Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

EDUCATION ACT

House in committee on Bill 72, the Education Act, 1974.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments, questions or amendments? If so, which section?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Section 1(1), paragraph 61. Is there anything before that?

Mr. Chairman: Is there anyone with anything before paragraph 61 of section 1(1)?

The member for Port Arthur.

On section 1:

Mr. Foulds moves that the words “Roman Catholic” be deleted after the word “the” and before the word “spouse” in the second last line of the paragraph.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I make this motion in order that those couples, one of whom is a Roman Catholic, can send their children to the Roman Catholic separate schools and support the Roman Catholic separate schools with their taxes.

The intent of my motion is simply to deal specifically with that one situation only; that is, the situation in which the husband may not be a Roman Catholic, his wife may be a Roman Catholic and the children are brought up as Roman Catholics, and they both have mutually agreed to send their children to the Roman Catholic separate school system.

We’ve debated this in committee outside of the Legislature. I won’t go through all those arguments that we put in standing committee but I simply think that it is a place to start. I know the minister’s response will have to do with the fact that he would rather wait until the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) brings in the legislation dealing with marriage laws, but at the present time there are ways around the law and those ways don’t encourage, in fact, a respect for the law. It’s only those situations where both spouses agree to send their children to the Roman Catholic separate school system and where the husband is not a Catholic that I wish to remedy. I think by simply striking the words “Roman Catholic” out of the second last line, that will include the spouse as a Roman Catholic ratepayer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other speakers on this amendment? The hon. minister.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I understand the problem that the hon. member is trying to direct himself toward. I should point out, however, that there are several court decisions that have been rendered over the years that indicate that where the husband is a Protestant and the wife is a Roman Catholic there are ways that the division of taxes can be arrived at by leasing the premises, or some such manner, but they have ruled that it is not possible for the assessment to be directed to the Roman Catholic school system, in that case, if the husband is a non-Roman Catholic.

I feel that it would be unwise at this time, in an interpretation or definitions section of a bill, to attempt to establish a new precedent in law. While there may be merit -- and certainly there is -- in looking at this in the future, I don’t feel that this is the place to change it.

I might say that this definition of “separate school supporter” was drawn up after many months of work with the very active co-operation of Father Durosiers of the Ontario Separate School Trustees Association.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Chairman, if I might just speak to the amendment in response to what the minister has said, as I understand his reasoning he says that there is certain court interpretation of what is permissible under the Assessment Act. You seem to forget, Mr. Minister, that we, as legislators, have precedence over the courts. If we spell out in the definitions section exactly what it’s supposed to mean then we’re clearing up a court definition, because all the court does is interpret certain words that we are putting into legislation.

We should never have any fear in this House, if the amendment has merit -- and we think it has merit and, in fact, there is some admission on the part of the minister that that amendment has some merit -- that a court ruling in some place should affect us at all. We’re not in contempt of court or anything else. We’re supposed to be supreme in this province. We make the laws and the courts interpret those laws. If we make it as clear as that, there is nothing offensive about that at all.

I really don’t see that the minister’s comments or his apprehension about the amendment in relation to a court decision have any validity here at all.

Mr. Foulds: If I might just say a few words further, Mr. Chairman, it is my feeling that if we redefine the term within the meaning of our Act, then that will be taken into consideration and into judgement by any court in the province. If there is, in fact, conflicting legislation, or conflicting clauses under the Assessment Act, which I doubt, then it’s for the government to move in those areas to clean that up as well.

The minister has an opportunity here, in fact, to lead and to be the initiator of a modest programme for the improvement of the rights of these particular people. I see no reason why we, as legislators, shouldn’t be willing to take that initiative on their behalf. That’s the major reason I’ve put forward the amendment at this time.

I know full well that Father Durosiers has worked very closely and very assiduously with the ministry committee and consultative committee in drawing up the consolidation, but I think there are a number of Roman Catholic spokesmen throughout the province who don’t always entirely agree with Father Durosiers. I say this without any -- well, maybe I better not say it.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): He is not infallible.

Mr. Foulds: What I was going to say is he has not yet reached the status of infallibility of the papacy.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Watch it, watch it.

Mr. Foulds: In fact I know that in the Catholic press he and Father Matthews have had some differences. I know that the ordinary Catholic lay person has had some differences with him.

Mr. Stokes: Even I disagreed with him on occasion, and I am a bingo player myself.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Your future is in jeopardy.

Mr. Foulds: I think that Father Durosiers has served his constituency well. He just may have felt that this wasn’t one that he could get through the minister. I’m willing to accept compromises as we all have to do in this life, but as a legislator I’m not quite willing to accept that compromise at this stage. I may be, after the vote.

Mr. Chairman: The motion by the hon. member for Port Arthur is that in section 1(1), paragraph 61, the words “Roman Catholic” be deleted after the word “the” and before the word “spouse” in the second last line of the paragraph.

All those in favour please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Foulds: We will stack it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Do you wish to stack this division?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, we will stack it.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on section 1? What’s the next section on which there are any comments?

Mr. Foulds: Section 10, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Does anyone wish to speak before section 10?

Mr. Foulds: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister without Portfolio): Oh, come on. You have to be prepared.

Mr. Foulds: Section 10(7): “Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the minister may make regulations...”

Mr. Chairman: All right, is there anyone else who wishes to speak before section 10(7) of the bill?

Sections 2 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds moves that section 10(7) be deleted.

Mr. Foulds: This section is the new section in the bill which gives the minister power to establish regulations allowing school children to leave school, in effect, lowering compulsory school attendance age to 14. I feel more strongly about this clause than any other single clause in the bill. I would oppose this clause more strongly than any other single clause in the bill. A principle that should be embodied throughout this legislation and be represented in every clause is that of universal accessibility to education for all of our children of compulsory school age. That compulsory school age should be 16, in my opinion.

I know I had an exchange with the minister on this topic during the debate in principle. I had an exchange with the minister on this topic during the standing committee outside the Legislature. The minister tried to assure me about this during the debate in principle. As a matter of fact, he didn’t debate it during the standing committee outside the Legislature. It was one that he slipped by me. I thought it was under school attendance and it came under the powers of the minister to establish regulations.

As a matter of fact, that is the major reason why this party decided to ask to have the bill go into committee of the whole House, so that we could debate this point and one other that follows, that I know the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) is aware of, about mentally and physically handicapped people. The two tie together in a sense. The thing that disturbs me is that the minister said in his exchange on Nov. 18 that the draft regulations went across the province and that the draft regulations would provide the guarantee that this continue to he an educative experience. It does not do that.

First of all, the draft regulations went to the regional directors of education, the directors of education of boards, superintendents of separate schools and principals of schools. If we are going to allow children to leave school at age 14, we must have already in place an alternative learning experience for them. We do not have that alternative learning experience in place for them. It’s just not there. If we were talking about an ideal society where we genuinely had a learning society and that education in this province was a continuum, then I might be able to agree to the principle embodied in this clause. But that just is not so at the present time. The kids will suffer, the kids whose parents will write in to the committee.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr. Renwick: I wanted you to know I had arrived.

Mr. Foulds: I’ll get into the draft regulations in a moment. The children who will suffer are the children from immigrant families, the children who come from the lower social and economical spectrum of our society, whether that is in Metro Toronto or in the far north. They will be the ones who will be in undue proportion seeking escape for whatever reasons from our school system.

The necessity to include this clause in this bill is a comment on the failure of our school system to cope adequately with these children and provide for them a truly learning experience.

I must differ with the minister’s statement on second reading. These draft regulations did not go throughout the province. They went to education administrators. You did not send them out to the Children’s Aid Societies. A large number of trustees have not had them brought to their attention by their school administrators. You did not send them out to labour organizations in this province. You did not send them out to members of Legislature. You did not send them out widely to industry. And all of these people will be concerned if this idea is to work at all.

You see, it could work if there was a tripartite partnership between the school, a social agency and business or industry. It would work if there was a guarantee that the child continued to have an educational experience, but that is not embedded either in the bill or in the draft regulations. I would like to go through the draft regulations, if I might, with you.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Found them, did you?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, thank you. I won’t read them into the record in detail, but basically the regulations allow, and I am quoting directly now:

“A parent of a child may apply in writing to the principal of the school that the child attends or has a right to attend, to have the child excused from attendance, and the parent shall state in the application why he considers that the child should be excused. [The principal, upon that, forwards the application to the secretary of the committee that has been established by the board.)

“The committee shall be composed of such persons, not fewer than three, as may be appointed by a board in each year, and a quorum of a committee shall consist of a chairman who shall be a member of the board, a supervisory officer who holds or is deemed to hold a supervisory officer certificate and is employed by the board, or, where the board does not employ a supervisory officer, the appropriate provincial supervisory officer for the area in which the board has jurisdiction, and at least one other person.”

Let us assume that the makeup of that proposed committee is a principal or a supervisory officer who has continually run into discipline problems with the child, for whatever reason. Let us assume the other person on the committee could be -- and I am just taking this out of the hat -- a science teacher who has had difficulty with that student, and let’s say that the member of that committee from the board is a person who does not believe in compulsory education for children, but believes in keeping education expenditures to the bare bone and thinks that all working-class kids should be out there working anyway.

I give you an extreme example. But suppose that is the makeup of your committee. They will process an undue number of approvals and, under a further section of the regulations, they can draft a programme for that child that has no learning or educational component, because clause 3 of the regulations reads this way.

“The committee shall, after interviewing the child, his parent and, where the committee considers it appropriate, any other person, determine that the child shall (a) attend school as required by subsection (1) of section 20 of the Act, [I gather the numbering will be changed to conform to the numbering in the present Act] or (b) attend school on a part-time basis in a programme prescribed by the committee, or, (c) be excused from attendance at school if he conforms to a programme prescribed by the committee.”

Now, it may seem far-fetched, but that committee has every legal right to prescribe a programme of straight work. There is nothing in the regulations and nothing in the legislation that prevents that, because clause 4 reads: “Where the parent of the child concurs with the determination under clause (d) or (c) of subsection (3)” -- that is, if the parent concurs the child be excused part time.

Let’s take the example where the recommendation is that the child be excused from attendance of school if he conforms to a programme prescribed by the committee. It reads:

“The committee shall prescribe for the child a programme involving continuing studies or other activity, or both, directed toward his needs and interests.”

I submit to you that the phrasing “shall prescribe for the child a programme involving continuing studies or other activity, or both,” is not good enough.

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that other activity could in fact be straight work. And where are these kids going to find jobs? Who is going to hire 14 year olds in our society? The only area of work they would be able to find is probably in the service industries at minimum wage. That’s not good enough as a learning experience for 14 to 16 year olds in our society. That is just not good enough.

The principle has to be in the legislation and it has to be backed up by the regulations. The principle has to be that this continues to be a genuinely educative experience. The principle has to be that children in our society have universal accessibility to education. You only breach that principle under very grave circumstances. You simply have not spelled out those circumstances clearly enough.

