The House resumed at 8 p.m.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Miss Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 119, An Act to amend the Education Act.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, because of the length of time that has elapsed since the first reading of this bill, I think it would be appropriate if I were to remind the honourable members of the content of the bill this evening.
Bill 119 consists of two distinct parts. Sections 1 to 16 are items of a housekeeping variety that have proved to be required as a result of policy and legislative initiatives within the province in the last several years. For example, sections 6 and 7 require a determination of trustees to be conducted at three-year intervals in order to make the Education Act consistent with and congruent with the Municipal Elections Act.
Of greater importance, however, are the remaining sections of the bill which relate, clearly and specifically, to French-language education. During comments on first reading of the bill in late June, I indicated that the ministry would proceed during the summer to develop draft legislation on the section related to governance of French-language schools and classes within the province.
I am pleased to tell the House that activity has proceeded according to schedule and progress has been made to the extent that we are right now in the midst of preparations to consult once again with all the affected school boards and the organizations involved within the francophone community and those other constituencies that are affected in the educational community about the concepts that underlie the initiatives related to governance of French-language schools. I remind the House, however, that the draft legislation that will result from this activity is not at this time a part of Bill 119.
Bill 119 in its present form ensures access to education in the French language for those who are eligible. It provides a means for resolving difficulties brought to the attention of the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario regarding the provision of French-language education, a mechanism that is absolutely essential in the current situation in a number of areas where a prolonged period of time is required to find resolutions to a number of rather difficult issues.
It is my sincere hope that this House will see fit to support this bill in a way that will communicate to the people of Ontario the profound concern held by this Legislature for the wellbeing and progress of the French-speaking component of our community in this province.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, in the virtual absence of another party in this Legislature, I am quite happy to take on the role of the official opposition and look forward to the moment in the not too distant future when that will be a reality, if indeed we are not sitting on the other side and managing this legislation in place of the minister.
Regardless of those pious hopes, I want to say, first of all, that while we agree, generally speaking, that sections 1 to 16 inclusive deal principally with matters of a housekeeping nature, there is none the less one major issue this party would like at least to discuss and lay in that form before the Legislature.
We do not have a specific amendment to propose with respect to section 15, for example, which deals with the difficulties arising out of the default some municipalities are in from time to time with respect to transfer payments to school boards. That is a matter of some concern to many school boards around this province.
Interjection.
Mr. Allen: That is right. The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) will be following me in short order, Mr. Speaker. He has just arrived, but I shall proceed.
Numerous school boards in this province suffer considerably from the lapse in time that occurs when municipalities default with respect to the payment date they are obligated to meet. The amendment presented here allows a little bit of assistance in that respect. It transfers from the later side of a weekend to the earlier side of the weekend the date on which the transfer must be paid and it provides for the payment of a minimum interest rate with respect to the period in default.
I think many boards do have a very legitimate cause for grievance when one raises a second question in that connection. The municipalities in question often raise the moneys intended for school board expenditures, for transfer to school boards, at dates considerably in advance of the statutory time for the transfer of those moneys.
They are then held with considerable interest accruing over the period of time prior to the transfer date and the school boards do not benefit in any respect from the accrual of those interest moneys. It would seem to me the concern the school boards have raised, that those interest moneys ought to be allotted, at least in some measure, for school purposes, is a reasonable objection and a problem we should attempt to meet.
It would be presumptuous at this time to offer an amendment without having engaged in the negotiations that necessarily should take place between boards, municipalities and the ministry with respect to that problem, but I do think it needs to be signalled as the next subject that needs to be addressed and one on which an amendment does need to be drafted for the act.
8:10 p.m.
I would say, parenthetically, that the municipalities perhaps are not the worst offenders in this respect. We are all quite aware that the ministry, in its transfer payments to school boards and other organizations to whom it transfers money from time to time, is often very seriously in arrears itself and abuses expected or legislated transfer dates.
The amounts we are talking about are rather substantial. A survey of a number of boards in this province indicates that in Grey county, for example, with 27 municipalities reporting, the school board loss under this provision was $228,505.
