for you, that instructional time is trying to arrive at. I think there are members on both sides of the House who realize that change, if done properly, is indeed improvement of quality of education in Ontario. In fact, I suggest to you that many teachers and many educators believe that this is an important opportunity to look in a positive vein at how we do this change. So they're trying to bring some clarity to this. It's not a centralized issue. It's been discussed as far as back as the Bégin-Caplan report in 1994, and prior to that there were many studies that dealt with the same issue.

It could be argued that the current semestering system is not to the advantage of average students. Long 76-minute periods I believe, for students who have learning difficulties, are a disadvantage. If you look to the debate during that time for moving from the traditional annualized curriculum year to the semestered curriculum year, I think you'll find that performance results and retention have gone down. Many students don't get the chance to take a second language and mathematics for two semesters. They can lose the whole context of continuity. That's another debate.

I'm going to clarify a few things here. "For the purposes of this section, a classroom teacher in a secondary school is assigned to provide instruction" time "when he or she is assigned in a regular timetable" etc.

"A course or program that is eligible for credit" - the credit is 110 hours - and a credit also for special education, remedial classes - this is instructional time, important instructional time - "to assist one or more pupils in completing a course or program that is eligible for credit," English as a second language, apprenticeship programs and courses and programs specified or described in the regulations.

There is some degree of flexibility when you look at the definition within the regulations. For brevity I won't go into that, but I'm going to talk about, in instructional time, some of the numbers that come around.

If you look at a couple of articles, and I have a number of them here, there was a very good article in a paper that's not normally given to being friendly to us as a government, in the Toronto Star about a week ago, on September 13, and I'm going to quote it. It deals with teaching time. The title is "Going from Bad to Worse." Teaching time, it says, in Ontario prior to 1998, was three hours and 40 to 50 minutes. The new standard is four hours and 10 minutes. We all know that's some 25 minutes of additional teaching time. For the members to understand, that additional 25 minutes of instructional time amounts to two hours and 50 minutes in the instructional day, and 76-minute periods don't divide into that very equally. So you get into the situation that the school year is made up of two semesters and there are four credits in each semester. That's a total of eight subject times, and they're going to teach seven out of those eight subject times. Provided the periods are 76 minutes, it still doesn't compute to the two hours and 50 minutes. I recognize that's a problem. I believe the boards and we should be listening closely to the solutions they've recommended.

Ontario with its teaching time, its amount of instructional time, is still among the lowest provinces in Canada. Not only that, if you look at the number of instructional days that our students are exposed to the material - math, language, science, arts, English - they are really penalized in Ontario. They don't get the same number of instructional days. So we have two factors here. We have fewer instructional days than many jurisdictions in the world and fewer instructional minutes per day. I think the system clearly - it's been demonstrated from that article in the Star and others, and I, respectfully, look beyond the particular government issues that we are given.

In the Globe and Mail on September 23 there's an excellent article and I would urge every member to contact my office and get a copy of it. Contact my constituency office. I send it to people because it's written by an educator and it's a profoundly interesting article. It's Peter Desbarats and he taught at the University of Western Ontario, a widely respected journalist, and it's in the Globe and Mail, which is an intelligent paper, I believe, commenting objectively on the state of the world. In that article Peter Desbarats, without reading it all and boring you, says that this strike strategy and this chaos, as Mr Christopherson often says, is really an articulation of the frustration in the teaching ranks. The individual teachers are indeed frustrated and they have been frustrated for many years. I'll get to my point.

I've been watching this debate since I was a trustee some years ago for a couple of terms in the early 1980s. My qualifications - why am I interested? I was on a parent-teacher association. I have five children. My wife is a teacher; half my family are teachers.

1640

When my wife went back teaching, respectfully, that's when I went on local council because I felt there was a conflict, because about 80% of their budget is wages and benefits. How could I sit on the negotiating committee and negotiate the benefits that would affect my wife? So we've changed that. Members would know we've changed that, and I think it's a good, acceptable change. There are many members of society who want to contribute. We shouldn't just have one group represented in this process.

I want to look back to the history. Respecting Mrs Boyd from London Centre and Mr Conway, as well as the member for Algoma - I believe you were Minister of Education at one time -

Interjection.

Mr O'Toole: You were pretty well every other ministry, but the member for Dovercourt I remember was the minister.

I've heard the member for Renfrew North today clearly support reform in education and clearly the previous government supported reforms in education. That is a little bit of a segue into where I'm going here to give you a broader view. Reforms in education by themselves are not new. They are absolutely critical for the future of our children, because public money is being spent for our children, to advantage them for the future. That's the whole purpose of it and that's why I got involved as a parent. That's why I'd encourage every parent to get involved in their child's education. The parent is the primary educator. They have been somehow disqualified from participating in the process because they don't have a master's of education or some other academic qualification, but believe me, as an average person I would recommend very highly that you get involved in your children's education, whether it's the parent or school community council, whatever function. It would be more inclusive in these school community councils. They shouldn't be run by one group. There should be participation from every group, people with learning disabilities right through the whole spectrum.

I've gone on a bit on that, but on the instructional time - one more small piece there - how do I believe we can arrive at the 250 minutes? If there are four periods and they are each 60 minutes, that's 240 minutes, and 10 minutes. I'm sure it could be debated how they arrive at that 10 minutes. Whether it's teacher advisory groups, mentoring, I'm fully supportive of it, but it must be contact with students, not some time in the board office reinventing some history curriculum. I mean absolutely critical learning contact, teacher and student. That's the whole purpose of it, and if anyone disagrees with that - because I believe 76-minute periods are almost exhaustive.

On calling 18 students in the past two weeks to ask their opinions - I have a poll; I have their names; they're my constituents - all of them said that no classes, by and large, are actually 76 minutes. They're 76 minutes long, but activities go on in there. Some of it's seat work, some of it's marking, some of it's board work and some of it's actually instructional time. So work on the 60-minute period model. There are 180 teaching days. There are only 110 hours for a credit. There has got to be time in that. Work on the numbers.

On the history side of it - this is worth listening to - we've had an inordinate number of changes in education. I'm going to list them all here, because I took some time to think about this with respect to the fact I was going to speak to this very important issue. We have passed about five or six bills specifically related to education: Bill 30, which is the Education Quality and Accountability Office; Bill 31, which is the College of Teachers, the profession itself; Bill 104, which is the Fewer School Boards Act - fewer school boards, less administration; and of course, Bill 160, which is a very contentious bill. But part of that rollout was the new educational funding model. There is also the current bill we are dealing with, which is dealing with the collective bargaining resolution process and also the instructional time.

Where did all these bills come from? Were they just some wild, radical, revolutionary - no, they weren't. In the context of what I'm talking about, the reforms in education were may of them started, respectfully, by the previous government and prior to that by the previous Liberal government. I'm going to trace for you in my small amount of time some of the history of education reform, long overdue, and it's going to actually surprise a number of members from the third party and from the opposition. Of their commitment to education, I think we should unanimously endorse many of the reforms. It should be all parties agreeing, because it's our children's future; not just my children, it's all of our children. The pages here, every child deserves a fair opportunity in education, and if anyone disagrees with that, regardless of the race, creed, colour, religion, all that stuff, learning ability, I believe in a quality educational system, but that means change. The word "change" is something that certain parties in this discussion refuse to deal with. They want to run it, and that's the problem. It takes a community to raise a child, and that includes everyone.

