Hansard Transcripts 1983-Feb-04 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, as you can appreciate, and as I am sure the government House leader would indicate, our interest this morning is to hold this government to account for its role in the deepening Ontario recession. I would have thought that one of the finance-related department heads might have attended at this place and I am wondering whether we can expect -- I see the Premier is arriving so perhaps I might direct my first question to the leader of the government.

I am sure the Premier is aware that this morning StatsCan has released its unemployment data for the month of January 1983 and the data are, as they have been for too many months, serious and disconcerting. The Premier will know that the actual unemployment rate for Ontario increased from 11.7 per cent in December 1982 to 12.7 per cent in January 1983, the largest one-month increase in the actual unemployment rate for Ontario in the past 12-month period. There are now, as of January 1983, fully 564,000 Ontarians out of work. Some 67,000 jobs have been lost in the Ontario economy over the past month. Among young males in Ontario, it is estimated that one in four was out of work or looking for work in the past month.

Given the incredible dimensions of that economic and human tragedy, can the leader of this government indicate this morning to this House and the people beyond, what specific undertakings he is prepared to enter into to deal with the worsening crisis and the human tragedy we in this province have come to know as the face of unemployment in the winter of 1983?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, to try to keep this matter in perspective, while acknowledging without question that it is a serious matter that concerns all of us, we should also look at some of the things that are happening.

It is fair to state that there are some encouraging signs in the auto sector. When I say encouraging, they are certainly not signs that would indicate we will get back to positions in 1983 that were prevalent in the latter 1970s, but I think if the honourable member analyses the figures, the more than 500,000 who are unemployed at the moment, he will find that part of it does relate to the auto sector where we see some signs of improvement.

We have had no indication, to take the Sudbury area as an instance, that the recall at Inco, which it has been said will take place in the latter part of March or the early part of April, will not proceed. We face certain situations in the steel industry, which once again is rather directly related to the auto sector, where a large portion of these total figures are obviously involved.

The acting leader of the Liberal Party could suggest that there might be some additional make-work or short-term programs. The government is never reluctant to consider those, but if the member looks at the total figures I think he may find a lot of them are men and women who are laid off from jobs to which we are really quite confident they will be returned. It is a question of time.

I would say to the acting leader of the Liberal Party that there is not a great deal that governments generally can do about those sectors that are totally dependent on international trade. There is nothing the government --

Mr. Foulds: Then why is the Premier going on with his trade missions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am trying to be as helpful as I can.

I would say with respect to the Sudbury area, for instance, that no matter what we might do by way of incentives or initiatives internally within Canada they will not alter the international demand for nickel. In that the vast bulk of whatever is produced by the nickel industry is, in fact, for export, the acting leader of the Liberal Party will understand that we are dependent. It may be regrettable, but this country cannot consume that amount of nickel. We are dependent upon the international marketplace.

This also applies to a certain extent to some of our other basic industries. The honourable member obviously has some interest in the wood industry. His constituency is impacted by that market to a certain extent, as are other members in terms of the pulp and paper part of the wood industry. Once again, domestic demand is a part, but international demand is the bulk of the pulp and paper side of the industry. This government cannot encourage our customers in the United States or abroad to buy more newsprint if they are not in a position to buy more newsprint.

10:10 a.m.

I think the government is aware of the serious nature of the problem. We have, in co-operation with the federal government, moved into these programs. They are now beginning to take place. Quite frankly, they are short-term programs; short-term in terms of the next several months, some of them related to capital works.

In the area of housing, it has been demonstrated that the government has taken the initiative we have seen and I think it has been productive. I would want the honourable member to understand that we are aware of the figures. I have not had an opportunity to talk to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) this morning but I am sure he will be assessing these in terms of other possible initiatives and, of course, in the context of his next budget which, as the days go by, is not that far away.

I do not think we should mislead ourselves in not understanding that part of our economic recovery, part of these figures -- a substantial portion of them -- relate to situations created by either the domestic market over which government has no control and, quite frankly, by the international market.

I think there are some encouraging signs in the auto sector, which is so fundamental to this province, about 23 per cent or 24 per cent of our economy. I do not want to exaggerate them because figures have gone up before and tended to slide off, but this is one area where I think we can see some improvement, and it will have a significant impact upon the economy of this province.

Mr. Conway: The Premier draws our attention to the state of the auto industry, for example, and indications that there is a recovery. Might I cite for his attention that in the city of Oshawa the actual unemployment rate went from 13.8 per cent in December to 14 per cent in January? In the St. Catharines-Niagara area, where the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) would clearly know the auto industry plays an important role, the actual unemployment rate went from 20.2 per cent to 21.7 per cent. In Windsor, the actual unemployment rate went from 18.4 per cent to 20.9 per cent in the one-month period under review at this time. In the city of Toronto, the actual unemployment rate increased from 9.1 per cent to 9.9 per cent during that 31-day period.

Surely, the Premier will appreciate that notwithstanding the commitment the Treasurer made in this House not many months ago to join with the federal government in certain short-term make-work projects, the provincial commitment being for 30,000 jobs over the next 18 months, the data from Statscan this morning indicate that 67,000 jobs have been lost in this province in just the last one-month period. So taking the Treasurer's commitment at full sail, it deals with only a minuscule part of the situation at large; in fact, with only 50 per cent of the jobs lost in a 31-day period ending January 1983.

Can the Premier give an assurance to the Legislature this morning and to those 560,000-odd unemployed Ontarians? Might I interject that 276,000 jobs have been lost in this province since the Treasurer's last budget in May 1982? Can I inquire of the Premier, as leader of the government, what specific undertakings he is prepared to commit himself and his government to today for those people in this province looking for work?

There are tens of thousands now being thrown on to general welfare assistance at a crippling cost to the municipal tax base across this province. What specific undertakings with respect to new job creation is the government, the Premier, his Treasurer and others prepared to announce this morning to deal with the worsening tragedy of this unemployment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think we should be fairly careful of our terminology. The honourable member says "jobs lost". I think it would be better to describe some of them, at least, as jobs that are temporarily not being performed. I think there is a distinction.

Mr. Rae: Misplaced, just temporarily.

Mr. Foulds: Temporarily misplaced in the closet somewhere.

Mr. Rae: Just cannot find them anywhere.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I live in a community that is somewhat dependent on the auto sector. It is somewhat dependent on the aircraft industry. They all appear in the figures. There is a distinction between a job lost, with the connotation that particular job will not reappear at some time, and a situation where numbers of workers are laid off because of market conditions, but where the jobs will reappear. I think the member will find the January figures do not reflect some of the call-backs that have taken place.

For instance, if one looks at the Sudbury figures, and if one asks the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), I think one would find it difficult to accept that the rate actually has been reduced in Sudbury, even though that is what the statistics apparently show. I do not have the individual figures for Brampton at the moment, but American Motors (Canada) announced a layoff some six weeks ago. That has now been altered and they are moving other production into the plant. I do not know whether the figures will as yet reflect some of the potential orders, say from McDonnell Douglas, another major employer in our general part of this province, but those too are jobs some of which will be coming back on stream.

The Treasurer has made it abundantly clear in this House that if there are further initiatives which are meaningful and productive, the government is not reluctant to consider them, but I hope the honourable member understands that these numbers do reflect an economic situation in this province that is not dissimilar to that of the rest of North America or, quite frankly, to that of a lot of other countries in the world. Part of our economy is dependent on the economic health of our neighbours to the south. There are some encouraging signs, and I do not want to exaggerate them, particularly in the auto sector that will have a positive impact here if they are maintained.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the Premier referred to Sudbury and said we cannot do anything about the demand for nickel. I assume he says the same thing about other one-industry towns. Why should the people of this province, and the members of this assembly, be satisfied with the kind of economic planning that accepts one-industry towns have to remain one-industry towns?

Why does this government, which has been in power for 40 years, not put together regional economic plans that diversify those economies and create jobs that build on the base which already exists in the Sudburys, the Windsors and the Brantfords, in Ontario? Why is the Premier always satisfied with the status quo?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of the government being "satisfied with the status quo." I say with the greatest respect to the honourable member from the Windsor area that while Windsor is without question dependent to a great extent on the auto sector, over the years I have been in this House and have been relatively familiar with Windsor, there has been some diversification of activity. The member has seen it happen, so have we.

I also cannot help but remind the member that the government has taken initiatives in his community which we think are helpful both in the short and long term. As we are discussing this in the House at the moment there are men employed in one or two plants who he knows and I know would not otherwise have been employed. I cannot help but remind him those initiatives were opposed by the member and his colleagues.

Mr. Conway: I have long admired and been amazed at the Premier's language and his use thereof. I could not believe my ears moments ago when I heard him say something about jobs not so much being lost as jobs not being performed. I want to say to the Premier that almost every major city in Ontario that was surveyed by Statscan in the month of January shows an increase, and in some cases such as Kitchener-Waterloo a sharp increase, in actual unemployment for January 1983 over 1982. I cannot believe the Premier really believes there is something out there about jobs not being performed which is really a problem he cannot deal with.

Let me be specific about an industry he mentioned in my part of the province that he might do something about. There are 50 heads of families unemployed in the village of Eganville because for about 15 months their mill has apparently not been able to secure sufficient supply and other things to keep it operational.

Fifty people are out of work in the village of Eganville. Not too many days ago, the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski), and at a later date myself and others, met with these people to ascertain what we could do to put that community back to work.

In last week's local press, the local clergy were inviting members of this assembly to do something about the fact that in that area, while 50 people are out of work, this government is seeing to the shipping out of the county of millions of feet of saw-log material.

If I might be specific and somewhat parochial, would the Premier give an undertaking to the 50 heads of families who have been out of work for months in the village of Eganville at the G. W. Martin mill, to their clergymen and to their members, that he will look into the circumstances surrounding the long-term shutdown of that facility and the role his government is playing in G. W. Martin Lumber, an ever-expanding concern in that part of eastern and northeastern Ontario? With the active support of this government, that company is shipping millions of feet of saw-log material out of the county and is causing a loss of jobs in places like Eganville.

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not think any of us should ever apologize for appearing to be parochial. It may come as a bit of a shock to the honourable member, but I take as much interest in my constituency, if that is being parochial, as he does. I do not think he has to apologize to the House for mentioning Eganville, or for the concern he has for these 50 families or for reflecting the views of the clergy. I assume he is referring to all denominations in what he suggested.

I would just go back though to the early part of the question, because I do not want to get hung up on terminology, but there are certain situations in the economy where because of changing technology, restructuring or rationalization of some businesses, some jobs that were part of that industry or that particular phase of our economic activity, because of technological change or what have you, those jobs will not reappear. Others will come to fill that void. I draw a distinction because the technical term "jobs lost" is an indication that those jobs will not reappear in the same form.

I draw the distinction between people who are presently laid off at AMC, where in my view they will return to employment, and people who may be in an industry where because of rationalization or restructuring, a particular job will not reappear. That is the distinction I am making and I think it is a very fair one.

In terms of short-term activity, the Treasurer has made it very clear that if there are further initiatives we think are meaningful and productive, the government is obviously prepared to assess them. But I do point out there are many in that total of over 500,000 who have been employed in industries which at this time are not operating at even close to capacity. Given some of the indications, we are quite confident many of these people will be back to work at some point during 1983. That is the distinction I am trying to draw.

With respect to the G. W. Martin mill in Eganville, I am quite prepared to inquire of the minister if there is anything the government might do to assist in the situation. I am sure the member has had discussions with the minister himself. I will give the member that assurance, and since the 50 heads of families are not here, I am sure over the weekend, in some form or other, he will convey my answer to them.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind all members that 20 minutes have been used on the first question.

Mr. Rae: Half of it in the questions themselves.

Mr. Foulds: Maybe you should have reminded us at the 12 minute mark.

Mr. Conway: I do apologize, Mr. Speaker. I admit that was somewhat extended and I appreciate your injunction. However, I want to share with the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) the frustration many of us feel about the questions and perhaps, not always, about the answers.

FUNDING FOR EDUCATION

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Knowing his long and close association with university affairs in this province, I would like to ask a question in that policy field.

