Hansard Transcripts 1984-Dec-11 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Government Services is engaged in a continuing program to market actively a variety of properties that are no longer required by the government. Cabinet recently endorsed this major, accelerated, real estate marketing program.

This real estate initiative is designed to take economic advantage of underutilized or surplus properties through sales or other means to reduce costs and to generate revenue.

Mr. Conway: It just means the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) was right. The government should never have bought the stuff in the first place.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It means, as usual, that the member does not know what he is talking about. Why does he not sit down and be quiet?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was right.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: What a big mouth over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

interjections.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: If the honourable member would listen, he might learn something he obviously is not aware of.

Mr. Bradley: Very unlikely.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is true. It would be something different,

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now for the statement.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: An example of this initiative is the recently announced plan to sell properties at the southwest corner of University Avenue and Dundas Street. These properties are functionally unsuitable for government accommodation and can best serve this government by generating revenue to meet other priorities.

Moreover, I would like to point out that the Ministry of Government Services has been very active for some years in assisting government ministries or parts of ministries to relocate out of downtown Toronto. Relocations of the Ministry of Correctional Services, the Ministry of Revenue and the Ontario health insurance plan head-office function of the Ministry of Health are three such examples.

I am pleased to report that my ministry is now able to link our real estate sales program and the decentralization process in a major relocation. With the concurrence and support of my colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. C. W. Taylor), I wish to announce the relocation of the general headquarters of the Ontario Provincial Police from downtown Toronto to new facilities to be constructed on the site of the Provincial Police Academy in Brampton.

For some time now, my colleague has impressed on the government the need to consolidate the activities of the OPP headquarters. After intensive analysis of the functions and the future requirements, it has been decided to decentralize this particular major consolidation.

Currently, the general headquarters of the Ontario Provincial Police is spread across four separate buildings in Toronto's harbourfront area. Relocation to the site of the Provincial Police Academy in Brampton will consolidate these activities and will facilitate communication and improve administrative efficiency within the headquarters. I should point out that the police academy itself is functionally a part of the general headquarters operation.

At the same time, the new facilities will be designed to satisfy current requirements which are not now being accommodated. Provision will be made in the new structure for the continuing introduction of modem communication and office technology.

This project successfully blends our decentralization process and real estate management initiatives. Proceeds from the eventual disposition of the OPP sites on the harbourfront will offset a significant portion of the new construction costs in Brampton. At the same time, the new OPP headquarters can be situated more satisfactorily from an administrative point of view and more economically on less costly land the province already owns. When completed, this project will result in the relocation of more than 700 staff positions associated with the current OPP Toronto headquarters.

Project planning work has already begun and will now be accelerated to develop the detailed requirements for this project. A master development plan will be designed for the Provincial Police Academy site to ensure that the new buildings are integrated with the existing facilities and that consideration is given to the future requirements of the academy.

The complexity and scope of this project will demand careful planning and execution over a significant time period. Construction, which by itself will take almost two years, must be based on design and contract documents that satisfy the specific requirements of the OPP. Both the Solicitor General and I look forward to a high level of co-operation between our ministries in the development of this very important new OPP headquarters building.

ABSENCE OF PREMIER

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Yesterday during question period the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe) attributed statements to the Premier (Mr. Davis) which are totally at variance wit the Premier's stated positions. That is not my point of privilege.

My point of privilege, and I mean this quite sincerely, has to do with the ongoing absence of the Premier during question period. I do not know how we are supposed to get a clarification of government policy on a major public issue when the Premier does not attend question period. Perhaps the government House leader knows how we are supposed to clear up a contradiction between a minister and the Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to point out, as the member probably well knows, that is hardly a point of privilege. I am not responsible for the attendance of anybody in this House and have no idea who is or who is not going to be here.

RELOCATION OF OPP

Hon. C. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker. on behalf of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and especially the Ontario Provincial Police, I can say we are delighted with today's announcement by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe).

The Brampton site is ideally suited to the purposes of the OPP as the force continues to deal with the complex problems of modem-day policing. The site will provide more-convenient access to and from other field units throughout the province, as well as the vast majority of other police agencies. Highway access will be improved considerably for all other Ontario forces and for the various OPP districts, since they will be able to avoid the congestion related to the existing downtown location.

2:10 p.m.

During the planning phase, efforts will be made to capture the maximum potential benefit from consolidation and relocation. We will be working with the Ministry of Government Services to ensure that all special requirements of the police building are met, including security, communication and controlled access.

I am sure all honourable members can see the advantage of having the general headquarters and training complex finally integrated into the same site. As my colleague the Minister of Government Services has said, centralizing the general headquarters from four different buildings located at present in downtown Toronto can only make for a more efficient operation. The 98-acre site in Brampton is more than sufficient to accommodate the needs of the OPP.

It is particularly appropriate that the announcement should be made at this time during the 75th anniversary of the OPP. The citizens of Ontario have reason to be proud of their provincial police force. From a deployed force of 51 men in 1909, it has grown to a force of more than 5,400 today. I am sure members will agree it has played a significant role in maintaining a safe and civilized Ontario.

The Brampton facility will help the OPP meet the challenges of the future and continue its reputation as one of the finest police forces in the world.

TELEVISION IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a brief point of order: I want to bring to the attention of members of the assembly that those of us who have been in favour of full electronic Hansard televising of proceedings in the House now have the results of the discussions that took place in the press gallery. We have the endorsement of the press gallery, based on the cameras being left up there. I thought you would like to know that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already been made aware of that. Thank you very much. That is hardly a point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP

Mr. Peterson: That just shows what a progressive gallery we have, Mr. Speaker. Are you sure there is no one else over there who wants to take credit for the police building? If anyone else wants to make a statement, we would be happy.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. The minister will no doubt be aware by now of the speech by the Prime Minister last night to a sold-out crowd in New York, saying that Canada is now open for business again.

Mr. Havrot: It was a very good speech.

Mr. Conway: It was a selling-out speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: He will be aware that the federal minister responsible for the new plans, Sinclair Stevens, said in an editorial board meeting with the Ottawa Citizen yesterday that several foreign aircraft firms were interested in purchasing Canadair and de Havilland and that a deal may be reached in the very near future. He will recall his own statements that de Havilland was vital to Ontario's interest and that he had offered to put up provincial moneys to keep those jobs and that company in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: He is also aware that the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) said Ontario will not put money into that company.

What is the minister doing to keep that company in Canadian hands? What is he doing to protect those jobs in Canada?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am keeping in very close touch with my federal colleagues.

Mr. Elston: They say everything is for sale.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister agree with his federal colleague and with the Prime Minister that everything in Ontario is for sale? Is the minister standing up and protecting Ontario jobs? What is he doing about the rumours now abounding that Massey-Ferguson may be sold to Allis-Chalmers? What is he going to do when they rationalize those jobs out of Ontario? What is he doing to stand up and protect our interests and Ontario jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have a lot more faith in the future and in the leadership of this province than the honourable member has ever evidenced. All he has ever talked about is the problems in Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would ask my honourable friends to be quiet.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: After I go around this world and look back at Canada, I see it through foreign eyes. I see our country as a province and a nation of opportunity. All he sees and all his party has ever seen is trouble. That is why they are in opposition.

Mr. Elston: Opportunity with a for-sale sign on it.

Mr. Kerrio: The 51st state.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not concerned that there is more foreign ownership in this country than in any other country in the western democracies and that there are more plant closings by foreign-owned companies than by domestically owned companies?

Is he not concerned that the previous plan by the previous Conservative government related to de Havilland would have meant a major move and loss of jobs for workers in this province as a sacrifice to another province and indeed to another country?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the critic from the third party read the Prime Minister's comments the way I did. I understood him to say there were no restrictions on new investments by foreigners in this province. However, I also understood him to say there were reviews of purchases of existing companies that were in excess of $5 million.

Therefore, he is doing the opposite of what both members are implying. He is welcoming investment here, recognizing that newly developing nations such as our own around the world have always had to depend on foreign investment. At the same time, the Prime Minister recognizes that, if possible, we must protect existing Canadian-owned companies from being taken over.

Mr. Peterson: It is quite obvious the minister has no policy. What is more disturbing is that he is not prepared to stand up for our interests.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: How does the minister respond to the comments of the Barrie-area federal MPs, Doug Lewis and Ron Stewart, who said the problem with the Black and Decker deal is that the Foreign Investment Review Agency was not tough enough and FIRA should have protected those jobs? They are looking to federal leadership to protect those jobs in Ontario.

When is the minister going to stand up to protect jobs? Does he not feel we have to protect jobs and keep ownership here? If we do allow foreign takeovers, we have to have very stringent requirements to keep the jobs in Ontario and not have them taken to the United States by being rationalized as they were in the case of Black and Decker.

Hon. F. S. Miller: For the information of the member, the Ford Motor Co., which is a foreign-owned company, has put 13.6 per cent of its capital investment in Canada in the last five years, although only 8.8 per cent of its market is here. Why is it putting that investment in Canada? Currently, that company can make cars better and cheaper in Canada. That is the one and only way we will protect jobs in Canada.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is saying he has no policy, does not care and is not going to stand up and fight.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: The minister will live to regret those words.

CULTURAL POLICY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture with respect to the new policies enunciated in New York last night by the Prime Minister.

As sensitive as I am sure the minister is to the culture industry in this province and to the fact that in the past we have taken stringent measures to protect our cultural identity, what discussions has she had with the Prime Minister to make sure that policy does not change? What input has she given from the Ontario government's point of view to make sure we maintain our cultural identity and are not swamped by foreign or United States culture crossing our borders?

Specifically, what moves has the minister made to protect our publishing, broadcasting and magazine industries in this province to make sure they do not come under unfair competition from the United States?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker. my discussions have been with my federal counterpart, the Honourable Mr. Masse. As the minister responsible, he shares my concern, just as I think all members of this House have a concern, about protecting the cultural industries of this country for continued development of the Canadian cultural identity.

I was very pleased that specific exemption and exception was made in the statements respecting the changed rules for investment in Canada to ensure that continued scrutiny would be applied to cultural industries and possible takeovers in the cultural area.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Given the new spirit of co-operation the minister has been talking about, presumably from discussing the interests of this province with the federal minister, what discussions has she had to protect the interests of Ontario viewers with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. cutbacks? I understand the president of the CBC will be announcing the cutbacks today or shortly.

What is the minister doing to protect the markets in Ontario, particularly in places such as Windsor that have only one channel and the northern Ontario areas that frequently have access to only one television channel? What case did she put forward to make sure our viewers are not cheated?

Hon. Ms. Fish: I am not aware of the final proposals from the CBC about any changes in its programming or staffing. The CBC and Mr. Masse share our concern for the CBC's role in providing entertainment, education and opportunities to appreciate Canadian culture across not only this province but also this country. The minister will have further discussions with the officials of the CBC in that regard.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell us whether she sought ironclad guarantees from the federal minister that cultural industries such as book publishing would not be subject to indirect takeovers, which is a very dangerous method of taking over a major part of our industry in Ontario? Second, what assurance can she give us that she will fight very hard to reverse the cutbacks that have already been announced. for example in the northwestern Ontario regional radio network of the CBC. which will curtail service to an already underserviced area of our province?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the discussions on the matter of takeovers were extensive and that specific exemptions were made to the proposed change in the policy to provide for careful scrutiny and review in the area of possible cultural takeovers.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister is aware that the CBC is today announcing cutbacks which in my community of Windsor will cut back the amount of money available to television by 25 per cent. It will cost more than 40 jobs in a community with a high unemployment level; and most important, in a border community that is inundated with American culture, it will cut back local programming to nothing but news from Monday to Friday.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: Does the minister consider that acceptable? If she does not, specifically what representations has she made to Mr. Masse, who is well aware of these proposals?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate, I have not seen his specific proposals.

Mr. Elston: So much for the new consultation.

Mr. Wrye: How does the minister find out what is going on?

Hon. Ms. Fish: They are being presented in the first instance, properly, to the federal minister--

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They were Juneau's proposals.

Mr. Martel: The minister cannot blame it on Juneau.

Hon. Ms. Fish: -- who will be engaged in continuing discussions with officials at the CBC. That is the appropriate venue for discussion.

Mr. Wrye: The minister's consultation is about cream in the coffee.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to say I am not prepared to put up with this disorder much longer. If it persists, I will recess.

DIVERSION OF GREAT LAKES WATER

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, in the inexplicable continued absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the very important issue of diversion of water from the Great Lakes. I am sure the minister recalls a speech he made to the International Joint Commission in June 1983, when he said:

"We are opposed to any additional direct or indirect diversion of waters from the Great Lakes system." This is an important part of his speech. "There is scarcely a person in Ontario who does not have a direct interest in the preservation of the Great Lakes system and in the possibility of further diversion of Great Lakes waters. For this process to be fully legitimate within our systems of government, I believe it is important that the public at large be informed and involved in its deliberations."

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Laughren: Is it not true that ever since last spring monthly meetings have been held between three different ministries of this government and the United States Great Lakes border states, that this government has attended those meetings and that a Great Lakes charter has been prepared to authorize and monitor diversion from the Great Lakes? Why have the minister, the Premier, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) been so silent on this very important matter?

Mr. Speaker: Before the minister starts, I am going to ask the co-operation of those members who are carrying on private business in the House to take their seats, please. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, we held a Great Lakes water conference in this province late last spring or early summer at which representatives of various provincial governments and organizations, the federal government, American states, the American federal government and interest groups from both sides of the border were present and discussed a number of issues with respect to Great Lakes water quantity issues. In addition, we published a water atlas and the proceedings of this conference and distributed them to all those interest groups and to the public generally.

There have also been public meetings of Great Lakes area governors and Midwest governors in the past year at which similar interests have been represented in both the United States and Canada. These have also been reported extensively by the media of this province.

The discussions that are now under way result from a declaration made at Mackinaw Island in 1982 by the Premier, representatives of the government of Quebec, federal government representatives, a number of Great Lakes states representatives and federal American government representatives, that we were opposed to diversions and interbasin transfers and wanted to formalize that issue by a consensus among the state governments before we took it to our national governments. These discussions are an ongoing continuation of that general principle declared at Mackinac Island.

Mr. Langhren: It is remarkable that the minister would say that when this Great Lakes charter authorizes the diversion of water from the Great Lakes. I have the charter right here, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Laughren: It was sent to me by friends in Michigan, not by the close-mouthed government that we have in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Laughren: I wonder what the minister thinks the following means in the charter, which I gather his government was prepared to sign this week until there were objections raised by the citizens in Michigan:

"At a minimum, any new or increased withdrawal involving a total diversion or consumptive use of Great Lakes basin water resources in excess of two million gallons a day average in any 30-day period should be subject to review and permitting by the state or province where the withdrawal is located."