I'm going to read several press releases here, with your permission, Madam Speaker. These are quotes, so you can pick up this material from my office:

"Education and training minister Dave Cooke today," January 26, 1995, "received the report of the Royal Commission on Learning." I wish to congratulate the members of the commission. That was Gerald Caplan's report. I've talked to Mr Caplan. I have a lot of respect for him as an educator, but he has his particular persuasions as well. "The report contains about 167 recommendations for changes," within every aspect of Ontario's education system. Think about what I just said. Those 167 recommendations - this government is using this as a footprint.

We're moving forward with the reforms in education. Despite the placating and despite the arguments, I believe most of those recommendations are being implemented. As I go through this brief scenario or chronology here, you'll understand the important commitment. Not only the current Minister of Education but the previous Minister of Education and our Premier are fully in support of the urgency of these reforms in a global context. Our children deserve an opportunity for the future. Ontario should be first. I think everyone here would agree with that.

February 17, 1995 - it's almost like a historical chronology here - "Cooke Introduces Comprehensive Testing." The member for Algoma might want to listen up on this, because H squared today -

Interjection: Howie Hampton.

Mr O'Toole: Yes. For those uninformed, H squared is an acronym we use here. He today asked a question denouncing standardized testing. Well, they should have a consistency in their policy.

Interjection: Politicizing it.

Mr O'Toole: It's politicized. You think it's politicized? It's just oppose because he's third party.

February 17: "`All students in grades 3, 6, 9 and 11 across the province will systematically be tested every year in reading, writing, mathematics,' education minister Cooke announced today.... `This system is the most comprehensive student testing in Ontario's history,' said Mr Cooke. `This province needs a long-term, cost-effective plan for evaluating, reporting and improving students' performance.'"

The Premier of the day, Mr Rae, I believe was catching on at the end. It was too late, though. They were so far off the scale -

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): Then he brought the social contract in.

Mr O'Toole: They really tried to do significant structuring in municipal finance reform too, but got nailed there too. No one would support it, because it was change. That's the problem.

The point I'm making, respectfully: Look to the Hansard of today, October 1, 1998. The New Democratic Party has completely reversed itself. Its former ministers of education, of which the member for London Centre was one, the member for Dovercourt was one - there were several of them - all endorsed this. They were in cabinet. Now they're still here and they're against it. They're against quality education, in my view, and they're frightened of the unions, because that's where their support comes from.

Anyway, I'm going to another one now. By the way, we passed that bill. They thought about it; we did it. That bill was Bill 30, education quality, and do you know what? The opposition Liberals and the third party NDP voted against quality education. Not this government, not our Premier. When we announced it today -

Mr Wildman: Just because you named it doesn't mean it's quality education.

Mr O'Toole: Read this release, Mr Wildman, and you would find out -

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

Mr O'Toole: The next one is a another in the chronology of announcements by the previous government, which had no courage to actually deliver. Lots of announcements, no delivery.

February 13, 1995: "Minister Announces Teachers' Education Reform." We called it, by the way, member for Algoma, Bill 31, because we did it. That's the difference with us. We're committed to delivering to the people of Ontario. There's no longer the dark, lost decade. That's gone.

This is what it says, and I believe teaching is a profession: "...the standard practices of teachers, the two-year teacher education program, the creation of the College of Teachers, a program framework for professional development for educators," standardizing the profession, like the college of nurses, like the college of dentists, like the law society, like the college of surgeons. A profession is, by definition, self-regulating. That doesn't mean union; it means regulating professional misconduct and those other issues.

1650

I think teachers eventually will endorse this and realize that issues of collective bargaining are different - they need a union - from issues of professionalism. So we've done it, Bill 31; we're getting there.

February 1995: another important announcement by the then Minister of Education, David Cooke, and the Premier, Bob Rae. I have a lot of time for him, actually. He announces that the government makes school councils mandatory.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Is a quorum present?

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there is a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: Member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So we have school community councils. In fact, we've got the Education Improvement Commission consulting. I attended one of their meetings this week. Parents were there. The process is moving forward, and I think it's important to hear from parents. Everyone here agrees that the parent is the primary educator. They need to have a role. It shows good modelling for the student; their children, in fact.

Another important announcement. Listen to this one; this is really important. February 7, 1995: There again, "Minister of Education Dave Cooke Announces Major Changes in Curriculum." Well, guess what? We've invented, with the help of teachers but with the empowerment of this government, a whole new curriculum, and I'll tell you, many teachers, politics aside, have embraced it.

We're in the midst of some of the most profound changes. Get with the game. Don't look to the past; look to the future. We've moving into a new century, and I believe that if we work together for our students, put the students first, we will find the curriculum coming in for secondary. Many of the professional teachers in my riding are involved in that curriculum. I believe in it. I couldn't care about their politics; I do believe in their professionalism. If they have been hijacked by the union, they have lost the degree of professionalism and the integrity that involves.

So the minister announced that, but we are doing it. In fact, it's moving forward, I think, rather successfully. I thank those who have contributed, both the editors and the contributors to the curriculum, because it's important that we get it right.

When we started our changes, we kind of dovetailed into the previous government. We had too much bureaucracy in education. The previous government introduced the Sweeney commission. We came up with Bill 104 and implemented most of their recommendations.

I am running out of time. Respectfully, I will tell you this: If you look at Bill 160 and look to the fundamentals, it's about improving the quality, accountability and accessibility of education. That is fair and reasonable. I am fully supportive of the professionalism of our teachers, and I openly apologize if I have ever criticized them. It maybe has just been politics, but we have to get on with doing the job for our students.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Questions and comments?

Mr Bradley: The people of this province should know that despite the fact that these people have brought in draconian rule changes in this House which severely restrict the amount of debate and remove any of the bargaining opportunities the opposition would have to deal with legislation, the government has produced yet another closure motion, another time allocation motion which chokes off debate.

It might even be different if we were dealing with the rules that were in place for procedures in this House 10 years ago, where there was a lot of time available for debate and a lot of opportunities for the opposition to utilize measures which might gain them some additional hearing time or debate. But here the government has the most restrictive rules in the history of this province, because Mike Harris doesn't like to hear debate on this legislation.

For instance, we will now be, after 5 minutes to 5 this evening, down to 10-minute speeches to deal with an extremely important issue.

Mr Spina: Point of order.

Mr Bradley: When we have this particular motion before us, I know the member would be concerned, were he sitting in the opposition benches or just as a democrat, that you are choking off debate, closing off debate, on a very important bill.

The other night the opposition co-operated with the government in ensuring that a measure would pass this House in one day. We sat into the evening despite the fact it wasn't scheduled. We co-operated. The thanks you get when you co-operate. You always ask for co-operation.

The Toronto Sun editorial will say, "Why don't the opposition be responsible and co-operate?" Here's the thank you for the co-operation. You get hit with yet another motion closing off debate despite the fact you already have rules which are heavily slanted in favour of the government.

The Acting Speaker: You have a point of order, member for Brampton North?

Mr Spina: The member for St Catharines has had nothing to do with this debate in his two-minute comments. I would ask that he be ruled out of order.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. Questions and comments?