The smallest was a case of seven municipalities reporting under the Wellington County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, and there the loss was approximately $31,000. The largest board surveyed was that of the city of London, which lost a total of $513,680. The Association of Large School Boards in Ontario estimates the losses overall to be somewhere in the order of $32 million.
I reiterate that it seems to me to be an important subject for us to be looking at with respect to an amendment in the near future that would at least enable the school boards to benefit in some substantial measure from those interest moneys. I will simply leave it at that point and indicate that for the moment we are, however, prepared to support section 15, which deals with this matter, as it stands.
It would perhaps have been tempting under the provision that has to do with regularizing the OSSD, the Ontario secondary school diploma, to have engaged in a debate this House has yet to have on the whole structure and intent of the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions reform in the curriculum.
Mr. Bradley: Feel free to do so.
Mr. Allen: I would like to have that debate some time. I am not sure that this evening, while the member is waiting for his colleagues to come to support him, is the time to do it.
None the less, one does want to register the concern many of us have as members that some of the most important things that go on in this province in terms of regulation attached to statute reforms and alterations of programs, often much more far-reaching than most of the legislation we discuss in this House, never reach the floor of this Legislature for extended and full debate.
I think back to the introduction of the Hall-Dennis school reforms, for example, massive and sweeping in their philosophy and in their application to the school system, which I think would have been of substantial benefit had it been possible for us to have debated them here.
For example, in many of the curriculum implications in the Hall-Dennis program there was a notable lack of rigour and preparation for the many new courses that came on stream at that time. It would have benefited the Hall-Dennis program to have had the debate take place in this Legislature, and have some signalling of some of the problems that might have arisen from that debate communicated to the minister and to the schools that were to implement that program.
Likewise, it would have been wise, even to the point of necessity, for this House to have debated the OSIS reforms. Once more we have found a ministry that has moved rapidly forward with a program of change that has been extensive and fundamental in its theory and in its application.
We have seen the numerous problems that have attended its application: courses that are not ready at the date of implementation, teachers who are not particularly happy about the program itself and many of its implications and possible repercussions, and headmasters in this province opposing its implications right to the very end. There are a number of important issues that we might raise with respect to this simple question of legitimizing the diploma attached to that new program.
However, it seems to me that with reference to most of those housekeeping matters that lie in sections 1 to 15, with the exception of the items I just mentioned, there is no reason to take exception; the proposals appear to be straightforward and there is no point in rehearsing them here.
The minister is quite correct in stating that it is from section 16 on that the real substance of the amendments proposed here lies. Those sections, of course, deal with the whole question of the extension of French education rights in Ontario, and I think it is important to observe at the outset that, while this does not move in any direction into the whole area of French schools governance, which we would like to be discussing at this time, we look forward to receiving those amendments in the near future and we hope the ministry will indeed be able to reconcile the many problems that hover at present around the proposition that the ministry itself has put forward on this subject.
Il faut dire, au sujet de ces amendements à la législation éducative pour l'Ontario, que c'est important que nous discutions rigoureusement tous les sujets qui appartiennent aux droits franco-ontariens en Ontario. Ces amendements aux articles 16 à 27 comprennent plusieurs amendements au sujet du transport des étudiants francophones, mais particulièrement et plus fondamentalement, aux droits de ces élèves franco-ontariens à une éducation dans leur propre langue dans une école peut-être dans la juridiction dans laquelle ces étudiants francophones demeurent.
Si une école française n'existe pas dans leur juridiction, le conseil scolaire devrait assurer les arrangements pour leur transport, pour leur éducation et pour tous les services nécessaires pour compléter leur éducation en français. Ce sont des droits fondamentaux, et c'est nécessaire que nous votions affirmativement à ce sujet à la base de cette pièce de législation, le projet de loi 119.
In case we do not all have a clear memory of the section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in which those rights are proclaimed and to which we are now according the legislation in Ontario, may I read for the benefit of the Legislature subsection 23(1):
"Citizens of Canada (a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or (b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province, have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province."
It goes on to amplify and apply that in the subsequent paragraphs.
8:20 p.m.