Does the minister not see this means that any of the border states can withdraw a huge amount of water without even consulting Ontario? What has happened to all the concerns the minister has expressed in the past? They can take up to five million gallons a day out of the Great Lakes with no debate and no public discussion, and it has not been brought before this Legislature. Why is he signing a document like this?

Hon. Mr. Pope: The policy of the government has not changed. We are opposed to diversions out of the Great Lakes system.

I wish the honourable member had taken up our invitation to attend the conference, then he would have heard Senator Durenberger explain precisely the legal problem that faces the American states: that is the states, by state law, cannot prohibit diversions out of their state boundaries. He indicated two specific examples: one was the city of San Pablo, Texas, and its problems with New Mexico; and the second involved Nebraska and Kansas, where both states had tried to pass state laws preventing diversions.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that states could not pass laws preventing those diversions, there was a proprietary interest in water, a private right to own and use water; that exists in American law but does not exist in Canadian law. That clause in the charter attempts to address that problem in the American jurisprudence, and Senator Durenberger very clearly laid it down in that conference.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that this document, this Great Lakes charter -- and I hope he is not going to sign it -- is a toothless document? Let me refer the minister to principle 4, dealing with prior notice and consultation. It says:

"The signatory states and provinces agree that no Great Lakes state or province should approve or permit any new increased diversion or consumptive use of the water resources of the Great Lakes basin which may individually or cumulatively have an adverse impact on other jurisdictions" -- and this is the important part -- "without seeking the consent and concurrence of all affected Great Lakes states and provinces."

They do not have to get this government's consent; they have only to seek its consent.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: The wording of this document is extremely disturbing. Do we have the minister's assurances he will not sign this document without a full discussion, without full public scrutiny, which he has not heretofore granted in this province, to make sure our interests are protected? Will the minister give us that assurance?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, before the Leader of the Opposition gets up in his place he should take the time to read the water atlas and the results of the water conference, which his representatives were invited to attend this summer. He should read about the Great Lakes governors' conferences that have gone on, the Midwest governors' conferences that have gone on and the articles that have been written.

Mr. Peterson: The minister should read this document.

Hon. Mr. Pope: The Leader of the Opposition does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Ruston: Neither does the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Will the minister answer a couple of very simple questions? Why was there no public discussion? Why was there no public release around the signing of this charter, which was supposed to take place this month between the Premier and the governors of the appropriate states in the United States? Is it not true that any number of diversions up to slightly less than five million gallons a day can be approved without consultation even with Ontario?

Will the minister give us an assurance that this document will not be signed in January, which I gather is what is being planned now, without a full public debate in this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Pope: No. I will not give that assurance. There has been full discussion of all these issues at conferences attended by the member's people. He should not give me that hooey. He does not know what he is talking about.

The Leader of the Opposition does not even know that Lake Michigan is not covered by the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. That is his problem. That is why he does not understand this agreement.

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis). I would have thought that self-respect would have dictated that the Premier come.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: I want to ask the Minister of Government Services a question with respect to his statements yesterday on the Spadina expressway and specifically his statements, "I do not know that [the three-foot strip] was included per se as a commitment by the Premier," and, "The three-foot strip that was referred to was intended at the time to be a strip of land within the city of Toronto."

I have a copy of a letter from the Premier to the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), which was circulated at the standing committee on general government on May 19, 1981. One sentence of this letter reads as follows: "I give assurance that if negotiation fails to provide the necessary agreement to put in place the three-foot reserve at the Eglinton terminus of the Allen arterial road by way of grant or lease, then government legislation will be introduced to do so."

My first question to the Minister of Government Services is this: does he think the Eglinton terminus of the Allen arterial road is in the city of Toronto or in the city of York?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that it is in the city of York.

Mr. McClellan: If the minister is well aware that it is in the city of York, why did he tell the House yesterday that the three-foot strip that was referred to by the Premier was intended to be a strip of land within the city of Toronto? Why did he mislead the House yesterday if he was well aware --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please withdraw the offensive word?

Mr. McClellan: I withdraw the offensive word and ask the minister why it was that he gave a completely false version of the Premier's --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the member will withdraw that and just place his question.

Mr. McClellan: I withdraw it. Why did the minister give a completely inaccurate version of the Premier's commitment? Why has he reneged on the absolutely clear and unequivocal commitment by the Premier, made again in May 1981, that if negotiation failed the government would legislate the three-foot strip in the city of York? Why did the minister renege on that yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I was not party to a copy of a letter from the Premier to the member for Wilson Heights, dated 1981, either yesterday or today. It is quite easy for the honourable member to recite a sentence or part of a sentence out of a letter. I do not know the total context.

More important, we have to acknowledge that both cities in question are within Metropolitan Toronto. I suggest there is still time and that negotiations and discussions should continue between the mayors of the two cities. I suggest that, under any circumstances, the opposition would chastise the government if it brought forth legislation affecting a municipality that was not in agreement with that particular legislation when we are talking about rights, etc. So a consensus probably should be negotiated between the two mayors, between the city of Toronto and the city of York.

Once again, I was not party to the letter referred to by the member.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister had a number of faulty premises in his remarks of yesterday, one of which was that it is not possible for one municipality to own land outside its own boundaries.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I am sure the minister now is aware that is factually incorrect. The city of Toronto itself owns land in other municipalities.

Given the fact that it may require enabling legislation for the city of Toronto to own property in the city of York, would the minister support a bill that I plan to introduce today, entitled An Act respecting the City of Toronto, enabling legislation that would give the city of Toronto the power and the ability to own that land in York and to settle this matter once and for all? Will he support the legislation I will be tabling shortly?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to respond to the initial part of the statement; it probably was not a question. I was fully aware that municipalities could own such land, but we were talking in the context of the transfer of lands, such as has happened in the Spadina area, and the leasebacks. The ownership we were talking about was of the three-foot strip, and I was fully aware that could be done by legislation.

My own personal view of the legislation the Leader of the Opposition is talking about tabling today is that I do not think it would be a good piece of legislation to support and I will not support it. He is talking about arbitrarily imposing the feelings of the Leader of the Opposition about a piece of land in a municipality over which he has no jurisdiction. He probably does not even know where it starts or where it ends.

Mr. McClellan: I will send by page a copy of the letter of May 19, 1981, to the minister. It was distributed to the general government committee at the time.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: I ask the minister to look at the second paragraph on the second page of the letter, where the Premier says: "I believe we should continue to attempt to conclude this matter through discussion and agreement. If that is not possible, then I believe government legislative action should be the procedure we should follow." Then he goes on to the paragraph I have already read.

2:40 p.m.

Does the minister not understand that he has stood in his place on two consecutive days and repudiated the policy of his Premier and solemn commitments given by the Premier in writing to the people of this province and to members of this assembly? Does he not have the decency at least to apologize or to ask the Premier to come in and make a statement to the Legislature to clear the record, to say nothing of the Premier's own name and reputation?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: There is nothing to apologize for. The member opposite has reached his own conclusion that negotiations have come to a standstill. Since the change in leadership of the city of York in the election about two years ago, I doubt that any contact has been made or any negotiations undertaken by the mayor of the city of Toronto. I do not think it is safe to conclude that negotiations cannot be concluded in an agreeable way within the jurisdiction we know as Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Peterson: They have missed 11 promised deadlines.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

SOCIAL WORKERS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the strike at the Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded.

Mr. Speaker: One moment, please. I ask the ministers to conduct their business elsewhere or to take their seats. I am having difficulty hearing the questions and answers.

Mr. Peterson: The minister will be aware that some 400 employees are on strike. They deal directly with and affect the welfare of about 3,000 people who are virtually powerless victims at this time. Can the minister bring us up to date on his negotiations and on what he is doing to end this strike that has so many unfortunate victims? Can we look forward to a speedy settlement?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the circumstances of this work stoppage. A number of parents of children involved have been calling my office on a regular basis for the past number of days and I am terribly sympathetic to their concerns.

The director of our conciliation and mediation services, Mr. Illing. was successful in getting the parties together for mediation yesterday. The last word I heard this morning was that they were still negotiating, which is an encouraging sign.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister not feel the request of the union for some five per cent in this case is reasonable by any stretch of the imagination?

The association has already saved enough money in forgone wages during the strike to pay the five per cent, and that money could be contributed to the pot. The minister's colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) also has a direct responsibility for this matter. Does the government not feel the Minister of Labour should use his good offices to intervene and put that proposition to the people at the table to end this strike immediately?

The price being paid is too high. I am persuaded that a peaceful reconciliation could be reached quickly through the minister's good offices in putting that proposition to them. Will he do it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is not the role of my ministry. My ministry is there to try to bring the parties together to negotiate a successful resolution. I have no authority whatsoever to put any money on the table. As I have said in this Legislature before, I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the case of either the union or the management side. It would be terribly inappropriate and unwise to do so, particularly when we now have them at the bargaining table.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a blunt question: how much longer do the minister and his government intend to maintain the fiction that in social service strikes of agencies controlled and funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services the minister himself is not a party to the negotiations?

Why does the minister not use his good offices to get Frank Drea to the bargaining table along with management? He is the one who controls the purse strings of the social agency and only he can come forward with the additional resources that would be required to achieve a settlement. The five per cent and a single wage scale is an eminently sensible proposal, and I am mystified why the Ministry of Community and Social Services continues to wash its hands of this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Before the minister answers that question, I must ask the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) to refer to the minister by his proper title.

Mr. McClellan: I withdraw the use of the unparliamentary term "Frank Drea."

Mr. Speaker: That was not the point; it was not unparliamentary. I just want you to identify him by his ministry rather than use his name.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was a question there. I believe some advice was offered.

I would advise that the minister in question and I have been in constant, daily contact on the matter ever since this dispute arose.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of a nursing home in Amherstburg, Richmond Nursing Homes, whose home doctor is Dr. Greenaway, who has opted out and extra bills the patients in the nursing home?

What does the minister thinks of that practice? Is he willing to take action to see that, at the very minimum, residents in nursing homes are not forced to pay extra bills from doctors who are opted out.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first of all, when a physician is an advisory physician to a nursing home this does not necessarily mean he is the personal physician to the residents of that nursing home. All residents of nursing homes are free to continue their relationship with a physician of their choice.

I am not familiar in detail with the situation the honourable member described. On the basis of information I have, I would assume there are also physicians who are not opted out -- or if opted out, not extra billing -- who are available to serve the residents of that nursing home. In that case I should not think the fact that Dr. Greenaway is opted out would in itself present a serious problem for the residents.

Mr. Cooke: The minister must realize one of the problems is that doctors in the community are reluctant to go into nursing homes, and he knows that is a fact.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: Is the minister also aware that in this particular nursing home the process used specifically for residents who are disoriented and who have to use the public trustee is that there is no one to protect their rights? The extra bills are simply sent to the public trustee and the public trustee pays on their behalf.

Who is looking out for these residents, who are very open to being used by doctors who are not concerned about universal accessibility but are instead just interested in a way to print money for their incomes? That is exactly what is happening here. Why does he not understand that all sorts of these abuses are going to take place until this government comes to grips with the fact that extra billing is wrong under medicare, that he should end extra billing and that is it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Unfortunately, I did not hear all of the member's question because of other conversations in the vicinity of my seat; however, I shall not name names.

I do think it is a rather untenable leap of logic, if one can do such things, to suggest that because of a particular situation, which I have already suggested is probably not an obstacle -- and the member really has not countered that -- to extrapolate or generalize from one situation and say it is likely to become epidemic and therefore create very serious problems in nursing homes,

If the member knows of other nursing homes in which this kind of situation is creating a problem for residents, I would be pleased to hear about it. I have been advised that the home the member described will guarantee by the end of this month that opted-in physicians will be available to the residents.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker. supplementary to the minister's reference to opting out, the minister is probably well aware of the report entitled No Care Medicare by the National Anti-Poverty Organization. I want to draw his attention to a response he made earlier in this session to a question from my leader indicating that if specific cases were brought to his attention, he would start doing something about them.

The minister is probably aware of the fact there are several specific cases in this report that deal with Ontario: that of Mr. and Mrs. P., who had to borrow $1,000 to settle their extra-billing account for their young daughter's spinal operation; and that of Mr. and Mrs. C., both of whom are retirees, who had to borrow $1,151 in order to pay for their joint medical bills.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: How many more such cases have to be brought to the minister's attention and verified and documented before he is going to make a decision on extra billing in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is, no, I have not seen the report to which the honourable member refers. Whoever prepared it obviously did not take the trouble to forward a copy of it to me. I have never seen that report and I certainly do not recognize it from the description the member has given me.

I point out to the member that of the cases brought to our attention or to the attention of the Ontario Medical Association, according to the most recent data I have coming from the senior officials of the Ontario health insurance plan who are involved with the OMA in trying to resolve these situations, about 98 percent are resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

That does not mean every one will be, but I should think from the very superficial description that is provided in the report, at least as encapsulated by the member, those are cases that should have been resolved through that process if they had been brought forward. I do not know whether they have been, They were certainly not brought to my attention.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Solicitor General. In recent days Dr. Henry Morgentaler has publicly and arrogantly announced his intention of breaking the law by operating an abortion clinic on Harbord Street in the city of Toronto, contrary to Canada's Criminal Code.

His lackeys yesterday gleefully announced that illegal abortions had been carried out on the premises that day. A handful of responsible, concerned and law-abiding citizens lawfully assembled in front of the clinic to express their revulsion and remorse at the new open season on the killing of defenceless unborn babies.

Given these facts, why were the Metropolitan Toronto Police yesterday apparently put in the incredible and indefensible position of being ordered to the clinic, not to close it down but solely to observe citizens lawfully assembled on the street to express their views, as they are entitled to do under Canada's Charter of Rights? If the officers were ordered to turn their backs on the criminal acts being performed behind the closed doors of the clinic, was this bizarre behaviour not tantamount to aiding and abetting in the crimes?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has made some very interesting points on the matter. This is a discussion about which we on this side of the House are indeed greatly concerned, both in its emotional features and in respect to the law.

Notwithstanding the member's question and the very detailed position he has put, I understand that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) will be asking the consent of the House to provide the House with an updated statement on the matter. I ask the member to await the Attorney General's statement in order that he might have a more full and complete answer on the subject.