Mr Wildman: I listened carefully to the comments of the member for Durham East with regard to Bill 63 and a number of other changes that have been brought in by this government with regard to education in the province. I note that just as he was speaking the Liberal House leader and I were both served by the Clerk with a motion that was tabled by the government House leader closing off debate. This is a motion which will close off debate on second reading. It will not allow for any committee discussion or amendment to Bill 63 and it then will limit severely third reading of the bill.

This is at a time when we are just about, in a couple of minutes, to go into a limitation under the rules of 10 minutes per speech. At a limit of 10 minutes per speech, if every member of the opposition who had not yet spoken participated, it would not take very long to exhaust the time under the rules for second reading debate. The government does not need this motion. Why are they introducing it? Simply, I guess, because they heard the member for Durham East's speech and said: "We've got to close this off. Enough is enough. We can't take it any more."

The member said - this is a quote; I wrote it down when he said it - "There have been an inordinate number of changes to education under this government." He's quite right. There have been an inordinate number of changes. If he understood what the word "inordinate" meant, he wouldn't have used it.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's an excellent speech that the member for Durham East gave. It was an interesting review. He walked through the last year or so of the previous government, bringing forth some of the comments the Minister of Education for the NDP government was bringing in. It's a lot of those kinds of things we've been proceeding with and it's surprising that the NDP would get into a flip-flop position like their friends the Liberals. I thought they would stay on track a little more and be consistent. I've had a lot of respect for that party in the past. When the honourable member for Durham East brings forth this information, it's interesting how they just keep changing positions like their Liberal friends.

It was interesting the member for Durham East commenting on the many bills we've brought forward. I think one we brought forward in particular, Bill 31 for the Ontario College of Teachers, made them a profession. They always were a profession, but most professions have a self-disciplining college and this really elevates the position of teachers.

1700

The Fewer School Boards Act, getting rid of some of the bureaucracy, getting rid of some of the politicians, was all part of what the Common Sense Revolution was about in the campaign. We have some excellent teachers; most of our teachers are excellent, dedicated teachers. They want to teach but they've been caught in a bad system, a system that has deteriorated over the last decade or so, and they're very frustrated, as the member for Durham East made reference to. Part of their frustration does relate to discipline, but it relates to a system that is not particularly good, and I for one am very supportive of this bill on instructional time.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): It's interesting, more closure motions from the government. When your position is so weak that it cannot withstand a debate, you have to choke off the debate. That's exactly what's happened here.

Interjection.

Mr Caplan: You hear the chatty member for Durham West wanting to talk about this also. They would like to debate.

Quality, accountability, accessibility, that's what the member for Durham East said. Quality is harmed by over a billion dollars in cuts to education. Accountability, when you have a minister stand up every day and refuse to be held accountable for cutting dollars out, for closing schools, is absolutely a joke. And accessibility? We are seeing schools close today. The chair of the Toronto District School Board said that 120 operating schools will be closed as a result of the actions of this government.

The member for Durham East should review his words and he should live up to the principles he says. I think they're lofty principles, but this government does not do that.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Durham East, you can sum up.

Mr O'Toole: I'd like to thank the members from St Catharines, Algoma, Northumberland and Oriole, although the only one who spoke to my remarks was the member for Northumberland.

Respectfully, I will take issue with a couple of things to end my remarks and make a comment that our Premier recently made a speech to the chamber of commerce's notion of excellence meeting for small business in Ontario. Here's what he said, and I quote the Premier: "We're fighting this because we believe in provincial standards, a solid standard curriculum, smaller class size, standard report cards and a system that is accountable to students, parents and taxpayers. We all want this for our children." We have excellent teachers and the Premier is focused clearly on the goals.

I want to clarify. In my riding during Bill 160 I was featured in a full-page ad. I was the target in the middle. I thanked them for that advertisement because I don't have the money to spend on advertising. OSSTF circled the target with I believe seven or 10 teachers, indicating that those 10 teachers would all lose their jobs. I consider it a case of false advertising. I have done the research and every one of those teachers has been retained. In Durham, originally they announced 40 layoffs; all have been recalled. In fact, in Durham they have hired 200 new teachers. So it's good news if you look to the positives. If you want to dwell on the negatives, then we're moving forward.

As far as the use of "inordinate" is concerned, I think the reason I chose that word - according to the member for Algoma - was very specific and very poignant. We have had 20 years of study, 20 years of inaction, and what has happened? We now have our colleges and universities accusing our children of being illiterate. Our children are not illiterate; the system has failed them. I tell you, our Premier and our Minister of Education are committed to changing it for our children.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 63. I think the public should recognize that if this were a debate about the quality of education and standards and instructional time and testing and ensuring that we devote all the energies we possibly can to improving the quality of education, the government would have no problem with any of the opposition. What the public should recognize is that, first and foremost, the primary reason for all the bills the member for Durham East just recited is to allow Mike Harris to have complete control over education. There is no question of that.

Mr O'Toole: It's time somebody took control.

Mr Phillips: The member just confirmed it. That's right. Mike Harris now has complete control over education. Why? So he can cut the guts out of the spending.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I guess that's why the OSSTF took out ads in millions.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Durham West, come to order.

Mr Phillips: There goes Ms Ecker again, barking and barracking because she doesn't want to hear a debate in the House around the real intentions of this government.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, come to order.

Mr Phillips: I say to the public, watch what they do, not what they say. The member for Durham East mentioned Bill 160.

Hon Mrs Ecker: More dollars -

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham West, you come to order too.

Mr Phillips: What was Bill 160 all about? It was all about putting property taxes on to the businesses of the province of Ontario so they could fund education. I think the businesses of Ontario should recognize, because many of them are facing huge increases in their property taxes, that over half of the business property tax in Ontario goes directly into Mike Harris's education funding.

Ms Mushinski: What about the 75% that got decreases in your riding, Gerry?

The Acting Speaker: Member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, come to order.

Mr Phillips: I would say to the businesses, by the way, in Durham, recognize you are paying twice the rate on business taxes for education as Parry Sound is, so when you look at your business -

Mr Caplan: Who's from Parry Sound?

Mr Phillips: My colleague says, "Who's from Parry Sound?" Of course it's the Minister of Finance. But the businesses in Durham should recognize they're paying twice the rate, over half of their property taxes is going to education and they are paying twice the rate in Durham as they're paying in Parry Sound.

The reason I raise that is that these bills are first and foremost about giving Mike Harris complete control over education. As a matter of fact, the business property tax rates were set not here in the Legislature -

Hon Mrs Ecker: Ask them about their pay raises.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham West.

Mr Phillips: - not in a democratic forum; they were set in secret, down the hall in the cabinet room. Nobody found out what they were until they were announced in what we call the Gazette. On a Saturday there is a document that comes out and it says, "Here is the business property tax rate." The businesses in Durham will want to know. I know in Mr O'Toole's area they are paying twice the rate on business property taxes that they are in Parry Sound.

I want to talk about the quality of education. As I said earlier, one of the members across tipped their hand and said that they were trapped in - I forget the exact words they used - a dreadful system.