That is the basic right of which we are speaking. I think the ministry is to be complimented not just for meeting the terms of that provision, but also for even going beyond it in terms of the application envisaged in the charter, that the ministry should at this time be proposing that numbers should be irrelevant, that if in Ontario one is a child of a Franco-Ontarian family, one has a right to education in French.
That is surely the most generous proposition one can entertain with respect to this subject. I think it augurs well. I hope it augurs well for the French schools governance propositions that are coming forward that such a generous provision has been made in this respect.
Naturally, having taken the stand it has with respect to Franco-Ontarian rights for so long, having taken the position it has for maximum French schools governance rights as well and looking forward to the legislation we shall be receiving, this party is happy to endorse the proposals that lie here under their several headings. I do, however, want to flag one aspect of sections 17 and 19, for I think perhaps one might look at a little further extension of the principles that are embodied there, particularly with respect to transportation rights.
I call the attention of the minister to the fact that there are some communities in which, as we know, the French-language instructional unit serves a very large area within its school jurisdiction. While it is adequate to have the transportation arrangements spelled out in sections 17 and 19 with respect to the students who avail themselves of the French-language instructional unit from another board, and by virtue of that service being purchased by another board, none the less there is a certain unfairness in some communities.
Among them is my own community, where students travelling within the school board jurisdiction itself, by virtue of the location of the school and the fact that it serves the whole board region, unlike most other schools, have to travel very significant distances and take long periods of time to get to school. For example, with regard to Georges P Vanier Ecole Secondaire in Hamilton, students who live in Stoney Creek and in the east end of Hamilton have to travel up to two hours, and sometimes more, going to and returning from their school.
Fortunately, that extremity has been handled by a Wentworth county bus service that now transports those children, but in the west end of the city there are still many students who must rely on the public transportation system, who have to go through several transfers and who take something in the order of an hour and a quarter to an hour and a half to travel to school and then to return.
That is a long part of a school day to spend simply in transit and it necessarily must impact upon the time available for studies or for alternative activities that students, like all other persons, have as part of their daily agendas. We shall, therefore, be moving an amendment to provide for students who find themselves in that location inside the jurisdiction that offers the French-language instructional unit.
With respect to the application of the charter in this regard, I expect the minister will not be long in bringing forward a good many other amendments to this act which will give expression to other sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think particularly of the equality rights in subsections 15(1) and (2), in which not only this statute but many others in the province will undoubtedly have to find themselves in conformity as of April 1985.
It will be required that all discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability will have to be accommodated. That will mean the harmonizing of a good deal of legislation, not least of all the requirement in this section that makes it mandatory for boards to provide the transportation described here. Certain other groups of pupils, among them the handicapped, retarded or otherwise, will have an equal claim under section 166 of the act, not just to the permissive nature of that section for transportation facilities from a board, but also to mandatory services.
Sections 17 and 19 anticipate some further changes we will expect from the minister with regard to educational legislation and the services provided to students.
I do not wish to linger upon sections 18, 19 or any of the subsequent matters except to say it is a matter of considerable importance that the chairman of a French-language advisory committee have the power to sit not just on the committee's other board, but also on the committee of the whole board. Since I understand this was intended in the first place, this simply brings that original intention into full clarity of application, so that no school boards may be confused about what it means.
I will repeat we do look forward to the elimination of the French-language advisory committees and their supplanting by a much more substantial and full authority to the representatives of the French-language communities across Ontario in the selection of their own educational authorities.
Likewise, with respect to the alterations of appeal from those committees, it is important they have the fullest access to the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario and to the ear of the minister with respect to points on which they disagree with the school boards of their communities.
There is no point in rehearsing cases, but I think the point is obvious in as much as they are the representative units; inadequate as they would admit to being under the present regime, they are none the less the units in the educational structure of this province that represent local French communities and the education rights to which they aspire for their children.
Therefore, it is important they have full access, not just to the Language of Instruction Commission of Ontario, but that the commission in turn have the proper access to the minister for the resolution of those disputes. This section does at least clarify that in substantial measure and strengthens their hand somewhat.
As to the final elements of the bill, they represent the officialese that terminates all of our bills. They need no comment.