What you have done is you have let the educational system off the hook because it has failed a number of these children. These children are admittedly not coping with the educational system. They are not getting maximum benefits out of the educational system. And you have decided to put in this release clause. But it is not a release clause; it’s a condemnation of our educational system. It’s a condemnation of our society that we would consider this alternative without having those alternative educational programmes in place.

Now if we had them, if we had the mix that Walter Pitman used to talk about, if we had that in place, if we could use these people, these children and their humanitarian instincts in social work, in genuine work, in schooling activities, then I just might agree with you; but under the present circumstances I don’t, I can’t. I cannot in conscience reduce the accessibility of education for our teen-aged population.

Mr. Chairman, I really have not felt that strongly about any other issue in this bill. As I say, it’s a principle we breach at our peril. The safeguards just are not there.

Now I know in my heart of hearts the minister is not going to accept my amendment. I hope he does. In fact I plead with him to do so; but I don’t think he will. What I ask, if he won’t accept it -- while I am on my feet -- is that he bring the regulations back to the Legislature or a committee of the Legislature before gazetting them. Because if I, as an amateur educator and an amateur legislator, can spot a hole in the regulations, which you felt confident about on second reading and said they had gone across the province, although you failed to consult with a whole range of people who would be concerned, then there may be other loopholes.

I submit to you that in a matter as serious as this, where Children’s Aid Societies and every social agency dealing with teenagers are coming under increasing pressure, you should have done some consultation with your cabinet colleagues in the Social Development policy field. I am not sure that the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) were aware of these regulations.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Don’t fall over. Don’t lean over too far.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): And little John Smith.

Mr. Foulds: I’m not even sure that your parliamentary assistant, little John Smith, was aware of anything to do with this bill, let alone these regulations.

Mr. Lewis: Come on, John. Stand up.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Your party supported this two years ago.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): I have spoken favourably in this House in the private members’ hour.

Mr. Lewis: Well, it just shows that policies change.

Mr. Foulds: And it just goes to show you -- you know the argument that I’m making is a serious one -- that if those alternative things were in place we would support it. But those alternatives are not in place.

I submit to you that this is a section that we will divide on; and we will attempt, with every legislative means at our disposal, to persuade you to do otherwise. I plead with you: How could the Minister of Community and Social Services agree to these draft regulations? I doubt if he has seen them. Is he aware of the impact that it will have on his ministry and on the social agencies of his ministry, to whom a large number of these children will be coming? I would be glad to yield the floor to the Minister of Community and Social Services if he would care to comment.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): If he’s even seen the regulations you’ll yield the floor.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your patience. Those are our principles; we oppose this section. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t agree with the hon. member for Port Arthur about this section of the bill. I think a student should be allowed to leave school at 14, not on his own volition but in co-operation with the guidance counsellor in the school and the principal of the school, and with the consent of the parents and the social worker, so that there would be a team that would look after the welfare of the individual before granting permission for a student to remain out of school.

You could refuse to allow a student, on reaching 14, to leave school. Certainly the student would stay in the classroom, but what is he going to accomplish by being there, being forced to bring his body into school but not his mind? In my estimation, Mr. Chairman, we are not doing the student, his parents or the community a service by thinking we can force education onto him when he doesn’t want to accept it.

We can bring the horse to water but we can’t force that horse to drink. It is exactly the same thing here with this 14-year-old.

I don’t think that a 14-year-old should be allowed simply to withdraw because he is not accomplishing anything. I think there should be some safeguards built in. Now the minister may not have the safeguards in the regulations today; and if they are not in, I would strongly suggest to him that he build them in. There have to be alternative programmes for the student if he is going to be withdrawn from the school. I think it’s absolutely essential that he receive some type of education. We all agree that education is not only obtained in a classroom, that it can be obtained throughout the community and that one does not have to be in school to become fairly well educated.

Mr. Chairman, the student who is forced to remain in school but does not want to learn could be a very great disruptive factor in the classroom. Not only would he not learn, but it could be to the point where he would affect the learning abilities of another 30 students in the classroom. It would be better to have that student permitted to leave the system with the various safeguards I mentioned.

The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good), who has a very strong Mennonite community within his riding, would find if this were not permissive that the Mennonites would be disadvantaged and would not be allowed to have their 14-year-olds leave the system, if this were not permitted. Mr. Chairman, one could speak fairly well ad infinitum on both sides of this, but as a practising teacher myself I have gone through the experience of students who just did not want to learn, not necessarily because of a difference between the teacher and the student, or between the subject matter and the student, or the principal and the student. There may be all kinds of other social implications in the home that cause that student to want to leave at that age and maybe seek employment elsewhere or seek a different style of education.

As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, safeguards have to be built in, but the student should, with the consent of the parent, the principal, the guidance counsellor, the social worker in the community, be allowed to leave.

Mr. Chairman: The leader of the NDP.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education was probably right to make the interjection he did about the view of the party a couple of years ago. I don’t recall the precise private member’s bill, I must admit, but it is true to say that as a party we have had strong feelings on both sides of the question. I don’t feel embarrassed by that. I am sure that on occasion the minister himself has seen this as a pretty difficult problem.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have made speeches like the member for Thunder Bay when you people were on the other side pressing me to change.

Mr. Lewis: Fine.

Mr. Deans: Why don’t we resurrect some of those tonight?

Mr. Stokes: So even you were ambivalent about it.

Mr. Lewis: I like that word ambivalent. It is a first-rate word, that is. The ambivalence which you have felt on occasion, we feel now, Mr. Chairman, to the minister -- go ahead and chat.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): You are feeling very friendly tonight.

Mr. Lewis: One of the reasons for the ambivalence, one of the reasons we have decided to oppose the clause or to put the amendment which was put by my colleague from Port Arthur, is that the regulation is inadequate to the purpose intended.

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you separate them?

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Deans: That’s what they would do in school. If the Premier and the Minister of Education were in school, they would be separated. They are not paying attention.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, if you were in school I would pass this regulation and kick you out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I tell you if you were the teacher, I would look forward to it.

Mr. Lewis: Well, there you are. We finally reached a consensus on something. There is no limit to the job possibilities I could conjure up for you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Tremendous.

Mr. Stokes: They dream of the “blue machine” here and there.

Mr. Lewis: All right.

Mr. Chairman, the basic problem with the clause is that the regulations which you have drafted for it simply do not ensure the objects which you intend. We are not dealing with something frivolous here. You are lowering the school leaving age from 16 to 14. We understand the motives that support that lowering, but you understand, surely, if you are going to allow departure from the school system for a large number of from 14- to 16-year-olds, then the regulations which accompany the new role for them have to be fairly tightly drawn.

Mr. Chairman, I am having a great deal of difficulty with some of my colleagues, I want to put that in Hansard.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the members of the NDP to --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: No, no, no. Not at this end. Au contraire, not in the slightest.

An hon. member: The member is interrupting.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the NDP members would check with their leader and let him participate in the debate.

Mr. Lewis: It is the chief whip of the New Democratic Party who is under the pressures of this --

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps he would give his leader an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Lewis: He’s reverting to the prepubescent activity for which he is noted.

Would the member for St. George like to speak?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Very briefly.

Mr. Chairman: Would the leader care to speak to the bill?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I’m prepared to try to speak to the bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): It’s his last appearance as a private member.

Mr. Lewis: One of the reasons which accompanies the introduction of the clause is the assumption that there are a lot of 14-, 15- and 16-year-olds who don’t want to be in school and who should have the opportunity to leave it for other pursuits.

Let me tell you that I believe, and many of us believe, that a lot of kids who are difficult kids -- not kids who don’t like school, but kids who have difficulties of adjusting to school -- will be the children who find themselves outside the normal educational apparatus through this clause. The problem is that you haven’t carefully planned for the consequences of this Act.

One of the things which really stirred me to intervene in the debate at all was that I had some phone calls and some letters from social agencies around Metropolitan Toronto in the last few days expressing very serious concern about how this clause will operate, how the regulations will be employed.

I had a call yesterday from the president of the Metropolitan Toronto Children’s Aid Society who, speaking on behalf of the board, sees this clause which you’re introducing as a real threat to the society. I’m serious. They have no assurance.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: No, I’m not misinterpreting him.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Why don’t they call us, then?

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, they did a very responsible thing. As a board they got in touch with the trustees of the Toronto Board of Education, and they could not elicit from the trustees of the Toronto board the way in which these regulations would take effect.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How did they know?

Mr. Lewis: That’s why my colleague from Port Arthur --

Hon. Mr. Welts: That is local autonomy.

Mr. Lewis: Come on, now. You’re toying with the lives of adolescents; that’s no longer a simple matter of local autonomy. You want to give to boards of education the local autonomy to make these decisions -- fair enough.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You mean when anything is important it has to be settled here?

Mr. Lewis: No, that’s not necessarily so, but when you are assuming something is going to be handled by local autonomy at least give them a regulation or something which is a rather better guideline than this is, because this guarantees nothing for the kids involved. This really guarantees nothing.

First, it doesn’t involve the child enough in the making of the decision. It relies too heavily on the parent and not enough on the child.

That’s a mistake. There’s a great deal of discrimination against the kids in this situation. If they’re leaving to go out into the world, as it were, you could discuss it with them a little more fully.

Secondly, there is no guarantee that the programme which is worked out for them can be sound. If the programme is a work programme who the devil is going to hire them? What wages are they going to be paid? What jobs are they going to do? What guarantees have you that you’re going to combine work and education in any appropriate ratio? What guarantee have you that a lot of the kids who emerge won’t end up on the doorsteps of the children’s aid societies? That’s what they’re worried about.

I have in front of me a letter from the Youth Services Network of Metropolitan Toronto. That’s what they’re worried about. The social agencies are simply not, in any sense, assured in their own minds that there has been enough thought given to this regulation about the school leaving age.

What we’re saying, Mr. Chairman, is that we understand the motives behind it. I can recall my colleague, the former member for Peterborough, Walter Pitman, speaking in this vein. We’ve spoken in this vein ourselves.

Mr. Renwick: The former member for Scarborough East, Tim Reid, spoke in this vein.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Does Walter want to remove compulsory school attendance?

Mr. Lewis: That’s what I’m saying to you. I’m saying to you that Walter made speeches which would concur with the drift of this clause. I’m not dissembling. I’m telling you, I’m admitting it. I’m saying to you that I’ve made speeches which would concur with the drift of this clause.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: We have expressed the ambivalence that any educator or politician has to express when you are making a change which can be as fundamental as this one. The reason for the objection, Mr. Minister, is that there has just not been enough thought given to the consequences of the Act. There is not enough thought in discussing it with the boards, with the social agencies and with many of the parents’ group.

You should take a little more time and draft different kinds of regulations, which would be much more protective of the kids when they leave. Sure, there are kids who should be out of school and should have the right to leave school. Who can deny it for a moment? But there is nothing in the legislation which thoughtfully follows them through for the two years that they may be out. That’s the obligation of the school and the school board.

They are still getting money for the kids, aren’t they? Am I right about that? They still get the money for the children who leave the school. They’ve got to have a much more direct responsibility in describing the programme which accompanies the child once the decision to leave has been made.