This is what the province of Ontario takes around when it's selling Ontario. When Mike Harris is in Munich or in Beijing or somewhere else, what does Mike say about the quality of education in Ontario? "The education and skill attainment level of Ontario's labour force is one of our greatest strengths." There it is. Our education system is one of our greatest strengths. This is what is driving Ontario: our education system.

I want to be very clear here. This is not to say that education cannot be constantly improved. In fact, the teachers themselves would be the first to acknowledge that. They are always striving to improve. You go into any school and they are in the forefront of looking for new, innovative ways to improve. But what did Mike Harris say when he travelled around the world? He bragged about our education system.

I don't know whether the public follows this stuff carefully, but interestingly enough I was at a briefing the other day for the new capital projects for the school system. I went to the Conservative caucus room because that's where they invited us for the briefing. On the wall is this. You go down the hall to the Conservative caucus room and there it is. So when they're in the caucus room, they've got this in front of them: "The education and skill attainment level of Ontario's labour force is one of our greatest strengths."

Then they come in here and they attack the education system - just did it.

Mr O'Toole: No. The system.

Mr Phillips: The member for Durham East says no, but they just did it.

Mr Bradley: And at the chamber of commerce.

Mr Phillips: And at the chamber of commerce, as my colleague says.

I want to get it on the record that Mike Harris, when he's selling Ontario, talks about our education system being world-class, among the best. When he's in here trying to cut the guts out of the spending, he says it is in a crisis.

I want to talk a little bit about where we're going in education in Ontario. First, if the bill really talked about improving the quality of education you wouldn't have an argument from us, you wouldn't have an argument from the NDP. But it's about cutting $1 billion out of funding and it's about closing schools. We heard today that there is going to be a total of 500 schools closed across the province. People might say: "Well, that's just fine. Close them." But I would say to the government that there is perhaps nothing more fundamental to a strong neighbourhood than its local school. It is the basis on which people either move into a community or stay in a community.

1710

I used to be on a school board. I was chairman of the Metro school board many years ago. The thing I am convinced of is the reason this urban area called Toronto has been successful - not the only reason, but a key reason - is because of the quality of the local schools. I was not on the city of Toronto school board, but there was a progressive group of people there who made certain that in the downtown area of Metropolitan Toronto the quality of the schools was second to none. That's why we are now regarded as an urban model. That's why we have vibrant neighbourhoods. I tell you that you are messing and tinkering and in danger of destroying something that has made the city of Toronto work.

Mr Bradley: We're going to the American model.

Mr Phillips: The American model. It's actually something I never thought I would see a Conservative government do and that is total control at the centre. This has simply become an exercise in numbers. It all is a mechanical exercise now. Even today in the debate, if people at home were listening to it, we've been talking about numbers of minutes and all of those things. It's become a mechanical debate. The mechanical debate is around, "That school is going to close if it doesn't meet these numbers." It has nothing to do with, "Does that neighbourhood, that community, need that school?"

Frankly, Bill 63 assumes that every school system in the province is the same. I tell you, Haliburton is dramatically different than downtown Toronto. It has different needs. It has different requirements. We are - I don't mean to be extreme - crazy if we think that we can legislatively impose a solution on schools and say, "Listen, every school will follow that." But it's the Bay Street mentality in the Premier's office that says this is simply a whole bunch of factories.

By the way, one of the bills was: "We'll get the principals out of the federation because if there's a strike we'll need to have our manager there. We've got to have that plant manager to keep the factory open." There's a strike in a school perhaps once every 20 years and it lasts for two weeks. For the rest of the time what you've done is you have removed the principal teacher. The principal teacher now is no longer the principal teacher, it's the plant manager.

The Premier and the people around him simply assume that we're dealing with another production line. This is a production line like auto and we can apply the same principles. That's why we are putting in legislation things that really should be resolved within the school. You are forcing schools to organize on the basis of some abstract formula for legislation that doesn't recognize that a group of teachers, with their community and with their students, have far better ways of organizing than we're going to impose on them. What it means is we have taken the creativity out of our schools.

I come from a business background. I would never want to have to run a business where I was told, "This is how you're going to run it. Every single school is going to be the same and you are going to teach X minutes a day, seven periods a day, every school." It's turning back. Surely we're learning one thing. It's that organizations have to be vital and have to take advantage of all the talent. Believe me, if you get 60 teachers together and say, "How do we best use the talents in this room?" they will say: "We can run extracurricular activities this way. We can do this this way." They will find far better solutions. But you're handcuffing the schools with this legislation. It's part of, for whatever reason, the Premier wanting complete control.

I really can't understand why many of the members are accepting that, because I bet you if, before you got elected to come to down here, anyone had told you, "Do you know what we're going to do? We're going to now set every school board's budget here in the Premier's office, we're going to set the tax rates in the Premier's office, we're going to prescribe the entire workday for every teacher, we are going to now have complete control" - the trustees are gone. They are basically impotent. Perhaps many people watching quietly or loudly are applauding. The trustees are not held in particularly high regard by all the population.

But I will say this: The trustees, in my opinion, are able to reflect the needs of the local community. By and large, overwhelmingly across the province of Ontario, we have been fortunate in the quality of our school boards reflecting the local needs. But they essentially are impotent now. If you talked to them, they'd say: "Listen, I feel trapped. I can't resolve the contract disputes. We are supposed to resolve them, but I can't resolve them because the province has all the controls. It's like you're asking me to take the fall for something I can't have any influence over."

I say to the public, I wish this were simply a debate about the quality of education. Then we could have a real debate. But it's a debate about control. Without a doubt, the most important resource we have in our schools to deliver quality education is our teachers. This is a very simple business. I went on the school board in 1969, and all the talk then was about, "We're going to have TVs in every classroom," sort of like the teacher was going to be redundant. It didn't happen. Think back to your own education. I frankly remember little about what was in the textbooks and lots about my teachers. I think everyone in this Legislature was shaped by their teachers. I can remember them.

This is an interesting story, for me at least. This was a metaphor for me. In November I was at the local collegiate. I'll tell this story to the public because it's what education is all about. First I went to graduation at L'Amoreaux Collegiate, a collegiate in the area I represent. There are flags in that school from 80 different countries. These are the flags of the countries where those students were born. This is a very diverse school, but they are there working together in enormous harmony. My community has undergone enormous change in the last 15 years, but the community, with an enormous amount of goodwill, accepted it, I think heavily because our schools have been able to do the job. L'Amoreaux Collegiate is very different from Haliburton high school. They just perform different roles. We're going to put a cookie-cutter on them.

By the way, I left that graduation to go back to the 40-year reunion of my football team in London, Ontario. The amazing thing was all three of my coaches were there. I remember to this day my high school coaches the first day of school: Bill Trout, Will Rice and Glyn Reyshon. They were all there 40 years later. They got up and spoke and they remembered the numbers we all wore. They remember all the plays, and I do too, and most of the team were there. By the way, in an enormous coincidence, a few months later the Ontario high school basketball championship was in the area that I represent. My old school, London Central, was playing. I went to the game. Who were the two coaches? Will Rice's son and Glyn Reyshon's son. It was incredible.

1720

What's the point of all this? Education isn't a factory; it's about teachers, motivated teachers, and these teachers were motivated. Bill Trout - gosh, on the last day of football Bill slipped into his basketball jacket and away he went on basketball. If we think we can simply turn education into a mechanical exercise driven by formula and dictated by the Premier, we're - crazy's too strong a word; we are badly mistaken.