Amid reports that outstanding academics in Ontario are leaving this province for points west and south, that books are rotting in Ontario libraries, that schools of architecture may have to be closed in whole or in part, amid reports everywhere that what in the past has largely been spoken of as one of the best university systems anywhere is in a state of serious jeopardy and decline, and accepting as we all must that a healthy university community is very much in our immediate and long-term interest, I wonder whether the Premier might stand in his place this morning and indicate to this House what commitment in terms of operating grants for 1983-84 his government is prepared to announce. That announcement is expected in the university community.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have maintained an interest in the university community. I read some of these observations and I am concerned about some of them. I think others are somewhat exaggerated. There is no question that there is always a certain degree of mobility in terms of faculty. There are occasions when good faculty members are attracted to other destinations. That has always been the case but, with respect, I suggest some reports are modestly exaggerated.

I do not think there is any question that one of our sister provinces has indicated that it would like to attract a number of people into that province. Whether it feels quite as strongly about this today as it did a year ago when one looks at its present economic situation, I am not so sure. I keep up a bit of communication with institutions south of the border, and I can assure the honourable member there will not be many Canadian or Ontario faculty members leaving Ontario universities to move to the United States. I would point out, as I have done to some of the university community here, that there used to be an attraction in going to the great state of California. That attraction no longer exists in economic terms.

On occasion I go to Michigan to pursue university activities. On occasion, I get to Ohio State. I talk to their presidents. I am told the state legislature in midterm gave an absolute reduction in budget of five per cent, not just once but twice. If the member pursues this objectively, if he is going to use a comparison of our universities with our American neighbours, he will find, in terms of provincial vis-à-vis state level of support, this province has performed very well. I say that totally objectively.

If the honourable member is asking me to state what the funding arrangements will be for 1983-84, the minister is here and she will tell him the government is not ready to do that at this moment, but those figures will be announced not too far down the road.

If he wants me to agree with him, because really he has said what I have said on many occasions, support for and quality in our university system without question are essential in terms of the economic and social development of this province. I agree with him. I think I have now answered both his questions.

Mr. Conway: Can the Premier indicate this morning when that announcement of operating grants is going to be made? Can he indicate whether it will be an announcement that will be at one with the recommendations of the Fisher report, which called for a funding level for the next five years that at least would match the inflation the community is experiencing? Can he indicate that level at least will be maintained?

Furthermore, since the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) has not made a statement in this respect, as the architect of much of the system and as leader of this government, can he indicate whether he is prepared today or in the very near future to make a statement about what this government's response to its own blue ribbon committee is going to he? Without that response, there exists a policy vacuum out there that is eroding and undermining both the operation of those facilities and much of the public confidence in same.

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I too enjoy the rhetoric of the honourable member. When he gets up, he gets carried away to a certain extent. I perhaps spend as much time, even with my other responsibilities, listening to and meeting with people from the academic community.

I am very flattered the member considers me the architect of the universities in this province, because his predecessors as education critics over there in debate after debate reminded me as minister how government had no responsibility, academic autonomy was fundamental and what happened within the universities, apart from financial support, was their own doing. I never quarrelled with that.

The fact is, we did have some modest involvement, but I say to the member, do not call me the architect. I am flattered, but factually that was not so.

When it comes to the college system --

Mr. Foulds: Speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, he makes speeches; why should I not make them?

Mr. Foulds: It's our question period. They are both abusing the question period.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say the member tends to exaggerate the problems. There is that tendency.

I will make this rather general statement. I cannot say when the grant announcements are going to he made. Can I put it in simple terms? This government recognizes the priority of our post-secondary institutions. We know they are under pressure, as they are in every part of North America.

I will tell him something else. I will continue to compare the quality of our universities in this province with those in any other province of Canada and with any state of the union. They will compare favourably, and that will continue to be the case, partially because of government and partially because of the quality of the people in the system.

I know more about it than the member does, because I got two kids in there and he ain't got none there.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I got two kids going there and I am worried. The Premier may be able to brag at the moment, but in a few years he will not be able to stand up and use those words.

Is the Premier aware the earth sciences department of the neighbouring institution across the road is one of the world-class departments on this continent and ranks with the Cambridge institute of earth sciences in eminence in that field? Earth sciences is a field of study that ought to symbolize where we are at in Canada. What is more relevant than oil and minerals?

Is the Premier aware that over the past decade, moneys available have gone from $59 to 59 per student? Is he aware this has happened at a time when the graph of enrolment has gone up dramatically? Is he aware that although that department has been able to attract moneys for research, it has equipment there which the overhead and physical capacities of the place simply do not enable it to plug in and get working?

Will the Premier not respond to the letters I am getting from across the province which ask his government to take advantage of the fact it has put a cap of five per cent on the increase in salaries in the university system, to improve the physical amenities of the university system so that at least that aspect of the system will move back to where it has come from in the past and put us back on the road to excellence in the universities?

Will he respond to the recommendations of the Council of Ontario Universities and the Ontario Council on University Affairs for 11.2 per cent or 11.8 per cent funding increases this year? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It may come as a great shock to the honourable member, but I am aware of some of the observations that were made to him and others. Was it at Hart House, yesterday, that he picked up some of this information?

Mr. Mackenzie: Quit playing games.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just wanted the member to know I have some modest knowledge of this issue. I hate to tell him, but I am relatively familiar with the financing at McMaster. I know some of their financial difficulties. I also know some of the economic pluses they have received over the past year or so from benefactors. That came as a great shock to them. I think it was tremendous. The member is aware of those.

Mr. Allen: It is not true of Carleton and it is not true of other places.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can prolong this discussion if the member wishes. I do not pretend to have his intellectual knowledge of the university system, but neither am I totally unaware.

The member forgot one thing at the University of Toronto yesterday when he was discussing some of their difficulties and the proposition that now there was a five per cent lid in terms of faculty salary increases. He should do a little mental arithmetic and recall something. There is an 18 per cent settlement across the road with his colleagues in that faculty which will be honoured in this current year. He should tell me how one resolves that problem unless he is prepared to go over and tell them to volunteer to take less. I do not think he is ready to do that.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, if we are counting, I would point out to the Premier that I have four at present in university in Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: And six more coming along.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sweeney: He knows the number as well as I do.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just enough.

Mr. Sweeney: Two of them have classes ranging in size from 400 to 600 because there is not enough faculty. One of them just yesterday stood in line for two hours and was limited to a 10-minute appointment with her professor because he had such a backlog of students. That is the kind of problem students are facing in the universities.

The Premier said a few minutes ago in response to our acting leader that there is some credibility gap with the people who are expressing concerns about the university system. But the Premier will be well aware that a former deputy minister of this province, Dr. Douglas Wright, who is now the president of the University of Waterloo, one of the finest universities in this country, I would concur, if not in North America --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You had better. It's close to your riding.

Mr. Sweeney: It is. Just last week Dr. Wright, the president of the University of Waterloo, in delivering his first major talk to the entire university community, expressed a series of concerns about the deteriorating quality of the programs being offered at his university and at other universities in this province.

Is the Premier prepared to say that Dr. Douglas Wright, with all his background both in the government and in the universities, does not know what he is talking about, does not have credibility and is not expressing what is really happening at some of the universities in this province? Sure it is a good system, but it is going down the tubes if it keeps going the way the government is treating it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know it is the politic thing is to say the system is going down the tubes. The honourable member knows it is not, and I know it is not. I am not going to comment on class size except to make one or two observations now that the member has asked me about it. I attended the institution across the road. I was there in 1949, 1950 and 1951.

Mr. Breithaupt: It was smaller then.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was not a lot smaller then.

I have to tell the member some of the most stimulating lectures I received were in classes of 400 to 500 students. I remember Bertie Wilkinson lecturing to us in history. He could capture the attention of 400 students. It was no great challenge for him, and it was an inspiration for those of us who were in attendance. Students do not necessarily get that when there are 30 in the class.

I think one has to be careful. The member is the expert in education and I am not, but I went through the system. I have had some modest experience of it. I think the member should be careful not to say that because his youngster was in a lecture the other day with 400 or whatever number of students, that was necessarily a negative learning experience. I have to tell him that for me some of the most important lectures and some of the people I remember from that great institution were in classes of 300 to 400 students.

It was the same in political science and English. Claude Bissell, one of the great lecturers at the U of T, who emerged as president after his experience as dean of men's residences at University College, used to lecture in English. It was not to 30 or 50 students; it was 150 to 200.

The member is talking about the calibre and the quality of professors. He should be careful not to get hung up on the numbers game. I do not know where his youngster is; mine is at Western. I am not going to get on to that institution. I have another at Laurier, which is next door to Waterloo. The have some reservations and some concerns, but they are not much different from 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

Mr. Breithaupt: I know that too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member would know that institution; that is right.

I have to say to the member that I think all of us are doing the university community a disservice by saying the universities are going down the tubes. They are not.

Sure, there are concerns. I know what Dr. Wright said, and I think he used the word "apprehension." Sure, we all have apprehensions. I have them too, not as related to universities. I have apprehensions about the member on occasion. No, I do not, not really.

But let us not kid ourselves that the universities are going down the tubes. They are not. I assure the member this is not going to happen. He knows it is not going to happen; so does the acting leader of his party.

10:40 a.m.

SECURITY TRUST CO.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, as much as I hate cutting off the Premier in the middle of these fishing stories and reminiscences, which I am sure we all enjoy on a Friday morning, do have a question for him in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), and it concerns another trust company.

Can the Premier confirm whether the registrar of loan and trust corporations has taken any action with respect to the Security Trust Co.? Can he confirm that the company as of today does not appear to be taking any deposits? In fact, when one of our researchers phoned this morning, he was informed the company had not been taking any deposits since Wednesday. Can he tell us whether any official or executive of that company has resigned since November 1982, which was the date of the last annual meeting?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can neither confirm nor deny.

Mr. Rae: If I may, I wish to advise the Premier of the following: On November 22, 1982, a building at 777-787 Jane Street -- which happens to be in the heart of York South, as I am sure the Premier appreciates -- was sold by M. E. Kiepura to 404938 Ontario Ltd. for $3.2 million. A series of transactions took place on January 6, which was the day before Seaway Trust was taken over by the government. The building was mortgaged to the Dresdner Bank of Canada for $2.5 million and to Security Trust for $416,000. There now are additional mortgages of $450,000 and $1 million.

This means the mortgaged value of the property, as the Premier will appreciate, is well over the 75 per cent limit, which on the face of it would appear to mean Security Trust, whose mortgage was guaranteed by one Florindo Volpi, is in breach of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

I would like the Premier to undertake to this House, on behalf of the minister, that he will inform the House with respect to this transaction on Monday and that he will tell us exactly what the position of Security Trust is. It would appear the rot in the trust industry has spread beyond the three companies the government took over at the beginning of January.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not aware of that transaction, and I will not get into the figures at all. I understand the leader of the third party recited certain mortgage arrangements above and beyond that of Security Trust, which had a $400,000 mortgage. I cannot comment on that at all.

I will be delighted to have the minister reply to this on Monday. I cannot guarantee Monday; if not Monday, Tuesday.

Mr. Rae: I am sure the Premier will appreciate that this kind of information, which we received as a result of concerns expressed by tenants in these buildings and which we then followed up because of our concerns about the nature of the transaction, surely indicates something is going on out there with respect to not simply those trust companies that have been taken over but also the lending practices of at least one other trust institution, it would appear on the face of it.

Does the Premier not think it is time the whole question of valuation and the lending practices of trust institutions should be referred to a public inquiry so the public can be satisfied and can have confidence in institutions, so we can put the trust back into the trust business? Does he not think it is time to have that kind of public inquiry so we are not continually faced day by day with additional information about new companies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We have had some discussion in this House about the way some people approach the question of value, and I do not intend to get into that debate. I think the act itself makes very clear the traditional and generally accepted approach to value, and that is one I understand.

I do not understand some of the arguments being made by some, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), about other approaches to value, whether you take into account the income generation of a particular facility. I do not intend to get into that discussion.

I only say to the honourable member that I am not aware of that situation. I will ask the minister to report to the House as it relates to this. I cannot guarantee it for Monday, but certainly he will be here on Tuesday. He may be here Monday as well; I am not sure.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier about the unemployment situation and about what is happening to the Ontario economy. Very briefly, the real number of unemployed has increased to 801,000 and the number of young people under 24 unemployed now is 207,000. We have gone over the 200,000 mark for young people; I know that disturbs everybody in this Legislature.

The particular information I want to ask the Premier for is this: instead of focusing his attention and his remarks, as he has done in his answers to the members of the Liberal Party, on what cannot be done and on things the Ontario government cannot do, why does he not turn his attention to the things the Ontario government can do with respect to construction, basic industry and many of the proposals we have made for increasing public investment and for increasing the degree of confidence in real activity in the economy?