Mr. Williams: Notwithstanding the minister's reply, I would like to ask a supplementary if I might. According to the article in this morning's Globe and Mail, the police officers were there merely to keep things running smoothly and not to gather evidence for new charges. Police Chief Jack Marks was quoted as saying he had not consulted the crown law officers about the clinic, but he said: "I have not said when, but we will. I do not think there is going to be much change there for a while."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Williams: If that is an accurate statement, to be charitable, it is ambivalent at best. I ask the Solicitor General when the Metropolitan Toronto Police are going to stop intimidating people from using the streets of Toronto lawfully and start doing what they do best, which is to stop crimes against humanity from being committed in this city and in this province.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I will stand the member's questions down to the Attorney General when he makes his statement on the matter. Without giving too many replies on this subject, as the Attorney General stated earlier in his statement in regard to the appeal of this matter, there is a situation whereby individual police forces have the discretion, after investigating and finding there is sufficient evidence to warrant laying charges of a crime, to do that. It is not within the discretion of the Solicitor General to instruct them to lay those charges. That was made exclusively clear.

It is up to Police Chief Jack Marks, who has the detail of commanding his officers in exercising their discretion. I am sure that very outstanding police force and the chief will, when necessary, seek advice to lay any charges, if he so decides to have his officers exercise that discretion. I am sure he will also seek the advice of the local crown attorneys as to whether there is sufficient evidence, when and if he decides to lay charges.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the Attorney General going to make a statement?

Mr. Speaker: Not that I am aware of.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since it appears the Attorney General --

Mr. Speaker: I was just in consultation with one of my advisers. If we do revert to statements, I will, in rotation, allow a question to be asked on that statement.

Mr. O'Neil: Let us hear the statement first.

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea whether there is going to be one or not.

Mr. O'Neil: Will it be before the end of the day or not?

Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General is the one who has to ask for it.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney General is not about to make a statement, may I ask a supplementary?

I am not quite sure what kind of advice Chief Marks and his men are looking for, but it is my understanding the federal law has not changed.

Could the Solicitor General please advise me what the people at the Morgentaler Clinic have to do before they break the law? What else do they have to do? They have admitted they broke it.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on a matter such as this, as I explained to the honourable member, when the police forces are investigating any situation contrary to law, they receive such information and then discuss it with the crown law officers or the local crown attorney. If there is sufficient evidence they exercise their discretion to lay charges.

They do not always follow immediately upon the act. Sometimes there is a delay for discussion purposes. As the member has said, the law has not changed. We still have the same law in Ontario, subject to those items that are under appeal. That does not change the law in that regard until such time as a senior court so decides.

We have a situation where there are events taking place about which I am sure the chief of police has instructed his officers. I have no knowledge of that, but I am sure he would also have instructed them about the purpose the member to my right, the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), has asked about keeping order. They are also watching other matters.

Mr. Nixon: Is the Attorney General ready to make the statement?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, if the House is agreeable to revert to statements, the Attorney General will make a statement.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to statements?

Agreed.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ABORTION CLINIC

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, further to my statement to the assembly last week with respect to the crown appeal in the proceedings against Dr. Henry Morgentaler and others, there have been a number of developments upon which I should now report to this assembly. Notwithstanding the launching of the crown appeal, it is apparent that the Morgentaler Clinic has reopened, that abortions have been performed and that those operating the clinic intend to continue to perform abortions.

3 p.m.

The continued operation of the clinic has aroused strong controversy throughout the community. Strong passions have been aroused on both sides of the issue. A number of irresponsible statements have been made. The community is deeply divided, and we face the prospect of continuing confrontation around the continued operation of the clinic.

In the face of this deep division in the community and the legal uncertainty that will remain until the legal issues are resolved in the Ontario Court of Appeal, a number of legal options are open to the police, to private citizens and to me as the Attorney General. These options include the commencement of criminal proceedings by the police and by private citizens and the application for an injunction in a civil court by the Attorney General or by others with the consent of the Attorney General.

Each of these forms of intervention presents difficulties for the administration of justice and the community. I am concerned not only with the legal issues, but also with the possibility that no one form of legal intervention or combination of legal interventions would at this time serve to calm the controversy and social unrest that has arisen around this issue.

The best place for an orderly resolution of the legal disputes, including the application of the defence of necessity and the alleged conflict between the Criminal Code abortion provisions and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

This is a time and this is an issue that require from all of us the exercise of the highest degree of social, moral and legal responsibility.

The continued operation of the clinic at this time will set the stage for further legal confrontation in the criminal courts, civil courts and, even more distressing, in the community as a whole. The public interest therefore requires all responsible members of the community to do everything they can to avoid confrontation around this issue.

In my opinion, the public interest would be best served by a cooling of public passions until the matter has been disposed of in the Ontario Court of Appeal. For that reason, I would urge Dr. Morgentaler and his associates to follow the path of restraint. I suggest they respect the usual process for the resolution of legal issues in dispute and thus request them to cease the operation of the clinic until such time as an appeal, expedited as much as possible, can be heard in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

This compliance with the law as established by the Parliament of Canada would demonstrate respect for the rule of law. It would represent an act of profound social responsibility.

Dr. Morgentaler has said he seeks a peaceful dialogue in mutual respect of opposing positions on some of the ethical dilemmas involved in this troubling issue. Having taken that public position, he must now surely consider what steps he can take to avoid the kind of unnecessary confrontation in the criminal courts, in the civil courts and in the wider community that can only flow from the continued operation of his clinic.

This is above all a time for people to respect those who hold different opinions. Representatives of both sides of the abortion controversy have appealed to me to take steps to defuse public tensions around this issue. One common thread among responsible people on both sides of the issue is that it is imperative to calm the extremely volatile passions that have erupted.

At the same time that I send this message to Dr. Morgentaler, I must send a similar message to those who have made threatening statements on the other side of this issue. Let me stress that every step must be taken to preserve the public peace, and every necessary step will be taken.

At the same time, I must observe that the resources of criminal law enforcement can be put to better use than in the simultaneous protection and prosecution of the clinic pending an early resolution of the issues before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

I therefore call upon all sides of this very controversial matter to exercise restraint, to respect the views of others and mutually to accept a public moratorium on this issue until the law has been clarified by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

(CONTINUED)

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Attorney General on his statement. I note his request to Dr. Morgentaler. Has he requested this of Dr. Morgentaler personally, and what was his response to the minister's request?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.

Mr. Peterson: Why would the Attorney General come to this House, announce it this way and expect Dr. Morgentaler to respond? What is the minister going to do if he does not respond to his request?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would have thought this would be an appropriate place. We on this side perhaps have more respect for the role of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) in the resolution or discussion of important public disputes in this Legislature. Given the enormous continuing controversy, of which all members are very much aware, and in view of the many requests that have been made by both sides of this issue to the Attorney General of this province, I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition would agree that this is an appropriate forum in which to issue a call for restraint such as the one I have just made.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious to everyone that people on both sides of this issue would like to see the issue resolved and see passions cooled. Can the minister tell me how he expects his statement to accomplish anything in view of the fact that Dr. Morgentaler has declared he intends to operate his clinic in view of the fact that he was acquitted by a jury?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have made this statement, which must speak for itself, in answer to many requests that have been made to my office during the period of time in which this issue has reached a high degree of controversy. A number of requests have been made by members of the public, the media and members of the Legislature to outline the options that are available.

It is my view and my deeply held conviction that it is appropriate to issue such an appeal for restraint to Dr. Morgentaler, his associates and others for a form of moratorium, as it were, until the legal issues have been clarified by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

I believe this to be a responsible course of action. Of course, I cannot predict the response of Dr. Morgentaler and his associates, but I believe it is responsible to make such a public plea to all sides in this controversy in order that there may be an orderly resolution of some of the outstanding legal issues in the courts and not elsewhere in the community.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, can the Attorney General clarify for the benefit of the members of the Legislature when the Attorney General of this province had to request people to cease and desist from breaking the laws of this country?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am sorry, I do not understand the question.

Mr. Williams: How long a time is the Attorney General going to give Dr. Morgentaler to comply with his request?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I thought I had explained this to the members of the Legislature when I made my statement on the appeal. The decision in relation to the laying of any criminal charges, as the Solicitor General (Mr. C. W. Taylor) has just repeated once again, is a decision that must be made by the police department directly involved.

In making this decision, this police department will undoubtedly seek advice, as the Solicitor General has already stated today, and may indeed have already sought some preliminary advice from the local crown attorney's office. It is not the role of the Attorney General to direct the police to lay charges or not to lay charges.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on another subject for the Attorney General. Will the honourable minister of tomorrow and tomorrow please tell us which day this week he is going to introduce his long-promised amendments to the Family Law Reform Act so that the bill can be given second reading and referred to a standing committee for public hearings early in the new year?

He promised these amendments almost two years ago and assured us at the end of the spring session that they would be introduced before the end of the fall session. Is it cabinet opposition which is holding up the badly needed amendments to close the glaring loopholes that are depriving many women of receiving a fair share of property acquired after a marriage and putting in jeopardy their right to 50 per cent of the matrimonial home?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the honourable member on other occasions, we already have in place a Family Law Reform Act which is one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in the western world. There are some proposals for change about which we on this side of the House are seeking to --

Mr. McClellan: Where are they?

Mr. Martel: You have been promising them for two years.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: They do not want to listen.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Can the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) not keep some of these young men under better control?

There are some important proposals being considered on which we are attempting to seek a broad community consensus.

Ms. Bryden: I am very disappointed that the minister's only reply is recourse to that statement that we are way ahead of other provinces, which is completely false.

Will the Attorney General tell us exactly what his ministry is going to do to beef up the enforcement of the $42 million of support and maintenance orders in this province which are being blatantly ignored by spouses? For example, is he prepared to adopt the Manitoba system, which uses a computer to alert enforcement officers of defaults? Wages are immediately attached as a result. This has resulted in 85 per cent of support orders being collected in Manitoba instead of 85 per cent being in default. Will the minister consider such action in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

TENDERING PRACTICES

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Will the minister confirm that a five-year agreement forest timber sales contract covering about 50,000 cords of wood in the southwestern and central regions of the Minden district is to be awarded to the Ontario Paper Co. without tender even though two other companies, Giant Timber Industries Ltd. and Brouwer Wood Products, had been approached by the ministry, informed they would be allowed to bid on that contract and were provided with the conditions under which the agreement would be tendered?

Will the minister confirm these two companies have now been informed by his ministry that a contract has been formulated with Ontario Paper and that there will be no tendering process? How can he justify an action such as this? What does he have against the little guy?

Hon. Mr. Pope: The member is hardly one to talk about the little guy.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I cannot confirm that because it is not true. We are meeting the other companies on December 17. There is nothing on my desk with respect to a signing of any agreement with Ontario Paper, nor has there been any policy decision from Queen's Park offices to enter into any agreement with Ontario Paper.

Ontario Paper has had a 25-year standing agreement with this government with respect to the harvesting and thinning operations the member speaks of. We received some indication from them a few months ago that they were not interested in continuing. That led to some discussions. We now have some indication they might be willing to continue. No final decision has been made, and the people who demonstrated knew that.

Mr. Reed: Will the minister make sure this agreement goes out for bidding as his officials indicated to the two companies? When he is doing that, will he also review the outline of the agreement to make sure private tracts are not included? The minister may not be aware that at the present time for some reason there is some private land involved in the proposed agreement. I would be pleased to pass him the information about that. Will the minister give us those assurances?

Hon. Mr. Pope: No, I will not give the honourable member any assurances. Setting aside this particular example, the member is aware that in principle two options are available.

One is the allocation through crown licence for our district cutting licences at a set rate of crown dues charged under the Crown Timber Act. The other option is the tendering of timber located on private and public lands, depending on the circumstances. In principle, this can have an impact on cost of operation and therefore on the competitiveness of some of the mills if it is widespread.

Be that as it may, in this specific instance I will further review both options before I make a final decision.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC LEGISLATION

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The minister will be aware of the concerns of the transit workers in Toronto about the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act in Bill 96, which mean the members can be charged for any violations.

Since the drivers must look to the right before pulling out or turning, but cannot see if the bus or streetcar is jammed to the front door, will the minister accept the transit workers' request that a white line be painted on the floor from the driver's seat across the aisle to the front of the first passenger's seat so that passengers cannot stand in front of that line and create a hazard for the driver?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking into this matter. It is my understanding the Public Vehicles Act requires that no passenger stand ahead of the line immediately behind the doorwell. Apparently, that is not a regulation with regard to transit buses in municipalities, as they do not come under the Public Vehicles Act.

I can certainly see the benefit of that. On the other hand, there could be problems if there was a crowd of people at a bus stop wanting to get on and the bus was full. Who is going to decide whether another passenger can get behind the line? However. I understand what the honourable member is saying. I am looking into it and will give it some consideration.

SEATING PLAN

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have been a member of this Legislature now for close to four years. During that time I have been seated in the back row on this side of the House. It is very crowded back here. It is difficult to get in and out of the desks and in and out of the seats. The 22 of us in the back row on this side have tolerated this for three and a half years.

After an event that is to take place this Thursday, the problem is going to be even worse. Can we be assured that we will be treated the same as other members of the House are and have a little more room so we can get in and out? I do not know how you are going to do it, sir, but I know the problem is going to get worse.

There is no problem getting in and out of seats on the other side. There is a lot of room. I do not think we are being treated the same as other members are.

Mr. Speaker: I surely would not want any members in this House to feel discriminated against. Depending upon events that may or may not happen in the future, I can assure you everything will be taken care of in the regular way.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: If the member feels he has to bring his weight problems before this Legislature for discussion, that is quite all right, but I recommend the Young Men's Christian Association.

3:20 p.m.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

"Whereas there is an understood convention in democratic societies which respect the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented such matters should be debated in the Legislative Assembly with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and be heard."

That petition is signed by 37 teachers at Centennial Secondary School in the city of Windsor in the riding of Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

This petition is signed by 47 teachers in the city of Windsor.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in exactly the same language as those just read by my colleagues the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) and the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman). It is signed by 30 constituents from the great county of Renfrew.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in the same terms signed by a number of constituents in ward 3 of the city of Nanticoke in my constituency.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition again couched in the same wording and signed by 70 persons in the Napanee-Kingston area.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITREE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the third report of the committee.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Kerr from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Education be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $37,242,800; education program, $3,184,052,700; services to education program, $1,670,700.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Eaton moved that in the standing committee on social development, the estimates of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be reduced to five hours and 30 minutes.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Eaton moved that the standing committee on members' services be authorized to meet in the morning of Thursday, December 13, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill 157, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this bill would have a dual effect. It would clear up all the confusion in the mind of the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe) with respect to which municipalities can own property where in this province. Second, it would enable the city of Toronto to own property in the city of York with respect to the strip of land that would prevent the extension of the Spadina expressway.