We're heading down a road. The road doesn't look like Harris has any intention of even slowing down on it, but we now have, without a doubt, an extremely demoralized teaching profession, which is tragic. Here's what's going to have more influence on the quality of education than anything else, a motivated teaching group. We essentially have taken the flexibility away from them. We're saying, "You are simply a number in front of a group of students, and whatever the formula dictates, that's how it will be."

For those of you who are in business, you would never, ever - this is turning back the clock 50 years. There's no company in the world that would try and do this now, take away their most important resource and stifle it. How is all this possible? It's possible by saying: "This is all about quality. We know the public wants quality. It's all about standards and testing." It's not about that. If that were the debate, get that out on the table. This is all about cutting, control and mechanizing education.

I say to the public, tragically, I don't think I've seen this much turmoil in the education system ever, and it's not ending. I don't think our teaching profession knows where to turn now, because the government is giving itself more and more loaded guns. There's no longer even going to be any flexibility in discussing these things; it's going to be in law, in legislation.

I don't know where this comes from; I don't know the logic in it; I don't know why the Conservative backbench would support the direction of total control of education by the minister, the Premier and the bureaucrats. It's just foreign to me. We're turning the clock back.

Mr Caplan: No vision, no plan.

Mr Phillips: No vision. Tragically, I think we're making a major mistake and Bill 63 is but another in a series of bills that have led us down the wrong path.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I just briefly want to commend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on the reference he has made to how Mike Harris has taken control and turned this education system into a crisis. It was a planned crisis. The Minister of Education about three years ago said he was going to do it, and now we have a crisis that is going to continue over the next few years, until this government is thrown out of office.

It's quite clear, as the member pointed out, that they're treating education, all the schools, as factories. You reduce the number of workers in a factory, and they're saying they want to reduce the number of teachers in every school. At the same time, instead of trying to make people believe that they want teachers to spend 25 more minutes in the classrooms, all they're doing is adding another 25 students to each teacher, which means that the teachers are going to be able to spend less time in meeting the needs of those particular students.

They've taken over $1 billion out of education that should be used for the students who want to get a good education in this province. They're closing 500 schools. In some estimates we've heard it could be up to 600 schools that they're going to close down. It's just as though we were in a country where they're saying, "We have too many factories here and we're going to close down the factories." They're not really concerned about educating and getting a good education for the students. They're running this as a business. The bottom line is, "We've got to take more money out if we want to continue to give that 30% tax break to the wealthiest people in this province." This is what it's all about. You make the rich people richer, and the students are suffering as a result of the agenda that Mike Harris has brought forward. They have to be thrown out of office, the sooner the better.

Mr Hastings: Let's start from the other end of the spectrum then, since across the way they oppose all these changes: The status quo is a marvellous thing. So where are we when we're at the status quo? We had larger school boards, which they opposed the reduction of, particularly the official opposition. We proposed standardized testing. They fought and opposed that to the teeth. Thirdly, they oppose basic curriculum reform, from kindergarten reform. When the minister was in my riding and we looked at it, it hadn't been changed since 1944. That's pretty good; keep it the way it is. Fourthly, they oppose any kind of changes in quality. They opposed the Sweeney report because they opposed the number of school boards. Just keep it the way it is.

They never look at the motivation for any of the changes. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt comments about being a school trustee and on the Metro board 20 years ago, but look back at the Metro products that were turned out then. He himself, if you look through his remarks in this House, has advocated in the past that the education component cost be removed from the property tax. We did 50% of that. Now they're opposed to that and describe it as centralized control.

They talk about the role of the trustees being neutered. How did that come about, if you look at it? Because back in those days, they simply passed the tax bill on to the council of the day: "You figure out how you get your mill rates. We're spending those dollars." Restraint? Not much of it in those days when you look at the fancy packages that came out - on all sides.

If the status quo is the solution that we're looking for here, why is it that we've got economic uncompetitiveness and the number of unemployed youth in this country and -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and comments?

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I want to compliment our colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on his well-done presentation and account of Bill 63, and also part of the now infamous Bill 160. I think what he has said is the essence of what should be understood by the members on the government side, especially when the member has gone back and dwelled on the local schools and what they used to represent. They used to be the cornerstone of every community where not only the kids got an excellent education, but the place used to be the community centre where they would get all kinds of after-school programs - for adults, young ones, where parents could congregate, have meetings. It really used to be a community spirit.

What the member said very well is that now the Premier, the government, has taken full control and they are not listening to anybody. They are not listening to the students, to the teachers, to the parents. They pretend to, but then they come into this House and they prepare and present bills according to their own views.

Look at this. We have just been presented today, this afternoon, another motion to close debate. Isn't that nice? That means that after today, after the second reading, no one else can say anything else, they can't speak on this particular bill, and whenever the government feels comfortable to come and call for third reading, we will only be allowed half a day of debate. Isn't that nice? This is exactly what the government has been doing with Bill 160, what it's doing now with Bill 63, not give a chance to anybody. Where do they get the information? Who do they get it from? Certainly they don't listen to the members in this House, to the parents, to the students and to the teachers.

1730

Mr Wildman: I listened carefully to my friend from Scarborough-Agincourt and his comments about the bill before us, Bill 63. I thought it was important that he set out the context in which this government has been dealing with education, their desire for central control and what that has done to the ability of boards to respond to local needs and the differences between an urban school and a school in small-town or rural Ontario. I thought that was very significant because the cookie-cutter approach, as the member said, does not work if you're going to really be serious about meeting the needs of students in the diverse communities of Ontario.

What I found most interesting in his remarks was his comment about the coaches that he had when he was in high school. I think everyone in this House understands when they think back to their school days that there was a teacher - maybe not more than one, but at least one teacher, whether it be in grade 1 or grade 11 or whenever - who affected them significantly. In some cases, unfortunately, it might be an adverse effect, but in most cases all of us had one teacher who really stimulated us, gave us a feeling of high self-esteem and made us feel worth something. What is happening now with a demoralized teaching profession is making that less and less likely for students in Ontario today. I think that's so unfortunate because it is so important that students be stimulated by qualified -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Responses?

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the comments of the members for Cochrane North, Algoma, Etobicoke-Rexdale and Yorkview.

I'll just comment on the last one, Algoma. I do think it's important we reflect back on that. My life was probably shaped by particularly secondary, I think. I can still visualize four or five who did shape my life. We're in danger of losing that for all of us. I suspect it was the extracurricular activities that we remember most.

The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is just factually wrong. He's completely wrong. He said we opposed standardized testing. That is factually incorrect. This is the problem the public should recognize. We didn't oppose standardized testing. They said we opposed curriculum reform. We didn't. You got it wrong, wrong, wrong. We opposed having fewer school boards. You got it wrong.

You said that you're happy with the property tax thing. I say to the businesses in Ontario, many of them facing huge increases, Mike Harris didn't take a penny off your property taxes. If you look at your tax bill, businesses, over half of your tax bill is going to Mike Harris's education. That's where your tax bill is. Mike Harris is setting that property tax bill down the hall, in secret. There's no democracy about that.

The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale either has a bad memory or he doesn't listen, but he was factually wrong.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, come to order.