I wonder whether the Premier will turn his attention to the things that can be done in housing, employment directly, things the provincial government can do. Will he please tell us when he plans to do the things that can be done?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is a distinction between what I was discussing with the members of the Liberal Party and the narrower focus of other job creation activities that might be undertaken by government.

I endeavoured to point out to the acting leader of the Liberal Party the impact on the economy here of international marketplaces. For us to ignore that would be totally unrealistic. I am sure the leader of the New Democratic Party is not suggesting we can.

I do not have a solution to the nickel market. I confess it to him. I have never heard him with a solution to the market. He has a solution with respect to the production side, that nationalizing Inco could increase the marketplace. I have news for him. It would not have any impact whatsoever. It would probably make it less efficient, less productive and probably mean a greater negative in terms of that industry. That is a philosophical difference in our point of view.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) is meeting today with Mr. Axworthy to announce further initiatives under the co-operative agreement with the government of Canada.

The leader of the New Democratic Party has indicated there should be greater or more provincial initiatives in housing. This government has never argued against the impact of construction in the housing industry on the economy generally.

It is fair to mention, along with the figures in Metropolitan Toronto, the initiative taken by this government with respect to the Metro convention centre. Here is a $50-million to $60-million construction program going on a mile and half from this building which the member does not even mention.

This government, in co-operation with two other governments, now is providing a major economic incentive to the construction industry in Metropolitan Toronto. I do not hear the member saying what a great thing it is and that he appreciates the initiative taken by this government. It is not too far from his riding. There are people in his riding working now on the Metro convention centre. Surely that is an initiative. Surely it is something he should acknowledge.

I have not ignored the suggestions related to housing. It is one area this government has always looked at in terms of economic initiative.

Mr. Rae: The fact remains that the projected welfare budget for Metro alone in 1983-84 is going to be $135 million, which is almost as much as the province expects to spend in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program for the whole province for that same year.

If one looks a the cost of welfare right across the province for the past year, it is upwards of $323 million, which is twice as much as the government is spending on the BILD program.

As somebody who is supposed to be concerned about bright, smart, intelligent and fair ways of spending money, does the Premier not think it is better for the province to invest in housing, to invest in those employment opportunities it can create, rather than spending money on welfare?

Does he not realize the people of this province, the people of York South and all the ridings represented here, want work and not welfare? They want jobs. They want the challenge of having a paycheque at the end of a week and the satisfaction of being able to provide for themselves and their families.

This is a human crisis, and I really think the Premier, in emphasizing all the things that cannot be done, has really missed the point. The people of this province are looking to leadership for the things that can be done. All we are saying to the Premier is simply there is more that can be done, there are projects that can be undertaken. Will he not please start them now, get them off the drawing boards and get people to work?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not quarrel with the member's observations. There is always more that can be done. I have never argued that, and I certainly shall not this morning. I agree with the member, because I have made observations of this nature in speeches myself. It is far better both for the economy and for the individuals involved to have people productively employed than to have them drawing welfare.

The member is not going to get me on the other side of that issue, because I made speeches on that issue before he even got into politics, and I happen to believe it.

Mr. Rae: I heard them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly he heard them. He was up in the gallery as a youth and he heard one or two of them. I am surprised he did not get into debate on the universities, because as a youth he used to listen to my speeches. He never paid any attention, but he listened.

I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that this government is very sensitive to this issue. As I say, the Minister of Labour at this moment is joining with Mr. Axworthy in announcing other initiatives. We have not precluded the possibility this government will take further initiatives, perhaps even before the budget. I make no commitments, but we have to have projects that are meaningful, that will create jobs and that we can justify economically.

The member points out housing. He is not going to get an argument from me about housing, its need and the spinoff to the economy.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, with reference to what the province can do, can the Premier explain why, during the 1981 election and as part of this wonderful Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, he promised the people of Sault Ste. Marie that $19.2 million would be spent on the King Mountain project but to date nothing has been done?

Can he explain why the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) and the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) promised their constituents in August 1981 that money would be spent from the BILD program on marinas but to date nothing has been done?

The Premier will also recall in all three of those cases the point was made that they would generate jobs for construction and long-term jobs, both part-time and full-time, in the operation of these projects.

These are things the government of Ontario promised more than two years ago, and it has not done them. So it is not a case of what the province cannot do; it is what the province promised to do and has not done. Why?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, a number of initiatives were announced in the BILD program

Mr. Kerrio: All over the province.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Sure, in a lot of places; and the honourable member has selected three areas where things have not happened.

Mr. Sweeney: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. I was in Cambridge, where something happened the other day, where the mayor of Cambridge said -- and I quote her correctly -- she was unabashedly excited about the opening of that centre. I know the member was excited; I could tell from the look on his face he was enthused.

Mr. Sweeney: I sure was.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Sure, and so was everybody else there. It is a very exciting development.

The member selects three projects. At King Mountain, just outside Sault Ste. Marie, the government made it clear and it is still the intent of the government that it would co-operate with the private sector. That was emphasized at the time the announcement was made. In fact, the private sector was there; the private sector has to have a part in it.

Because of economic conditions in that sort of venture the private sector at this time is not moving that rapidly, there is no question about that, but that does not --

Mr. Sweeney: Did you check with them ahead of time?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, they were there with me when the announcement was made. I mean, members opposite get so cynical about these things.

The member talks about the marinas. I was in Sarnia not very long ago. That program is still very much a part of the consideration of that community. The member opposite refers to the member for Simcoe East -- a great fellow; he is going to be there a long time.

I do not want to trouble the member this weekend -- it is not the best weekend to do it -- but he says that nothing has been done. If he has a spare moment he might take Highway 400, get off at the cutoff, go up Highway 27 or Highway 93 and find his way to Midland.

When he gets to downtown Midland he should turn right, head towards the sign that says the Martyrs' Shrine. It is right opposite Sainte Marie among the Hurons. If he has not been there, he will enjoy it.

If he takes the road to the left as he goes past the shrine, he will get to the Wye River marina, one of the great new marinas developing on Midland Bay in the riding of Simcoe East. He may find there has been some modest BILD money to help create that marina.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is aware that the unemployment figures in Hamilton show one of the largest jumps, up another one and a half per cent to 16.7 per cent. I am sure the Premier is also aware a further 100 employees have been laid off at National Steel Car and there are less than 175 people in that plant, which had 1,400 just a few short months ago.

I am sure the Premier is further aware that it is acknowledged by all parties that an order for 1,280 rail coal cars is on stream but, for whatever reason, will not be released until May or June.

Inasmuch as the need is desperate, the winter months are on us now and there are an awful lot of people out of work in the city of Hamilton, can the Premier tell us whether he will use his influence, since he has the Minister of Labour meeting with Mr. Axworthy, to break that logI am, or use his stature federally?

If that order were placed now -- which it could be, according to all the information I have -- we would put 500 people to work immediately for at least the next three to four months in the city of Hamilton. As it stands now, while we know it is coming and while everybody has agreed, it seems the order cannot be put on track until May or June. That does not make any sense. There are 500 jobs the Premier could use his stature to provide now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to make every effort.

BILD PROGRAM

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. As we all know, BILD stands for Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. I cite the example of the city of Windsor, which is a prime industrial centre in the province. Surely that qualifies it for some portion of the industrial leadership part of BILD.

Windsor also has the second highest unemployment in this province, qualifying the area in my eyes for BILD development. Yet if the facts I received from the BILD office are correct, and I have no reason to doubt them, Windsor in 1981-82 received only $1.1 million of BILD money. This is less than one per cent of the total BILD funds awarded last year.

Windsor is not even receiving BILD money based on population, let alone employment figures. The city of Windsor has 2.2 per cent of the provincial population while the region has 2.5 per cent, yet last year Windsor received only 0.898 per cent of the BILD funds available.

I ask the Premier why areas such as Windsor, areas with acute unemployment problems, are not getting enough BILD money to create the necessary jobs? How can the Premier let the people of Windsor down in this way?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have great affection for the city of Windsor and surrounding communities.

Mr. Cooke: They do not have much affection for the Premier and his Tories.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Whenever I am there at an opening or something, I notice the honourable member is there with his smiling countenance taking credit for it all. I am always welcomed on those occasions.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We had a great fund-raising dinner down there the other night, with some 700 people. I met some of the member's former supporters.

Mr. Cooke: Not mine -- those of the Liberals.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I met more of the member's former supporters than theirs.

Mr. Conway: Was Morley Rosenberg there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, he was not; nor were any of the member's relatives. I have met some of his relatives.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please. Just ignore the interruptions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite right. I should.

Mr. Epp: The two Rosenbergs have a third brother.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand that. The member knows one is from Kitchener-Waterloo, not from Brampton.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

Mr. Epp: Not from Waterloo -- from Kitchener.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I see. The member is singling out the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). I understand that.

I say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville, the principle of BILD is not necessarily related to geography or population. The principle behind BILD is to seek out those new initiatives and areas of economic development where we can, with some conscience, allocate funding.

11 a.m.

I heard representatives from Windsor. It is one of the communities that was considered in terms of the Ontario Centre for Automotive Parts Technology. I think it is fair to state if it had gone to Windsor the honourable member would not have asked his question, nor would he have stood in his place and said, "Thank you for getting it there." I understand that.

How many people are there in Windsor now? There are at least 130,000 people in Brampton. It is smaller than Windsor but it is getting close. To my knowledge, I do not think we have had any money spent in Brampton because there has not been a project in that community that would qualify for the general principles of BILD.

If something emerges in Windsor, if there is a particular project that meets the guidelines of BILD and the member brings it to the attention of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), quite obviously we are going to consider it, but it is not a program that parcels it out on the basis of population. I think the member will respect that. If he has something, or the community does, or industry there does, and the member brings it to the attention of the chairman of BILD, I know it will be objectively assessed.

Mr. Newman: I never hesitate to extend my congratulations and thanks to the government when it provides some needed facility for my community; however, that happens so often I have not had that opportunity. I only wish the Premier would pay attention to the voices of the people in the city when they ask for equal and fair treatment for the community. By any standard, unemployment or population, Windsor is getting less money from BILD than it deserves. If my information is correct, Windsor will actually get less money this year.

For example, the community college equipment program at St. Clair College has been allocated $160,000 less this year than in 1981-82. The program's actual expenditures in 1981-82 were $482,000. This year BILD has allocated that program only $322,000.

In the light of that fact, can the Premier guarantee that areas like Windsor will get the money they deserve based on population and unemployment? Will he make certain these areas do not lose BILD funds in 1982-83 but receive their fair share?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I tried to point out to the member that BILD is not a general grant program; that is not what it is meant to be. I think he understands that. I cannot guarantee that any community, including my own, is going to get "BILD money" based on either the unemployment figures or the number of people; that is not the intent of the program.

I will assure the member if there is an important program in his general area, in his community, that falls within the general guidelines of the BILD program, it will be objectively assessed.

The member says St. Clair College is getting only $300,000-odd this year for new equipment or whatever it is within the college system. He said "only $300,000." He could phrase it another way. He could say that in the past two years St. Clair College, because of BILD, has had equipment it otherwise would not have had, totalling some $700,000 to $800,000, which, based on the number of students related to the importance of that institution, which is fundamental, is not generous but I think is a very enlightened approach to some of its equipment needs,

The member could get up and phrase the question this way. He could get his researchers to lead off the question by saying, "St. Clair College is now $800,000 better off by way of capital equipment because of the BILD initiatives, and that ain't bad." I do not think Sheridan College got that; maybe Sheridan did.

In a final answer to the member's question, I have some advice from the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson). He should look after his throat on the weekend.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Now that the minister has subjected Thunder Bay's community auditorium to an environmental assessment hearing after exempting such corner-store projects as the Darlington nuclear station, the proposed General Public Utilities cable, the proposed South Cayuga waste management site and the Detour Lake road, can he assure this House that we now have a policy in the Ministry of the Environment that he will grant no more exemptions under the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first, the honourable member knows full well that I did not subject any auditorium to a hearing requirement.

Mr. Foulds: You certainly did.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The simple fact of the matter is there is a piece of legislation in this province which was passed by this House, which has certain requirements. What is taking place is simply the operation of that legislation. The reason the hearing is being held is because not only did I receive from the member's community five individual requests for a hearing, but also a rather extensive petition from citizens of his community requesting that a hearing be held.