The way is now clear for strong government action. There are no more legal impediments upon the adoption of this finely crafted bill. Mr. Speaker, I know you will urge all members of this House to attend to it immediately.

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Newman moved, second by Mr. G. I. Miller, first reading of Bill 158, An Act to amend the Public Service Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this bill would protect from reprisals those crown employees and employees of Ontario Hydro and the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission who disclose, with the exception of certain categories, information they believe to show contraventions of law, gross waste of public funds or assets or substantial dangers to public health and safety. This would override the civil servants duty to keep confidential all information acquired on the job.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Before calling private member's motion 54, I want to say I understand the time is to be split equally and the table will keep track.

3:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION POLICY

Mr. Conway moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, motion 54 under standing order 63(a):

That the government lacks the confidence of this House because of its record in relation to all matters affecting education in this province, where through the ministries of Education and of Colleges and Universities, all educational institutions have been systematically undermined and sabotaged, have suffered relentless cutbacks in financial resources, have become victims of divisiveness engendered among educational constituencies, have been compelled to implement programs by confrontational and intransigent policies and have been subjected to an iron hand of increasing centralization and loss of autonomy, in particular:

The decision of the government to withdraw from its commitment to share the costs of public education with local municipalities in a ratio of 60:40, to the extent the government now contributes less than 49 per cent of such costs;

The unarticulated policy of this government that, as a consequence of its perception that the provincial university system was overbuilt during the decade 1960-70, it has so diminished its support to universities that the viability and quality of the system is in peril;

The position of the government in the face of the recent strike by community college teachers, whereby it denied legitimacy to the central concern, namely, the quality of education;

The failure of the government to provide the necessary resources to programs of special education throughout the province, whereby the legitimate needs and expectations of thousands of children with exceptional educational needs will remain unmet;

The destructive predilection of the government to appoint commissions and committees to inquire into the state of our universities, whose numerous recommendations have all been substantially ignored;

The failure of the government to respond to the growth and popularity of the community college system, as it refuses to plan for or fund any expansion of the system and refuses to disclose reports which evidence the need for expansion of the college system;

The intransigence of the government in requiring implementation of the new OSIS high school curriculum without providing prerequisite course curricula, in-service training and financial support and without regard for the many caveats expressed by members of the constituency affected;

The failure of the government to make timely, reasonable and necessary provision for French-language governance among school boards where the francophone population is entitled to such representation;

The dismal record of the government to make even modest provision to the universities of the province for maintenance and repair of their buildings and capital plant;

The decision by the government to abruptly reverse its position on the extending of funding to the separate school system, without debate or consultation and with the consequence of confusion and hostility among all members of the post-secondary school system;

The announcement by this government in the speech from the throne in March 1984 that there would be a return to province-wide assessment in the school, which announcement was immediately and substantially contradicted by the minister responsible;

The pursuit by the government of a plan to restructure the distribution of local commercial and industrial property and business tax assessment, through the means of the Martin proposal, without full disclosure of alternative proposals or any commitment to raise per pupil expenditure ceilings and without meaningful consultation;

The policy of the government to permit admission to up to 50 per cent of community college programs by means of a random selection, "lottery" process, without regard to student merit or performance;

The proposal by the government to impose a structure, to be known as a College of Teachers, on over 100,000 teachers in the province, without significant prior consultation, and in the face of opposition from the recognized teacher federations;

The refusal by the government to provide support for co-operative education high school programs, although such programs have demonstrated extraordinary success and require only very modest financial support;

The policy of the government to refuse to provide capital funds to school boards for the building of school facilities in those areas of the province where overcrowding and the use of portables are at a crisis stage;

The policy of the government whereby hundreds of noncredit continuing education programs were eliminated or curtailed by local schools because funds previously provided were cut off;

The practice of the government to make appointments to governing bodies of community colleges on the basis of the appointees' association with the government party;

The policy of the government to sharply increase the tuition fees paid by foreign and visa students, with a consequent and serious decline in foreign student enrolment, imperilling Ontario's role in the world academic community;

The failure of the government to encourage and make necessary provisions for research and development activity at provincial universities, in so far as research grants do not cover overhead expenses and often strain existing university resources and discourage faculty research efforts; and

The policy of the government which curtailed or eliminated successful adult upgrading programs, notably those offered by the Prescott-Russell board and the Niagara region board, by virtue of memo B:9 of 1983, which operated retroactively on those boards.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, for those and other reasons I will outline, my colleagues and I move this motion of want of confidence in this government's administration of the education policy of this province.

As the chief government whip has properly indicated, the time, which I believe is two hours and five minutes, give or take a few, has been divided by agreement among all three parties. In respect of that agreement, I will govern myself accordingly.

I note the absence of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), though she will he around shortly, as the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Eaton), the chief government whip, has indicated. She is very ably represented at the beginning of this debate -- at which I note the presence of seven members of the 71-member government majority -- by my friend and colleague the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), the minister's parliamentary assistant.

My colleagues and I have taken this opportunity to move this motion because of our growing concern about what is happening to education in this province. There is not one member on this side of the House, and I cannot imagine there is another member on the other side of the House, who has travelled around and about his or her constituency in these past few months without being impressed very quickly by the range and depth of concern in the community about the education policy -- or the want of an education policy, as the case may be -- of the government in this province.

I have been impressed in my own part of eastern Ontario by the numbers of residents who have drawn to my attention their concern about what is happening to the state of education in this province. This motion expressing want of confidence in this government is offered very much on behalf of those countless Ontarians who feel betrayed by the government they elected to govern and to legislate for a better, not a confused or worse, educational environment.

There is concern, as I indicated, on all sides. Students, whether they be in elementary, secondary or post-secondary education, are rising with one voice to raise their concerns about quality, access and employment.

We have educators who in many cases remember a happier time, a time when the Ontario government seemed to understand, seemed to consult and seemed to be well informed about and very sensitive to every rhythm in education at all levels in this province. Educators ask me and my friends from St. Catharines, Kitchener, Windsor and elsewhere:

"What next? What are the Minister of Education and the Premier planning to do next? Which bomb is sitting there in the Mowat Block or in the Premier's office just waiting to be detonated?"

That is the concern from educators about what they feel is wrong in education.

3:40 p.m.

Gone are the days when there were bridges to all constituencies emanating from the Office of the Premier and the Mowat Block, often bridges across very troubled waters.

Those were the happy days of John Robarts, and the early days and even some of the middle years of the current Premier (Mr. Davis). There now is a sense that there is much less sensitivity, much less real information and, unhappily, much less commitment.

Parents by the score say to their members in this assembly: "What is wrong at Queen's Park? What kind of mindset afflicts this government that is 41 years and four months old, such that we have this malaise in the province today?"

There are trustees who feel overridden and trampled upon who are asked to go out and raise local taxes because Queen's Park will not live up to commitments that presumably were honourably entered into in 1970 and repeated some years later.

Trustees in counties such as Renfrew, where the local tax base is unhappily all too fragile, are being sent back to their electorates and taxpayers and being forced by a calculated, premeditated, but very private public policy on the part of this government to raise local property taxes in Pembroke, Deep River, Kingston and the Islands and elsewhere.

They are being asked to pay the price for much of the Premier's promise, which has not been fulfilled by the provincial government.

Taxpayers by the score in Athens, Gananoque and Brockville are reacting as one would expect beleaguered and overburdened taxpayers to react. Trustees, county councillors and city councillors in Athens, Gananoque and Brockville are reacting as one would expect the good people of Leeds county to react when they are asked to carry an additional burden placed on their shoulders, not by local authorities but by the provincial government at Queen's Park and by the Legislature.

What of the Legislature in all this? I wonder what happens when the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) asks: "What is going on? What is really happening with respect to universities in this province? What policy response has my government generated to the breathtaking conclusions of the Fisher panel on these critical questions?" What answer does he get?

I wonder what answers the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) or the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) get when they ask, "What about our policy of extending aid to the full panel in separate secondary education?" They get the same answer the private schools get when they ask, "What of our future?" The universities get the same answer when they ask, "What is your response to the breathtaking conclusions of the Fisher report?" The community college teachers and the students at that level get the same answer when they ask, "What is going to happen when we deal with the critical question of instructional assignments?" Unhappily, we had a most divisive strike about that this past fall.

The answer in all cases is, "There is a commission," Mr. Newnham, Mr. Bovey, Mr. Macdonald and countless others I will not name are out there studying these matters. The Legislature is not invited to participate in a discussion of the critical questions and options.

Last year I tried, with the support of my friend the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), to get a legislative debate on the very important matters affecting our university policy in this province. What did I and the member for Hamilton West get? We got nothing by way of a positive commitment. It was only after we offered almost vital parts of our anatomy that we got a response from the government that it would give the member and I --

Mr. Allen: The member should speak for himself.

Mr. Conway: I am speaking for myself; I do not mean to impugn the physical integrity of my friend.

We got a three-day hearing from this majority government that continues to exercise its iron heel unfeelingly on these important matters about which there is widespread concern. We got a commitment from this 71-member Tory majority that we could have a three-day hearing in the standing committee on social development to discuss some of these questions. That is what we got. That is about all the Legislature has had in the nine years and three months during which I have been a member of it. That is just not good enough.

Government by commission and government by meditation is not going to resolve many of these questions. I say to the arriving Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities, it is that kind of intransigence and insensitivity that is simply not good enough, the kind of attitude that wants to treat the members of the Legislature as if they were mushrooms in a greenhouse -- put them in a dark corner and feed them "you know what."

It is because the Legislature has not been involved, because there has not been a full and public review of the policy questions and because there has been no opportunity outside the private environment of the Mowat Block and the Office of the Premier that we have such concern in the community today.

I have some sympathy for the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities because she herself has suffered from the very disease about which I am complaining. The member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie) will recall unhappily, as will all other readers of the Ottawa Citizen, the spectacle of the minister being held up to public ridicule last June when she was clearly shut out from the very important decision that was taken by the Premier himself at the summit of this government, at the peak of this Kilimanjaro, perhaps in consultation with Emmett Cardinal Carter, Archbishop of the Diocese of Toronto, the deputy minister in the Premier's office and Mr. Allan Gregg. That was the inner circle of five or six men who I believe were consulted on the most incredible about-face in modern political history in Ontario.

I am sure my friends the member for Middlesex, the member for London South (Mr. Walker) and the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) well remember their campaigns in 1971. I can just imagine what was said at that time by the government candidate in that riding on the back concessions of Middlesex about extending aid to separate schools. I can imagine.

The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) reminds me of that of which I do not need much reminding: what was said in eastern Ontario by countless government candidates in the 1981 election about the sacrosanct quality of grade 13. "Those scoundrel Grits," the Tories said from Carleton to Kingston to Pembroke. "have some kind of scheme to reform the educational curriculum in the secondary panel to make grade 13 optional." From Carleton to Gananoque to Pembroke they said: "Elect us, your Tory candidates, and we will ensure the inviolability of grade 13. Upon this rock we will build the educational church for the 1980s."

How long did that last, I ask my friends the members for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell), Parry Sound, Leeds (Mr. Runciman), High Park-Swansea and the other 20 or so government candidates elected in 1981? It lasted all of about a year.

3:50 p.m.

I say to the government members what people in this province are saying about the government: "What is the value or the worth of the word of the government of Ontario? They say one thing, campaign aggressively on that policy and all the while they plan and plot to do the very reverse."

That, my friends, is the politics of the credibility gap, and people remember. When my friends in the government back benches examine their consciences, how do they support what has been done in their names? How do those who campaigned with such vigour and such success in 1981 feel as accomplices to the about-face which produced a complete reversal from that grade 13 policy in which they so happily took refuge in 1981?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What idiocy.

Mr. Conway: The minister of all education interjects. She will have her day. The people of Ontario have not lost sight of these reversals and inconsistencies and they are not very happy, in particular at this time.

The Premier himself, in his royal progress through the Ottawa Valley, made much of the grade 13 commitment. How well I remember his commitments in the great campaign of 1981, but I also remember the campaign of 1971. Why should I be surprised about the reversal of the junior league policies in 1981? Who could ever forget in Lanark, Middlesex, Leeds and Parry Sound, and even in York Mills, the generous and kind-hearted way in which the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) entered into the 1971 campaign and injected the separate school question into that campaign?

I was there and, like Pepperidge Farm, I remember. My memories are not very happy and not very positive. That is one of the many reasons I stand here and ask today, particularly at this time when we draw to the end of the Davis era in Ontario polities, what are the unpaid or unbalanced accounts on the Davis ledger? When I cast my eye and my mind across the Davis era, I see too many unpaid accounts and too many unbalanced items on that ledger sheet for my approval or my liking.

All this must take me to the minister herself. I want to offer my comments in a tough but fair way. Many of these people to whom I have made reference, the parents, the students, the trustees, the teachers, the taxpayers, are not always happy about all that was done in the 1960s and 1970s. They remember a circumstance when there was at least a more open, generous and consultative attitude. They remember the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), and I remember him, as a minister who was in the best tradition of John Robarts and Mackenzie King, a great conciliator, a moderate seeking the middle road --

Mr. Bradley: A man of consensus.

Mr. Conway: A man of consensus, as the member for St. Catharines wisely points out.

Many people in the educational community remember the Premier in like fashion. It is against that backdrop they look now at the past six years. What do they see? What do they feel? -- that may be a better way of putting it. They feel the lashes of the minister's whip. They feel the bruises of the minister's heel. They feel they are shut out of the consensus that is so important to educational progress. Time and time again they have been forced to appeal to the Premier as a final court to get redress.

I do not agree that in all cases members of the educational constituency have been right in doing that, but I do agree that, generally speaking, they have been very wise. They have had to appeal to that final court out of necessity because of the minister of all education. We all know the Minister of Education to be a formidable lady who works tirelessly at her job and for whom I have a considerable grudging admiration because I, too, have felt the lash and the heel of the minister's wrath.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Start shovelling again. The member is a great shoveller.

Mr. Conway: I am trying to be reasonable and I am trying to be balanced.

The intransigent attitude of the Minister of Education and her attitude of "Doctor knows best," where she says, "I, Bette Stephenson, have diagnosed the illness and here is the medicine; take it and shut up," is not good enough for the people of Ontario. That is the kind of policy that has created the ferment in education in Ontario today.

Therefore, I must say the present minister of all education has, unhappily, exhausted her mandate in the educational field. As long as there is a Progressive Conservative government, I think her talents could be more appropriately utilized at Management Board of Cabinet where, God knows, whips and spurs are the order of the day.