I know, Mr. Chairman, there is something faulty about the clause when the various social agencies begin to express so much anxiety. They are not irresponsible social agencies. They’ve been in touch with trustees and they’ve discussed it as boards and they still feel very anxious about the minister’s clause, about the bill.

What I’m saying to you is don’t proceed with it as it is now constituted. Spend further time, withdraw the regulation, redraft it in conjunction with the people who will be directly affected and then see if it will work. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable demand. We are not differing with the principle on it with you. That’s why we’ll leave it for clause by clause.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is not what your colleague said.

Mr. Lewis: No, my colleague said that he has felt uncertain about it on occasion. That’s true. Who hasn’t, I ask you?

Hon. Mr. Wells: He said he didn’t agree with the principle.

Mr. Lewis: He didn’t agree with it within the regulation and the way this clause worked. I listened to him. He read the regulation to you and showed you where we disagreed with it or where we felt it wasn’t protective enough.

I think that’s a fairly valid argument, I really do. I don’t think this regulation is nearly adequate when you are dealing with 14 and 15-year-old kids and the implications.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are not going to read the Hansard.

Mr. Lewis: I consider them, by and large, pretty mature kids. That’s why I think one should have a slight resentment that you are not consulting them more about their leaving the school. I really think you should redraft the regulation, and that’s why we are against it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of this section. I remember very well when the Premier was Minister of Education and the proposition was before us to raise the school leaving age and we supported it at that time. I now see it as a mistake and I think the Premier does as well. I can recall when the hon. member for Waterloo North, who is not with us at this present time, had a number of his constituents, the Mennonite people, who brought to our attention their personal and family responsibilities in this particular area.

It certainly has come to my attention, not only as a member but as a former teacher, the problems that have been experienced by attendance officers, principals, teachers, school board elected representatives, including chairman, social workers, many others. The school-leaving age being raised to 16 was a noble experiment. It was brought forward by the ministry. It was supported by ourselves and by the NDP at the time. I personally now feel it was a mistake. It trespassed upon the rights of groups like the Mennonites who accept a community and family, personal responsibility in this regard. It also trespassed upon the good sense of many people who were called upon to enforce the regulation of 16 as the school leaving age, which is in many respects unenforceable.

We don’t want to talk about personal occasions, but many of us are aware of the circumstances when people under the age of 16 obviously have no continuing place in the formal education system of the province, and they can be served by other aspects of our programme and be led into a productive life in the community with many ancillary responsibilities. I feel that the proposition contained in the subsection before us, which reduces the school-leaving age under the regulation responsible to the minister is --

Mr. Foulds: No, not responsible to the minister, that is the point. The regulation doesn’t do that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Page 19: “Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council ... ” I presume that the Lieutenant Governor listens to the recommendations of the minister, but maybe she doesn’t. Maybe she does what she chooses.

Mr. Foulds: That’s a possibility, but we’ll never see it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I think she will take some guidance, at least.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right, at least some guidance.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Considerable guidance.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: At least some guidance. And in my view subsection 7 corrects that error that we made with passion some years ago --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Enthusiasm.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Enthusiasm. The Premier, who was here in the House, for heaven’s sake, was recommending it at the time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We supported him then, and we support him now, because certainly it was a mistake then and we shared in the responsibility of it. I believe that we have a responsibility here as elected members of the Legislature, but certainly to require by law that everyone must attend the formal sessions of the education system to the legal age of 16 is a mistake. I believe that our experience has proved that. Certainly I and my colleague from Windsor support the subsection as it is put forward.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could draw perhaps a different light on this particular section. There is no question that we cannot continue children in school if they are, in fact, not prepared to learn in the school system. When it comes, however, to the regulations, I would like, if I may, to give you a little bit of experience that I have had in this area, which might incline you perhaps to rethink your regulations.

An hon. member: Exactly.

Mrs. Campbell: As a judge in the court we had truancy cases. I must say, when I speak of our experiment, we were dealing with children of the 15-year-old bracket, not 14. But what we did in these cases was to continue the child as a student in the school on a part-time basis. Then the school, in co-operation with industry, worked out a programme on a part-time basis with that student so that the student was able to proceed in the direction in which he or she wanted to go.

The results were interesting. In some cases the student returned to the school on a full-time basis, because he found the world out there wasn’t the great world he thought it was. There were those who at least accepted the fact that having a partial academic programme was helpful to them in their chosen careers. And finally, there were those who did opt out and did go into full-time employment but they had that lift over a period to enable them to adjust.

This is the kind of regulations I would like to see, because it does seem to me at the age of 14 the fear that I have -- and I have seen it again in the courts -- is the fear of the pressure of parents on a 14-year-old to get out and get into the work force. You have asked in your regulations that it be the parents’ application; and this bothers me.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mrs. Campbell: I would like to give you a case in point of a girl who was the daughter of an Italian home. The mother was ill and removed from the home. Father, in the tradition of his former land, believed that that daughter ought to be in the home looking after him in lieu of his wife. He saw no reason why he should look after the baby. You had that whole dichotomy of a girl who was literally forced out of the home for a period of time.

Now, I’d like also to draw your attention to the fact that you have retained in this bill section 29. Section 29 is almost unenforceable in the courts. That is a section which requires a parent or guardian to retain a child in school under pain of fine. It happened in the case to which I made reference. That was one case where a father was brought before the court under that section.

Mr. J. R. Smith: There was a case of a father in Hamilton six years ago.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, it happens, occasionally. I would like to point out that I wonder if the staff has thought through the effect of this clause with your kind of regulations as it might affect section 29.

I want to say that I am certainly of the opinion that the move itself in the section is appropriate, but I have to endorse the position that in my view there should be that kind of protection built in so that a 14-year-old child has the opportunity to change his or her mind, based upon alternatives which they may see. This is where I have problems. I think 14 is an awfully young age to make permanent decisions; I guess that is what I am saying.

Another thing. Since you changed the policy of grants to grants in accordance with enrolment at the beginning of the year, I found schools were very ready to say “Bye-bye kids; you are a nuisance.” It was strange how often, in the face of a probation order, the child would return to school only to find that he or she had been suspended; and then we had to go through the whole process again. When the school came down on occasion, you would hear from the vice-principal, who was usually the person they sent: “Look, this kid is just a nuisance.”

All I can say is, please, would the minister give us assurance that he would rethink these regulations -- because that is really the nub of the problem. As far as the section goes, I have no problem with it, if you will strengthen those regulations and if we can have some assurances on that. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, I must admit I have some real ambivalence about this discussion here. When the private member’s bill from the member for Waterloo North was brought forward, I spoke as the lead-off speaker for our party in that session and quite strongly supported the principle of the bill, which is that there could be an early school-leaving age.

But on that bill we were talking in the context of the Mennonite community in Kitchener, whose families were very supportive. In point of fact, the students wanted to return to the family farm and would be continuing the traditions of the very strong Mennonite farming community and those farming methods. At that time certainly in the front of my mind, was that we were talking about a student wanting to leave school and having, through counselling or through availability of some training programme, a spot in which his time and his talents would be usefully employed and his interest retained, not just someone who would be thrown out on the street to wander around for a couple of years until he sorted himself out or found his interest some other place. I do have some apprehensions about the lack of regulations in this bill, or the omission in the regulations, that would point toward some positive programme or programmes in which the students who would profit by leaving school at age 14, could be placed.

I certainly can see no need for keeping a student who is absolutely bored to death with the educational system at age 14 in our school for another two years just for the sake of keeping him or her there. There are many programmes, particularly for girls in the retail field, and apprentice programmes in which the boys could start. There would be apprentice programmes for girls as well.

On this line, the country of Germany starts apprentice programmes at age 14. I know some immigrant families in Ontario -- in fact, in the city of Windsor and a few other locations -- who, in fact, pull their children out of school at age 14 and send them back to Germany to live with a relative in order that they can commence the apprentice programmes which are there in Germany at age 14. This is the type of programme that we should have here and now.

The absence of a guarantee of a programme like this in the regulations leaves me in two minds. I would hope the minister would do what he has been urged to do by other members of this House and that is simply come back with a discussion of the regulations or make very firm assurances regarding the concerns of what will happen to these 14-year-olds, that they just won’t be the troublemakers cast out on to the street, and that their interests will be taken care of in some sort of a training programme. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have a reply?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, as I guess the leader of the New Democratic Party has already said, I feel a little ambivalent on this, because I have stood up here many times during my estimates in the last several years and used many of the same arguments that have been used by some of his party about why we were leaving the school-leaving age very rigid, with no flexibility. This, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has stated, was brought in three, four, five years ago. It wasn’t a mistake at that time, I submit. I think that it made good sense.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Certainly it was. Within a month the attendance officers found it was impossible.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It made good sense to bring it in and it was supported at that time and it was brought in. I guess the mistake that occurred was that we didn’t provide for some kind of a provision, which we are now planning to do through this section in this new Act. I want to emphasize that the emphasis here is not on casting people out of the educational system but on providing alternative educational programmes for those people who are not benefiting from the traditional regular programme.

As we all know, the traditional regular programme in the school is much wider than it ever was, even when the school-leaving age of 16 was made mandatory. There’s a wide variety of regular programmes within the school buildings even now, but this Act provides for regulations to be made to provide an even broader alternative programme. I would like to tell the hon. members that it was brought in to satisfy some of the very things that have been mentioned here; to get away from a very rigid school-leaving age, but yet not to go back to the situation where we had people who were, for one reason or another, considered a trouble in school and therefore could be cast out without any thought.

That was our biggest concern and this was the main reason why I have never moved earlier than this on changing this section, because it would have been very easy to move back to the old work permit idea or something like that; to move back to that, have no consideration for these 14- or 15-year-olds and have them just thrust out of school because of some arbitrary decision of a principal or vice-principal, that they were a nuisance and they were interrupting the cozy atmosphere of his school; and that was never the intention of anything here.

The intention here was to provide a mechanism whereby, through a committee and through very careful assessment of a pupil along with his parents and all other community organizations, all kinds of people, a pupil who was not benefiting from the regular school programme could be provided with an alternative programme. And that could involve part-attendance at school or an alternative educational experience -- such as my friend has mentioned -- in a social service agency. Alternative education is now being pioneered, as he knows, in Peterborough; and alternative educational programmes in the industrial area are being pioneered in other boards across this province.

It could involve even something in an innovative way that he or I might not have even thought of now, but which some boards will be perhaps forced to think about as they develop under these regulations.

Now, the thrust of this is to provide an alternative programme for these young people and not to thrust them out and not to change the school-leaving age. I draw your attention, of course, to section 6 of the draft regulations. I just want to underline that these are just draft regulations, and they’re not in final form yet. We’ll certainly study everything that’s been said in this debate as we finalize them.

But one of the keys to this, of course, is that they do remain the responsibility of the school. That’s set down in draft regulation 6; the school board still gets the grants for these pupils.

Mr. Foulds: That’s all that guarantees, though.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They have a responsibility to --

Mr. Foulds: It doesn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They have a responsibility--

Mr. Foulds: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. On a point of order; will the minister read that draft regulation where he says it spells it out.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right, it says here:

“A pupil who is excused from attendance at school as determined by the committee under subsection (3) shall be included as a full-time pupil in the enrolment of (a) the school that he attends on a part-time basis, or (b) the school that he would attend if he were not excused from full-time and part-time attendance at school, until he is no longer of compulsory school age.”