Mr Phillips: He's still barracking but he's wrong.

The final thing I would say to him is this: The thing that has driven Ontario's economy according to the budget is that now exports represent 46% of Ontario's economy. Seven years ago it was 29%. We're kicking the heck out of the Americans. Why? Because we've got a talented, educated workforce. So he's wrong on all counts.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity to join in debate, recognizing that I'm the first one who is now cut down to 10 minutes on something that has literally seized the front pages and seized the concern of every parent in this whole province. MPPs are now reduced to 10 minutes to speak to a bill that has a lot to do with why there were so many schools closed and why so many children were outside those schools.

I want to begin by commenting on the issue of the whole centralization. One of the things that I find particularly interesting in all of this is the fact that it's the Mike Harris Tories, Reform-a-Tories, who are centralizing education in a way unprecedented and even unthought of in the history of Ontario.

Let's stand back for a minute. Supposedly this is the government that said decisions that are reduced and left to the government closest to the people are the best decisions. You've used that as your argument for downloading all kinds of responsibilities on to municipalities in particular. But in this case you've gone in the other direction.

What I find particularly intriguing is when I think about what would have happened if we had done this when we were in government, had the NDP government said, "We're going to centralize education," in exactly the way you have, where you have taken absolute control of everything that matters within education.

Mr Wildman: You would have said it was Stalinist.

Mr Christopherson: My colleague from Algoma says, "They would have said it's Stalinist." Exactly the point. You would have had a Red scare going on in this province like we haven't had since McCarthy reigned the airwaves in the 1950s. No question about it. I was there. I watched the way the Tories in particular responded to all the measures we brought forward. Had we brought this in, the Tory caucus would have been apoplectic. And yet, who is it that has created an education czar? The Tories. Incredible.

You ask yourself, "Why would they do this?" It's all about money. It's about the billion dollars that they are taking out of the education system.

And what happened? It's there in the record books. Anyone can see it. When this government tried to dictate to the local school boards what they ought to do in terms of funding for local schools, the boards said no, just as in my own community of Hamilton-Wentworth the public school board said: "No, we are not going to eliminate JK. We're not going to do that. Every study says that's the wrong direction to go in." Because of your funding cuts, it meant they had to raise property taxes marginally, but they had to raise them nonetheless. I can remember standing in my place in this House and thanking them for having the guts to do that. But how did the government react? The government said, "How dare school boards defy edicts sent down from King Harris."

We had a revolution, yes, but a revolution of the saddest kind, where you virtually eliminated the ability of local communities and local school boards to decide for themselves what was most important in terms of educational needs; that, coupled with the fact that you needed that billion dollars out of education as that ministry's share of the $5 billion to $6 billion that you had to find in the existing budgets to fund your 30% tax cut, which we all know benefits mainly the wealthy in this province, your friends - by the way, the very friends that now, because you changed the election laws, can kick back a lot more of that money into your re-election war chest.

1740

That's what this is about. That's why you took the control. You decided that the best way to find that money was to eliminate teachers. You're going to eliminate teachers because, as my colleague from Algoma, our education critic, has pointed out, the largest cost in providing these kinds of services like education, health care, policing and firefighting is staff and human resources. You decided that in order to effectively find a billion dollars, you'd eliminate as many teachers as you could.

The stats are there. There are over 5,600 more students in the public system and there will be over 1,500 fewer teachers. Your ads are saying that this is only about - how does it run? - the 25 minutes, and then the ad says, "Is that asking too much?" After you've beaten everybody else up in the province and convinced them that everybody else is making too much money, once you've got the mindset that everybody has to take less, you run an ad that says, subliminally: "Hey, keep in mind how much we beat you up. Keep in mind how we changed the labour laws so that if you're in the private sector we've got the bosses there beating you up." What's happening in J.B. Fields, most of them women, is a prime example of exactly what's going on. In the public sector, one need only look at OPSEU and everybody else who works in the public sector. So with that subliminal message you're saying: "It's only 25 minutes. Is that asking too much?"

The reality is that it's not about 25 minutes; it's about at least 25 more students. Yes, your stats are going to show that there's an increase in the interaction between students and teachers, not because individual students are getting more time but because you've raised the ratio of how many students are being taught by individual teachers. That's what's going on.

When the Minister of Education, Czar Johnson, stands up and says, "We've increased the amount of spending in the classroom," you don't want to talk about the fact that when it comes to spending in classrooms, you changed the formula. People in the public need to realize that every time Dave Johnson, Czar Johnson, talks about increasing money in the classroom, he has pulled things out of the equation: "This doesn't count." Cleaning the classroom doesn't count. Transportation doesn't count; it's not part of the calculation. Maintaining the computers and heating and lighting the classroom are not in the calculation. So every time Czar Johnson stands up and says, "We've increased the amount of money we're spending in classrooms," I truly hope the public understands that they've done that by eliminating a number of items that should count as real costs to operate and run a proper classroom. The reality is, there's a billion dollars less in the education system. The amount of money being spent by this government per pupil is less than it was.

While I'm talking about the impact on budgets and the fact that you control them all, in the half a minute I've got left let me point out that in communities like mine in Hamilton we're being hit with this issue of school closures too. I agree with those who have talked about the impact on communities and what it means. I represent the downtown urban centre of Hamilton and I know the impact on all those neighbourhoods, those communities where people live, where the kids are being raised. The fact is that those schools are being closed not because there's not enough students but because there's not enough money. You're going to shut them down the same way you shut down the teaching profession in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): The bill we're debating, that we never seem to touch on, is this bill, which defines instructional time. For whatever reason, some people out there didn't seem to understand what instructional time meant, so this bill is to make it very clear exactly what instructional time is.

Instructional time to most of us meant time that teachers spent in the classrooms teaching students, students sitting at their desks learning from teachers. This bill clarifies that so there is absolutely no mistake about what qualifies as instructional time. One of the things people didn't understand was that monitoring halls or being in cafeterias wasn't really teaching children in the classroom, and that's what's important.

This government is making reforms with respect to education, bringing back quality to education, introducing tougher curriculum, new report cards that parents can understand - I know when my kids were in school, it was difficult to understand where they stood in their class and how they were progressing - capping average class sizes. No teacher would dispute smaller class sizes. As a matter of fact, most teachers want that.

Both of my girls have graduated from the public school system. One finished university; the other is attending college. They both benefited from the excellent teachers they had in the school. I have to tell you that those teachers have a commitment to their students. The commitment is to teach them the best that they possibly can, to make those students the best they can possibly be.

What we're trying to do is put more money into that system, to give those teachers the resources they need to do as good a job as they possibly can in the ever-changing environment we live in.

Mr Caplan: Bill 63 is a very interesting piece of legislation dealing with instructional time. For 200,000 students in Ontario for the last three weeks there has been zero instructional time; last year, in the fall, for two weeks across Ontario, zero instructional time. It's interesting enough that this government has caused the situation where there is no instructional time going on in classrooms. This constant turmoil, this constant chaos does not serve our students. The students don't get the benefit of education because we've had a government determined not only to create but to implement a crisis in education.

It's absolutely astounding to hear this government say that they're putting more money into the system. They've taken a billion dollars out. They made the social contract savings permanent and then took another $533 million out. That is not a commitment to quality.