In this debate, I want to offer the present and future leaders of the Conservative government an option for the not inconsiderable abilities of the Minister of Education in this government today. They should make her Chairman of Management Board. They should put her in charge of the Civil Service Commission and the Manual of Administration. They should give her a place in the executive council where she could ventilate and give full scope to her right-wing enthusiasms. I can think of no better place than the Management Board where she could crack the whip on the member for London South and other free-spending ministers and government officials.

The minister has exhausted her mandate as Minister of Education. I implore her political supervisors to give her new responsibilities so long as there is a Conservative administration in this province.

I want to conclude my brief opening statement by addressing the university question. The member for St. Catharines and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) will deal with other aspects of my motion.

It was five years ago, in considerable frustration, that many people in the university community went to the Premier, over the head of the present Minister of Education, and said: "Mr. Premier, our universities in this province are in trouble. We are in a crisis. We must have either a new mandate or better resources. Please do something because we do not appear to be getting anywhere with the present minister."

The Premier appointed a blue-ribbon panel to investigate the future role of Ontario universities. The co-ordinating chairman of that blue-ribbon panel was none other than the former Deputy Minister of Colleges and Universities, the well-known Dr. Harry Fisher. In the summer of 1981, his panel reported university administrators and others at the board level were quite right and justified in drawing these concerns to the attention of the public and the government.

4 p.m.

In the summer of 1981, the Fisher panel said: "We must do one of two things. We must either alter the mandate and scale down the commitment, or maintain the mandate and the commitment and upscale the financial resources. There is no alternative and, worst of all, there is no opportunity for muddling through. Do something."

What do we get two and a half years later? We get a commission to study a commission. The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) has in some ways a more direct interest in this latest commission than I do because its mandate was expanded to include the complex question of university program development in northeastern Ontario. I say to him we are now six years away from the time the leaders of our university community went to the Premier and said, "Do something," and we are still being commissioned about it.

The fire has spread well beyond the ground floor. The minister need do nothing but review the most recent report of her senior advisory panel on university affairs, the September 1984 report of the Ontario Council on University Affairs. It paints an incredibly unhappy picture of the financial situation in which Ontario universities find themselves. That report from the senior Ontario government advisory panel on university affairs says things are bad, they are getting worse and Ontario's record as a provincial government is among the worst of any, provincial or federal, in the Dominion of Canada.

In a recent report the Council of Ontario Universities documented in an elaborate series of charts how the provincial government has been reducing its share of support for post-secondary education in this province, forcing the federal government to pick up an increased share. The OCUA report documents that and reinforces it with all kinds of new data.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yeah.

Mr. Conway: The Minister of Education in that eloquent way of hers, says, "Yeah." I want more than a yeah response to the Fisher report and the OCUA report. I want a lot more than that offered by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) two or three weeks ago when he said that part of the answer was: "Make the students pay. Hike the tuition substantially."

Can one imagine the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) having to go home next April or May and meet his electors with the Treasurer's tuition monkey on his back? It is not for no good reason that the member for Kingston and the Islands is supporting the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell). My friend the well-informed member from Kingston and Queen's University knows only too well the concerns of the students, faculty, staff, parents and rate-payers.

What we ask from the minister of all education and what we ask from this dying dynasty, this tired, worn-out Tory government of 41 years and four months, is some sensitivity to the real questions and challenges that face us in education in Ontario today. As critic for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, I beg my friends the members for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), Carleton and Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) to come forward and bring to bear the pressure I know they are finding at home about these matters, unresolved after 14 years of this administration.

I conclude by saying that as the sand drains through the timer --

Hon. Mr. Norton: The hourglass.

Mr. Conway: The hourglass. I thank the minister.

These are serious questions that deserve more than commission piled on commission. What are the constituents going to have when the Premier is gone? What court of appeal will they have? Will it be the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) saying, "Up the tuition?" Will it be the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) saying, "Sell the university of XYZ?"

Imagine what kind of world we might find ourselves in when, in February 1985, we get the first Tory Premier in more than a quarter of a century who has not had personal experience of the educational community. I ask the mandarins under the press gallery and I ask the front- and back-benchers on the dynastic benches of the Tory party to imagine what we might find ourselves in as the winter snows pile up in February 1985.

There is altogether too much concern, altogether too much pressure that has gone unresponded to. Because of that concern, people in places such as Renfrew, Bruce, Huron and St. Catharines have told us, "Get up there and tell that minister and her colleagues we have had enough, and enough is too much." There is no confidence left in the Tory government's ability to meet the pressing needs of education in 1984; so they say, "Throw the rascals out and let there be new leadership and new creativity to address these matters."

[Applause]

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I gather that was a postlude to the last address and not a prelude to the next one.

I rise on behalf of our party to support the motion of no confidence moved by the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). As I first read the motion, and indeed as I read it now, I am sure the member will forgive me for observing that it reads somewhat like the attempt of a wandering and somewhat harassed politician, undoubtedly careering between Wentworth North, Hamilton Centre, Ottawa Centre, Prescott-Russell and Ottawa East in search of not only election fodder but also educational issues. Undoubtedly, he has found some.

It is a wide terrain and large geography to canvass and it says much for the energy of the member for Renfrew North that he was able to do so exhaustive a job. At the same time, I must say a certain amount of his harassment is evident in some of his comments. I myself would not have used the word "sabotage." I do not think the minister or any of her officials are deliberately sabotaging education in Ontario. There may be undermining and it may be regular, but I am not entirely sure it is wilfully and intentionally systematic. I think there are reasons that language can be used and be seen to be used with some measure of plausibility.

I also miss in the motion some sense of focus. While the member concentrated very heavily on at least the apparent aberration of the Premier of this province from past ways and past views and while he concentrated upon the educational issue and latterly upon the minister herself, I missed any sense of an underlying reason that these things have been happening in our province and that we should be subjected to a regime of educational turmoil, of institutional confusion, of an occasional style of an authoritarian personality, if one likes, marked here and there by wistful flights of fantasy.

4:10 p.m.

What are we talking about? We are talking about 4,500 schools. We are talking about 85,000 public and separate schoolteachers. We are talking about 1,800,000 elementary and secondary students. Alongside that are some 507 private schools and 83,000 students with whom we do not have to bother, although 30,000 of them are in Roman Catholic private schools and will shortly be in the public sector.

We are talking about 22 colleges of applied arts and technology, which contain more than 120,000 full-time students; part-time students run to 500,000 and there are more than 7,000 faculty members. There are 16 universities with full-time enrolments of 187,000 students; part-time and full-time equivalent students are 96,000; faculty members number 13,000 and so on.

In addition to all that, there are hundreds of trustees, members of boards of colleges and universities and numerous advisory committees. It is a mammoth sector of Ontario society we are concerned about in this debate.

In the first instance one has to observe that a certain style is becoming plain and characteristic in the operation not just of the current minister or of this administration, but in the last two decades of education policy and in the way it is handled in this province. In some respects the style is as important as the content because it sets the tone for all the rest. It sets the tone for relationships within the system. It sets the tone for whether this Legislature is a respected body from which emanates policy that fundamentally governs the most important elements that relate to the social sector of this province's life.

When the minister recently laid before us her statement on affirmative action, I was interested to note that the last paragraph began with words that had to do with the importance of boards providing role models for their students. It occurred to me that surely it is politically important for the ministry and for the government in the whole area of education policy, in the way it is developed and in the style in which it is applied, to present a certain role model to those hundreds and thousands -- indeed, millions -- of students who inhabit the education system of this province. When I look at the minister, at the ministry and at the government, I find major problems in that respect.

During the past two decades we have seen perhaps the most significant policies relating to social development and social impact pursued, promoted and developed by this government and its antecedent without any really significant or substantial reference to this body.

The Hall-Dennis reforms wandered around out there, and there was a certain pattern of consultation; there is no question about that. But were they ever debated? Was a decision ever made in this House about them? No, it was not.

When it came to the reformed style of the open classroom concept, to which so many teachers found it so difficult to adjust, rightly or wrongly, the decision to adopt it was not made in this place. When it came to the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions reforms, which are just now being implemented, again there were committees, groups and discussions. But was there a reference to this chamber? Not a word of it. There was no decision about whether this was the appropriate direction for education in the latter 1980s, into the 1990s and perhaps beyond.

Then last June there was the issue of the completion of the Catholic system. That was again a prime example not only of an absence of consultation, highlighted by the failure to include even the minister in the process of consultation, but a simple, presidential directive that this shall be. Then the commissions were announced and now they are at work, and it shall be.

It is the style that is the problem. It is the failure to respect the complete processes, not just of public consultation but of democratic decision-making which finally, for such public institutions as the educational sector, reside in this assembly.

With respect to the minister herself and her style, we have seen the style of confrontation time and time again. We have seen it over the college of education issue. We saw it in the Bill 42 attempt to create a regime of bludgeon in place of a regime of trust between the ministry and government on the one hand and the universities on the other. When that failed, the Bovey commission was instructed to find ways to cut back and reduce the system.

Then there was a college strike in which the minister was hand in glove, compromised, an accomplice on one side of the dispute. She refused to recognize that and act accordingly, withdraw herself and maintain a distance from which she might have had some respectful influence in the denouement of that issue. She did not do so.

There are her pronouncements on the subject of legislating access for non-Roman Catholic students to the separate school system. Her style, taken hand in glove with the previous observations about the style and direction and the policy formation process that have marked the great educational steps of the last two decades, gives one an uneasy feeling that one is witnessing some kind of crisis in the Tory personality, perhaps even a crisis in what someone has referred to as the authoritarian personality. Certainly, it hardly represents the consummation of the once proud and once bold Conservative tradition in Ontario.

Compare the minister's last two statements in her Education estimates. A year ago we were being treated to observations about the increasing breakdown of social consensus, the rise of narrow group interests in matters affecting schools, eroding the whole, fragmenting society seriously, self-interest groups living apart in suspicion of each other, all factors that tend to split and reduce society to disarray.

We had none of that this year. This year we were treated to a sound and light show with the most advanced technology available, given soothing words about excellence in the system and told about the super-omnicompetence of an administration that was keeping everything moving smoothly towards its grand, predestined end.

I asked the minister which of these two worlds is true, which of these two worlds the real one? The minister revealingly said both of them are true. Well, both of them are true, but the interesting thing is they represent two sides of the Tory personality. They represent beleaguered defensiveness in the face of the modern world, which is very difficult for the Tory mind to accommodate. At the same time, there is that resort to the shiny technological fixes, to the superbureaucratic solutions. It is not surprising to see the minister, and occasionally the ministry, indulging in fantasy to resolve the tensions that beset them.

4:20 p.m.

I remember two years ago when I first came here, I saw a sound and light show that was magnificently impressive. Among other things, it told us of the implications for education of the phenomenon that when one reverses the rotation of one set of atomic particles, the rest follow suit. Somehow that seemed to suit the lurking authoritarianism of the minister's mind. What could be a more appropriate model? If one could simply turn the electrons in another direction, all the rest would follow.

We also learned about the chimpanzees on one island in the South Pacific which suddenly and mysteriously picked up exactly the same behaviour traits as others isolated from them on another island; as in that case, one establishes a model classroom, one twists and turns and everybody falls into place. If it does not go right, then self-interest groups will move in on the system and attempt to erode it.

The minister does not understand that it is an immensely complex world out there. There is bound to be pushing and pulling, there is bound to be disarray of a certain kind, and of course, one has to accommodate that. When we asked the minister who the self-interest groups were, she could not tell us.

The minister is caught between two fundamental forces in education policy. One is a teaching constituency that is essentially humane in its perspectives. On the other hand there are the supercorporate executives who, as polls by the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education recently told us, are not interested in humane education so much as in creating those skills that will assist them in organizing work places based on routine labour. The minister is caught somewhere in between and has never resolved her education policies; nor, indeed, has the government.

There are issues all the way through this whole system. In the course of the past year we learned of the major problems in the kindergarten programs where, probably most appropriately with reference to what I have just said, we are told children are no longer learning on the basis of play; they are learning on the basis of rote, repetition and mechanical materials.

From the Science Council of Canada we learned of the problems of science education in the primary and junior years and of the absence of trained science teachers in the intermediate years. We know there is an absence of a consistent stream of technological education throughout the school system and a woeful inability to move life skills education into the earlier years of education in a meaningful way.

We know there are immense problems with respect to the general-level students, not just with OSIS but more generally speaking. When I tried to raise this issue with the minister, she told me there was no such thing as general-level students. Then I went back to my office and saw there were two studies by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation that talk about general-level students and found there is a standing committee in my own ward devoted to the concerns of general-level students.

Of course there are general-level students. After all, we cannot simply define them all out of the system. They are there, and their problems in obtaining access to genuine and meaningful education are immense.

We saw what happened last year when the OSIS reforms, which are intended for a certain kind of elite group destined for the university system, fouled up general-level students by tempting them into too early registration in the core curriculum. We saw the disaster that overtook the technical courses.

When one looks at the college system, one finds an unrationalized system whereby general-level students find themselves competing unfairly with former university students, partially completed university students and grade 13 students all in the same classrooms.

When one moves beyond the college system into job skills training for those same graduates, one finds they are caught up in manifold problems whose surface the ministry has not even scratched.

The ills that beset apprenticeship training and critical trades training are quite incredible. For example, if one looks at the failure of the minister to take up the moneys that have been made available to her by various other federal programs, one finds not only that the Provincial Auditor's measly $3.7 million has not been taken up but also that there is a whole $28.4 million the minister has not availed herself of in the area of critical trades training to provide for thousands of training places and jobs.

When we look at the university system, as my colleague the member for Renfrew North did, again year after year we have been treated to the shameful statistics that have told us this system is in 10th place out of 10 provinces in terms of per capita wealth, expenditure over gross provincial product, average increases in budget provided over the past decade and per student supports. That is an incredible situation for the province that has the largest university system in this country and that ought to be the lighthouse of the whole country in that respect.

More recently I looked at the Report of the Task Force on Research Infrastructure of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. This government, which pretends to be so much with it in terms of its technological centres and its support of research, needs to read this paragraph on page 16 of the introduction:

"The ratios shown in the last seven lines of table 3 provide useful comparisons by region of current infrastructure support and needs." It goes on to talk about there being "fairly uniform" support "from region to region. Ontario, however, stands out as being very low in relation to other regions in all categories ... only 60 per cent that of the rest of the country ... . A major reason for the anomalous position of Ontario can be found in table 10, which has to do with the recent funding history of universities by that province."