All I did was carry out my responsibilities under the legislation and refer the matter to the board. The only way I could have avoided carrying out those responsibilities as I see them would have been to describe the views expressed by the member's constituents as frivolous and vexatious, and I did not see them in that light. Therefore, I carried out my responsibility under the legislation and referred it to the board.

Let me point out there are some rather interesting distorted perceptions about the operation of this legislation. In the course of the past calendar year, of 90 assessments submitted to the ministry I believe there were a total of eight exemptions. The others have followed through the system according to the provisions of the legislation.

I might also add, according to the provisions of the legislation and the responsibility placed upon me and upon this government under that legislation, I will continue to consider requests for exemptions, as they are submitted, on their merits. There is no ironclad, rigid policy that there will be no further exemptions. I would be abdicating my responsibility under the legislation if I were ever to consider taking such a stand.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In his answer, I think the minister may have inadvertently misled the House and I would not want him to leave that impression. Can he explain why he feels it was his responsibility, in not misleading the House, when his ministry said all it was concerned with --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will please resume his seat. I am sure the minister -- no, you may not speak -- the minister will be happy to take that under consideration.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order or on a point of personal privilege, I am not sure which --

Mr. Speaker: But you are not going to respond to the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds).

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all. But I do think it is important that the record of the House show it would now appear that the member for Port Arthur is officially on record, in giving a stand on this particular issue, as favouring exemptions under the Environmental Assessment Act, which seems to me to be a rather --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the minister please resume his seat.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL GRANTS

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with more than 100 signatures from my community, to the Honourable Bruce McCaffrey, reading as follows:

"We, the undersigned, protest vigorously the proposed 15 per cent cut in funding for the Ontario Arts Council. Such a cut will result in severe underfunding of the arts, curtailing programs and jobs and dealing yet another blow to the economy and wellbeing of the Hamilton area. Funding must be maintained at present levels plus inflation allowance."

This is signed by people who have attended, with pleasure, the Te Deum concerts in my riding.

11:10 a.m.

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister is here to listen to this. I have a petition signed by 1,403 residents of Prescott-Russell stating the following:

"We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Lieutenant Governor in Council and do pray, for reasons given below, that the responsible authorities will not permit the establishment of a hazardous waste site either of a permanent or a transfer nature in the united counties of Prescott-Russell."

M. le Président, j'ai ici une pétition, signée de 1 403 électeurs de Prescott-Russell, qui se lit comme suit:

"Nous, les soussignés, remettons cette pétition au Lieutenant-Gouverneur de l'Ontario et prions les autorités responsables pour les raisons citées ci-dessous, qu'elles ne permettent pas l'installation d'un dépotoir de déchets industriels dangereux, de nature permanente ou temporaire, dans le Comté de Prescott-Russell."

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Earlier this week, I raised the concerns of many people in the House about the length of time taken by leaders' questions during question period and the lack of time left to the backbenchers.

I wonder if we might have some recommendations from you in the coming week about things we might try to look at as means of improving the prospects for people getting in regional questions, which have now been almost totally lost to this House, and some suggestions about how we might correct the situation.

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter that has been raised before, as the member has said, and it is a matter of great concern to me as well. I understood the matter was being discussed by the procedural affairs committee. In my opinion, that would be the proper forum in which to discuss it. I would be very happy to make my views known at that time.

Mr. Foulds: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind members, as I am sure they are all aware, that this morning, for example, which is a day when we normally get two or three back-benchers' questions from each party, we got only one from each of the parties. As I counted the time, probably not exactly, there were 40 minutes spent on the first two questions and something like 18 to 20 on the second two. I think that had more to do with the answers than the questions. I could be wrong on that.

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: It might be worth while for the Speaker to have Hansard examine the timing of both those elements in the first four questions that are asked daily.

Mr. Speaker: You are approximately right. I did allow question period to go substantially beyond the appointed hour because of that. It is a matter of great concern. I do not want to treat it lightly or to be facetious, but I think the answer to the problems can be found within the individual party caucuses.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to this point?

Mr. Speaker: I think the member for Scarborough West has already spoken on this matter.

Ms. Copps: He has a very good point, several points.

Mr. Speaker: No, he does not.

Ms. Copps: Yes, he does, he has a very good point.

Mr. Speaker: I think the point has been well made. It is a matter that has to he addressed.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on a matter of personal privilege. It may wend its way back to this --

Mr. Speaker: It would not dare. If it wends its way anywhere --

Mr. Kerrio: It will certainly do that.

Mr. Speaker: It will not be allowed.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last night, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) made particular reference to the fact that the Energy critics on this side were not posing questions to him. I want to make a very valid point, that the reason for that has been discussed today, that is we have not had the opportunity, in many instances, to pose very important questions from these benches on the back side.

Mr. Speaker: As the member is well aware, that is not a point of personal privilege, but it was an interesting point and it is part of the same problem.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the order for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Education.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) is not here to continue his remarks on the concurrence of the Ministry of Education. He had started on Friday last and had indicated he would have more material, but obviously other commitments have taken him away from the House.

However, I am very happy to be on my feet and to take a little time, because I know there are members of the Legislature who want to involve themselves in these concurrences and who have very specific questions on which they want answers from the minister. I certainly hope the minister will come through with some answers.

Let me begin by making one observation that as far as I am concerned is all-encompassing with regard to the state of education in Ontario. This government in the past couple of years -- and it has certainly stepped up its program in the last year -- is determined to undermine public education in this province. It can only be described as an undermining of the public education system to the point where education services to children in this province are going to be right down to the barest minimum.

I am going to point out several areas where the government and the Ministry of Education are involved in this calculated, programmed way of undermining public education in Ontario. One way is in how the government deals with the teaching profession. The government has consistently in the last couple of years done its utmost to increase the gap between itself and the teaching profession, those people who every day for 194 days of the year are in front of a classroom, whether it be 30, 35 or 40 kids, whether it be 16 kids in a special education class, or whether it be four or five kids in a behavioural class, or dealing with other kinds of exceptionalities that children may have.

Since 1943, when George Drew was Premier of this province and won an election -- and I understand he won it with the overwhelming support of the teaching profession -- at that time an act of this Legislature came into being that basically established a forum for teachers, for the major Ontario-wide affiliates, to have communication and consultation yearly with the Ministry of Education and with the Minister of Education in particular. It has turned out in the last two to three years that this particular Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education are trying to keep their distance from the teaching profession and the consultation process that should he going on and must go on if education is to progress into the 1990s and if the quality of education is to be preserved.

11:20a.m.

I am sure the minister is aware that back in December there was a fairly lengthy article in the Globe and Mail which basically put in context the whole situation regarding the consultation process that has taken place between teachers and the Ministry of Education in this province. Basically, the teachers -- I mean the heads, such as the president of the Ontario Teachers' Federation -- one after another showed their frustrations, their upset and their grave concern about the consultation process with this minister.

I am not going to read the article, but Dr. Florence Henderson, a respected member of the teaching profession -- respected whether it be in the federation or the classroom, and I have known of this lady and the work she has done for a long time -- basically said of the ministry: "They are going to study the impact on education and the professionals in education are being left out in the cold. That is Dr. Stephenson's style."

I think the minister need not be reminded of the censure motions that have been passed at the annual meetings, whether it be the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation or the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario.

As a matter of fact, and I think it goes back two years now, during which they have called on the Premier (Mr. Davis) to get the minister out of this portfolio before she destroys education further than she has done so far.

Be that as it may, I want to give the minister a bit of free advice. I should not say the minister has never taken my advice. She says she never takes my advice, but I am finding some of the things I say obviously do have an impact somewhere, perhaps not on her as an individual but on certain people in the ministry.

If the confrontation politics she seems to want to establish with the teaching profession are going to go on, and she is not going to do her utmost and the Ministry of Education is not going to do its utmost to make sure the teaching profession is consulted on policy decisions that she is about to take or has taken in the past, let me tell her she is setting herself on a dangerous political course.

I do not need to remind the minister what happened in British Columbia several years back when the government of the day was defeated. One of the factors in that defeat was the teaching profession in British Columbia that became thoroughly disgusted with the progress the Bennett government in British Columbia had established.

The Bennett government was replaced by the Barrett government. I suggest to the Minister of Education that if she continues in that process, the Tory government will be replaced by a New Democratic Party government in this province.

For the sake of the educational system, for the sake of the services and the delivery of educational services to children, she should get herself involved in meaningful consultation with the teaching profession. If she does not do it, it will be at her political peril and her party's political peril.

An example of where the consultation process between teachers and the Ministry of Education totally failed is one we are all aware of; that is the bill which is or is not before this Legislature, the bill that is always in the background, is always outside. It is always somewhere and has been one of the bills which have been dominating this Legislature since May of last year. Of course, I am referring to Bill 127.

In that particular bill, the teaching profession was not consulted. There was no consultation whatsoever on Bill 127. The minister says there was some consultation on the amendments to Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. That is true, nobody disputes that: but on Bill 127 there was no consultation whatsoever with the teaching profession.

As a matter of fact, there was no consultation with anybody. It was just the birth of a bill in the minds of bureaucrats. It is a very bureaucratic bill. It bureaucratizes, if that is the right word, the educational process of Metropolitan Toronto. It denies local autonomy and local decision-making on the part of duly elected trustees. It puts power into the hands of trustees who are far removed from local areas. Basically, it says those trustees who know nothing about the area and do not come from Metropolitan Toronto are the ones to sit in judgement in terms of the needs and programs of people in other parts of Metropolitan Toronto. This is a bunch of nonsense and the minister knows it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What the member is saying is a bunch of nonsense.

Mr. Grande: I guess the minister can express her opinion.

Mr. Cassidy: Why is she so bad tempered all the time?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am bad tempered? Listen to him.

Mr. Di Santo: Bette, it is Friday; be lenient, don't be dogmatic.

Mr. Grande: That is her state of mind.

Anyway, I do not intend to deal at great length with Bill 127. I hope I am wrong, but I think I will not get another opportunity in this Legislature in this session to get up on Bill 127. Of course, the government will make that determination, the government will make that decision.

As we have stated over and over again, we in the New Democratic Party will do everything in our power to make sure this destructive piece of legislation will not get out of this place, it will not go anywhere. That commitment is very firmly and strongly held. I want to leave no wrong impression with the Minister of Education, the government or anybody else in this Legislature as to where this party is at in terms of Bill 127.

In any debate on Bill 127, we would have to put that bill in the context of what the government intends to do over the next three to four years in education in the province. Talking about Bill 127 in isolation does not give the people of Ontario or anybody else an appreciation of the horror of the plans that are being concocted within that ministry.

Let me start at the proper place, which is the financing of the educational system in this province. Basically, everything this government does is based on the financing, whether it is in the Ministry of Education, Colleges and Universities or Community and Social Services. Name it, in any ministry, it is the financing that is the important aspect. As a result of the financing, policy direction is evolved.

It is not new information that I am giving the minister. The minister knows and she has accepted and admitted that funding for the public education system has dropped between 1975 and 1982-83. The minister looks at me as if to say: "When did I admit that? I could not make a mistake like that." However, her officials during the June 1982 estimates said. "Yes, funding has dropped between 1975 and 1982." and here is the information, the statistics, the source, given by the Ministry of Education.

11:30 a.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As a percentage of what?

Mr. Grande: It is the public elementary expenditure between 1942 and 1981 inclusive. Here we are. As I was saying before, in 1975, the province supported education to the tune of 61.32 per cent.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As a percentage of what?

Mr. Grande: Of the money that is spent on education in this province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Okay, well say that.

Mr. Grande: Fine. I thought it was understood.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member leaves the impression that the actual dollar amount has decreased and you know that is untrue.

Mr. Grande: Of the amount of money spent on education -- I thought that was understood; however, I will clarify for the minister. Of the money spent on education in 1975, the government through the legislative grant process gave the boards of education across Ontario 61.32 per cent of the money. The minister then must understand that in 1981, of all the money spent on public education across the province, the government gave the boards of education 51.3 per cent. That is a drop in percentage of the amount of money spent on education in comparison to the amount of money this government passes on to school boards in terms of legislative grants.

That was for 1981. For the year 1982, the government is at the 50 per cent level, the fifty-point-something per cent level. This 50 per cent level is the psychological turning point for this government. They are doing everything in their power to make sure they are not seen to go below 50 per cent support because that to the people of the province would be saying, "Is education a provincial responsibility or not? Obviously, since the province provides less than 50 per cent, it is no longer a provincial responsibility."