And then in section 4 (1) it says:

“The school attendance counsellor shall have the same powers and shall perform the same duties in respect of a pupil as in the case of a child who is not excused from attendance at school.”

Pupil means a child who, under this section, has been excused. And (2):

“The principal and school attendance counsellor shall, in addition to any other reports required of them, report to the committee [that is the committee that granted this alternative programme] from time to time as required by the committee regarding the progress of the pupil, and they are entitled to require and obtain from the parent and from any person associated with the conduct of the programme prescribed for the pupil, such information as they require for their reports.”

In other words, in that section we’re trying to say that the ties are not to be broken with the school and with the board which has jurisdiction of the pupil. They are to be maintained and the programme is to be monitored. There’s to be a constant review of that programme. It can be changed from time to time, it can be altered, it can be adjusted. That’s what we’re trying to do here.

Now, that’s the complete sense of these regulations. They are not, and I emphasize that, to change the school-leaving age. They are not to cast people out of school early. They are not to interfere with the universal accessibility of free education up to age 16 that’s guaranteed in here; that is, compulsory attendance to age 16. They’re not to do any of these things. They’re to be a progressive step to get at some real problems that we have, and to work with people -- parents, children, people in the schools and people in the community -- to solve those problems.

Now, if the Children’s Aid Society or some of the other groups have problems, I’d be happy to meet with them and talk to them about them, because I haven’t. But I’ve talked to headmasters and I’ve talked to school attendance counsellors. My friend might be interested: I even mentioned it to the Ontario Federation of Labour during one of our meetings. I don’t think we consulted about it in a regular consultation way. But they were interested and thought it was probably, I think, a step in the right direction.

So, I think that we’ll take heed of all the things that have been indicated in this debate as we draft the regulations. But I think the enabling piece of legislation in this bill is necessary and it’s a step forward.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister just a couple of questions?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Minister, I have two questions.

No. 1: Would this change, as you have provided, allow a Mennonite student to return to the family farm? Is that a qualified programme?

No. 2: Regarding all the things you have talked about tonight, in terms of the school counsellor being required to have the same responsibilities for those students as he formerly had as if he was in school, will a letter be going out to the schools and all those counsellors stating unequivocally that they are to take this interest in these students, and even more so because they don’t have the opportunity to see them day by day?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, in answer to your last question, it absolutely will. It will be very clearly communicated to the counsellors in the schools that this is the kind of legislation and regulations we are developing here and that they are to take an interest. I think that message already has got across as we developed our dialogue on this whole problem over the past six, eight or nine months.

In regard to your first question, I think that is going to have to depend upon the way the Waterloo County Board of Education, where most of these people are located, decides to handle this matter within its jurisdiction. If that is the particular area where they happen to be, or if a committee is set up in some other area and the people come into that committee and the discussion goes on, I think it would be presumptuous of me to tell them how they should decide to handle the situation when it is put before them.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I still feel profoundly uneasy. I know the minister’s intent, and I don’t deny that intent, but the sections of the regulations that he read to me do not guarantee what he and his officials think they guarantee or what they hope they guarantee.

All that regulation 6 does, which he read to me, is guarantee that the board will continue to get the grant because the child will continue to be officially on the rolls. That is all that guarantees -- and I underline the word “guarantee.”

Secondly, the fatal flaw -- and there is a fatal flaw in the drafting of the regulations as they now stand; what you were referring to as regulation 6, Mr. Minister, was in fact regulation 3(6) -- and the fatal flaw in regulations 4(1) and 4(2) is that it is the responsibility of the committee that prescribes the programme to also monitor that programme. The possibility that I expressed to you, that that programme could be straight work and nothing but work, still exists.

Now if you can give us assurances -- and, to be honest, I don’t know how you would draft this -- but if you can give us an absolute commitment that the --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is too much noise. I can’t hear the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this riff-raff to order.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Port Arthur has the floor. Please proceed.

Mr. Foulds: If you can give us absolute assurance that in some manner the child will continue to have an educative experience at least proportionate to that of a work experience, say 50-50, that the experience not be simply a work experience, we would consider that a victory.

If you can give us an absolute assurance that the school will not only have the responsibility but will follow through on that responsibility to ensure that at least some portion of that child’s time continues to be an educative experience within the meaning of this Act, then we would consider that a victory.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I would consider that that kind of assurance from me at this point might inhibit the development of a full programme and complete autonomy under this regulation for a board.

I don’t know what you mean by a guarantee that they would have an education experience, because it may be that when this committee looks at one pupil they may decide that because of a number of circumstances, and because he can, indeed, fit into a work situation during the daytime at a certain place and wants to complete his programme at night school or we arrange correspondence school, would that qualify?

Mr. Lewis: Sure.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Sure, and that’s the kind of thing that they’ll do, but I don’t know how we’re going to write that into the regulations yet and I can’t guarantee that that will be in the regulations. I think that by starting to put limits in we inhibit the total work of this committee. I think that the committees and the board will have to develop these things themselves.

I can go as far as guaranteeing you that we are going to stress this when this programme is put to the boards. We’re going to stress that what we want is an alternative educational experience, but I can’t go beyond that.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I must say to you I don’t want to vote against the clause because, basically, the proposition of flexibility makes sense, but the regulations are really not drawn in a way which protects the kids involved.

Hon. Mr. Wells: These are only draft regulations.

Mr. Lewis: You say they’re draft regulations. Can we have from you -- and I think this wouldn’t be difficult -- a commitment that some of the major social agencies, on whose doorstep many of these kids may find themselves if it doesn’t work -- and that’s what the agencies are apprehensive about; some of the industry and labour groups which will obviously be involved in the work programmes -- can they be talked to in advance of the regulations becoming formalized? These are the people who are directly involved and with whom there has been very little discussion; certainly not that’s satisfactory to them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’ve even done something that we very rarely do here and made the regulations available before we pass the section --

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact that is a good precedent, something you need to be proud of.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- before we even have a section to allow us to make the regulations. All I can tell you is they are draft regulations and I will give you my assurance that I will study the debate that has gone on in this House tonight as we finalize the regulations.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment moved by Mr. Foulds is section 10, subsection (7) -- Oh, the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I’m sorry. I would like to call my colleague from Thunder Bay back across the floor.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did my best!

Mr. Chairman: Are you seeking to speak on the amendment?

An hon. member: He was calling his whip back to his seat.

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Chairman. I was endeavouring to count and I notice that there are only four of us here. There are five required for a vote.

An hon. member: Did you pick Forest Hill?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t think so. He didn’t have to take his shoes off either.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Order.

The vote is on Mr. Fould’s motion that section 10, subsection (7) be deleted from the bill.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Lewis: We’ll stack it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Roy: Those birds didn’t say “boo.”

Mr. Foulds: Yes we did.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: I said the “nays” have it. I didn’t hear an “aye” in the whole House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not an “aye.”

Mr. Chairman: If you said “nay” you are voting against your resolution.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not a one.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): The motion is lost.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Stokes: Is this going to be one of those nights?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did the member for High Park get lost?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Is this a medical meeting?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I would like that stacked. Is it possible you can call the vote again and we won’t waste the night?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We’ll even say “aye” again.

Mr. Chairman: It being Christmastime --

Mr. Lewis: It is not Christmastime. It is the function of the House.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed that we will stack the amendment?

Agreed then.

Is there any other member who wishes to speak before section 25 of the bill?

Mr. Roy: I want to speak to section 271.

Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: On section 13, the hon. member for Port Arthur.

On section 13:

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have an amendment to this section, but there is one little thing that I want to talk about under section 13.

Section 13 is the section which gives the minister, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the power to establish and maintain a college for the professional education of teachers or to enter into an agreement with a university for teacher training.

There is a shabby, sad little story rattling around within the ministry about the integration of Lakeshore Teachers’ College with York University. That’s the story of the way the ministry has treated the teachers of Lakeshore Teachers’ College. There are about 20 teachers affected. York University has not agreed to take them into their programme, and the ministry has abandoned them. They are teachers ranging in experience in teaching training from as little as three years to as much as 25 years.

As one goes through the original agreement between the minister and York University, one clause springs out; it is clause 20 (2):

“Arrangements satisfactory to the minister and the university will be made to provide for the integration of the staff of Lakeshore Teachers’ College into the university, insofar as sick leave, vacation leave, medical insurance and other fringe benefits are concerned.”

Clause 20(1) reads:

“The university shall, commencing on the effective day of this agreement, employ and pay all teaching and non-teaching personnel, including the principal, vice-principal, administrative and maintenance members of the staff of Lakeshore Teachers College, at salary rates not less than their salary rates on Aug. 1, 1971.”

There are various subclauses, but what I want to say very briefly and not unduly is that the minister and ministry has in fact abandoned these people.

One of the first letters that I had in this spotty correspondence is a letter that the former Deputy Minister of Education sent to Mr. Condlln who was and is the secretary of the faculty association at Lakeshore Teachers’ College. I’ll read the whole letter:

“Over the years in your capacity as a teacher educator on the staff of Lakeshore Teachers’ College you have given faithful service to the Department of Education for the Province of Ontario.

“As of Aug. 31, 1971, however, in accordance with the regulations of the Ontario Public Service Act governing your employment as a civil servant, I wish to notify you of your release from the public service so that you may assume a position of responsibility within the offices of York University.

“Please accept my personal thanks and the appreciation of the Department of Education for the significant contribution you have made to teacher education. As a member of the staff of York University you will, I know, continue to influence education and development in the Province of Ontario.”

That was signed by E. E. Stewart, the former Deputy Minister of Education.

Very simply, that commitment and that understanding has not been lived up to. Twenty-five teachers have not been accepted by York University, although it has had four years. York University has not integrated them into its programme, and they are now getting letters such as this one addressed to the secretary of the Lakeshore Teachers’ College from Mr. R. L. Overing, dean, faculty of education, York University:

“Frankly, the prospects do not encourage optimism. Our present plans are to close Lakeshore Teachers’ College on June 30, 1975. The staffing pattern of the faculty of education, as you know, is based on faculty cross-appointment, either from the schools or from the academic departments of the university.”

I read further on in the letter:

“President Yolton, Principal McClure and I all know that your contribution to the operation of Lakeshore during 1974-1975 will be invaluable.”

These people have no job security at the end of this year and yet you expect them to carry on with high morale at Lakeshore Teachers’ College. You are asking too much. Listen to this -- this really interests me:

“The college programme will not be as effective as it presently is without you, but you must not let this consideration prevent you from accepting satisfactory alternative positions elsewhere before June 30, 1975.”

How the hell are you going to carry on with the programme at Lakeshore Teachers’ College if you are encouraging the faculty to leave?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Watch it there.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Order.

Mr. Foulds: Oh, pardon me.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Intemperate language.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Keep that noise down, please.

Mr. Foulds: How the devil -- is that all right?

Mr. Chairman: Pardon?