It is the same as we move from the university sector into the area of continuing and adult education. Once again there is a crisis of major proportions the ministry simply is not addressing. The minister will tell us that adults can go back to school; they can take part in this program or another and they have free access to the school system for the equivalent of grade 12 or 13 education. What is not in place are programs with appropriately designed materials for adult learners. Boards that supply basic education still use, for most of their staple fare, the day curriculum materials. They still often use teachers who come from the day school program. In other words, they use the same materials and personnel from the system against which those in search of basic education often were in revolt in the first place.

What is needed in that respect is a quite new and distinctive sector, with its own materials and teachers with their own peculiar training for those special tasks of upgrading those who are functionally illiterate and those who have missed very important elements of basic education.

A recent report on this says the ministry is well intentioned, but while the motivation is there, funding is not. Ministry funding is locked in a system where 15 students will generate one teacher, but most experts agree that adult literacy programs work best on a one-to-one basis.

When some groups try to resolve this problem, they have to set up their own little bureaus on $2,500 grants. The adult basic education project in Hamilton is a good example; it has to go around and scrounge -- and I could read the list of about 15 or 20 different community groups and companies and so on -- for this, that or another thing, and even to publicize its activity and to get itself operational. In the face of the challenge of basic re-education and training this province needs, that surely is a scandalous situation.

As one looks across the front of the educational undertaking in this province. one is confronted with major problems of style that create major problems of division which put this Legislature to one side as a major decision-making element in the whole process; indeed, as we have seen, they sometimes put the minister to one side as a significant decision-maker in the process.

4:30 p.m.

We see content, program and funding to be quite inadequate to meet the need which this province has for moving into the late 1980s, a new technological era in which much that is new in education is necessary. Yet we look across the decade of underfunding and we do not see any change. We see a province that continues to decline in terms of the proportion of the provincial revenues devoted to education. In terms of percentage of gross provincial product, we see a province that is declining in its commitment to education.

The investment is not being made. There is no investment in now, no investment in teachers, students, educational programs and buildings, the rock -- if I can use the figure the previous speaker used -- on which we will build the future of Ontario, and not just of Ontario's education. There is nothing in which we can put a greater trust than the worthwhile investment of dollars spent for our own wellbeing and the future wellbeing of students yet to come.

I rise to support this motion, as do my colleagues the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande). By making the remarks we are making, we hope we will at least have some input into a long-neglected process. We hope it will be revived by select committees on education and by a more continuing process that will involve this Legislature in coming to grips with the major critical issues that beset education in Ontario today and that lie unquestionably at the door of the current minister, her ministry, this cabinet and this government.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if I may take this opportunity, I should like to respond to some of the points raised in the motion made by the member for Renfrew North.

I truly regret that in the vise-like grip of rhetorical indulgence in which the honourable member has allowed himself to be fastened, his overuse of hyperbole and emotive language fails to give a semblance of credibility to much of what he attempted to say, either in the motion or in his superb thespian performance this afternoon.s I felt strongly we should give him an Oscar for that one.

Those stage acrobatics are obviously very useful in places such as Renfrew North. I doubt that any members of the press gallery were here to pay any attention to them, which was a disappointing situation for the member. I will applaud his performance at present, but the content is less than worthy of applause in most circumstances.

In spite of the remarks of the member for Renfrew North, I must remind the House that no government in this country or in any jurisdiction has been more open in its conduct of educational affairs than has this government. Very early in my tenure as Minister of Education and Minister of Colleges and Universities, we proceeded to develop the governmental response to a document that had been required by my predecessor the member for Scarborough North and was researched by Dr. Robert Jackson.

It is the Jackson report of the Commission on Declining School Enrolment of which I speak. Very early in my tenure as minister, we began the process of providing a systematic and detailed response to Dr. Jackson's extensive report. I must tell the members of this House that report stands even now as one of the major research activities and one of the foundations of solid knowledge around the world, in the English-speaking world particularly, in regard to the plans that might be developed to cope with the problem of declining enrolment. Dr. Jackson's report is one of the vital documents in the hands of ministries of education in Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and many other parts of the world at present.

As a result of that document, we developed a program for education that contemplated all the matters Dr. Jackson raised. We looked carefully at the rationale for the positions he had taken with respect to his recommendations and we outlined some changes we felt to be necessary in the light of the total situation in which education, particularly at the elementary and secondary levels, found itself at that time and continues to find itself in what is probably the period of most rapid sociological change the population of the world has ever seen.

It is all very well for the members opposite to suggest there is turmoil in Ontario; I must remind them that in all the world there is turmoil that has precious little to do with the establishment of educational programs and that has much more to do with a great deal of sociological metamorphosis that is proceeding at a rate unheard of in human history.

The document I am speaking about, Issues and Directions, was released publicly in June 1980 and distributed widely. It addressed the goals of education and the organization of program, at the elementary level in particular, and it strongly suggested we would be addressing curriculum at the secondary level as a result of an activity in which we had already become involved, the review of secondary education in Ontario.

That document addressed the organization of program at both levels, the matter of educational finance and the problem of school accommodation, in an era of rapidly changing school enrolment, which was a change that our school system and many others had never before faced; instead of having to meet a rapidly growing school population head on, we were looking at school population growth that was slowing down relatively rapidly.

That publication addressed matters related to the teaching profession as well. It addressed matters related to teacher education, to certification of teachers, to professional development, to governance of the school system and to matters of administration. It looked at matters of French-language education, and it looked at strategic planning for the future, an activity in which this Ministry of Education, unlike most other ministries of education in the western world, has been involved since 1979.

Strategic planning continues to be an important part of our ongoing activity and provides us with guideposts by which we feel we will progress in education in the future at the elementary, secondary and the post-secondary levels.

Mr. Foulds: That is jargonistic claptrap and the minister knows it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not jargonistic claptrap.

Mr. Foulds: It certainly is, and I am surprised a minister of her calibre and intelligence would use it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Those who do not plan for the future tend to have the future run what happens or run what they are hoping to develop.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister mean she made all her proposals about education before then without planning?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are trying sincerely and actively to ensure that we have appropriate planning mechanisms in education in this province. We have been actively involved in that, in spite of the rantings of a former school teacher from Thunder Bay.

Issues and Directions was a publication that provided a blueprint for much of what we have been doing in education ever since. Four years later -- in fact, just a month ago -- we released a follow-up volume called Update 84, which details exactly where we stand with respect to the measures outlined in the earlier document and what we are proposing to do in the future in relation to matters that have arisen tangential to those we looked at in 1980.

4:40 p.m.

In all of this, we have proceeded openly through what can only be called exhaustive consultation. We have been in dialogue -- if that is the kind of word the member for Port Arthur thinks we should use for that kind of activity -- we have been in consultation and discussion with all the constituencies affected within the school system.

We have been in dialogue with the teachers' groups, with the school trustees, with parent-teacher associations, with home and school associations, with student bodies, with people who are simply interested in the school system, with those who represent the college system at the faculty, board and administration levels and with all groups at the university level. Unlike the member for St. Catharines, we listen extremely carefully to all of them.

Weighing the balance among all the opinions is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, and it is difficult, I know, for some constituencies to understand from time to time that consultation does not necessarily mean complete capitulation to those groups' particular opinions. It must be the distillation of the logical examination of the positions of all of those and the absolute need at the elementary-secondary level to put at the leading edge of all our thinking the welfare and the educational future of the children involved. This continues to be the only reason for the existence of our education system.

Perhaps it is because our agenda has been so open for all to see and to respond to with vigour -- because we have had that kind of response -- that there has been such a great deal of response. The kind of response we have had is very valuable, in spite of the fact that the member for Renfrew North chooses to interpret this as divisiveness and confrontation. It is neither divisive nor confrontational to listen to these opinions and to play a part in that consultative process on a regular basis.

Mr. Conway: Bill 127; seven schools --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would remind the member for Renfrew North that in spite of all his machinations and in spite of all the nefarious activities -- that is probably an unparliamentary word -- in spite of all the peculiar activities of the member for St. Catharines, the effect of Bill 127 has been more than salutary upon the Metropolitan Toronto school system. It has now provided for unified action on the part of all the boards in most circumstances.

Mr. Bradley: That is because we forced an amendment on you.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will not respond to that, because nothing of any value in the bill was precipitated by the member for St. Catharines. It was the principle of the bill that produced the value it has achieved.

The motion of the member for Renfrew North complains that the government's share of costs for elementary and secondary education has declined significantly. The year he always chooses to compare, of course, is 1975, a year in which my predecessor made a very significant additional commitment in support of teacher qualifications in Ontario.

The motion, however, does not acknowledge the fact that the provincial grants on a per pupil basis have increased at a rate that has been greater than the increase in the consumer price index during the entire 15-year period from 1970 to 1984. In fact, between 1970 and 1984 the general legislative grant per pupil increased by 316 per cent as compared to a 199 per cent increase in the CPI. That is factual.

Furthermore, it does not acknowledge that the average mill rate of the property tax of the individual taxpayer in this province during the same period has increased by only 144.5 per cent, significantly less than the rate of increase in the CPI during that period.

It is a curious principle of fiscal management that any government should be asked to commit itself, regardless of the health of the economy, to a fixed share of an open purse or a movable amount of money.

Mr. Bradley: That is what the minister said in 1973.

Mr. Conway: Do not keep the promise; that is what Bill Davis said.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It has been publicly stated that it is our goal and objective to reach the proportion Dr. Jackson suggested was appropriate: 60-40. It is also our goal to ensure we maintain local accountability with the provision of at least 40 per cent of the tax from the local level. With respect to the educational system, it is not a regressive tax. It is a required tax to ensure the locally-elected trustees are directly accountable to those who elect them in the local community.

The motion of the member for Renfrew North states we have "an unarticulated policy" resting on the perception that universities were overbuilt in the 1960s. That policy is unarticulated because it does not exist. It only exists in the fertile imagination of the wonderful member for Renfrew North who spends all his time dreaming about what might be if he were ever to be across this floor as a member of government. Dream on, my lad, you will be 99 before it happens.

Mr. Conway: Tell us the regime will last for 1,000 years.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would not dare tell the member that. I would not consider telling him that because it will last at the will of the people of Ontario. Unlike the members opposite, the people of Ontario know they have been extremely well served by all facets of this province's government, particularly by its educational system.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If we were convinced we had overbuilt our university system, we would have very radically altered our funding policy for the universities by now, rather than taking an extensive and I think energetic series of consultative measures to find a more appropriate policy.

The Commission on the Future Development of the Universities of Ontario will be reporting either by the end of this week or early next week in an almost complete form. I have made a commitment that the document will be available simultaneously in both languages. That commitment will be met. As a result, I believe we will have the report for public distribution very early in the new year.

Some members of the university community have expressed a concern that it will not be a part of the discussions of leadership candidates. I do not believe that is true. I believe the availability of that document at that time will give the leadership candidates an opportunity to look at the recommendations of the Bovey commission and to decide in their various ways whether there are measures which they, as candidates, feel they can support.

The Ministry of Colleges and Universities will be looking very carefully at this. We feel strongly that we will be required to take some actions relatively soon after the release of the report.

It seems to me we have not been guilty of making autocratic or unilateral decisions related to the educational system, particularly in the area of post-secondary education. I would remind the member those "modest provisions" the government has made for university capital needs in this province have amounted to a quarter of a billion dollars since the 1974-75 fiscal year.

4:50 p.m.

In my humble opinion, this is not a small amount of money. It will be necessary to continue with that provision to maintain our excellent university system. It will also be necessary to do what we have been doing in the last three years; that is, providing a percentage increase in university funding which is considerably above the rate of inflation, unlike the dramatically reduced transfer payment we received from the federal government in those years and unlike the grants made by our sister provinces during that time as well.

I have no talent for hocus-pocus or juggling or balancing things in the air. I can only base the kinds of decisions that must be made on facts and solid information.

Mr. Foulds: Do not sell yourself short.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would not sell myself short. I am short, so I cannot sell myself short.

The quality of education was a tangential concern in the recent college system dispute, but members know the central issue was that agreement could not be reached on the assignment of work loads and salaries. Those matters are to be addressed. The name of the arbitrator who will deal with them will be forthcoming as a result of communications received today from the representatives of the union. The committee which will be examining, in a task force setting, the problem of assignment of instructional responsibility, will provide --

Mr. Bradley: Again?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, for the very first time. The member should check his facts.

That committee will be working very carefully to ensure we provide the solid foundation for the method by which resolutions of the work load issues may be reached either by negotiation or, if necessary, through arbitration. One would hope it will be through negotiation.

At the elementary-secondary level, we have been diligently pursuing the very important goals of ensuring equal educational opportunity for all the children of Ontario. I do not believe we have achieved that, but we have been pursuing that goal. It has been one of the encouraging and stimulating aspects of my time as Minister of Education and Minister of Colleges and Universities that we have been able to enlarge upon the philosophy first established in elementary-secondary education in this province by Egerton Ryerson. He felt very strongly that all children should have an equal opportunity for education no matter where they came from or what their circumstances were.

We have done that in the provision of Bill 82, which is landmark legislation in the world. The legislation was developed after seven years of consultation with all those who could be directly involved with all the specific interest groups and those who had drafted legislation in the United States, so that we might produce legislation that would provide the equal educational opportunities for exceptional children without the kinds of pitfalls the United States, unfortunately, seems to have fallen into.

We carefully proceeded with extraordinary concern and preparation. We specifically analysed all matters related to the provision of these measures in the school system, including the matter of cost. This House, I remind members, unanimously carried and supported the concept of Bill 82 when it was introduced. We have added --

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The minister should review the debates on Bill 82. Although all parties voted for the legislation, during the course of the debate there were a number of principles and bureaucratic nightmares the legislation created that both opposition parties objected to.

The Acting Speaker: That was a point.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Was it a point of order?

Of course, there is debate during legislation, but indeed all parties did support the provision of this legislation. I think they all supported the concept that we should add additional funds to the general legislative grant on an annual basis in order to provide each of the school boards with the flexibility to implement the provisions of Bill 82 in the most appropriate ways at their then level of educational sophistication in special education.

We have added those amounts of money on a regular basis; the amount added in 1984 is $108.2 million over and above the amount provided on a per pupil basis for every student right across Ontario.

The implementation of Bill 82 has been a matter of interest, concern and enthusiastic support within the Ministry of Education. It has been part of the activities in which the ministry has been vigorously involved in the past five years. By May, we will have the final report of the plans, structures and functions available within each board of Ontario to meet the needs of all children with exceptionalities.