But in the minds of the bureaucrats -- or some of them; I have never hesitated to say of people within the Ministry of Education, either in positions of responsibility or not, that there are many people there who are progressive, capable and knowledgeable about the educational system; the only problem is that once they leave the field and they come to the Ministry of Education, somehow all the progressive ideas turn into status quo and they are being abandoned.

It is important to note that psychological point, that 50 per cent support, because now the Minister of Education and her ministry are concocting two other ways of getting money out of the local level so that this government can use it to transfer to boards of education and, therefore, appear to be giving legislative grants higher than the 50 per cent level. It boasts it is returning to the 65 per cent level of support. As I said, to put Bill 127 in context, that bill is one of those pieces of legislation. The next thing the government is intending to do is to move into what it euphemistically calls industrial-commercial assessment pooling.

Mr. Boudria: A nonproposal.

Mr. Grande: It is a proposal; it is a firm commitment. Whatever the situation, the fact is the government is moving in that direction. In the past year, a lot of work has been done to move in that direction. Let me say something about this from, as the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) once called it, the bible of the Ministry of Education, that is, Issues and Directions. In terms of educational finance, on page 31 of this booklet it says, "The province must continue to look to municipal assessment for a substantial part of the cost of elementary and secondary education." In other words, the government is going to drop the grant to school boards in the province and thereby force the school boards to increase the property tax in order to provide services for the children. That is clear. It is a direction that has been enunciated by this government.

Industrial-commercial assessment pooling continues and speeds the process of that commitment the government made. Basically, it means whatever amounts of money school boards collect that are not approved by the government of Ontario as approved expenditures, the boards have to pay a hundred per cent to the dollar on them. There are no grants available from the province for those unapproved expenditures. I appreciate that I am getting a little technical; however, I cannot find another way of discussing these things. The Minister of Education has decided to evolve formulae and a totally different language that is clearly not understood by the people of Ontario. It is almost like a labyrinth of formulae, so when one begins to talk about education, unless one is a financial wizard, one really cannot find one's way through the maze.

In some areas, I do know what I am talking about. I have been able to find my way out, so to speak, to see what this government is doing to the educational system. To return, the Minister of Education does not provide grants for that particular percentage of a board's expenditure that is considered to be unapproved. Through this industrial-commercial assessment pooling, the government is saying to the boards: "You can raise money from your local levy. However, whatever you collect from the industrial-commercial assessment will come to the government. We will take our share. We will cream the money you raise."

This means that if a board deems it requires $500,000 more in order to provide important programs to meet children's special needs in a particular area, and if it decides it requires to increase taxes by half a mill or one mill in order to raise that $500,000, the ministry says $100,000 or $ 200,000 of those dollars you raise from the residential sector, $400.000 -- and it is just an example --

11:40 a.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You have a very fertile and somewhat distorted imagination.

Mr. Grande: If the minister thinks I am wrong, she can just get up and say so, but please do not interrupt. If she does not understand what I am talking about, then say so as well.

But to return: If the residential sector raises only $100,000 of those $500,000, the government says, "Four hundred thousand dollars will come to us, and you have to raise the mill rate to the residential sector not one mill but five mills." So the more you raise the mill rate, the more dollars the government stands to gain.

This industrial-commercial assessment pooling is nothing hut a tax grab by the province to take money out of the education system and use it for whatever purpose they will; though, to be fair, they said, "That money is going to be redistributed to boards across Ontario." Well, boards across Ontario and people in the education system have learned that the commitment of the government to a particular kind of program lasts one or two years at most and then is abandoned when the government changes its policy.

The point I want to make is that this tax grab the province is attempting and is going to put into effect will take money out of the education system, will destroy education programs, will fire teachers, will close schools, etc. There is the government, which says: "Hey, look: We will distribute this money. Instead of giving you 60 per cent we are going to give you 70 per cent." But of course, boards and trustees are not being fooled by the rhetoric of the Minister of Education or by the Martin proposal.

Both the Liberal critic and I have got up in this Legislature to ask a question of the minister regarding this proposal and in particular with reference to a letter sent to the minister on October 15, 1982, by the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario. The name of the association says exactly what they are. The large school boards in Ontario have an association, and the trustees involve themselves in this particular forum.

The association of large school boards has said to the minister regarding the industrial-commercial assessment and pooling, "No, don't do it." It was not just that association, because this letter was signed by William Kent, president of the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario -- by the way, he is the chairman of the Peel Board of Education, and if the Premier (Mr. Davis) were here he would be very interested in that; Margaret McKee, president of the Ontario School Trustees' Association; Malcolm Buchanan, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation; David Lennox, president of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation; Susan Braun, president, Northern Ontario School Trustees' Association; Fred Sweeney, president of the Ontario Teachers' Federation; Doris Harrison, president of Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario; and Serge Plouffe, président, l'Association des enseignants franco-ontariens.

This represents not only the teachers in Ontario, who are opposed to this proposal, but also the duly elected trustees of the people of Ontario in terms of running their school boards. So the minister cannot say, "Ah well, this is another thing that the teachers are confronting me on."

Therefore, the minister cannot slough that off by saying: "But, of course, it is in these interest group's best interests to be fighting me along these lines, to be fighting me on Bill 179, to be fighting me on Bill 127, to be fighting me on industrial-commercial assessment pooling."

What we have here is not only the teachers, we have the trustees; and believe it or not, the minister does not understand or does not know that the parents across Ontario are getting very upset about this proposal because they know what it will do to the property taxes. The Metropolitan Toronto School Board, the minister's friends in arms in terms of Bill 127, has said: "This will raise the mill rate by 30 to 39 per cent in Metropolitan Toronto." I guess they were speaking for Metropolitan Toronto only.

If one goes to the Waterloo County Board of Education, to the Hamilton Board of Education, to other boards of education, the situation is exactly the same. These people are saying to the minister: "No, do not do that. If you think there are inequalities let us sit down together, let us work these things out, let us solve the inequalities but do not go your merry way in an autocratic, undemocratic way, saying, 'This is it, like it or lump it.'"

The people are upset. The parents are upset, and everyone who has anything to do with the educational system in this province is very upset at this particular time with this government. The upset centres around Bill 127 now, but about six months from now it will centre around the industrial-commercial assessment pooling.

If the minister thinks that what I am saying is not based on facts, and is not based in reality on the ground and the real world, then the minister does not understand the real world and the real ground.

Let me go to another area. I apologize to my colleagues. I know that they too want to get on because they have important things they want to discuss as well, hut I am conscious of the fact that I do not want to spend more than 40 or 45 minutes at most on this. I would appreciate very much, Mr. Speaker, if you could give me some idea since I cannot see the big clock.

Let me, for the sake of ending that part on industrial-commercial assessment pooling, say to the Minister of Education that as of January 17, 1983, the Ontario Public School Trustees' Association passed a motion which says: "OPSTA categorically opposes the transmission of taxes on commercial and industrial sources directly to the Minister of Education for dispersement at the discretion of the ministry."

That is on record. Those are the trustees from those small boards which supposedly, according to the minister's line of selling the idea, will benefit. But these trustees are saying to her that, "We may benefit but we will lose control. We will lose local autonomy; we will lose decision-making power which has been historically with us. They are saving no to the minister's idea.

The following resolution was unanimously approved by the Hamilton Board of Education: "The Board of Education for the city of Hamilton expressed its categorical opposition to any change in the funding formula which would deprive the Hamilton board full use of industrial and commercial taxes for educational purposes, and these sentiments be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Education, local MLAs, and that we also solicit the support of ALSBO, Ontario Public School Trustees' Association and HTF district 8, OSSTF, the Chamber of Commerce, the Hamilton and District Labour Council, local 1005 and city council in this manner." Hamilton is clearly on record as opposing what the minister wants to do.

11:50 a.m.

The Board of Education for the Borough of York is on record as saying no to industrial-commercial assessment pooling. I want to read part of a motion: "Therefore be it resolved" -- and by the way this motion is dated December 16, 1982 -- "that the Minister of Education be advised that the Board of Education for the borough of Etobicoke: (1) does not support the proposed model; (2) encourages the Minister of Education to study the appropriateness of the approved expenditure level per pupil" -- that is something I have not said, so as soon as I have finished reading this letter I will comment on that -- "(3) encourages the government of Ontario to fund educational expenditure through the general legislative grant plan from revenue sources presently available to the minister."

The point of that letter and the point of this motion should not be lost. The proper way for the government to finance the educational system is through the legislative grant process. If a particular board of education does not have the industrial-commercial wealth of the tax base, then the commitment of this government has been it will pass through to that hoard in grants that this government feels each board should he spending per pupil. That is what makes the grant.

What happens is the grants become lessened over the years, as I have described to the members before. As a matter of fact, we have almost 100 per cent of secondary school panel boards that are over the ceiling. They are spending more than the ministry thinks it has approved. As I have said, 100 per cent of the secondary panel and about 94 to 95 per cent of the elementary panel are spending more than the ministry thinks they should be spending.

Therefore, with all these things and proposals the ministry has, it is saying to boards of education, "Cut back, get rid of schools, teachers, children's programs, whatever, but do not spend more than that amount; because if you do, you are going to be penalized because we will take away the industrial-commercial assessment dollars." What nonsense. If there is a way to destroy the public education system of this province, that Minister of Education and that Ministry of Education has certainly found it.

I want to continue with the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and its views on commercial-industrial assessment. That board passed basically the same resolution I read in the case of Etobicoke.

This is a letter dated January 26, 1983: "Be it therefore resolved that the Ministry of Education be advised that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board strongly opposes," and that word is underlined, "the proposed new formula for the funding of elementary and secondary education in Ontario." That is the Metro board. That is the board that has been holding hands with the Ministry of Education over Bill 127.

That board did not realize what the intent of Bill 127 was all about. Therefore, it said, "We support Bill 127." Now that the second step in terms of the cold blooded plans to undermine the educational system of this province is evident to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, they say, "We strongly oppose the proposed new formula for funding education in elementary and secondary panels." The Metro board is not an ally of the minister in her next project. As a matter of fact, John Tolton, the chairman of the Metro board, had some choice words to say on his reappointment -- I think it is a reappointment, not an election -- as chairman of the Metro board.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is the member saying he was not elected?

Mr. Grande: He was elected by his peers, but he certainly was not elected by the people. I consider that to be an appointment.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not an appointment.

Mr. Grande: We differ on that.

I will quote Mr. Tolton from a Toronto Star article which appeared some time in December 1982:

"In his inaugural address to the board last night, Tolton warned that if the industrial-commercial assessment plan goes through. 'We would either have to slash the quality of education and level of service, or raise taxes to exorbitant heights. Some education officials have estimated that the province's tax plan could add $150 to the average Metro home owner's tax bill.'"

Another quote: "It is something under which children could be the real losers,' says John Tolton." Again another quote: "Tolton called the scheme, which is not yet official ministry policy" -- at the planning stage, the minister says -- "'a shell game' and 'an intrusion by the province into the property tax field, the only discretionary revenue source of school boards.'"

I do not want to spend any more time on this, but I want to say to the minister, as in the previous point I discussed in terms of consultation with the teachers regarding this proposal and in conjunction with Bill 127, that she knows she is on a collision course.

If she wants to continue blindly on that collision course, I can only warn her, not for her sake or the government's, but for the sake of the educational services for the children of Ontario, That is what I am interested in. I am not interested in the minister's wellbeing. Obviously physically and as an individual, I do not want anything to happen to her, please understand that, but the wellbeing of that political party is the least of my interests.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for the note you gave me. I guess I have been up for 45 minutes; so let me say very quickly to the minister, I have a lot of concerns with the Rose report that the minister presented a little while ago. I guess I will have to wait until another time to report those concerns. I want to spend the next five minutes on the special education bill, Bill 82, and its implementation.

In the first couple of years I said to the minister: "I am monitoring this, Bette. I am looking at this and when the time comes that I find something is wrong, that things are not moving as they should be, I will get back to you." The time has come for me to start getting back to the minister.

12 noon

As of May 1982, she had the activity and costing plans from almost every board of education in this province in terms of the kind of plans they have to provide programs for exceptional children and what costs are involved. We said at the very beginning of debate on Bill 82 that $75 million in 1980 dollars is not enough.

Now that the minister has had the information from the boards for almost a year, she knows $75 million is not enough. What she is doing is preventing hoards of education in this province from implementing and planning to implement Bill 82, the special education bill.

As we get closer and closer to 1985, the year of implementation of that bill and the year when every school board must provide special education services to children. I do not want to hear the minister or anyone in that government, whoever it may be, standing up and saying: "The school boards are not ready. We have to extend that deadline. We have to go to 1986 or 1987." That would be the ultimate crime committed by this government.