I am happy to terminate my discussion with these remarks and to say that in general we do support the amendments before us. We look forward to the minister addressing some of the remaining problems under one of the headings, namely, section 15. We look forward to the introduction on another occasion of an amendment to the transportation provisions in sections 17 and 19. We also look forward to the introduction by the minister of further legislation dealing with the French schools governance question.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I was listening on what we call a squawk box. It must have been in another honourable member's office because it could not have been in my office.
8:30 p.m.
I was listening with a good deal of interest to my friend the member for Hamilton West who was fantasizing about representing the official opposition in the House. I like to allow him that opportunity to fantasize for just a moment because he knows we aim not for the official opposition position, but for the other side. The minister shakes in her boots across there as she knows we aim at that.
Many of the bills that come before this House are considered or labelled to be of a housekeeping nature. I suggest many of the sections of this bill are of a housekeeping nature, but there are some provisions that have caused some concern to certain groups that represent a significant section of the educational community in the province.
First of all, I want to associate myself with the comments of the member for Hamilton West commending the Minister of Education and her government on the progress which has been made in terms of French-language education in this province, particularly within the last year. It is unfortunate in many cases that there are those who are very critical of our effort in Ontario -- not those of us in the opposition, whose job is to be critical from time to time. I talk to my good friends in Quebec often and they are not aware of some of the progress that has been made in Ontario. This is particularly true in terms of the provisions to a certain extent in this bill, but also that forthcoming in future legislation as progress is made in French-language education.
I think people across Canada look to this particular government with a good deal of satisfaction as to some of the progress which has been made. It may not be what everyone wants to see, but in terms of education, this province has been quite progressive, certainly in very recent years, at providing French-language education to francophones in this province.
Mr. Nixon: Brian Mulroney is not satisfied.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: He is satisfied about education.
Mr. Bradley: There are those at the federal level who would like to see things done in a different way. The minister appropriately points out that in the field of education we are in a somewhat advanced position. We have removed the references to "where numbers warrant" through her legislation. Some would suggest this was prompted by court cases; others would suggest it was prompted by the goodwill of the minister and others in the cabinet and in the government in moving towards providing for all francophones in this province a French-language education and doing so at some considerable sacrifice in cost to others, but recognizing the benefit for our nation as a whole.
We have moved to a position, rather rapidly in recent years, where far more people have accepted the kind of proposals that the government has made for French-language education. I would suggest to the House they may not have been accepted even five years ago. There is a lot of goodwill there. Yes, there was the Quebec referendum and I think the focus on the question of secession on the part of certain people within Quebec has probably brought the issue to a focus more than it might have been otherwise.
It has probably brought it to more of the forefront in this province. I would suggest there has been a lot of goodwill out there in any case and we have made a lot of progress over the years in attitudes towards the use of both official languages in this country, particularly through the education system.
The minister would know that when we talk about re-educating civil servants who are 55 years old in the French language, there is some resistance to that. I do not like the terminology of shoving of one language, depending on where one is in the country, down the throats of another. It raises an unfortunate connotation.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Everybody agrees about that.
Mr. Bradley: I think the minister is correct there, but we suggest to people across our country, almost regardless of what their opinion happens to be on that issue, that through the education system we can provide an opportunity -- I recognize this bill is not dealing with that -- for English-language students to acquire skills in French. Even those who have been resistant to bilingualism and biculturalism have recognized the wave of the future and are pleased to see their own sons and daughters involved in a program of this kind.
I think there is sufficient goodwill to recognize that even among the francophone community in this province, those who have been denied that opportunity in past years because of lack of numbers, there is a good deal of sympathy towards providing French-language education to those people completely in the French language in all the subjects countenanced through the policies of the government and eventually through legislation.
I want to express certain concerns that have been brought to my attention by important groups in the province. There is the concern that the Minister of Education has not responded to letters and representations directed to her by the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario. It has expressed concern about three aspects of this bill.
According to my information, the minister has not responded to the correspondence from that important group. I am not suggesting it is the only group in this province that is to be listened to concerning legislation. However, it represents a significant number of persons through the boards of education, which are the large school boards. I am disappointed the minister or one of her officials has not been able to reply to the representations.