By that time we will have also completed a very critical assessment of the cost of the provision of special education to all the boards across Ontario. If there are modifications to be made to the funding mechanism, which has not as yet been devised for the years following 1984-85, then we shall look at the ways in which those funds are provided to ensure the principles of Bill 82 are supported throughout the school system as vigorously as it is possible to support them.

It is key to the thinking behind the motion before us that the appointment of commissions or committees for careful examination of difficult issues in education, such as the future of our university system, is a destructive predilection on the part of the government. I am sorry the member has disappeared again; I was hoping I might determine from him the definition of "destructive predilection," since I did not from his presentation.

I would like to ask him which of the problems referred to the commissions and committees in recent years are unworthy of careful consideration and extended consultation. It is a curious point of view that a responsible government should act by knee-jerk reflex rather than on the basis of information placed before it as a result of such consultation.

It is ridiculous to charge this government with refusal to respond to the growth and the popularity of the community college system. Since 1974, the full-time enrolment in the system has grown by 60 per cent. If that is a failure, I have to ask what a success is. The growth of the college system is the result of the quality of the educational programs provided; the continuing review and relevance of all those programs as a result of the active participation of those with concerns about the technical procedures, technical programs or technical courses, or the employment in which these young people will be involved after they graduate.

5 p.m.

It is very much a part of the commitment on the part of faculty members, the administration and the community that the college system has been as successful as it has been. The college system has provided some guidelines for other parts of the educational system as well, in that the encouraged and much-wanted participation of the community exterior to the school building or the college itself provides the stimulus of intellectual activity and the stimulus of vigour on the part of all those functioning within the college or the system itself. I see the other parts of the educational system becoming more actively involved in considering seriously that kind of participation, which I think is an excellent idea.

It is, however, equally ridiculous to charge the government with intransigence with respect to the new Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions measures for secondary schools. The secondary education review project was one of the most open and extensive processes of consultation with all, and I repeat all, constituencies within the educational system that has ever been mounted by this or any other government.

Mr. Bradley: In the whole world.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not know about the whole world, but any other government I know about.

There were more than 5,000 submissions. There were innumerable consultations dealing with the original SERP report. These consultations and submissions touched tens of thousands of people in Ontario and that whole consultative cycle was repeated with respect to the document outlining the government's proposed response, the Renewal of Secondary Education report, which finally led to the OSIS drafts that have provided the framework for the direction of education at the secondary level for the next decade or two decades in this province.

If this is an example of undermining and sabotaging the system, as the member is so fond of describing it, or of confrontational and intransigent policy, then I would submit that rational change in the educational system is an impossibility. The matter of grade 13 was referred, as the member knows, to the secondary education review project, which looked very carefully at that whole matter and provided interesting information that was not conclusive.

The Minister of Education did not at any time suggest there would be a decision one way or the other. It was a matter that was very much a part of the review of secondary education in this province, and quite rightly and rationally so. It is illogical of the members opposite to suggest that one would not look at that particular circumstance in a very critical review of secondary education in the province. The sensible thing is to ensure it is included in that study.

Caveats have been expressed regarding much of educational policy. That is something to be anticipated because, to my knowledge, no educational view is ever unanimously supported. I do not believe there has been a policy on education that has been introduced anywhere, at least in the western world, that has not had either enthusiastic support from a vast majority or detraction from a significant minority.

Any responsible government must at times override caveats from those who are participating directly in the provision of a service when changes are asked for by a much larger constituency, and particularly by the constituency that uses and pays for the system. We must remember that the taxpayers own the educational system in this province. It is not owned by the government and it is certainly not owned by anybody other than the taxpayers who support it. They have the right and the responsibility to be heard in matters that relate specifically to the provision of educational programs in Ontario.

As to the provisions for French-language governance, which the honourable member has listed as one of his concerns, he knows perfectly well we are introducing a bill, I think on Thursday -- certainly before the end of this session -- to provide for governance by francophones of the French-language system of education in this province.

It is a measure that has been carefully arrived at after very broad and full consultation with all the affected constituencies. That process was absolutely essential in order to avoid the confrontation and divisiveness the honourable member likes to talk about, which would certainly have been aroused if we had acted precipitously and without adequate consultation.

That governance mechanism will provide for a very significant measure of control of francophone education by French-language trustees within Ontario in a way that will ensure their continuing input to and control of that educational program.

In the area of the extension of funding to separate schools, I might ask the members of the parties proposing and supporting this motion why just a few months ago, if they do not like it, they so unanimously greeted the government decision as a long overdue measure of justice to the Catholic community. If they really did not feel that way, why did they not say so in the House? Why did they behave in that manner within this House? Why do they go on perpetrating --

Mr. Conway: Because I found the hypocrisy breathtaking. I found the hypocrisy of the government suffocating.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is the member speaking?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Renfrew North, the minister has the floor.

Mr. Conway: I found the hypocrisy indigestible.

The Deputy Speaker: The interjections are not in order, nor is the taking of the floor. Member for Renfrew North, please restrain yourself.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it very entertaining that the master of hypocrisy talks about hypocrisy.

Mr. Conway: I remember 1971. I have been consistent. My honour on this question is a whole lot better than that of those over there because I remember what was said in 1971 by this government.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It is fine to have a heated debate and make your points, honourable members all, but remember we have rules regarding your choice of language. I would again ask the member for Renfrew North not to interject when the minister is making her remarks.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I will make this very brief. As a member of this Legislature, a separate school supporter, a product of the separate school system and a long-time Ontario Liberal, this strikes at the very heart of much of my political being. I find it extremely and personally very difficult to deal with this question because I remember all the pain, the sorrow and the attitude of the other side 14 years ago.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege, with all due respect. Would you please take your seat. If it was anything, you were trying to make a point of order. But despite the strong feelings you have conveyed to us, you must still restrain yourself. You have had your time to debate and you are biting into the time of others.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think I heard the minister call a member of the opposition a master of hypocrisy. I believe that is unparliamentary and I would ask you to ask the minister to withdraw it.

The Deputy Speaker: We certainly had a very heated exchange and other language that is not acceptable was being cast back and forth. But let us ask the minister if she did indeed use that term.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I said I found the hypocrisy of the government on this question indigestible and suffocating. If those words are unparliamentary -- and they probably are -- I will withdraw them.

5:10 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to withdraw mine, but I will tell the House why I used them. May I do that?

It is reiterated frequently by the front-bench members of the official opposition that I was once a Liberal. I will tell members the tale of that.

Interjection.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I was not.

In 1971, I was approached by an emissary of the then leader of the Liberal Party in this province and asked to run for the Liberal Party. This was because my first cousin was an ardent and active Liberal. He is now an ardent and active Tory. He was so disillusioned by all of this that he has converted totally. Damascus had nothing to do with it, but Pierre Trudeau had a lot to do with it. That emissary came to see me and in very supplicant terms -- that is the only word I can use -- suggested I seriously consider this.

I considered it in a superficial manner because this whole debate about extension of funding for separate schools was very much a potential issue at that time. I tried to find out the Liberal Party's position on it. The information, which was relayed to me, not once but on four separate occasions by four different people, was that during the election they were going to support the principle of extension and after the election they were going to say they had not meant it.

When I discovered that was the position of the Liberal Party, I decided I wanted nothing ever to do with it. My position has not changed, except that I find some of the members delightfully entertaining from time to time.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sure my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) will want me to stand in his place and reserve his right to respond to a very serious charge on this question.

The Deputy Speaker: I direct the member to resume his seat.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I did not mention the member's name, as the member for Renfrew North has just suggested.

Mr. Stokes: That is the problem. You are imputing motives to everyone.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I am not. I am simply saying that as a result of suggesting some slight interest that I might consider running, the four emanations that came to me, who were not necessarily members of this House, I must say, who were effectively or at least in part establishing the policy of the party, indicated that this is what the policy of the party was going to be.

I am sorry, that was what was delivered to me. That is a fact. I am not imputing any motives to any of the members here at this time because none of them -- I think perhaps only one -- was a member at that time and I have no idea what his thoughts were about it.

Mr. Bradley: She certainly is.

The Deputy Speaker: Are you rising on a point of order?

Mr. Bradley: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. Because I was a candidate in that campaign, I well remember the stand our party took in that campaign and the stand the Premier took when he stood up and said, "Not a dime more." He threw the wedge into the province over that issue. To have the same man then stand up in this House and get the accolades across the province for doing a flip-flop on it and bringing this forward certainly does not go well with the opposition.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member is back into a debate. It is not a point of order and we are not going to get into a debate on it. The minister did not refer to you as a candidate in that election. She was alluding to others and conveying what she said was the case.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on that point, just to conclude: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I know what the minister is saying. I respect her as an honourable lady in relating the facts as she experienced them at that time.

As a partisan in that campaign, knowing exactly what the party position was in 1971 and what it had been in the preceding months, I want to make it clear -- and I know my friends, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and the member for St. Catharines, who were as very much involved in that campaign as I was, would also want the record to show -- without any hint of equivocation or confusion, that the three parties squarely joined in the 1971 campaign had clear, well-understood, public positions on the extension of aid to separate schools. I do not know anyone participating --

Mr. Sweeney: We had a printed position.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, if I might just conclude, because I do not think the member --

Interjection.

Mr. Bradley: You are the last person to lecture on that.

Mr. Conway: I do not think the member for Nipissing understood, succumbing as he sometimes does to vapours of a different kind on these questions. I want to be very clear about this. I do not for a moment suggest the minister has not told us what she experienced, but I want it very clearly understood there was no one involved in the business of Ontario politics in the year 1971 who could not and would not have understood the well-articulated public positions of the three political parties at that time.

As my friend the member for St. Catharines has well pointed out, the position articulated and vigorously and successfully pursued by the then member for Peel North and now the Premier was not a position in support of extending aid to separate schools.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might request the return of the seven minutes taken up by these points of order and response to complete this.

The Deputy Speaker: Are we agreed?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I simply reiterated what was delivered to me -- nothing more. I am not imputing motives to any member currently in the House. It was not from a member I received that information.

Mr. Bradley: Then why is the minister saying it in the House?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Because there was a suggestion there had been a degree of hypocrisy on this side of the House. I do not believe any pot should call any kettle black.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I gather the exchanges taking place in the House at this time have to do with points of order as to whose time is being eaten up by the points of order or something of that sort. You did not stop the clock while that exchange was taking place, while the member for Renfrew North was expostulating on the position of all parties in the 1971 election. How are you going to dispose of the time that remains to all parties concerned in light of that rather extensive review?

The Deputy Speaker: We will have to take the points of order as part of the debate and as part of our procedure.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, is it not possible to accede to my request?

The Deputy Speaker: We would need unanimous consent. I heard it from the critic from the Liberal Party, but I did not hear similar agreement from the New Democratic Party. The member for Hamilton West is going to give us some guidance on that.

Mr. Allen: I understood we were dividing the time equally. I spoke for a certain length of time; therefore, we have 18 to 19 minutes left on the clock, as far as we are concerned.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I believe they have 20 minutes left. I do not know how much time the Liberal Party has left.

Mr. Bradley: We have 13 minutes and 58 seconds.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is that 14 minutes and 58 seconds?

Mr. Bradley: We have 13 minutes and 55 seconds.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am simply trying to find out whether I have any time left. If I wish to use the entire time allocated to the government party, is it possible to use it now or must I wait until there has been a rotation?

The Deputy Speaker: I believe your time was used.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Except that some portion of it was utilized by an exchange.

The Deputy Speaker: It was utilized by points. That is true. We can only recapture it if there is unanimous consent. I do not sense we have it from the House.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. I am going to deal with a couple of issues my friend the member for Renfrew North dealt with in his initial remarks on education. I am going to zero in on a couple areas that are of particular concern not only for those in the education community, but also for a number of other people in Ontario.

The basic problem facing education today is that of funding by the provincial government. I think many of us recognize that if one looks at it in what I call real or constant dollars for education, what we are seeing is a diminishing commitment to education on the part of this government as far as finance is concerned.

We have mentioned 1975 as an important year, but I would like to mention 1974. In November 1974, the member for Scarborough North, then Minister of Education, was speaking in the House. He said: "The estimates which I am presenting today ... are for $1,496,896,000. The major portion of this, 89 per cent, is turned over directly to local school boards in grants to assist them in operating their schools. This represents 60 per cent of the total costs of elementary education in Ontario."

5:20 p.m.

The government of Ontario, as far back as 1970, indicated that a 60:40 average, with 60 per cent from the province and 40 per cent from the local municipality, would be appropriate for the cost of education across Ontario, and it was moving in that direction. That pinnacle was reached in 1975, and since then, as members of this assembly will know by now, the provincial government has reduced its commitment on a percentage basis on the average across the province from 61.3 per cent in 1975 to 48.8 per cent in 1983. I also indicated that if we examine the secondary school education system, we will find in the public system alone, for instance, that in constant dollars we have had a commitment of $258 million less to secondary education since 1975.

The effect of this has been very difficult for local municipalities, as members will understand, and for local boards of education. It was particularly difficult for local taxpayers in the time of recession we have been through in the past couple of years. When we are in a period of recession and people are unemployed, they pay less money in income tax because they are making less money. They are also likely to pay less in sales taxes and other taxes because they are not purchasing as much and are not involved in economic activity to the same extent. However, the municipal tax bill still comes in regardless of a person's economic circumstances; so a person, if she or he were unemployed for six or seven months of the year, would have a reduction in income tax and likely in sales tax but not a reduction in the tax for municipal purposes, which includes the education tax.

That is why it has been particularly difficult for people. It does not take into account a person's ability to pay and therefore it works against those who are in low-income groups or who have experienced economic disadvantage in a particular year. That is one reason it is not wise to have that responsibility fall back on the local municipality.

The second reason is that municipality, through the board of education, has to carry out certain programs which are mandated by the provincial government. It has certain responsibilities. There are expectations among parents, the business community and the general community in Ontario, which that system is meant to reach and to realize. For that reason, it is very difficult for boards to start chopping programs to reduce the commitment, and as I indicated, there are several areas where this shows up.

For instance, what it can mean when there is that reduced provincial commitment to education is more multiple grades in one class. It could mean the cutting out of programs. It could mean fewer learning materials, fewer textbooks, larger class sizes, less equipment for science classes, for audiovisual aids and for high-technology equipment and fewer teacher aids, even though more exceptional children require more special services.

In schools, it could mean fewer guidance services and less access to counsellors, less funding for field trips and other out-of-school events, lessened program support, less frequent cleaning and less support for building maintenance.