The minister knows the Peel Board of Education, through the activity plans it has given to her, has stated over and over again in every section of this report that while the Peel board is ready and willing and has planned to put its five-year plan into action, it is deferring the decision to put the plan into action because it is waiting for the minister and her government to say whether the money will be provided for the implementation of those programs.

The Peel board is not the only board. Under physical exceptionalities, orthopaedic or physical handicaps, the Peel board says it will defer the full implementation of its service delivery plan for 1982-85, to meet the mandate of Bill 82 for orthopaedically handicapped pupils, until "the Ontario Ministry of Education has addressed the adequacy of financial grants for the implementation of Bill 82."

What I am saying to the minister is I hope she will not stand up a year from now in this Legislature and say the boards of education are not ready to put the plans from Bill 82 in place by 1985. That would be a gross --

Interjections.

Mr. Grande: I thank the Minister of Education for paying attention to this area, By the way, this is the bill she brought forward for which she and her government are taking the credit and which has raised the expectations of parents who have children with exceptionalities. She has raised these expectations, and now she is preventing the school boards from putting those plans into effect.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That's absolute balderdash, Tony, and you know it.

Mr. Grande: Is the Peel Board of Education wrong?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is the chairman wrong? Yes, he is wrong.

Mr. Grande: No. I am talking about the five-year plan the minister has had since 1982. Is the East York Board of Education wrong? Is the Niagara Falls Board of Education wrong? Is the Toronto Board of Education wrong?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Usually is.

Mr. Di Santo: Who said "usually"?

Mr. Boudria: Let the record show somebody said "usually."

Mr. Grande: Let the record show that gentleman --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Let the record show this is exactly the same speech we have heard from this member on three or four previous occasions.

Mr. Di Santo: This is exactly the same government we have had for 40 years.

Mr. Grande: Let the record show I have said to the minister on many occasions that on Bill 82 I would leave her alone and monitor what happened. Now I am beginning to find out she is not fulfilling the promise she says she will fulfil through the legislation of this Legislature.

If the member sitting behind the minister thinks what the Peel Board of Education is saying is nonsense, he should say it to the board.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The member knows I did not say that.

Mr. Grande: I said --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The honourable member should know my reference was not to the Peel Board of Education: it was to the Toronto Board of Education.

Mr. Grande: Oh, I see.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: He is the one who said Toronto, and I agreed with him.

Mr. Grande: In that case, may I assume the member who just finished speaking, the member for Mississauga East, is in total agreement with the Peel Board of Education when it says its five-year plan will have to be deferred for full implementation because the Ontario Ministry of Education has not addressed the adequacy of financial grants for the implementation of Bill 82?

I am sure the member will tell the Ministry of Education to get moving, because at least 10, 15 or 20 per cent of the kids in this province need programs because of their exceptionalities; but they are not being produced and implemented as a result of lack of funding from this ministry and this government. Why does he not do that?

I have many other things to say. I did not want to get into too many specifics, however, since I made a commitment to my colleagues who want to ask questions of the Minister of Education. I will end at this point.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I released a report concerning a study I made in northern Ontario regarding the subject of the French-language entities at Iroquois Falls and Mattawa. I now want to send a copy of that report to the Minister of Education.

I want to remind the minister of a few quotes, and perhaps she will recall them: "The government of Ontario takes its commitment to French-language education as a fundamental matter of principle."

Who said that?

"Consistent with the desire to offer the best educational program possible to every French- language student in Ontario, school boards will be encouraged, wherever numbers and/or other circumstances warrant, to offer full programs in the French language within self-contained school buildings."

I wonder who said that.

"Towards this end, I shall instruct the regional directors of education of the ministry, in close consultation with the chairman and members of the Council for Franco-Ontarian Education, to enter into discussions with the boards of education concerned regarding the merits of developing more complete French-language school entities in those settings where mixed schools now operate."

Those statements were not made by some Franco-Ontarian radical or by some raving separatist from the land yonder. They were made by the Minister of Education in a statement I have right here, dated October 5, 1979. I do not know whether the minister recalls, but that was her speech.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Absolutely; word for word.

Mr. Boudria: I am glad she remembers and admits it was her speech, because it is very important. I think the whole issue of French- language entities lies in what she said on that day, October 5, 1979.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Very important words: "work with" and "consult."

Mr. Boudria: I know exactly what was said. I have read it on many occasions. But if she is going to look at it that way, I want to add perhaps one further sentence of the minister's speech. It is important.

"Further, it would be my proposal that in those situations where there is any conflict as to the character or scope of a French-language school entity to be provided which cannot be resolved with the assistance of the Ministry of Education, the mechanisms set out in the Education Act, whereby appeals can be made to the Languages of Instruction Commission should he followed.

"While, as is presently the case, final decisions on capital expenditures must rest with the school board and ministry, for all other arrangements regarding this particular type of issue, it would he my recommendation that the commission's judgement should prevail."

I remind the minister of that as well.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I didn't win.

Mr. Boudria: I am glad the minister admits that,

Let us look at the whole issue of French-language entities in Ontario. Just about everywhere where there has been an attempt to establish one of these entities, the only thing that has ever been achieved is serious confrontation and divisiveness within those communities; very little else has ever been gained.

12:10 p.m.

In that speech the minister has established a structure that is impractical and cannot work. She has a Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario that has no power other than to recommend. Even in her statement when she suggested it should have stronger powers in relation to entities, she did not follow tip with legislation to give them that power.

In my view, the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario should have a quasi-judicial status in terms of appeals and its decisions in those circumstances should be reversible only by cabinet.

Furthermore, we all know that when a high school reaches a specific number of students who take the majority of courses in the French language, there is an automatic provision whereby a French-language vice-principal is provided. Once another number of French-language students is there, there is a further automatic provision whereby one gets a school superintendent.

Why is there no specific number by which one automatically would get a French-language entity for the asking? Why is that not there? I recognize, of course, if one did not have that number, that one could still apply for a French-language entity. But there should be an automatic number by which one can get one of those entities.

I hope the minister responds to that concern, because by her statement in 1979 she led the people to believe the mechanisms were to be in place and she never followed it up. I believe she has let them down.

I will read a letter. The letter is in French but I will translate it after, because I want the minister to understand everything that is in it. This letter was written to me by someone in Iroquois Falls. It goes right to the heart of the issue. If I were to take my whole report and summarize it in a few pages, this letter would do it very adequately. It says:

"Chère Madame,

"Je suis née et habite depuis toujours le joli petit village d'Iroquois Falls. Je dois, avec regret, vous parler de la situation déplorable qui existe ici, depuis plus de trois ans.

"On vous fait croire que le conflit scolaire à Iroquois Falls est réglé, que la majorité des gens ne veulent pas d'entité française à l'école secondaire. Or, il n'en est rien. La plus grande partie des gens qui sont contre l'entité ne sont pas de vrais francophones. Ils n'ont de français que leurs noms. Ils ne parlent plus français à la maison ou très peu et leurs enfants fréquentent des écoles séparées anglaises ou publiques.

"Quant aux nombreuses pétitions qui ont circulé et qui circulent encore, je vais vous dire la façon dont on obtient les signatures -- par des mensonges tout simplement. En voici quelques exemples typiques: l'école sera séparée par un mur, les taxes scolaires augmenteront considérablement, tous les sujets enseignés le seront obligatoirement en français, et combien d'autres histoires, toutes plus farfelues les unes que les autres.

"De plus, il y a de l'intimidation qui se pratique sur les lieux de travail -- surtout au moulin de l'Abitibi-Price, des menaces verbales, des appels téléphoniques anonymes, des fenêtres barbouillées, des injures de toutes sortes. Le même scénario se répète pour l'élection des membres du Comité consultatif de langue française. Cette campagne de dénigrement est savamment orchestrée par un petit groupe de personnes, malheureusement des personnes intolérantes, racistes, des bigots de la pure espèce. On nous dit même que notre représentant au Parlement provincial, M. Allan Pope, les appuie entièrement. J'ai peine à croire une telle assertion, car j'ai toujours pensé que M. Pope est un homme compréhensif, intelligent, un homme d'une grande intégrité. C'est probablement un autre de leurs mensonges malicieux.

"Madame, si cette triste situation existe à Iroquois Falls, c'est votre faute. Pourquoi n'avons nous, sur le plan scolaire, des lois claires et précises qui régissent la conduite de la majorité anglophone envers la minorité francophone? Pourquoi tant de comités, commissions ou enquêtes sans pouvoir véritable? Le dialogue entre les deux factions est maintenant impossible et c'est vous seule qui avez le pouvoir de régler le problème. Ce que nous voulons, c'est le droit bien légitime de recevoir une éducation française dans un environnement de langue française.

"À peine à soixante milles d'ici, Smooth Rock Falls, l'an dernier, on a formé une entité anglaise pour 48 élèves anglophones, sans opposition de la majorité francophone. Ici, nous ne faisons qu'essuyer refus après refus de notre commission scolaire anglophone. Est-ce juste? Pourquoi faut-il, en Ontario, lutter si farouchement pour obtenir si peu?

"Je vous demande donc d'étudier sérieusement le problème et de prendre les décisions justes et équitables qui s'imposent. Bien que ce soit de plus en plus difficile, je demeure confiante et fière d'être Franco-ontarienne!"

Et c'est signé par une citoyenne d'Iroquois Falls dont je tairais le nom, puisque je ne lui ai pas demandé son accord pour le publier.

This constituent of Cochrane South is saying that the structures the minister has created are grossly inadequate. She has allowed that conflict to exist and has not even stepped in to solve it. In view of the fact that the people out there are of the opinion -- and I share their opinion -- she has created this situation, the least she can do is fix it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Nonsense.

Mr. Boudria: It is not nonsense; it is the truth. I sincerely believe that.

Whether or not she agrees that there should be entities, I think she should come out and make her position quite clear. If she no longer favours them, she should say so. I will not like it, and francophones will not like it anywhere; but we will respect her for at least having the courage to tell us the way things really are. That, I believe in all honesty, is what is lacking at present: telling us the way the situation really is.

If she has created a structure that is unmanageable, she would be better off not to have it than to let people believe a structure exists that can work but that, when they try to implement the policy she has enunciated and advocated in that speech, does not even have the support she had offered. I feel that is grossly inadequate.

What can we say about the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario? Let us go to the Mattawa situation, where the commission was to decide, "Should there or should there not be a French-language entity at Mattawa?" One of its recommendations was, "We think there should be more consultation between the board of education and the French-language advisory committee."

In my report, I referred to that statement as being platitudinous in nature. I think that is an understatement of the quality of the recommendations this commission has provided the minister with.

This body should have quasi-judicial powers and should take on a quasi-judicial responsibility, because if she is going to give it that kind of power, the people who sit on this commission have to take that responsibility very seriously. The kind of recommendations that were made in the case of Mattawa certainly are not appropriate to a body that takes decisions very seriously. Surely the minister will admit that.

Let us look at the French-language advisory committee in both instances, Mattawa and Iroquois Falls. I want to refresh the minister's memory about the time when the present member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) was chairman of the board of education there.

12:20 p.m.

If my memory serves me correctly, the board of education passed a resolution appointing an ad hoc committee to implement the minister's recommendation in her speech of 1979 -- not to do anything else but to implement her decision. That committee met and came up with a recommendation for the establishment of such an entity.

That recommendation was forwarded to the board of education, which refused to hear it. As a matter of fact, they could not even get a seconder at the council table to adopt the resolution. Instead, the board decided to have a public opinion poll as to whether they were going to provide a French-language entity.

I ask the minister, since when do we establish school facilities for minorities based on public opinion polls? Where on earth does that kind of premise come from?

Notwithstanding that, even if one accepted that a public opinion poll was in order, let me review what happened.

The board of education wrote up a questionnaire which it then sent to all the French-language parents of children from grade 7 and up. I do not know why it was only grade 7 and up; I think it was grade 7 and up.

There should have been only one question on that questionnaire: "Do you want a French- language entity? Yes or no." Let me tell the members what was on the questionnaire: "Are you in favour of keeping the status quo at McElligott High while improving services?" Who has ever seen such a thing as an improved status quo?

That was the first question. The second question was -- again I remind members the only thing that is relevant is whether or not people want the entity -- "Do you want to keep busing students to Ecole Secondaire Algonquin in North Ray?" What on earth that has to do with the issue, I do not know.