One of the reasons we are going to recommend that we have a short session in committee, I hope with the acquiescence of the minister -- I am not suggesting a long dragged-out session -- is that groups such as the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario may get their viewpoints across and get a response from the minister in committee in the amicable way for which she is noted when groups come before committee.
They are concerned about specific areas. They require some clarification of the section dealing with sick leave credits to ensure that a part-time teacher is not entitled to the same sick leave credits as a full-time teacher. There is some wording that concerns them.
They have looked at the people who have accepted half-time positions -- the minister will understand this -- but are full-time teachers who are either coming back into the system or have decided to accept half-time assignments. They would have certain privileges and rights. The Association of Large School Boards in Ontario is concerned that those rights, through the wording of this legislation, might be extended strictly to part-time teachers. They want some clarification of that. I am sure they will get it when they make their representations to the committee and the minister is able to reply in full.
They are also looking for a re-examination of what they consider to be the larger and more important issue, the municipal taxes that are forwarded to school boards as they are collected. I know the Speaker is tolerant enough on a Tuesday evening to entertain a slight diversion from the principle of the bill to allow a member of the opposition to touch on the issue of what we consider to be lack of adequate funding of the education system at the local level in Ontario.
One of the reasons -- this is how I will tie it in, Mr. Speaker -- the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario is so concerned about the time limit and the time frame for municipalities to provide the funds -- they transfer the funds to the boards of education -- is that they do not think they are getting enough money.
They might feel the local municipalities are following the lead of the Minister of Education, who has been reluctant to provide money to the local boards of education at the time they wish to have that money transferred, that is, early in the year. Some of them that have been able to accumulate a little surplus by various means on which to collect some interest, or those that cannot but have at least avoided the necessity of borrowing, have found themselves in dire straits because the Minister of Education will not transfer funds to them to the degree that has been the case in the past. She will recognize that she has received representations from various boards of education in that regard. I am sure that is why the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario has expressed concern.
8:40 p.m.
I note they say that section 215 of the act deals with the transfer of payments from the municipalities to school boards and that the proposed changes reinforce the schedule of dates when transfers must be made and provide an interpretation of the words "bank account."
Concern has been raised among those groups, and by many school boards in Ontario, that this proposed amendment does not deal with the larger and more important issue that municipal taxes should be forwarded as they are collected and that there should be penalties for late payments.
Those groups were concerned that the municipalities -- I was a member of a municipal council at one time, although I would not be able to speak on this issue because I would have a conflict of interest -- did not forward those moneys to the boards of education at the time they would have liked to receive them.
I suggest the municipalities are simply copying the Minister of Education, who has been reluctant to release those deserved funds at the time of the year when they should have been forthcoming. I know the minister would agree with me, despite her interventions tonight.
I want to say that much of this concern could be alleviated if the minister were to return to the policy of the province providing, as it did in 1975, 61.3 per cent on average of the cost of education across Ontario, as compared to about 48.5 per cent in 1983. The province was much more popular then.
The minister has often reprimanded me for saying this by asking, "Would you allow 61.3 per cent as an uncapped figure?" Realistically, if one wanted to be responsible, one would recognize that it would not be an uncapped figure. It would have to be a negotiated and reasonably agreed-on figure.
We would like to see a movement back in that direction, as I know you would like to see, Mr. Speaker, as the member for Peterborough as well as Speaker, so you could go back to your board of education and say that our Minister of Education has their needs and the needs of the local taxpayers at heart, not only in this bill but also in the trend she would like to set in the future.
If she were to seek the leadership of one of the parties in this House, she would certainly have the power, although she has considerable power now, to initiate that kind of action. We wish her well in her entertainment of the possibility of seeking that leadership. I would be prepared to send a significant contribution to the minister if she were prepared to entertain the possibility of entering that campaign.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: My friend should send it to his local university.
Mr. Bradley: The minister makes a good point when she says to send it to my local university. You will recognize, Mr. Speaker, that Trent University in your riding, Brock University in my riding and McMaster University in the riding of the member for Hamilton West are all in need of considerably more provincial funding. We all agree on that.
I would like to see the Minister of Education place her views before the public because, as she has stated, whether or not one agrees with her, one tends to know where she stands sometimes on these issues. She does not often back down, even when she is wrong, which in the view of the opposition is much of the time.