At the school board level, it could mean the following: fewer diagnostic services, fewer medical services, fewer consultants, fewer new and innovative programs and less program development, fewer supply teachers, limited learning materials and resources, reduction in repair and replacement of equipment, and fewer professional development programs.

These are things that can result from the reduction of the provincial commitment to spending in education with respect to providing a lot of services in 1984, a lot of them mandated to the system.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Boards do not have medical services, and the member knows it.

Mr. Bradley: The minister has isolated one out of about 15, and I will let her dwell on that. I will go on to point out that she mentioned the Jackson report and the 60 per cent figure. If my memory is correct, Mr. Jackson indicated that 60 per cent of the cost of education being assumed by the province would be a desirable level.

If the minister were as frank with the House as she can be sometimes in committee and on other occasions, she would admit that, as Minister of Education, she would like to see the provincial government assume 60 per cent of the cost of education under the appropriate conditions. That is the problem. She has to fight with other members who do not have a commitment to education, a commitment that is essential at a time when we are attempting to compete with other countries and when our people have to be highly educated and highly trained to be part of that international competition.

There are expressions of concern about Bill 82. Despite the attempt by the minister to soothe the fears of the province through her words, many are still saying they are concerned that there will not be sufficient funding to carry out the mandated provisions of Bill 82, those being to provide an appropriate education and services to all children who come to the education system and who are exceptional. There is that great concern among trustees, teachers, parents and to a certain extent, I suppose, students themselves.

If the past record is any indication, there is a good deal of justification for those fears.

A model has been put forward called the Martin model, which suggests it might be useful to allow the Minister of Education and her government to get their hands on the one source of exclusive taxation available to municipalities -- that is, the municipal property tax -- and attempt to spread it around the province under certain conditions.

We recognize here in the opposition that yes, there is a problem that must be addressed in those boards that do not have sufficient assessment. Many Roman Catholic separate school boards and some of the public school boards do not have the appropriate amount of assessment to allow them to carry out their activities in the best possible fashion. However, the answer is not to dig into the one source of exclusive taxation available to municipalities but rather to enrich the equalization grants that come from the province to make up for the fact that these areas do not have that kind of assessment.

As well, there is a deficiency in funding for co-operative education programs. Co-operative education, we think, is an excellent innovation undertaken a number of years ago in some systems, and more and more in other systems. For monitoring, for supervision and for transportation, more money is required.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Inaccurate.

Mr. Bradley: The minister says "inaccurate." Everybody else in Ontario who is involved in secondary education says that what I am saying is accurate; so I will listen to the rest of the province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The fact is that co-operative education programs at the secondary level increased by 25 per cent this year, and it is expected that they will increase by another 25 per cent next year, this in spite of the fact that the member says there is insufficient funding. The funding obviously is sufficient.

Mr. Bradley: We have had to rob other areas of education of funding to find that money for co-operative education.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is surmise on the member's part.

Mr. Bradley: That is accurate and the minister knows it. She need only consult, as she never does, with those who are delivering educational services on the front line, not with the people in the Ministry of Education, some of whom have not seen the inside of a classroom for 15 years.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: When did the member see the inside of a classroom?

Mr. Bradley: I saw it as recently as last week. I was in a classroom last week. I know the problems because I consult almost on a daily basis with the people who are on the front line; not those who have theories about what should be happening in the schools but those who know the reality of what is happening on the front line. They are the people whom the minister should consult.

The minister knows that for some time my predecessors and I in the Liberal Party have called for the establishment of a select committee on education to deal appropriately with education issues in this province. People are appalled, particularly those in the education community, when I mention that we have approximately 12 or 14 hours to deal with education issues during the consideration of the spending estimates of the Ministry of Education and that at that time we hear not from those outside the ministry but from ministry officials.

We in the official opposition believe that if the minister is serious about real and useful consultation with people in this province, she will have a select committee on education, not to travel to Hawaii to investigate the music program there but to visit this province to talk to various groups who have input to give.

For instance, if we had gone around the province three or four years ago, we could have had input on how we could best implement the funding of the Roman Catholic secondary school system, instead of simply having the Premier get up in the House and drop a bombshell, which seemed to shock even the Minister of Education, who was the last to get on her feet to applaud that decision.

5:30 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The members opposite really are blind.

Mr. Bradley: I do not think we are. We certainly know that.

What would be most appropriate on matters such as OSIS would be to consult with the people on the front line who will tell the minister that her changes in the secondary school system are not appropriate for students taking courses at the general level, or certainly at the basic level. She implemented that without adequate consultation and preparation.

Our plea through this motion is for consultation. We think many of the problems at the elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels of education could have been alleviated, solved or better handled through a consultative process that would have included a select committee in education consisting of members of this assembly who are genuinely interested in education and who have at least some input into the educational process as it relates to legislation in this House.

Far too often, these policies are implemented through regulation, through decree or through a press conference in the hallway by the minister or some other member of this government. Not enough of the decisions are made in this House through the appropriate legislative action that we feel is necessary for a thorough discussion of these issues. This government has failed to do that. For that reason, it does not have the confidence of those of us in the two opposition parties, and that is why this proposal was put forward.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke on education in this House was during the momentous debate on Bill 82 in the time of minority government. Having returned and actively sought participation in this debate on behalf of my caucus because I fully support the principle and the intent of the motion put forward by the member for Renfrew North, although I might disagree with all or some of the particulars, there is no doubt in my mind that education has come to a state of crisis in this province. I want to speak, if only briefly, on that topic this afternoon.

Having listened to the debate today, I am very much reminded of the words of Eliza Doolittle at the end of act I of My Fair Lady, when she says, "Words, words, words." That is what the minister and the ministry have engaged in when talking about education. The days of doing something about education in this province have long passed. All we have is talk. All we have are words. All we have is the minister piling royal commissions of several types onto parliamentary inquiries. What we do not have is action.

I judge both a government and a ministry by what it does, not what it says it does. What we have heard this afternoon from the minister as a justification for her ministry is, if I may repeat my interjection, a lot of bureaucratic claptrap. What we have not had from the minister is any sense of substance, any sense of direction, any sense of where and what education should be about and where it should be going.

The failure even to address those basic principles in this debate simply illustrates the ministry's and the minister's total failure to understand the education of this province and where it should be going. What this government has failed to do is to develop an educational policy and an educational system for the 1980s.

I want to speak to a few particulars. First of all, because it did arise during the course of this debate, I want to deal very briefly but very clearly with the separate school issue. This party knew where it stood in 1971 on the separate school issue. It stands in that position today in 1984 and it will stand in that position in 1985. There will be no weaselling, no backtracking and no flip-flopping about that and no second thoughts and no ex cathedra announcements by the leader of the party about that.

This party's policy is clear. We believe in the extension of aid to separate schools to the end of grade 13 because historically we have had two parallel public school systems in this province; that is what we should develop. That is what we believe in; it is our position now and it will be our position in the future. We support two publicly funded school systems, one Roman Catholic separate school system and one public school system.

What we object to is the presidential style of the announcement of the Premier. It was even made without consultation with his Minister of Education. He did not consult with the public, the participants or with this Legislature. I suspect the only person he consulted was Cardinal Carter.

It was a shock to the Minister of Education: one could see it in her face during the Premier's announcement. The Premier has treated the minister with the same high-handedness with which she treats people, though it is shameful he treated the minister with the same high-handedness with which he treats this Legislature.

We are objecting to this high-handedness, to the Premier's lack of forethought and to the fact that he did not outline the specific details of how he would deal with, cope with and fund the extension. We endorse the principle and the methodology, but we would have worked out the details ahead of time with the participants to ensure there is security for both school systems, for the people who work in those systems and most of all for the kids in those school systems.

That is the position of our caucus on the separate school issue. Neither the Minister of Education nor the Premier has dealt adequately with that situation. The way in which they have dealt with it provides us with a potentially divisive situation. That is entirely tragic.

I want to speak for a few minutes on other issues, particularly as they affect northern Ontario.

Since the 1960s and during the tenure of the Premier, it has been and continues to be the obsession of this government and this ministry that somehow big is beautiful, that somehow the large amalgamated school boards are the be-all and end-all of educational equality in Ontario. Let me assure the House that is felt nowhere more strongly than in northern Ontario. The busing to which students in northern Ontario are subjected in search of equality of education is horrendous and damaging, not only to the school system but also to the students' learning experience.

This government has abdicated its responsibility to education, particularly as it affects northern Ontario. That is illustrated no more readily than in its absolute cutback in adult education programs. The lurking authoritarianism of the ministers mind -- the phrase of my friend and colleague the member for Hamilton West that beautifully describes the minister, her actions and the ministry's actions -- was no more apparent than in the way in which it dealt with funding for adult education. There was no chance for increased accountability, for developing additional adult education programs or for improving the system. The minister went from a very generous method of funding adult education programs to no funding for adult education programs.

5:40 p.m.

That outlined very clearly that this ministry thinks of education simply as schooling. It does not believe in education; it merely believes in schooling. Surely in northern Ontario -- and it was documented recently -- the lack of funding has had a devastating effect when adult education enrolment in noncredit courses in northern Ontario dropped from 2,479 to 525. There was a 47 per cent drop in enrolment in adult education in eastern Ontario, a 50 per cent drop in northwestern Ontario, a 67 per cent drop in northern Ontario and a 77 per cent drop in northeastern Ontario.

Surely it is the school system, the elementary and secondary public boards, that must be the delivery system for adult education in many small northern Ontario communities. The very fact this minister made cutbacks in such a draconian way, in such an authoritarian way, has meant that the very quality of life of our population in northern Ontario has suffered enormously from this minister's authoritarianism.

I want to speak very briefly so that my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) will have a few minutes to speak about the attitude of this government and its bureaucratic obsession, which actually makes the present government of China look streamlined and modern in comparison, in the way it has dealt with special education. It has dealt with a very sensitive and serious problem, which it recognized; and it recognized, to give it credit, not only the educational but also the political problem.

But its legislation and its underfunding have led to a bureaucratic nightmare. I charge in this Legislature that the ordinary learning-disabled child, if I may use that term, is still being sadly neglected in this province. The very severe cases are being treated and the very exceptional cases are being treated, but the child with what I would call a modest learning disability is largely being ignored because there simply are not the personnel or the funding or the special support to deal with that child. The local boards are forced to deal with the most outstanding examples, and I know this not only as an educator but also as a parent.

Finally, I want to speak very briefly to the attack by this ministry on the financing base of the local boards of education in its attempt to grab additional funding through the pooling of commercial and industrial assessment. This confrontational technique, which was developed by the minister originally as an attack on the Toronto Board of Education, is going to harm education in northern Ontario in a much greater way.

If the Martin proposal were fully implemented at the secondary school level, it would have several effects, and I will give just a few examples. It would increase the residential mill rates of the Cochrane-Iroquois Falls Board of Education by 48 percent, of the Geraldton Board of Education by 60.5 per cent, of the Lakehead Board of Education by 32.9 per cent, of the Lake Superior Board of Education by 69.59 per cent, of the Nipigon-Red Rock Board of Education by 67.81 per cent, of the North Shore Board of Education by 28 per cent and of the Red Lake Board of Education by 65 per cent.

This kind of attack on the funding currently available to school boards in northern Ontario, which is limited enough, is simply unwarranted. It justifies our complete lack of confidence in this minister, this ministry and its officials.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the no-confidence motion. During my years in this Legislature, I have expressed concern about the way this government has drifted with a lack of policy of any kind, in particular in an area with which I have been most closely associated personally; namely, continuing education.

In 1980 the Oracle, which is the publication of the Ontario Association for Continuing Education, wrote: "In recent years there have been sincere efforts made by OACE and others to encourage discussion about developing a continuing education policy for Ontario. To date, the government has made no official statements for those who need a policy guide, a prop to stimulate; and this situation has been most frustrating."

If we look at the ad hoc way in which this government has developed community colleges across this province, historically we can see there is no policy. What we are involved in is the historical pattern of a custodial type of education. This minister is not interested in continuing education. She is not interested in developing a program or in facilitating the kind of community college system that has been developed in other provinces, particularly in Saskatchewan. She has been involved in trying to put as many people in slots as possible.

It is the same warehousing system that was developed in Britain after the labour laws restricted the use of child labour and they decided they could no longer have children on the streets.

In Ontario we have a system of trying to get the young adults off the street by putting them into a system of community colleges. As we saw in the debate on the back-to-work legislation on community colleges, it has nothing to do with educational objectives, it has nothing to do with education but only has something to do with numbers, with getting as many people into as many slots as possible and trying to keep them as quiet as possible.

If we look at what is happening in our community college system, we see a deteriorating system. President Wragge, the president of Humber College a number of years ago, appeared before a committee of this Legislature. He talked about how the noose around the community colleges' necks was getting tighter and tighter. He predicted that in a few years we would be faced with the very disastrous situation where teachers, and indeed others, would have to take radical steps to change the situation.

We saw that with a strike for which this minister is responsible in no uncertain terms. Teachers, out of a sense of professionalism, out of a sense that the system was deteriorating, had to take some kind of action. In a very calculated way, this minister allowed those people to go on strike for three and a half weeks then legislated them back with absolutely no change and absolutely no improvement. In fact, they were worse off than when they went out. When one talks to those teachers, one can see the kind of morale problems with which they are faced.

We are faced with a series of people who devote their time to the community and who have been sent back with absolutely nothing. What does that add to the education system in this province? It adds absolutely nothing, and this government has done absolutely nothing.

In the early years, I can remember speaking to Del Smythe, who was one non-Conservative. He happened to be misguided. He was a Liberal. Del Smythe was on the Council of regents. He said: "I went to meeting after meeting and I said to them, 'Let us deal with the essential problems. What are we about? What are we trying to do when we set up this community college system?'" The Tories with him said: "No, let us deal with practical things. Do we have a campus in this town? Do we build a building in this town? Which contractor gets this contract? Which riding gets this contract?"

This minister is not involved in education. She is involved in the warehousing business. That is fairly clear. She has no concept of what it means to have a continuing education program. She has the traditional medical model, a class system in which she herself and a certain elite are at the top and the others are all at the bottom. That is the kind of system she has developed.

That is the kind of system that OACE has accused her of developing. That is the kind of system she has developed and to which she is dedicated. That is why this government and this minister do not deserve the confidence of this House.

5:55 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Conway's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Bradley, Bryden, Conway, Cooke, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reed, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Spensieri, Stokes, Sweeney, Van Home, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bernier, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Hennessy, Johnson, I. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McEwen, McMurtry, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope;

Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard. Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, 0. W., Taylor, I. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 38; nays 58.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

December 11, 1984