Mr. Foulds: You know, it always puzzles me --

Mr. Chairman: The member is out of order. He must take those remarks back. That’s not parliamentary.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, will you stop it? Will you not be so silly. Good Lord.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word hell.

Mr. Chairman: Proceed.

Mr. Foulds: I know the homeland of the devil is unacceptable, but the devil himself is acceptable in this chamber. Therefore, I will say how the devil --

Mr. Roy: We’re discussing Christian-Judaeo principles, and you mention the word hell.

Mr. Foulds: How the devil do you expect them to carry on? How the devil do you expect the programme at Lakeshore, in which students are enrolled until the end of June, to carry on while you are actively encouraging the faculty to leave before the end of June?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the member has got blood all down the front of his shirt. Take a look.

Mr. Foulds: I just thought I’d wear the party shirt tonight.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You will be sorry you said that.

Mr. Lewis: And without a tie; did you notice that?

Mr. Foulds: I continue to read:

“I know there is little that I can say here to soften this blow. It may help to know that I consider the staff of which you are a part to be excellent, collectively and individually. I believe each of you personally has helped the college to become perhaps the best of the institutions in the provincial college system.”

How can someone say that on the one hand and yet be turfing these people out? Further on in the letter Dean Overing says:

“For reasons that are historical, financial and political, a decision has been reached” --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Political?

Mr. Lewis: Not terribly discreet.

Mr. Foulds: Isn’t that interesting? He says:

“For reasons that are historical, financial and political a decision has been reached that we should not deviate from the original York model until it has been tested and proven or disproven.”

Now that is, in fact, a very indiscreet letter to send. And a shabby way, if I may say so, to treat them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What was the date of that letter?

Mr. Foulds: The fault basically, I admit, lies more with York University than it does with your ministry. But according to the original agreement, your ministry accepted responsibility for the integration of the Lakeshore Teachers’ College with York University. That integration has not taken place. What they are doing is they are phasing out Lakeshore Teachers’ College and phasing in an entirely new and different programme at York. They had four years, admittedly, and the integration simply has not worked.

Mr. Lewis: What is the date on the letter from York? He wanted to know.

Mr. Foulds: The date on that letter is March 13, 1974. It was sent to the secretary of the faculty association at Lakeshore, Mr. Condlln from Dean Overling. On June 18, acting president John W. Yolton sent a registered letter to Mr. Condlln.

“The agreement of Aug. 17, 1971, between York University and the Ministry of Education requires that ‘Civil servants who were on the staff of the Lakeshore Teachers’ College on Aug. 31, 1971, and who transferred to the faculty of the university’ be given formal notice by the university by June 30, 1974, if the university does not wish to offer a continuing appointment to them.

“Preliminary notice of York’s decision not to offer you continuing employment was given to you in Dean Overing’s letter to you of March 13, 1974. In accordance with the agreement, it is with great regret that I now write formally to confirm Dean Overing’s letter and to notify you that York University will not be offering you a continuing appointment.

“Therefore, pursuant to article 20, section 7(2), of the agreement and York’s decision to extend the final date of termination two months beyond the date specified in the agreement, your employment with York University is guaranteed only until Aug. 31, 1975.

“As you know, the decision not to grant you a continuing appointment in the faculty of education arises from the particular staffing model being developed, a model which relies almost entirely on faculty cross-appointments from other faculties of the university or the schools.”

These people were so upset, so incensed -- not incensed, hurt -- they didn’t know where to turn to. They wrote, I believe, to the minister. I have no copy of that, I admit.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I got it.

Mr. Foulds: They wrote to the Premier and they wrote to various members.

The Premier said in a letter of Oct. 1:

“Yet in frankness, Mr. Condlln, I do not think that the answer to the problem lies in questioning whether York University has moved toward the proper form of integration as intended by the agreement between the institution and the minister. We certainly regret that York University has decided to embark on a type of programme that offers no opportunity for the continuity of service by the members of the Lakeshore Teachers’ College staff.”

But nothing has been done to guarantee them employment. Then assurances such as this:

“I would think that persons with the educational background and experience that is to be found among those who are members of the Lakeshore Teachers’ College staff would be particularly attractive candidates for teaching, supervisory and administrative positions in the general educational community.”

A few of them have found jobs, but not many.

Now, listen to this. This is the one that they feel betrayed about.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What do you mean -- “listen to this”? Why should we?

Mr. Foulds: “I assure you,” said the Premier in his letter, “that in this instance, through the Ministry of Education, the government will do its full part to try to assist the members of your faculty in finding suitable new positions.”

If I may, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I have about five more minutes on this particular issue --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What do you mean, five more minutes?

Mr. Breithaupt: Only five?

Mr. Foulds: It’s an important one for the people concerned, and it comes up under this section of the bill.

This is a letter dated Oct. 22, 1974, from J. K. Crossley, director of the teacher education and certification branch, to Mr. Condlln.

“This is in reply to your letter of Sept. 9 on behalf of the faculty association of Lakeshore Teachers’ College.

“There is little that I can add at this time to the information and ideas that we discussed at our meeting on July 23. I note that the Premier, Hon. Mr. Davis, has written to you as of Oct. 1 and has referred to the idea of contractual work, which was mentioned at our meeting. I trust that at least some members of the faculty are maintaining contact with CIDA, especially with reference to Nigeria.”

That’s one of the alternatives. Most of these women and men are in their 50s, bringing up children of university and school age, and the alternative that you suggest to them is that they seek employment in Nigeria.

Mr. Lewis: They wouldn’t be acceptable, by the way -- they really wouldn’t. There are no jobs for such people in black countries.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Carried.

Mr. Foulds: People of my generation 15 years ago would have leaped at the chance to go to Nigeria. The further idea that Mr. Crossley suggested was:

“Have you thought of approaching a company such as Educational Consultants of Canada, 1460 Don Mills Rd., Don Mills, Ont.? They might be able to help with either direct placement of people with school boards or other educational institutions or they might be useful in formulating contract proposals which might appeal to particular educational institutions.”

Mr. Chairman, the members of the Liberal Party may not consider this an important matter. I happen to think --

Mr. B. Newman: We do.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): We haven’t said a word.

Mr. Foulds: -- that it is one of those tiny issues that affects the lives of 25 people who have, by and large, contributed well to the civil service of this province, have contributed well to the teacher education of this province and whom, frankly, the ministry has deserted. I simply want to put to you in public terms that you do everything within your power to guarantee them future employment, to live up to the spirit of the agreement between the ministry and York University. If York is going to treat them shabbily, there is no reason why the ministry should.

One man, for example, has three years to go to retirement. Where does he find a job? I have a number of statistics that I won’t read into the record. But I just put it to you in humanitarian terms, in terms that these people have served this province, that before the year runs out every single one of them be found a just place in the educational system of this province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for drawing to our attention the case of these people at Lakeshore Teachers’ College, or the former Lakeshore Teachers’ College, which is now in fact a part of York University. I have met with that group. I certainly will tell the hon. member I have asked our people and this ministry to do everything we can to assist them.

As he knows, and he has read the original agreement, the agreement that we had with all the other teachers’ colleges that we integrated was that they would have four years during which time the university was to make up its mind whether it would offer them tenure or not. In the case of the other integrations, eight or nine or whatever it was, I am happy to say everything has worked out well. The only black mark, if you will, on the whole situation has been the York University situation. I regret that it had to happen that way. I had hoped that that, too, could have been handled as all others were handled and the people on the staff integrated with York University in one degree or another. For various reasons, that didn’t turn out.

I will continue to do everything we can to assist in this matter. If the hon. member will recall what he read in the agreement, it said that both the ministry and York University, if they weren’t offered tenure, should do everything possible to find them alternative employment. We are trying to do that. I hope York University is going to try to do that. I think since I know the president on a first-name basis, I will try talking to the president of York University about this.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, on this point, I hope it was a slip of the tongue from the member for Port Arthur with respect to any lack of interest on this side of the House on the problem which he has raised.

Mr. Stokes: Lack of attention.

Mr. Breithaupt: We certainly share the concern that he has with respect to the Lakeshore Teachers’ College matter. I commend the minister, certainly, for taking a serious view of the remarks which the member has made and with which we are in agreement.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 13 carry?

Mr. Lewis: I just want to pay a quiet tribute to the House leader of the Liberal Party for rescuing his colleagues with such dexterity. I think a tribute should be paid.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, at least I have some colleagues here to rescue.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The enemy is over here, fellows.

Mr. Lewis: May I just say to the minister that I don’t know who Mr. Crossley, the director of teacher education and certification branch, is but let me suggest to him, through you, the suggestion that this group of teachers will find employment through CIDA in other parts of the world, is not only a pretty fatuous suggestion to them in terms of its practicality, but it just simply won’t work. It simply doesn’t happen any more. Things have changed in the third world, and that might be noted by your ministry.

Section 13 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any section before section 50?

Mr. Foulds: Which section, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Before section 50 of the bill?

Mr. Foulds: Section 34.

Sections 14 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 34:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds moves that subsection (6) of section 34 be amended by adding the following words after the word “minister” in the second line, “and it shall be the responsibility of the minister, in conjunction with the board, to provide alternative education for any person thus excluded.”

Mr. Foulds: Now Mr. Chairman, the principle is somewhat the same as we were discussing a few moments ago under section 10 of the Act. This section allows the board to -- well, I’ll just read the appropriate clause first and then explain the amendment. Section 34, subsection (2) says:

“The inability of a pupil to profit by instruction in an elementary school because of a mental or physical handicap shall be determined by a committee established by the board in accordance with this section.”

It’s a mechanism not unlike the one that you devised for children leaving at age 14, but what bothers me extremely is that there is no guarantee in this section that those children excluded for a mental or a physical handicap will continue to have an educative experience. So I have added this to subsection (6) so that the clause would read as follows:

“Where a person is excluded from an elementary school under this section the board shall forthwith notify the minister and it shall be the responsibility of the minister, in conjunction with the board, to provide alternative education for any person thus excluded.”

All I’m trying to do here is ensure that the people who are excluded, whether for a mental or physical handicap, continue to have the guarantee of an educational experience. I won’t repeat the arguments I made in the committee, outside the House; nor the arguments that the hon. member for St. George made, I may say very fluently, and with her experience in the city of Toronto particularly, very well.

An hon. member: Oh a little travelling music!

Mr. Foulds: I won’t repeat the arguments we made there. I simply want to reaffirm that it is our contention that those people should continue to have an education experience and we would like to see that right guaranteed in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: There isn’t any point, I think, in repeating what went on in the committee on this particular section. We took the position, at the time, that simply reporting to the minister, as it were, was not sufficient to ensure that a child, handicapped in either of these ways, would continue to have an educational experience. We think it is important that a child should not be written off for these reasons and I support this position, the position of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: I have an amendment to section 34, subsection (6), moved by Mr. Foulds, that the following words be added after --

Mr. Foulds: Perhaps the minister wants to respond.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could just explain. Section 34 sets up a very elaborate procedure to provide what we think is an advance on the present legislation, that is the legislation in the present school Acts, concerning someone who by reason of mental or physical handicap cannot profit by instruction in an elementary school. At the present time, there is only provision in the legislation for an arbitrary decision, I think, by a principal. Then that person can be excluded from the school system.