The third question was: "Do you want to have a French-language entity" -- also called French- language something else, also called francophone something; the word "francophone" or "French-language" was in about nine places in that question.

The people were supposed to respond to that kind of questionnaire. Needless to say, anyone who looked at the questionnaire could have predetermined the outcome.

I am not saying what the outcome would have been if the questionnaire had been otherwise. What I am telling the minister is, if one makes out a questionnaire in that way, one is sure of what the result will be. Of course, that is exactly what happened. The entity was refused.

Let us look at who participated in the construction of this questionnaire: the board of education, period. The French-language advisory committee, which I believe under section 267 of the Education Act -- the minister can correct me if I have the wrong section -- is mandated to make recommendations to the board of education on French-language matters, was not advised or informed what the questionnaire regarding a French-language entity was going to look like. What on earth is a French-language advisory committee for if it is not exactly to do that?

I spoke to Mrs. Belanger of the French-language advisory committee, and she told me the first time she saw the questionnaire was when she received her own copy in her mailbox. That is the input the committee had in that decision, again recognizing that committee is duly constituted under legislative authority.

In many areas it is not legislative change that is needed. In some areas, such as the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario, yes, there are changes which are needed. But in many areas it is only goodwill that is needed to improve the situation.

It is fine for the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) to have stood in the Legislature the day after I came back and to make fun of the issue that divided the population of his own riding; to try to score political points based on the fact that once again there was the majority against the minority. But in the long term, that will not gain points either for the ministry or for that member.

There were very serious allegations about the involvement of that member while I was in Mattawa and North Bay, including three anonymous phone calls that I received.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There were some interesting allegations about the participation of the member for Prescott-Russell while he was there too.

Mr. Boudria: The minister should read my report, and she should let others read it; then she can tell me whether it is too partisan or whether I am reflecting what is wrong. I have not spoken to the French-language advisory committees since my report was prepared. The minister can contact them now, before I do, and ask them whether it is politically biased or whether it reflects reality. They are her committees; they are appointed under statutes for which she is responsible.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are committees of the boards, and they are their own people.

Mr. Boudria: She can phone the chairman of each of the FLACs and ask him about the report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Boudria: She can ask him if he thinks it is partisan.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The honourable member really should be more clearly aware of the structure and function of locally elected bodies if he is going to criticize this.

Mr. Boudria: I am aware. What I am saying is that some of the French-language advisory committees are elected and some are appointed. It is a combination of both under statutory requirements. The minister is responsible for that statute. She is free to contact them and ask what they think of the report I have prepared.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not in contact with them more than anybody else.

Mr. Boudria: The minister can contact anyone she likes. I am aware of that.

There are two or three other areas with regard to French-language education I would like to have her comments on. We all remember the report of the Joint Committee on the Governance of French-Language Elementary and Secondary Schools. That report was prepared and given to the Premier (Mr. Davis) on March 31, 1982, I believe. For some reason that only the government can explain, it was tabled in this Legislature only in mid-May.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was not.

Mr. Boudria: M. Jean-Francois Aubé, I am sure, would have a very serious disagreement with the minister on that issue. If it was not then, it was within a week of that date.

On May 15, the report was tabled in this Legislature, after which one of the minister's deputies, I believe, sent a letter along with a copy of the report to various groups across the province. The letter did not even ask them to reply as soon as possible or anything like that; I believe in English it said, "as soon as possible,' and in the French language it said, "Would you please give us your comments?"

I do not think the minister made a serious attempt to get replies and constructive criticism of this report in time for last fall's municipal elections. The minister should have had in there a provision asking them to reply to her by July 30 or something like that, but she did not choose to do that.

Many school hoards got that report in June, just before the beginning of their summer recess, and delayed looking at it until the fall because there was no hurry to do so. Nobody asked them to rush to reply to this thing, and so they did not.

The elections of last fall came upon us and the Premier said, "Too late; we cannot possibly implement this for the municipal elections." Just by coincidence, the municipal term is three years and, therefore, we cannot do anything again until 1985. It is a coincidence that all those things happened at the same time again.

With all these things put together, there was only one isolated case where somebody had made a mistake. Anyone can make an error every now and then, but in report after report, issue after issue, the lack of commitment that has been demonstrated is absolutely incredible.

Let me give another example of this lack of commitment. I have here a letter sent to me by the Toronto branch of l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario:

"You, madam minister, have appointed a committee this fall" -- or some time later, but I believe it was in the fall -- "on the education of the future. I am informed by Mr. Jean-Paul Harney and several others there are no francophones on the committee."

I do not know whether that is correct; I did not phone to see whether there were. But I spoke to Mr. Jean-Paul Harney of ACFO and various other groups -- I spoke to a member of l'Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario last week who told me exactly the same thing, that the minister did not choose to put one francophone in that group.

Mr. Grande: Is that the crystal ball committee?

Mr. Boudria: Yes, the crystal ball committee. I guess it could be referred to that way.

That group, and I share that view as well, was very concerned at what had happened once again. And speaking of what has happened in the francophone area -- maybe this is a rhetorical question -- why did Mr. Kipp leave the ministry? Could it be that not enough things were being done? I ask that question and I think it begs for an answer.

12:30 p.m.

I will conclude my comments on that issue because I know the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and other members would like to comment, I would also like to leave some time for the minister to reply to some of the things I and others have said.

I believe these issues are serious. I was reading an editorial this morning written by Alain Dexter. He said he thinks there is a rumour flying around Queen's Park that the Premier is going to make some gigantic announcement shortly on the issue of francophone rights and francophone services so he can use that as a springboard to get the Quebec delegates when he runs for the Tory leadership in Ottawa. I did not say that. It was Alain Dexter, an editorial writer for Le Droit in Ottawa. He is of the opinion that is going to happen shortly.

What better time could there be than right now for the minister to assure all of us she will at least correct the inequities in francophone services for which she is responsible? Perhaps other ministers can do it as well afterwards. Then the Premier will be free to go wherever it is he wants to go and run for whatever leadership he wants.

I believe the issue of francophone education in this province is no longer a privilege, although it is still considered that way by the minister and by others. Article 23 of the Charter of Rights has it that francophone education in this province is not a privilege, but a right.

M. Cassidy: M. le Président, j'aimerais commencer en déposant devant la ministre, la copie d'un rapport que je viens de rédiger sur la situation dans le district de Nipissing et particulièrement celle de l'école secondaire française de Mattawa.

Mme la ministre, voici en anglais et en français, une copie de mon rapport après la tournée que j'ai faite il y a maintenant deux semaines à Nipissing.

I will speak in English, because the minister might be able to respond a bit better. I am sending her a report on what I found in Mattawa, and rather than talking about all the situations and all the mixed schools in the province, I want to talk about this one.

I want to give the minister a bit of background from my own personal observation and discussions with the people on the school board and people in the French-language community, because if she is not going to solve the problem in Mattawa she is not going to solve the problem in other situations where there is a mixed school. It is about time a clear signal was given to the French-language community that this government is serious about continuing to implement the policy announced back in 1979.

I want to run through quickly what I was able to determine in this one situation. I want to put it in human terms. Mattawa is a lovely town on the edge of the Ottawa River. One third of the school, 116 kids, are enrolled in the French program. As the program has been improving, and it has improved in the last three years, the number of students there has been increasing, and the number who choose to take the bus 40 miles each way each day to École Secondaire Algonquin, the Algonquin school which is a French school in North Bay, has been diminishing.

However, what has happened is, and the stickling point has been, the Nipissing Board of Education has adamantly and completely refused to move in terms of creating a French-language entity in Mattawa. The government has stood aside and left it to the local French-language minority to try to implement provincial policy over the resistance of the local school board.

I was there on January 18. I sat down in the hotel that evening and said: "This is crazy. This situation should not exist. The school itself is 80 or 90 per cent along the way towards what is required to be done to create a French-language entity. What is required now is to have a principal and a separate administration and to reorganize the classes so that the French-language students have their own portion of the building." That, of course, had been envisaged at the time of the 1979 announcement by the Minister of Education.

What has happened? The Nipissing Board of Education has now dug in its heels, it says it is going to insist on some other kind of survey, and that will not be taken until at least some time in 1984. The French-language community has totally lost confidence in the Nipissing Board of Education because of what has happened during the last two years, and the government has consistently passed the buck on the issue back to the local level.

The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has talked about some of the history of what occurred, and I speak just of what has happened since 1979. A joint committee of the school board and the French-language advisory committee was established, and it recommended in June 1981 that the French-language entity be established at Mattawa. When its report came before the school board it did not even find a seconder, so it was not even considered or discussed by the school board in any way at all. I do not mean in any meaningful way; it was not discussed, it was simply rejected.

When I met with the former chairman and members of the school board, they rather shuffled and fumbled and so on when I tried to find out the degree of consultation that had taken place with the French-language advisory committee over the questionnaire that was sent out to certain selected parents in the Mattawa community immediately after the report of the joint committee had gone to the school board and had been rejected without even getting a seconder. They fumbled and so on, but eventually it was clear they could not remember because there had been no consultation at all with the French-language advisory committee.

It does not take a great deal of expertise to know that the survey, which is the only contrary evidence on which the school board, the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario or the ministry has been basing its refusal to move on the French-language entity, was so biased it is totally tainted. It has tainted relationships between the French-language community and the board of education, it has helped to taint the situation and create the divisiveness that I am afraid does exist to some degree in Mattawa itself, and it has tainted any possibility of having a future survey in which people could actually put their confidence.

People did not know what the survey was for. They had to sign their names and say, "Yes, we are going to tell you we are going to send our kids," without knowing exactly what was being offered. Three options were offered rather than two. The options were not spelled out. There had been no planning about transitional arrangements to go from what then existed to what would exist with the creation of the French-language entity.

The survey was carried out during the course of a mail strike, which meant that some of the questionnaires may never have reached the people to whom they were directed and some of them may never have been returned.

Most of all, not only was there no explanation with the survey of what the French-language entity was all about, but no effort had been made by the school board at any other time to explain what it was about either. In fact -- and this is one of the things that really upset me -- at the one public meeting on the subject that was held in Mattawa. people from the French-language advisory committee had co-operated in preparing a program concerning what would go forward, what would be said and how the presentation would he handled, in order that there could be a clear idea in the minds of people attending the meeting what the French-language entity would be all about.

A day or so before that meeting, the agenda that had been carefully worked out by agreement was scrapped, and instead the school board and its officials took over the meeting entirely and devoted all of the presentation to really heavy stuff about enrolment projections designed to convince people they would not have any school at all if they did not watch out.

When Mme Belanger, who is a respected member of the Franco-Ontarian community and who was at that time and is now a member of the French-language advisors committee for the Mattawa region, came and said, "Perhaps I could say some words about what the French-language entity is all about, because so far this meeting has failed to," the microphone was taken away from her and the director of education prevented her from participating in order to give that kind of explanation.

12:40 p.m.

Finally, the survey was directed only to parents of students from grades 7 to 12 in the French-speaking group in the Mattawa area. In other words, the French-language community as a whole was not consulted, just a selected group. Among other things, it is perfectly natural that families with children at present in high school would, like anybody else, tend to be a bit uneasy about change, particularly when the change had been very badly defined or spelled out.

When I met with some of the French-language students in the high school they were not enthusiastic about moving towards a French- language entity. But when my friend the member for Prescott-Russell met with the students he asked them if they wanted more classes in French and they replied "Yes."

I might mention that the member did not have time to say this, but when he asked them if they wanted to have a French-language principal, they said "Yes." When he asked, "Do you want more textbooks and library books in French?" they said "Yes." "Do you want to have announcements and notices in French?" "Yes." Then, after having defined what it is all about, he said, "Do you want to have a French-language entity?" and they said "No." There was a lack of understanding there.

My questioning of these French-language students was a bit different. I said to the grade 12 students: "When you came into the school there were only a few classes in French in grades 9 and 10. Is that correct?" Their answer was "Yes." I said: "Now all but one of your classes every year are in French. Now you have bilingual assemblies and notices and the administration is bilingual." They said "Yes." I said, "You have had enormous changes in your program in the last three years. Has it created rancour, bitterness, difficulties or problems?" They said "No."

In other words, in a practical way they had adapted extremely well. They liked it and the enrolment in the French side of the school has been on the increase, relatively speaking, because of the fact the program has improved so much.

The survey was tainted. The matter went to the languages of instruction commission, which said there should now e another survey in order to show conclusively that the majority of French-language ratepayers would be in favour.