We've seen a reduction in the number of teachers. We're starting to see something very interesting: we're seeing schools being closed. The member for Hamilton East, and I would like to commend him for his comments, talked about the effect of closed schools. Schools are an absolute cornerstone of our communities, and when you close the schools, you wipe out that sense of belonging, that sense of connectedness.

What we need today in education is stability. There is only one leader, Dalton McGuinty, and the Ontario Liberals who are committed to bringing stability back to our educational system. How would we do that? Allow one-year contracts; that's one thing you could do. Scrap Bill 160; that's another thing you could do. We're committed to both of those.

I tell you that in schools around this province - for example in Russ McBride's advanced history class in Lakeport, they have 41 students in the class. It's amazing. What this government says is not the reality.

Mr Wildman: I'd like to congratulate my friend from Hamilton Centre on his remarks and the emphasis he put on the centralization of control in the education system and the removal of the funding by this government, but also his comments with regard to the phony advertising campaign which basically says, "Twenty-five minutes: Is that too much to ask?"

The fact is that the government isn't really interested in ensuring more class instructional time for each student with the teacher. Many boards and teachers' bargaining units negotiated or were on the way to negotiating increasing the length of the periods so that each student would have more time with each teacher. It would have meant the same number of teachers. But the government said: "No, no, we don't want you to do that. You can't lengthen the periods by enough minutes to make up the time. You've got to ensure that the teachers actually teach another class." As my friend from Hamilton Centre said, that means 25 more students, not 25 more minutes, and that's what this was all about.

The member for Hamilton West says that all these things had to be defined. Well, the reason they had to be defined to be sure they didn't count mentoring, for instance, or extra help or extracurricular activities as instruction was because if they did, they could have met the number of minutes without cutting the number of teachers. They had to cut teachers. My question is, this bill does not define guidance or library, so how do teachers who are doing guidance counselling or who are librarians make up the 1,250 minutes according to this government?

1750

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It was unfortunate that the member for the third party didn't really spend a lot of time on the content of this bill. He strayed somewhat and made dollars more the issue. We've got very strict rules in this House, and it's quite appropriate, I think, that we can't use words like "lie" or "dishonest" or "prevaricate" or "mendacious," as tempting as it may be. We can't say that. But when the member, followed by the Liberal member for Oriole, talks about a billion dollars being taken out of education, he's just plain wrong. We will be spending more money on education this year than we did last year and we've spent more money on education every year we've been in office than you did. We've spent more money on education. You talk the talk; we walk the walk. The fact that the Liberal member for Oriole strayed down that same path is very tempting. It's tempting, Mr Speaker. I guess my oeuvre is the fact that the member from the third party started out.

For somebody concerned about money, as we speak, just a couple of blocks south of here at the University Club we've got a whole bunch of people going to the fundraiser of Mr Gerard Kennedy. Allan Rock is the guest speaker. At the same time that the federal Liberals are taking $7 billion off the taxpayers of Ontario, they have no money for the hepatitis C victims. The hep C people are standing on University and they're taking names tonight, and Gerard Kennedy is at the top of the list. That's where the money should be going.

The fact of the matter is, whether it's education or health care, at the provincial level our government is spending more on all the priority areas. We're spending more than the Liberals. We're spending more than the NDP. We're spending what it takes.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre has two minutes to respond.

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the comments made by the members for Oriole and Algoma. I would like to respond to the comments made by the member for Scarborough East and my fellow Hamiltonian, the member for Hamilton West.

First of all, the member for Scarborough East: It's interesting that his first accusation is that I wasn't dealing with the bill and within a minute and a half he was talking about hepatitis C. The word "hypocrisy" comes to mind, but I won't use it, Speaker, because I know it's unparliamentary.

He also accused me of trying to boil this issue down to just dollars. That's what I was doing. I mean, that is very clearly what I was doing. I'm saying that this bill and everything else you've done in education is about dollars. It's about dollars you're taking out of the system because you have to pay for the $5 billion to $6 billion it cost to fund your 30% tax cut, and it's your wealthy friends who are benefiting. So if you think that's some kind of great analysis on your part, you're mistaken. That's what I'm trying to convey. This is not about education. It's about money and about taking money out.

I want to mention to my colleague from Hamilton West, who has not yet appeared on a monthly cable show on a number of community events where we talk about the -

Mrs Ross: What are you talking about?

Mr Christopherson: That's absolutely true - to defend her record on these issues. When we were at Westdale school, the largest high school in our community, I can tell you those students were not convinced by the kind of arguments she's making here. This is about how much money you are spending per pupil and the impact of those dollars, and that when there are fewer teachers and when their time is being spent the way you say it has to be, our education system is poorer. That's the reality. That's the truth.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Ms Mushinski: I want to start off by congratulating my colleague the member for Hamilton West who has this remarkable capacity for bringing focus to the discussion at hand. For about 20 minutes I was listening to the sometimes impassioned speech from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who talked very passionately about teachers. Then, of course, I listened to the rather impassioned and vocal speech from the member for Hamilton Centre who talked a lot about money. But I didn't really hear either of those two people speak about kids. I think it's very important, in looking at the whole issue of instructional time, what this agenda is all about, because our government's agenda is to put students first. We want to put students first by focusing on quality in the classroom.

We know that focusing dollars, money, in the classroom means that we're going to also focus on teachers. I think that's excellent because I believe that in Ontario we happen to have the best teachers in Canada - no mistake about that. What this bill is all about is to really focus on what the best needs of teachers are in the classrooms so that they can get on with the job of giving quality education to our kids. That's what this is all about.

If you look at the act, as my colleague Mrs Ross, the member for Hamilton West, so rightly pointed out, the act is called the instruction time act. If you look at the preamble, it speaks to the parties' inability - that's between the school boards and the teachers' unions - to reach new collective agreements because of differing interpretations of the standards contained in the Education Act.

We know that it's the union's role in life to fight for things that make life easier for teachers. We also know that they have a specific vested interest in protecting the status quo. So it's quite natural, therefore, that they really skewed the whole meaning of instruction. Consequently, they've been arguing for terms which contradict the spirit of the law we passed last year.

For example, I used to do cafeteria duty, I used to do lunchroom duty when my two daughters were in public school. I used to volunteer my time in lunchroom. That is not instructional time; never has been, certainly not in Scarborough, and should not be.

Home monitoring is not instructional time. Instructional time is time that is spent in the classroom teaching our children. The amendment we proposed today will clarify this issue to ensure its consistent, province-wide application as we move ahead to enhance the quality of education for our students. This is all part of our larger agenda, which is to really set the highest possible standards for every student in Ontario.

We've done that by introducing a new rigorous curriculum. We've done that by introducing province-wide testing, easy-to-understand report cards, capping average class sizes, new textbooks, more resources for computers, software and the Internet, tutors in the classroom, protected funding for early learning and junior kindergarten - and I want to repeat that - protected funding for special education, a new high school program, education planning starting in grade 7, new schools to be built sooner, more time for students in the classroom, more time for teachers in the classroom.

That's what this bill is all about. Let's get on with teaching our kids the best education in Canada now.

1800

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The motion for adjournment will be deemed to have been made and we'll proceed with the late show under standing order 37(a). Under that, the member for Renfrew North will have five minutes, and the Minister of Correctional Services or his assistant will have five minutes.