Section 34 goes a lot further. It sets up a procedure whereby a committee is set up and an appeal can be made to that committee and outside expertise comes into play on that committee, and then eventually that committee hands down a decision. We have here an advance on the present legislation, an advance in this consolidation.

As I said in the committee, as a matter of fact the present legislation merely says that a person does not have to attend school if he is unable by reason of mental or physical defect to profit by instruction. At the present time, without perhaps his rights being protected, he can be excluded from school. This provides an advance in providing a committee and procedure whereby his rights can be guaranteed. The question is how far do we go beyond that if a child is judged not to able to benefit from instructions because of a physical or mental handicap? I would submit to you that there are very few children in this province at the present time who are excluded from school, but one child excluded from school wrongly is one too many.

What I propose, Mr. Chairman, and I asked this well before this bill came to committee, is that our minister’s Advisory Committee on Special Education work with this problem to decide how this could be implemented and how we can provide for some kind of programme within every school board for all children of compulsory school age. It sounds very simple, but it does have certain hidden pitfalls in it; cost pitfalls involved in provision of facilities on a universal basis across this province and not just in certain areas, things like this that have to be considered before I think we can implement a section such as has been suggested.

Therefore I gave the assurances to the committee that this is one of the things my advisory committee is working on. It ties in very closely with the whole programme for the trainable retarded and the requests of the separate school board to be allowed to establish programmes for the trainable retarded, which are also under discussion by the minister’s Advisory Committee on Special Education.

What I am really saying is I am not prepared at this time to accept this amendment, but I am not saying there isn’t value in the amendment and that it isn’t something we are studying very diligently.

Mr. Foulds: We will stack it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House that section 34, subsection (6), be stacked?

Mrs. Campbell: Only after the vote is called, Mr. Chairman. You have to call the vote.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Fould’s motion will please say “aye”.

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost, and the section stands as part of the bill.

Section 34 agreed to.

Mr. Lewis: There were five people who stood.

Mr. Chairman: I didn’t see five members rise. Your arithmetic is different from mine.

Mr. Lewis: The member for Windsor-Walkerville more or less stood.

Mr. Chairman: More or less, and the member for York Centre just about stood. I didn’t see five members rise.

Mr. Lewis: Well we will vote again.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that really the Peel North executive there? Were they introduced.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): They have been introduced.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What was the Premier doing here tonight?

An hon. member: He is always here.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Has any member any comments or amendments to anything prior to section 50 of the bill?

Mr. Roy: Yes, I want to speak on section 271.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, you will get your chance.

Anything before section 75? Section 70.

Sections 35 to 69, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 70:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a long amendment here. I hope the House will bear with me while I read the amendment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, it is not that long. God, there are six pages.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: It is okay.

An hon. member: You’ve only got two members.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order. Would the member read the amendment to section 70?

Mr. Foulds moves that on line 1 of section 70, subsection (1) the word “divisional” be deleted after the word “every” and before the word “board,” and that in line 3 the word “division” after the word “school” and before the word “and” be deleted and that the word “zone” be substituted therefor.

Mr. Foulds further moves that in line 1 of section 70, subsection (2), the word “division” after the word “a” and before the word “board” be deleted and that in line 3 the word “divisional” after the word “another” and before the word “or” be deleted, and that in line 5 the word “divisional” after the word “school” and before the word “of” be deleted and that the word “zone” be substituted therefor.

Mr. Foulds further moves that in line 3 of subsection (3) the word “divisional” after the word “the” and before the word “board” be deleted, and that in line 6 the word “division” after the word “school” and before the word “in” be deleted and the word “zone” be substituted therefor.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

An hon. member: Good for you. We’ll vote on it right now.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is entitled to a little music with that.

Mr. Foulds: Basically what has happened in this section is that you are allowing only public schools to maintain schools for mentally retarded children, by assigning that responsibility to the divisional boards, and divisional boards in the definition section can only be boards of education or public school boards.

By these amendments, I am attempting to give the right to every board that comes under the definition of board within the meaning of the Act. Once again, we made all these arguments in committee outside of the House and I’m not going to repeat them. I just want very briefly --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Come on, repeat them.

Mr. Foulds: -- to touch upon one very real case.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ll bet he does.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Are you reading your Hansard brief? You have only one member of your party with you.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: Is this your maiden speech?

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Jessiman: There is only one member of your party interested. They have all left you.

Mr. Foulds: It’s quality, not quantity, that counts.

Mr. Jessiman: Is this something new?

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. Foulds: And the minister sometimes wishes he didn’t have your support.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Port Arthur has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: It’s the longest single contribution the member for Fort William has made in his tenure in the House. You usually confine yourself to monosyllables.

I haven’t heard you put two words together. It’s really quite an accomplishment.

Mr. Chairman: Order, on behalf of your colleague.

Mr. Lewis: My colleague can get along well, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jessiman: Watch your hands.

Mr. Foulds: The Sudbury Catholic Separate School Board, which is larger than the public school board in terms of the population that it serves, has for some time been providing education for mentally retarded children, and the public school board in Sudbury did not duplicate the service but arranged with the separate school board to send children to the classes. But, because of this section of the Act, that whole programme had to be scrapped and devised again.

I submit to you that in this day and age, where the ministry talks about shared facilities, that we should in this instance talk about giving the same rights to the separate school board with regard to Roman Catholic separate school children who, unfortunately, happen to be mentally retarded. I am sure that no separate school board is going to embark on one of these programmes if the service is available and it’s more economical to do it in conjunction with another board, because that has not been the experience in the province. It worked well in Sudbury, it worked co-operatively in Sudbury and I would simply like to point out to you that my attempts in this amendment to this section, are simply to substitute the word “board” for “divisional board.” If you check on page 2, the definition of “board” is stated to mean “a board of education, public school board, secondary school board, Roman Catholic separate school board, or Protestant separate school board.” Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. B. Newman: I would like to say a few words in support of the member’s amendment to the section.

A year or so ago, I believe, I brought this to the attention of the ministry when we were debating one piece of legislation that gave permission only to the public school boards to have programmes for the mentally retarded. At that time I could get no support in the House. I saw the fallacy of assigning it only to one board; I thought it would be right to assign it to either of the boards. I couldn’t see duplication of services in a community for a programme such as this.

We support the member’s amendment to this section. I only wish that the members of the NDP had paid attention to this when it was brought into the House one year ago.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my remarks a few minutes ago, this is one of the further matters that the minister’s advisory committee on special education is studying. We have been asked by the Ontario Separate School Trustees’ Association and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, among other bodies to look into this, and we are currently studying it.

I want to point out to the members that the reason this section reads as it does -- and I think I explained this in the estimates -- is that historically, when these schools were brought into the new larger units of administration, they were brought into the secondary school panel and they receive secondary school ceilings and grants, one and a half times the regular secondary school per pupil ceiling.

They are administered under the secondary school panel of the boards. Therefore, the Catholic and public school supporters of a community have the full say in the administration of the trainable retarded children’s schools where they exist in any jurisdictions and in any of the boards.

The separate school trustees on the board can make motions, second motions, vote on matters and, indeed, they can take full part in running those programmes as they do now. The Roman Catholic ratepayers of any community where there are trainable retarded schools support those schools with their taxes, as do their public school supporters and neighbours. They are in the secondary school panel. That is the situation as it exists at the present time.

Nobody is excluded from the administration or the policy-making of those schools. Nobody is excluded or included exclusively to pay taxes towards them. As I say, the ongoing step could be to provide the Roman Catholic separate school boards with the power in legislation to establish programmes for the retarded under the elementary panel. This is what we are currently having studied by the minister’s advisory committee on special education.

Mr. Chairman: It is moved by Mr. Foulds that in line 1 of section 70(1) the word “division” will be deleted after the word “every” and before the word “board” and that in line 3 the word “division” after the word “school” and before the word “and” be deleted and the word “zone” be substituted therefor.

In section 70(2) it is moved by Mr. Foulds that in line 1 the word “division” will be deleted after the word “a” and before the word “board,” that in line 3 the word “divisional” after the word “another” and before the word “board” be deleted, and that in line 5 the word “division” after the word “school” and before the word “of” be deleted and the word “zone” be substituted therefor.

In section 70(3) it is moved by Mr. Foulds that in line 3 the word “divisional” after the word “the” and before the word “board” be deleted, and that in line 6 the word “division” after the word “school” and before the word “in” be deleted and the word “zone” be substituted therefor.

All those in favour of the motion --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would you please repeat that, Mr. Chairman -- the third line?

Mr. Chairman: The third line -- which third line?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Mr. Lewis: Now just let’s count them. Look at them -- just look at them.

Mr. Chairman: Stack it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, you made it, fellows -- back in the cubbyholes.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed. Stack it.

Any other comments, amendments?

Mr. Foulds: Section 164, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before 164?

Sections 71 to 156, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 157:

Mrs. Campbell: There is an amendment to section 157. This was one which I had drawn to the minister’s attention in committee that notwithstanding the fact that we have a secretariat to ensure that we co-ordinate these things, the Minister of Community and Social Services brought in legislation which was not in accord with the spirit of this Act.

It’s really not a matter of an amendment. It is simply that I have now read this amendment quite carefully and it concerns me. It has the effect of saying that a facility or facilities in certain circumstances that come within the definition of community recreation centre under the Community Recreation Centres Act may be considered by the Minister of Community and Social Services as a community recreation centre.

Now, my concern is that his Act definitely states that the municipality must have vested in it the title to the property in order to achieve grants. I would ask the minister if I could have the explanation of his staff as to how -- or I’m sorry, the minister himself, if he can do that -- how we can overcome in this way what appears to be an ongoing conflict between the two statutes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have to tell my hon. friend that actually the first amendment to this section I saw was one much more easily understood by a layman like myself. I’m not a lawyer like the hon. member or the gentlemen that draft legislation around here. But after saying that that seemed to do that job, they came back with this one, which I’m told does exactly the same thing.

In other words, it provides that if a school board and a municipality were to get together and decide to build a community school, part of it -- say, enlarging a gymnasium or adding some part of that school that would qualify under the Community Recreation Centres Act -- the municipality would be eligible for their part of the grant under the Community Recreation Centres Act. This notwithstanding the fact that that building would be built on school board land and they wouldn’t have a lease for that land, but would have an agreement signed between themselves and the school board for the operation and the construction of that facility. The intent of this amendment was that if that agreement took place, it would be deemed to be acceptable under the Community Recreation Centres Act.

Now, as I say, I’m not a lawyer and the lawyers tell me that this does that. Now, my friend is a lawyer, and if she is in doubt about it, I will be glad to have it double-checked again. Because certainly that is what she wants done, and that is what my colleague, the Minister of Community and Social Services wanted done. We wanted in no way to inhibit the development of community recreation facilities or community schools and to put that old bugaboo in that you had to build them on land that you owned, or had a long-term lease for that land owned by the community, only in this case through the school board.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I understood the purport of it. As I say, I drew the attention of the minister to the dichotomy between the two statutes. All I’m concerned about is that I would say that the Community Recreation Centres Act is the governing legislation. I would have thought that almost the only way we could ensure the end result we are seeking here would be by amendment to that legislation, because if it says you can’t do it this way, I don’t know how you can say he can consider it this way for our purposes. That’s the sum and substance of it.