Mr. Boudria: Popularity contest.

Mr. Cassidy: That is extremely difficult, as well, in a small community. I want to say to the minister, it is really bizarre to me that this catch 22 should exist. Across this province, there is absolutely no tradition of that kind of local involvement in schools. Maybe there should be, but there is none right now. There has been tremendous resistance to parents having a right to be involved in the selection of principals or the determination of programs in particular schools. The route we have taken instead is to have elected school board trustees and, in the case of the French-language side, to have French- language advisory committees.

It is interesting to me that in the one democratic election that has focused on this particular question, the election in December of the representative of the French-language advisory committee for Mattawa, Mme Belanger was challenged by someone who came from the anti-French school group which has sprung up in Mattawa and which is largely made up of anglophones and assimilated francophones.

Mme Belanger was challenged and there was an election, which was held in North Bay, 40 miles away. From this tiny community, 250 people drove or bused all the way to North Bay to participate in that FLAC election. It was not an ideal election, but it is a procedure set down by the ministry.

Mme Belanger's stand was very clear in favouring the entity, the stand of the other person was clear in opposing it, and Mme Belanger was elected by a majority of two to one. That is a pretty good majority, it seems to me. Two hundred individuals communicated with Dr. Willis, who was the mediator for the languages of instruction commission, to say, "We want it."

The elected body of the French-language community before last November's elections was unanimous in favouring the French-language entity and is unanimous today in favouring the French-language entity. As I said earlier, this school is 90 per cent along the way to reaching this goal.

My question to the minister is, if she has a policy, why will she not now intervene in a human way in order to make it clear to the board of education that it should now act to go the rest of the way and do this? It is a symbolic and a real act on behalf of the kids in that particular community.

Why has her regional director of education steadfastly stayed out of this affair? Why is she standing back and leaving it to a small group of francophones who, let's face it, are vulnerable to pressure? In the community of Mattawa there are not many jobs. There are only one or two employers and -- guess what? -- they tend to be anglophones. People are vulnerable if they have shops or businesses, because they have to deal with everybody in Mattawa. They are vulnerable to that kind of pressure as well.

The requirement that this undefined group of French-speaking ratepayers should now be consulted yet again after the tainting that went on of the survey technique is designed to sow divisiveness, and it certainly undermines what the minister had to say back in 1979, when she made it absolutely clear, it seemed to me, that the principle was not going to be undermined. She said at that time -- and I am just about to conclude, because we want to hear from the minister -- that these kinds of obstacles should not be put in the way of the necessary creativity in order to create French-language entities in areas where there was not enough school population to justify a school of their own. The people in Mattawa are not looking for a school of their own; they are just looking for an entity.

The question of where numbers warrant is clearly answered. There are 116 kids right now taking the program, which is 90 per cent in French, and they have voted with their feet. They have indicated they want to stay there. They want that type of program.

I guess the final question I would ask is this, and it is something that is really troubling the people in Nipissing: Why was the English-language entity created in Smooth Rock Falls without two years of studies, without votes and surveys and all of the foofaraw that has been put into this place? Why was the treatment so different at Smooth Rock Falls from what it was in Nipissing?

Je vais conclure, Mme la ministre, en posant les questions en français.

Premièrement, si le principe de la création des écoles secondaires françaises et des entités françaises est accepté par le Gouvernement dans sa politique, pourquoi refusez-vous de mettre en oeuvre cette politique et de prendre l'initiative d'intervenir pour assurer la création de l'entité française, achevée maintenant à 90 pour cent, mais qui reste à terminer grâce à l'opposition de la commission scolaire de Nipissing et l'indifférence des ministres?

Deuxièmement, pourquoi se fait-il que la communauté anglaise de Smooth Rock Falls ait pu achever une entité anglaise pour 48 élèves seulement, sans devoir procéder à aucune espèce d'études ou chercher le soutien de la Commission des langues d'instruction? Pourquoi cette discrimination existe-t-elle entre les deux communautés à ce point? Pourquoi la communauté française de Mattawa ne peut-elle avoir sa propre entité sans se heurter à de nombreux problèmes, enregistrer des retards de quatre, cinq ou six ans, et rencontrer une opposition continuelle de la part de la commission scolaire, et tout ceci sans que la ministre de l'Éducation n'intervienne ou ne manifeste de l'intérêt?

I hope in the few minutes remaining we can get some answers from this minister. It is time to act now.

12:50 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am responding today only on the concurrence for the Ministry of Education. It has been an interesting discussion. I have listened to it very carefully. In spite of the rude remarks of the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), who suggested I was not listening at all, I have listened to every expression that has been made.

The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) raised an issue which was repeated by the member for Oakwood, that there was some question as to whether the Ministry of Education was consulting with those bodies related to education in a complete way. When I became minister almost four and a half years ago, which is obviously too long for some of the opposition, I made a strong commitment that we would not only consult but would increase the consultative capacity, not only of the ministry but also of the minister.

As a result, we have arranged meetings on a regular basis between the minister and senior staff of the ministry with the executive groups of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the school trustees council, the federation of home and school associations, the Federation of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations of Ontario, with the executive of the Ontario Association of Education Administrative Officials and with a group usually from the Ontario Secondary School Headmasters' Council.

In addition to that, on a regular basis we have almost daily consultation between members of staff of the ministry and members of staff of most of these organizations. We have consulted on an irregular basis with those who have special concerns in certain areas in education, such as the ecumenical council whose primary concern relates to either religious education or to morals and values education, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police which has very real concern about drug education and the effect of the use of drugs in schools, and with groups of the people who are involved in matters related to the support of educational programs in order to attack certain problems within society.

In countering some of the suggestions made by the member for Oakwood, we listed clearly in a letter, which I believe was published in the Globe and Mail and which the honourable member conveniently forgot, which demonstrated clearly that there had been 58 formal periods of consultation between senior ministry staff and the OTF in the preceding 12 months and that I myself met on a dozen occasions with representatives of the board of governors or the executive committee of OTF.

In addition to that, I did not list the meetings I had with executive representatives of various component federations of OTF in addition to the several hundred communications which have been passed back and forth between the two bodies.

We have consulted in a full manner, in addition to that, the OTF has been represented on a number of the consultative committees which are established at the ministry level, particularly such committees as the one related to advice on special education, the one related to advice on school financing, and the one related to the examination of valuation capacity and assessment capacity within the educational system. There are a number of others.

I would say the OTF is participating fully in all the developmental activities which are currently being carried on within the Ministry of Education. It is unfortunate that it is difficult, I gather, for some of those groups with a specific interest in education to understand that consultation does not necessarily mean total capitulation to the point of view of another individual or another group.

It does mean listening carefully to what the other group says, exchanging opinions, exchanging information and, indeed, providing some reasonable discussion. It does not mean that, because they do not want to have an item discussed in a formal meeting, they should simply get up like a bunch of schoolchildren and march out of the meeting when they had given us a list of 17 items they wanted to discuss. That, it seems to me, is less than adult behaviour.

None the less, we continue with our program of broad consultation. Nothing occurs within the educational field in this province without very broad consultation that takes into account all those groups having a very specific interest in, concern about and desire to participate in the educational system of this province. I think that is very important. We try diligently to ensure that we function from the broadest base of information possible.

That is precisely what we were doing when certain members of the school board community decided they did not like the model that was being presented. We were consulting on the basis of a very strong recommendation made in the late Dr. Jackson's report of the Commission on Declining School Enrolment. He suggested we examine carefully and, indeed, recommended strongly we begin immediately the process of sharing industrial, institutional and commercial taxation or assessment --

Mr. Grande: The minister means taking away --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- for the purposes of better and more equitable distribution of educational funding to the school boards of the province.

In our response to the CODE report, called Issues and Directions, which was published in 1980 for everyone to see, including the members of the opposition, we did commit ourselves to examining that recommendation and intensively studying whether this was feasible, possible or reasonable. We did that. We developed a model that looked relatively reasonable and then began the process of sharing that information, as we do in all circumstances, with all the groups that would be involved.

We shared it with the Ontario School Trustees' Council, individual boards and teachers' federations. As a matter of fact, we distributed it to some local municipal councils so that they could understand what was going on. Indeed, that information was widely shared. It was shared on the basis of a model, and then we began the process of attempting to apply that model -- not in theoretical terms, but in practical terms -- through the computer mechanism to determine what the impact would be so we could share all the information we could develop with the school boards.

We have done that. We have received the positions of certain school boards. Certain of them are enthusiastically in support of the concept and, indeed, of the model. Certain of them are less than enthusiastic in their support of the concept, but do agree that, if it has to be done, maybe we should look at it and perhaps the model should be different. Some of the large school boards have suggested that the principle be retained, but that it be done on a regional basis.

We have also had some very vigorous, rather automatic positions simply saying: "We do not like the idea. We do not like the model. We do not like anything about it. Forget it." One expects that range of response. All those responses have now been referred to the advisory committee on school finance, which will provide us with its advice.

I should like to tell honourable members we have said very clearly this is a problem we are examining to determine whether it is the right thing to do and whether we should do it. If it is the right thing to do and if we do it, is it the right model? We have said very clearly there is nothing imminent, nothing that is going to be particularly rapid about this. In fact, the Premier said the other day he intended to be around a long time and he certainly did not expect to see it while he was around in this province. I agree with him totally. But it is our responsibility to look at all matters related to education --

Mr. Foulds: The Premier may not be around much longer. I understand he is going to --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Education must not remain static at any time. It is a functional dynamic situation. Every aspect of it must be examined on a regular basis. It cannot remain totally flaccid. It must move forward. That is what we are intending to do with all aspects of education, including the problems raised by the member for Prescott-Russell.

I am sorry I do not have time to go into that in some complete nature, but I would like him to read some of the letters from some of the francophones in both Iroquois Falls and Mattawa who disagree totally with his position regarding the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario, since they say, "Why would you do that when we have locally elected trustees who share in the responsibility for delivering education specifically set out in the Education Act'"

The Acting Speaker: One minute.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why would one take that responsibility away from them without suggesting that that local election is indeed a farce for the board of education in that area?

There is very real concern about this. I recognize that concern. That is why the suggestion I made in October 1979 could not be accepted. It was because locally elected trustees do not believe an appointed body should have the authority to overrule their decisions, for which they feel they are directly accountable to the citizenry.

Mr. Cassidy: She has changed her policy.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I have not changed my policy.

Mr. Cassidy: She has so.

Mr. Boudria: The minister should read her own speech.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have not changed my policy. My position is that I would recommend it. I recommended it. It did not occur.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have no further time to complete responses in these concurrences, but I would move that these concurrences be carried.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are about 10 minutes left in the concurrence.

The Acting Speaker: There are 10 minutes left. The minister has now moved --

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the minister, since the clock has reached one o'clock, that we adjourn this debate and that the --

The Acting Speaker: No, the honourable member could have had a point but the minister has moved the acceptance of the concurrences.

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry. I move the adjournment of this debate, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: No, you do not have the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: No. The minister has --

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order --

The Acting Speaker: I will hear your point of order.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Although it is customary that the minister concludes the debate on the concurrences of a particular item, we are guaranteed up to three hours for every concurrence should members wish to participate in the debate. There is also no rule in the rule book that says a member cannot speak more than once. If the minister is not prepared to take the 10 minutes next week, then I would like to take the 10 minutes in order to talk a bit more about the question of French- language education.

The Acting Speaker: You have made a point of order. I have heard it.

Mr. Ruston: Sit down.

The Acting Speaker: The member will resume his seat.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister quite deliberately avoided talking on the subject.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not. The member talked so long. If he had shut up, I could have done it.

The Acting Speaker: The member will resume his seat. Order. I have asked the member to resume his seat. I am asking him for the final time.

This member and all members realize this is a formal debate in which the Minister of Education has had the concluding statement. At the conclusion of her statement, the minister moved that the motion be made. We are at that point. Your point of order is not accepted by the Speaker. Each member can speak only once. You have made a point of order.

Mr. Cassidy: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, it is.

The Acting Speaker: I will hear a different point of order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I recognize you are standing in for the Speaker. May I suggest that you refer this matter to the Speaker in order to get a ruling about this? This kind of intolerable action by the minister should not be allowed.

The Acting Speaker: No. The member has made his point of order and as Speaker I have made my ruling. There is a motion before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that this concurrence be concurred in?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Resolution concurred in.

The House adjourned at 1:04 p.m.

February 4, 1983