JAIL CLOSURES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I rise tonight to pursue the question of the closure of the Pembroke Jail. I regret that Minister Runciman is not with us tonight, but I gather his parliamentary assistant is here.

In putting the question to the minister yesterday, I noted that his response indicated that the government was closing the 130-year-old jail in Pembroke because, according to the minister's response to me, the Pembroke jail is old, it is not in good shape and it is too costly. I fundamentally disagree with the minister's assessment. The Pembroke jail is 130 years old, but it has been substantially renovated in the last number of years, and I think by all objective standards it meets a very good standard of modern convenience.

Secondly, I reject entirely the minister's argument that there are going to be cost savings as a result of the closure of the Pembroke Jail.

I accept and, as I've said to the minister - we met on this subject almost three years ago - I understand the pressures elsewhere in the province for adjustments in the correctional system. The fundamental difficulty with the closure of the Pembroke Jail is simply this - and, yes, it's going to cost jobs. We can ill afford in the city of Pembroke to lose the $1.5 million worth of payroll and the 40 jobs. It is an issue. That's in part why the Pembroke city council resolved the other night to denounce the decision. That's why the Pembroke downtown business association has resolved so clearly against this government initiative. It is certainly hurtful, and I don't like nor do I support the loss of $1.5 million worth of payroll in an area with above-average unemployment as it is.

But my fundamental concern is that this decision ignores the geographic realities of the largest county in the province, namely Renfrew county. The distance between Ottawa and North Bay is 375 kilometres. Pembroke sits in the middle of that corridor.

If people don't understand, let me make the case. With the loss of the jail in Pembroke, people from communities like Pembroke and Petawawa and Rolphton, Deep River, Barry's Bay, Whitney and Palmer Rapids, to name six or seven Upper Ottawa Valley communities, are going to be forced to travel four to five hours round trip to the nearest jail in Ottawa or Brockville. That's not fair, that's not reasonable, and it's certainly not going to save money.

Can you imagine, I say to the House tonight, telling people in Toronto that their jail is going to be in Sarnia? Can you imagine telling people in Oshawa that their jail is going to be in Brockville? Can you imagine telling people in Orillia that their jail is going to be in Sudbury? It is clearly not reasonable when the distances are that large. I repeat, this decision about the closure of the Pembroke Jail is unfair and unreasonable primarily because it ignores the geographic realities of a very large district, the largest county in the province, namely, Renfrew.

I am also concerned about the fact that it is going to reduce the access of rural people to the justice system. "How?" you ask. Simply this: Under the current arrangement, we have a provincial jail in Pembroke. If I'm a citizen from Chalk River or Petawawa or Barry's Bay or Killaloe and I find myself in the Pembroke Jail, my minister, my priest, my family, my correctional service worker and my lawyer are in the neighbourhood. I have some access to them. If I am transported not to Pembroke but to Ottawa or Brockville, I'm an additional two or three hours away, and that is going to be a real and meaningful hardship on those people, many of these people rural people and many of these people of very modest means, in addition to which it is going to mean that these rural people are going to be materially prejudiced in terms of their sentencing options. My friends know that in the justice system today it is quite common for the courts to hand down things like the day or the weekend pass so you can actually work during the day to keep your job and support your family and serve your time at night or on weekends. That will not be possible for the rural people of the Ottawa Valley, who will lose their neighbourhood jail, their community or their county jail, and be forced to go two or three hours away to serve time in Brockville or Ottawa. That again is a very real hardship for these people. It will not only increase their costs, but it will reduce the access of rural people in the upper Ottawa Valley to the justice system. That's not fair and that's not reasonable.

Finally, it is going to turn the OPP in our county into an expensive taxi service. The minister is going to save $1.5 million on payroll at the Pembroke Jail. I tell you, he is going to spend at least that much annually on policing, on turning the OPP into a taxi service, hauling people from Rolphton and Killaloe and points all around down the road on a daily basis, 300 kilometres to places like Brockville. It's not fair, it's not reasonable, it won't save money and it should be -

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member's time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the member for London South.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I rise in response to a question put to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services yesterday in this House by the member for Renfrew North. The minister has asked me to respond on his behalf, as he had a previous commitment in the constituency.

First of all, the minister wanted me to put on the record the rationale for the long-overdue changes that this government is making to improve the correctional system in Ontario. It's important to note that the older jails in Ontario were never built to form a coordinated province-wide correctional system. Previous governments, including the former Liberal government, knew about this problem but did not take the necessary action to correct it. This government is taking action.

The Provincial Auditor has been critical of the overall cost of the correctional system in this province. The average cost per inmate per day is $124. That's the highest of any province in Canada, and it's unacceptable. The daily cost at the Pembroke Jail is almost $170 per day. In fact, in 1993 the auditor took a look at the older, inefficient jails in Ontario, including the Pembroke Jail, which is 131 years old. The auditor recommended that the ministry reduce these costs by closing the old jails and investing in new institutions. The NDP government actually began this process when they closed the Perth Jail. By building a compact system of larger, no-frills jails, we'll save taxpayers some $75 million per year in the correctional system. We'll also be putting the jails and the programs where they are needed across the province. This will allow more inmates to access better programming to turn their lives around.

In response to the member's specific concerns about transportation of prisoners, on behalf of the minister I want to assure this House that there is already a committee in place to deal with transportation issues, which includes representatives from the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Pembroke Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, the correctional services division, as well as stakeholders such as judges and criminal lawyers' associations.

I can also say that the existing criminal justice system, which has 250,000 court transfers taking place each year, can and will be improved under our plan. In fact, the Attorney General has already indicated that $6.5 million will be invested in a new courthouse in Pembroke. I'm also advised that this new courthouse will be equipped with holding cells. Alternatives to transfers, such as increasing the use of technology such as video remand, are also being explored.

In any case, you cannot compare the $2.1-million cost of operating the Pembroke Jail with the much lower cost of transporting offenders. Even if we had a staff vehicle going back and forth between Pembroke and the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre every day, there would still not be a bona fide business case for keeping the old, costly jail in Pembroke open.

With respect to the issue of visits by family members or lawyers, the new and improved facilities will have designated areas for family and professional visits. Audio and video conferencing will also be used to ensure effective communication between lawyers and their clients in custody.

The member also had concerns about the availability of sentencing options such as intermittent or weekend sentences. Although these types of sentences are provided for by the Criminal Code of Canada, the Ontario government has not identified any advantages or benefits to these sentences; in fact, just the opposite. We have very serious concerns about the smuggling of contraband and weapons into our jails as a result of people serving time on weekends. We are pressing the federal government to eliminate this option altogether.

In closing, the minister wanted me to address issues of concern to employees and consultation. Under the minister's leadership, the ministry held at least 24 meetings with OPSEU representatives over a two-month period this year to explore ways of lowering costs and the possibility of some of our older institutions remaining open. After all these extensive consultations it was clear that there was no viable, cost-effective alternative to our plan.

Finally, I want to indicate for the record that the minister is continuing to meet with local officials to hear their concerns. I want to assure the member that the minister is scheduled to meet with the mayor of Pembroke, Les Scott, in the very near future.

The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn is deemed to have made. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock next Monday.

The House adjourned at 1811.