Mr. Breithaupt: I would think, Mr. Chairman, that the member for St. George makes a good point. It might be worthwhile before we return in January that the minister’s advisers could consider whether an amendment to that community centres legislation would be worthwhile in order to make sure that there is no particular problem. I think that if that were looked at, we might then all be quite content.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly that is a desirable thing. As my friends know, the Community Recreations Centres Act had already passed at the time we were discussing this. What we were attempting to do here was to put something into this Act so that we wouldn’t inhibit any of these agreements or prevent anything happening until it was possible to put through an amendment to that Act. We’ll pursue that also.

I am told that this section was drafted by the chief legislative counsel with the very thoughts that you and I had in mind. I guess we’ll have to accept his wisdom in drafting legislation and assume he has done something here that is going to work, and I am sure he has.

Section 157 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 164? The member for Port Arthur.

On section 164:

Mr. Foulds moves that subsection 1 of section 164 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“164 -- (1) A board may pay to each member of the board for each month an allowance as the board itself may determine at the first duly constituted meeting of the board in the current year.”

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I admit the minister has made a step forward in section 164, but he still has set limits on the allowances that the board may pay to trustees based on the student population, as I understand it -- the enrolment. The amendment attempts to give that responsibility to the board itself. No other duly elected board at this level is bound by the terms of an Act such as this. For example, municipal councillors can vote themselves what salaries they wish without a binding limit at the top under the Municipal Act.

Mrs. Campbell: Federal MPs, yes.

Mr. Foulds: Federal MPs, thank you very much, have no such restriction as is on them in this Act, nor do we. The restriction comes from having to account to the electorate. If we are going to talk about local autonomy of school boards, we should give them the responsibility to determine their allowances in whatever manner they see fit. The member for St. George, the member for Windsor-Walkerville and I put these arguments in standing committee. I just briefly state them here and make the motion to give that legal articulation.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I just simply endorse the amendment presented by the member? We spoke at length on this in the committee and I don’t intend to make any more comments on it. We think local autonomy should decide whether the board raises the salary or does not raise the salary. However, I would think that in the member’s amendment it might have been good to put in some provision for indexing, so that the board wouldn’t be responsible for demanding or suggesting substantial increases, such as the federal members of Parliament did the other day.

Mr. Foulds: Just one thing, Mr. Chairman, though. The board, surely, though a bylaw could itself do the indexing, just as the Parliament of Canada can do on indexing for its own members. It’s possible anyway.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have any comments?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I would have to reject that amendment and stick with the section that’s here.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments?

All those in favour of Mr. Foulds’ motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Same old gang.

Mr. Chairman: Stacked.

Any other comments or amendments or resolutions?

Mr. Foulds: Section 225, subsection 3, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 225.

Mr. Foulds: Subsection 3.

Mr. Chairman: Subsection 3. Anything before that?

Sections 165 to 224, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 225:

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foulds moves that subsection 3 of section 225 be amended by adding the following words, “or an occasional teacher teaches more than 20 school days in the school year” in line 1 after the word “teacher” and before the word “is.”

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, the intention of this amendment is simply to give occasional teachers, that is teachers who work as supply teachers for 20 days in the school year, privileges in terms of fringe benefits if they are off duty because of illness.

The clause would then read, so the House understands fully the intention:

“A part-time teacher or an occasional teacher who teaches more than 20 school days is entitled to a salary for 10 per cent of the periods of instruction and supervision specified in the agreement for his employment in any one school year in respect of his absence from duty on account of sickness ...”

And then the clause spells out how the sickness must be certified.

I am doing this simply on this principle, that we should try to ensure fringe benefits for those people who do not work full time just as much as we do for full-time people. The people concerned have to have, according to the terms of the amendment, an agreement of employment with the board. That could be taken care of, and this simply ensures that those fringe benefits that other teachers are entitled to are also available proportionately to occasional teachers.

Mr. Laughren: The reactionary rump aside.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I moved such a resolution at the time the committee was hearing comment on this bill in committee room No. 1. It was presented to me by the Federation of Women Teachers. It did make sense and I don’t intend to speak any more.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I think, as the hon. members will recall and as the member for Windsor-Walkerville has stated, at the committee this suggestion was put forward by the Federation of Women Teachers’ Associations of Ontario as an amendment.

Mr. Foulds: No, not quite the way I have worded it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Not quite the way you have worded it, but the sense of it was put forward and the Ontario Teachers’ Federation indicated they hadn’t unanimity among their members on it. I suggested that it’s a matter that should be studied at our ongoing meetings between the teachers’ federation and the ministry. We study various legislative amendments on a continuing basis, and this was agreed to by the teachers present. So therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would reject the amendment at this time.

Mr. Foulds: I would just like to point out and put on the record that in fact occasional teachers are often not members of the federation, so that our attempt here is to give some kind of fringe benefit guarantee to what are in effect unorganized teachers.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I appreciate the hon. member’s last comments, Mr. Chairman, but I also should indicate that this does have an effect on the school boards of this province. The boards themselves also wish to study this. They have really not had an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Foulds: I am sure they would not have to pay the extra.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Foulds’ motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Stacked.

Any other comments?

Mr. Foulds: Section 229.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before 229?

Sections 226 to 228, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 229:

Mr. Foulds moves that clause c of subsection 1 of section 229 be deleted and the following words substituted therefor: “to encourage a high standard of ethical values and behaviour.”

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, at the present time the clause reads:

“It is the duty of the teacher to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.”

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): That would be a good one for the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Roy: Is chastity mentioned in there?

Mr. Foulds: Chastity is not mentioned, no.

Mr. Roy: Saved again.

Mr. Foulds: What I think is somewhat offensive is that in no other legislation do we lay down these kinds of principles for medical doctors, for lawyers, for --

Mr. Roy: We have them.

Mr. Foulds: -- architects, for legislators, for what have you.

Mr. Roy: I’ll swear to that under oath.

Mr. Foulds: I’ve seen you slightly intemperate at times, slightly.

Mr. Roy: Oh, yes. But that was moderation.

Mr. Breithaupt: Only under provocation.

Mr. Foulds: Only under provocation, admittedly. But what clause c indicates as it is written is that the teachers should belong to the communion of saints before their time. And I am simply saying to you that that’s impossible.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Your proposition is impossible.

Mr. Foulds: In fact, the section of legislation is unenforceable and it is a bad principle --

Mr. G. Nixon: You’re all mixed up.

Mr. Foulds: -- in legislation.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): You don’t know much about the matter.

Mr. Laughren: See the reactionary Tories coming out of the woodwork.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Should apply to the cabinet, too.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Keep the cabinet out of land speculation.

An hon. member: Why is the member against it?

Mr. Foulds: As a matter of fact, if you had heard my amendment you would understand that I’m not.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Hurry up, you know we’re running out of time.

Mr. Foulds: As a matter of fact, I don’t have any quarrel with the standards that are enunciated in clause c as it now stands; I personally don’t. But I can see that a person who is teaching in our school system in Ontario, and who happens to be a Buddhist or a Moslem or a Hindu and is a citizen of our province, can’t abide by this piece of legislation. And it’s wrong in principle for us as legislators to put in a piece of legislation that will not be enforced, that is simply unenforceable, because there is no way that those things can be measured.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Civil rights will cover that.

Mr. Foulds: When it says “it is the duty of a teacher” to do these things, we as legislators can’t in conscience support a piece of legislation that is unenforceable. It’s on that basis that I suggest and hope the amendment achieves its purpose, which is to encourage a high standard of ethical values and behaviour. I know that we had some discussion on this in standing committee, and the hon. member for St. George at that point couldn’t agree with me because I had the words “personal values.” I’ve changed that to “ethical” in the hopes that that will more clearly spell out the purpose that I had in mind, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. Laughren: Unless the Tories are against ethical values.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments?

The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I have great difficulty with this section as it stands because it is in the Act as a duty. If one looks at what is asked of a teacher, it is not just simply to inculcate by precept, but by example, respect for religion, the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality; the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty -- loyalty to whom I am not sure, because love of country is also included there -- humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.

My view at committee was that I do think parents in this province wish to have some security that these qualities will be inculcated into the student. My suggestion was that it should constitute a preamble to the legislation, but that you could not spell it out by definition as a duty of a teacher.

I don’t know how any teacher could measure up to that standard. I don’t know how any member of the community could measure up to that standard.

The teachers who were before us asked, for instance, if you are to be judged on your example of frugality in these days, would this mean that it was imprudent or not frugal to carry a mortgage on your home? I don’t know what would happen in this day and age if that happened to be the situation.

I find great difficulty in accepting the other wording, because I really don’t know how enforceable it would be either. Certainly I would think that one could somehow make objective tests on the question of whether or not a teacher was encouraging a high standard of ethical values and behaviour.

The minister made it clear at the time that we debated this in the committee that he had had some thought of deleting this section and that many parents communicated with him their concern. My view is that when you are passing legislation, when you are putting into legislation a clause such as this, you are really cheating the parents into thinking they have this kind of security, when they don’t.

There is precedent under our type of government to incorporate a preamble. I would say that it would seem to me that to incorporate as a preamble that the objectives of education in this province were thus and so, would be to give weight to such objectives, without producing a piece of legislation which is in my view, totally unenforceable.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman. I rise to support the amendment to the section. We discussed this at some length in committee, Mr. Chairman. The member for St. George put the case very well. How does one have a teacher teach humanity or benevolence? How does one have a teacher teach frugality or even temperance or sobriety? The teacher who wouldn’t, in the estimation of someone, be teaching this would be subject to dismissal. Mr. Chairman, you would really have to dismiss most teachers because you could find faults with practically every one of us.

Mr. Breithaupt: The executive council couldn’t have a meeting.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, this clause should be possibly put, as my colleague from St. George made mention --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They could have a meeting. They just wouldn’t take the oath.

Mr. B. Newman: -- as a preamble to this bill. If the minister would not put it as a preamble, it maybe should be put as the aims and objectives rather than the duties of a teacher.

Mr. Foulds: By regulation.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the bill the way it is. I think these are principles that have been guidelines for the development of the fine society that we have.

Mr. Foulds: Guidelines for paupers a few years from now.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Root: I can’t see any useful purpose that would be served by weakening the principles that have made this country what it is.

Mr. Breithaupt: You are just kidding yourselves.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, come on. Your caucus defies them every day.

Mr. Root: We have had many fine teachers and they have had our children for perhaps even more hours a day than their parents. To have these principles --

Mr. Haggerty: What’s the view of the minister?

Mr. Root: -- followed by example and precept is a good thing. I think if we can get back to some of these precepts, we’ll have a lot better society than we will have if we take this out.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s pretty hypocritical.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe you could tell us about frugality?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Root: Yes, I could tell you something about frugality. I’ve lived on $10 a week and what I grew on the farm. I know a little bit about it. I know what it is to wear the same suit of clothes for 11 years; so I can tell you something about frugality. Is there anything else you want to know?