I want to go to a third part of the bill, only to say to the minister that to facilitate the needs of French-language students is an important aspect and that we will see more of that, as the member for Hamilton West has pointed out, in further legislation.
Concern has been expressed on the specific provision of section 17 of the bill. That section proposes a new section 258 to the act, dealing with the transportation and lodging of French-speaking students attending an instructional unit more than 24 kilometres from their residence.
Concern has been expressed about the lack of clarity and the lack of flexibility in the proposed new section. The concern does not centre on whether the pupils have the rights to such transportation -- certainly they have and should have -- but rather on how such transportation should be provided. I know when they make their representations to the committee, the minister will have all the answers that will satisfy that group.
I want to jump back to the previous section and read into the record a letter the Minister of Education has received from Mary Hill, who is the new president of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation. The letter is dated October 23, 1984, and it reads:
"Dear Madam Minister:
"I would like to take the opportunity to express on behalf of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation some concerns related to Bill 119, An Act to amend the Education Act.
"It has come to our attention that section 15 of the bill does not deal fairly with the issue of municipal transfer payments to school boards. We support the position of the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario that it is not sufficient to require municipalities to transfer moneys allocated to school boards by the quarterly dates set by subsection 215(2) of the act. If moneys have been collected prior to the quarterly dates, then it should be the school boards that benefit from the interest accrued from their portion thereof.
"While we recognize that subsection 215(3) allows school boards and municipalities to negotiate alternative payment arrangements, the fact that so few alternative arrangements exist would indicate that this provision does not guarantee adequate protection to the school boards.
"We would also like to express concern about subsection 215(2) of the act, which requires a municipality in default of a payment to a board to pay interest at the minimum lending rate of the majority of chartered banks on the day of default. We would suggest that it would be more appropriate to require the municipality in default to pay at a rate of interest equal to that charged by the bank which services the board in question.
"We trust that you shall take these concerns into serious consideration when Bill 119 is debated during second reading, and I look forward to hearing from you on this matter."
This was signed by Mary Hill, the president of OPSTF, and it was a letter to the Minister of Education.
I am going to suggest again that not only boards of education are concerned about the transfer payments; municipalities are also concerned. The reason municipalities tend to hoard this money as long as they can is that they are having a hard time squeezing any more money out of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), who wants to practise restraint on the backs of municipalities such as Peterborough, St. Catharines and the regional municipality of Niagara.
One therefore can understand, though not necessarily agree with, the reluctance of municipalities to transfer to boards of education the amount of the funds necessary and within the appropriate time frames.
Those are a few comments I have on this bill. If I can digress for just a moment, I hope goodwill will prevail on this whole question. I do not wish the minister ill in some things in government. I think a lot of people feel that those of us in opposition hope everything will go wrong for the government and that we can exploit it for political purposes.
There is no question that when things do go wrong, it is our responsibility to look for the weaknesses that might exist over there, to exploit them and to demonstrate to the public where the government is weak. But none of us, I think, wishes the minister or the government ill in its implementation of French-language education in this province. We hope that through conciliation and through goodwill on all sides we can find a method of governance that will eventually be acceptable to all.
It is a touchy question. The minister recognizes that; the member for Hamilton West and I recognize it. The member for Hamilton West has certainly spoken at some length on this -- at greater length than I have, as a matter of fact -- both in estimates and on other occasions. We wish the minister very well in that regard.
If I may get a plug in at this time, the member for Hamilton West and I were chatting in the hallway about this. The minister or the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- I cannot recall which -- has heard me get up in the House and ask a question about the possibility of striking a select committee on education to deal with education matters.
As the member for Hamilton West and I chatted in the hallway, we talked about the fact that this year -- and I mean not necessarily 1984 itself but 1983-84, though I guess 1984 mostly -- has been a year that has demonstrated the real need for a select committee on education to deal with education issues.
We have had so many things that have been dropped as bombshells in the Legislature. I am not blaming the minister for all these. The Premier sat down beside her, and I think she had information perhaps 10 minutes beforehand on the separate school question, for instance. That is one example.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Five years.