Mr. Foulds: Is that the one you’re wearing now.

An hon. member: You’re still wet behind the ears.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: You don’t even know the difference between frugality and being a cheapskate.

Mr. Root: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I think it will be in the interests of the future development of this province to leave this section in the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments?

Mr. Lewis: Develop it is right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, in the course of our over two years’ study of this legislation and the consolidation of it, this was one of the subsections that was looked at, as were (a) and (b). I was very interested in trying to find out just exactly where this section had come from. I was not entirely successful, but I imagine it was either written, or at least inspired, by Egerton Ryerson in his days of developing the public school system in this province.

As my colleague who has just spoken has said, it has served this province well for 100 years. It’s very easy to make light of this section. It’s very easy to suggest it’s something that cannot be achieved by anyone in this House, or anyone in fact. It’s very easy to say there are no other professions that have any kind of guideline like this. I would say to my friends, if that’s the case let’s put some provisions like that in for the other professions. Don’t take this out.

If you look at subsections (a), (b) and (c), they’re not laws. They are ideals to be achieved. No one has ever said that these were laws that had to be obeyed. These are ideals to be achieved. If I’ve found out one thing in travelling around this province, it’s the fact that the people of this province want some kind of moral value system in our educational system.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They want to know that moral values are part of our school curriculum. We have to know that moral values cannot be developed and a moral value system cannot be developed in the school alone. I tell you this --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Would the members please keep order while the minister is speaking?

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- that the parents of this province want to feel that the teachers and the school system of this province are extending their development of moral values in their own young people. I think this section, Mr. Chairman, that has served us well over many years, if you read it and you read it many times, you will find it’s a guidelight that could guide any one of us.

We may not live up to some of the sections, but it does at least give an emphasis on what are some of the moral principles that govern our society.

Mr. Cassidy: You may encourage the law to be flouted.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to prolong this. We had a long debate on this section in committee. As my friend knows, I’m not prepared to accept his amendment and remove this. As I said, I don’t want to be part of any government that removes a section like this that has been in our school law in this province for over 100 years.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: There is the anti-education member from Timiskaming.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Mr. Foulds moves that section 229(1)(c) be deleted and the following words substituted therefor: “to encourage a high standard of ethical values and behaviour.”

All those in favour say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Will you stack this?

Mr. Lewis: We are pretending the clock doesn’t exist.

An hon. member: Take all day.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed to stacking it?

Agreed.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: What section?

Mr. Roy: Section 271 -- the second last section of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other section before 271?

Sections 230 to 270, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 271:

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, the section that I move an amendment to is section 271. I move that after the word “appropriate” in the seventh line of subsection (1), be inserted the --

Mr. Chairman: Subsection (1)?

Mr. Roy: Yes, subsection (1).

An hon. member: Throw him out!

An hon. member: The member for Ottawa East is running off on his own hobby-horse.

Mr. Lewis: You don’t make the rules around here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, can I get some order here or not?

Mr. Chairman: If the members don’t wish to come to order at this time, I’ll ask the House leader to move the adjournment.

Mr. Lewis: That’s very good.

Mr. Stokes: Assert yourself, Mr. Chairman.

An hon. member: Finish it.

Mr. Roy: My amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that you insert the words “which recommendation shall be final and binding unless appealed to the minister.”

Mr. Lewis: That is a good motion.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment relates back to when this commission was created about a year ago. At that time I told the minister that the disputes left in our school board and the language committees across the province are the most difficult areas of the province and that if the commission did not have binding powers it would be a useless exercise.

The first decision that the commission had to make was in Essex, and the commission made recommendations which the school board immediately rejected. On its first attempt to solve a dispute in the area of Windsor the commission was rebuffed. Now it has been rebuffed twice more this week in the area of Elliot Lake, the North Shore Board of Education has refused to accept the recommendation of the commission and recently the London Board of Education has again refused to accept the recommendation of the commission.

Mr. Chairman, as I said to the minister, it is happening exactly as we had predicted. It is not sufficient to give the commission powers only to mediate. They have to be able to make a decision which is going to be binding unless it is appealed to the minister, because we are going through a useless exercise now.

So if you want more evidence it seems to me it’s obvious. You’ve had three occasions to solve a problem and on three occasions the suggestion of the commission has been rejected.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to move an amendment too. While we will support the amendment proposed by the member for Ottawa East, and for very much the same reasons, the specific proposal I would have put forward would have been that if, in the opinion of the minister, the board refused to comply with the recommendations of the languages of instruction commission, then on order of the minister the recommendation of the commission would have been binding upon the local school board.

Mr. Roy: I have an amendment to subsection 2.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Ottawa East says he has another amendment. At any rate, in our view that would simply have put the responsibility on the minister at the political level if the languages of instruction commission was being flouted. But the problem which exists in Essex county and the problems which are cropping up elsewhere indicate very strongly that, as we warned when the languages of instruction commission was first established, an advisory board is not adequate. The steps that lead to it are okay, but at the very final stage you’ve got to be able to do something tougher than simply make recommendations which will consistently continue to be ignored.

I think that the credibility of the government in relation to the rights of francophones in the province is at stake in the amendment that has been proposed by the member for Ottawa East, or on the amendment that we would have proposed. Because if you don’t do something, if the government doesn’t ensure that francophone school rights are respected, then the francophones of the province will continue to have to be heroes, as they say, in order to get rights that are automatically assumed to be theirs by the English-speaking population of the province. And that simply isn’t good enough.

Why should it he that one of the two official language groups in this province should have to fight at every step? In London they have had to do it, as in Burlington, in Essex and up north, again and again and again. Is it six or seven years since the introduction of French secondary schools in the province? That simply isn’t good enough and it indicates that when you get down to the bottom, this government still has reservations in the commitment it has made to francophone educational rights in Ontario.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments to that section.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I am reluctant, because of the difficulties we have had in the past, to see us just simply drift on to 10:45. I am not suggesting for a moment that we are not going to have the vote take place. But I would like, somehow or other, there to be a motion to sit until the vote has been called. Otherwise, some day two weeks from now we’ll have it pointed out to us by the government that when it suited our convenience we sat beyond 10:30. And I just don’t want it to happen.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Agreed.

Mr. Deans: You can’t sit beyond 10:30 without a motion, so I will move that we sit until such time as the vote has been called.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, does that not have to be a government motion?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It doesn’t have to be, no.

Mr. Deans: It doesn’t have to be.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I think so.

Mr. Cassidy: As a matter of fact, we can do a better job of the order of business than you do.

Mr. Deans: It doesn’t have to be.

Mr. Chairman: Well, I’m told it has to be a government motion. Do you so move?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I so move.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Wells moves --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Carried by unanimous consent!

Mr. Lewis: What do you mean, “Mr. Wells moves”?

Mr. Deans: I already moved it.

Mr. Cassidy: He doesn’t recognize that.

Hon. Mr. Wells moves that the House sit beyond 10:30 o’clock, p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I have a second amendment to the same section.

Mr. Roy moves that subsection 2 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“Within 30 days after an appeal by either party under subsection 1, the minister shall either affirm, amend or reject the recommendations of the commission.”

Mr. Lewis: What you need most in life is a belt.

Mr. Roy: Me?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): I could lend him my stomach.

Mr. Roy: I don’t need it.

Mr. Deans: Carried.

Mr. Laughren: Carried.

Mr. Roy: I would say this, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to put a fixed deadline on when a decision be made in relation to establishing or accepting the recommendations of the commission. I don’t want to repeat what I said in committee, but surely the minister sees the good sense of that type of an amendment? In fact, I think you are going to propose that type of an amendment in about three or four months -- you yourself are probably going to have a similar type of amendment in three or four months -- because you know that the commission is not working and that it is not accepting the recommendations. In fact, I hear that the commissioners are becoming somewhat disappointed because they feel they are going through a useless exercise. I think you have got quality people on this commission, but if you are going to have them perform a useful function you should put some teeth in their recommendations.

I implore the minister to accept the amendment and at least put some legislation behind what he considers to be his policy towards French-speaking schools in this province.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that there is no lack of commitment on the part of this government --

Mr. Laughren: Oh yes, there is.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- to ensuring the rights of the francophone people of this province to education in the French language.

Mr. Laughren: Why isn’t it happening then?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We are doing everything possible to assure that those rights are guaranteed.

Mr. Cassidy: No, you’re not.

Mr. Laughren: Oh no, you’re not. It’s not happening.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I just say to my friends, as I said during the debate on this section, I think it is premature to suggest the kind of amendment that they’re suggesting at this time.

Mr. Roy: Premature?

Mr. Cassidy: By 106 years. Is that right?

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Roy’s amendment to section 271(1) and section 271(2) please say “aye.”

All those opposed please nay “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, let’s call in the members and we will vote on them.

Mr. Chairman: All right. This is stacked then. Is there any other section of the bill that anyone wishes to comment on or to amend prior to the vote?

Mr. Cassidy: There are no more sections of the bill, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 272 to 274, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.

There are eight amendments to be voted on.

The committee divided on Mr. Foulds’ motion that in section 1(1)(61) the words “Roman Catholic” be deleted after the word “the” and before the word “spouse” in the second last line of the paragraph, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 24; the “nays” are 47.

Mr. Lewis: If there was one more it would be two to one.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost and the section shall stand as a part of the bill.

Section 1 agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, unless there is another question could we use the same vote?

Mr. Chairman: The second amendment is on section 10(7).

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order: It’s hard enough to figure one of these votes out as it now stands in our caucus.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is the 14-year-old one.

Mr. Lewis: This is the 14-year-old one? Okay. We’re with you now, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

The committee divided on Mr. Foulds’ motion that section 10(7) be deleted, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 8; the “nays” are 63.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost and the section will stand as a part of the bill.

Section 10 agreed to.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Chairman, there are 11 New Democrats here. Are you sure that the count is eight? Are we really sure that it’s eight?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, on the remaining six amendments, we are prepared that they carry without being put individually and that the first vote would stand.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed?

Mr. Lewis: We’re not so sure any more, Mr. Chairman. Since the whip rounds up our votes, Mr. Chairman, there is some ambivalence -- wasn’t that the word you used?

Are we united on all the other votes?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Then it’s all right, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I just want to voice our opinion. We agree with that because we want you to know, and the House to know, that we want unanimity in that caucus.

The committee divided on the balance of the amendments which were negatived on the same vote as that taken on the motion proposing an amendment to section 1.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendments lost and the sections will stand as part of the bill.

Sections 70, 164, 225, 229 and 271 agreed to.

Bill 72 reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment, and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would give me consent to revert to reports so we can hear the committee’s report on Bill 113.

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Mr. J. A. Taylor of the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 113, An Act to amend the Municipal Affairs Act.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I would think we would deal first with the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow); and then we will proceed to the consideration of some other minor bills in the name of the Treasurer (Mr. White) and the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes); and finally the bill in regard to the establishment of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 11:07 o’clock, p.m.