Mr. Bradley: The minister did not get it five years before; I think she got it five minutes before. I doubt that the minister knew more than five minutes before -- or at least even a day before -- what the actual provisions were going to be.
8:50 p.m.
What I am trying to indicate to the minister is that with the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions document, with the separate school funding issue, with computers in education and with French-language education, how nice it would have been for members of the Legislature to have travelled to Wawa, Kapuskasing, Niagara Falls, Carleton and various other places in this province to hear the viewpoints of various groups that could point out the eventual pitfalls or strengths of the legislation brought forward.
What we are seeing this year in education again demonstrates the need for a select committee on education to deal with these matters. I know that with legislative committees the partisanship is still there, but such a select committee would have people who are genuinely interested in education, not people who are coming in to do their constituency work or to read the paper as happens in other committees because they have to be manned or womanned --
Mr. Nixon: Personned.
Mr. Bradley: Personned is a better word. Because there are members on that side and on this side who have a specific interest in education, I suggest to the minister they would be interested in hearing viewpoints on these issues from all across Ontario. I am not suggesting the divisions would not be there, but she would find a little more of a consensus on education issues if we could get together as a committee and make recommendations.
Because there are so many important matters related to education, it could be helpful to the minister if we had such a committee. I hope that when the new leader is chosen -- if it is the minister herself if she decides to enter the race -- she will see fit to present to the cabinet and her colleagues a proposal for a select committee on education, not to go to Hawaii to listen at Hawaiian music, nice as that might be, but to stay in Ontario --
Mr. Conway: The minister knows the trans-Atlantic routes pretty well.
Mr. Bradley: I am not suggesting that we go to Bahrain or to any of the other Middle East countries where the minister picked up some kind of bug. My friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) says the minister had some kind of affliction that came from there.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is a pity the member is so misinformed.
Mr. Bradley: I am relying for this information on my friend the member for Renfrew North.
Mr. Conway: It is better to be misinformed than disinformed by the Minister of Education.
Mr. Bradley: I am digressing, and the Speaker is most tolerant of my digression, as he always kindly is, on second reading at least.
I want to indicate our general support for the provisions of this largely housekeeping legislation, but with some important revisions. I want to indicate our support for having this go to committee, not for prolonged hearings but for input from those in the outside world who have not had the reply they had hoped to have from the minister.
I hope that the Legislature will approve this and that we can have, as they say in politics, a full and frank discussion. I do not know whether other members of the House have any comments on this. My learned friend, the former Education critic and former director of education in Kitchener, might want to add a little to this because he is even more immersed in education than most of us.
I would like to bring my remarks to an end with the few comments I have made and by thanking the member for Hamilton West for filling in for me when a dental dinner prevented an eight o'clock response.
Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on this bill --
Mr. Bradley: En français, George.
Mr. Samis: Are the lights on again?
I come from a riding where almost half the constituents are of French-Canadian origin and one third use the French language in their households. This bill has a certain significance to them. Even if those constituents spend their entire lives in the riding, even if they never have to avail themselves of the benefits of this bill, it has an important effect on them psychologically.
It gives them a greater sense of security as to their cultural belonging in this province. Ten or 15 years ago, perhaps even five or seven years ago, they did not have that sense of security. But by having something in the law of Ontario, I must say that for a minority it gives an added sense of security. Whether one deals with the rights of the francophone going before the courts of the province, whether one deals with the hospital board or whether one is dealing with the school board, the most important thing one can have when one is in the minority is a law to protect those rights.
If one looks at the history of francophones in Ontario, and outside of central Canada, that has been the essential problem of francophones: they have not had laws to protect them.
Fortunately, in the last 10 or 15 years we have seen significant changes. In New Brunswick, the Hatfield government and the Robichaud government have made tremendous changes to ensure the rights, the survival and the future of the Acadian culture in that province.
If one looks back in the history of Quebec, those rights were guaranteed 117 years ago, and the English minority thrived and prospered until the advent of the separatist government in Quebec.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister for the initiative that is contained in this bill. It is a significant advance. It is even a historic advance in the ongoing battle for francophones to achieve that legal protection they have sought for so long.
The one thing I would say is missing in the whole process is the formal recognition by the government of Ontario of the existence of French as a language in this province. We have made tremendous advances in different phases, but we still have not put the roof on the house to say that there are now two official languages in this province and that we recognize the existence of two official languages.
In effect, this bill further recognizes the existence of the French language in education. Some of the legislation introduced by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) does the same in the courts, but the one thing missing is that recognition from the government, from the Premier, that there are two official languages.
The former Prime Minister of Canada very eloquently urged the Premier to take that final step. The present Prime Minister of Canada has urged the Premier to take that step. My only hope, in the context of the remarks of my colleague the member for St. Catharines, is that if the minister decides to contest the leadership and she happens to be successful in that pursuit, she would accept and implement the advice and the request of the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Prime Minister.
Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that I have been specifically invited to so participate, I can hardly resist it.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member's services have been volunteered.
Mr. Sweeney: Volunteered is probably more like it, Mr. Speaker.
I want to direct my remarks specifically to sections 17 through 25, which deal with the changes to French-language instruction. First of all, I wish to corroborate the comments made by my colleague the member for St. Catharines by indicating to the minister that we heartily approve of and support these changes.
I am reminded of the fact that last June, and the minister is probably more familiar with it than I am, there was a court ruling which said the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms very clearly indicated that the French-speaking students of this province had a right to -- not collective but individual -- French-language instruction. It is my sense, and again I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, that the sections of the legislation we have before us tonight reflect that court ruling.
The minister will be well aware that another piece of legislation was brought before us earlier which was to have done this very thing. It was withheld. It is my understanding that it was withheld because that court ruling was pending. We have now confirmed the individual rights of French-speaking pupils in this province to receive a French-language education regardless of numbers. "Where numbers warrant" is no longer a consideration, at least as I read the legislation.
9 p.m.
I am raising a question here of the minister. I notice the section with respect to the teaching of English not as a language of instruction but as a subject of instruction is mentioned in two different ways: one is under subsection 258(5) as amended in the bill, which provides English as a subject of instruction as a "may," then later in section 21 of the bill, the "shall" requirement in section 271 of the act is eliminated.
I would appreciate the minister explaining in just a little more detail how those two sections dovetail. As I understand it, and it is just my interpretation, the previous requirement for a "must" has been eliminated and the "may" has replaced it.
I would also raise a second question, and I want it to be clearly understood this is not a criticism, it is simply a question. It would be my understanding that a number of regular bus routes in Ontario would be in excess of 24 kilometres. I am really curious about how the minister and the ministry arrived at 24 kilometres as the figure at which a school board would be required to provide room and board for a student.
I just do not understand that. I can understand it being a requirement at some level, but given the fact that other school routes in this province are in excess of that, the figure of 24 seems to be rather minimal. If there is another reason for it, I would appreciate being informed of it.
The third point I would like to raise under this general heading is a recognition of the admission of pupils who are not French-speaking to a French-language instructional unit. That is something I heartily support. I would like some further explanation from the minister about what is meant by "admissions committee." I am looking at page 6 of the bill under section 6(a), which says, "if the admission is approved by majority vote of an admissions committee." That seems pretty straightforward, but if there is something else involved that I am not seeing, I would appreciate the minister explaining that to me.
I particularly noticed the sections of the legislation -- we are dealing with sections 24 and 25 here now -- that point out the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario may recommend to a school board a certain line of action. If I continue to follow it, however, it appears the school board may choose to accept or not accept that recommendation.
Then it goes on and, as I read it, the new section provides the minister with the opportunity to receive from the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario a further recommendation if the school board's report is negative. It would appear that the minister now has the final say. Once again I am asking that the minister explain whether my interpretation is correct. That would appear to be the case.
Generally speaking, I want to indicate to the minister these changes are appropriate and acceptable and the ministry and the government are to be congratulated for bringing them forward. The questions I have raised are simply for interpretation and understanding and in no way are intended to be criticisms.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to some of the questions and comments that have been made by the honourable members opposite. I am also delighted to know they are generally supportive of the direction we are taking in these amendments to the Education Act.
The member for Hamilton West has suggested the matters related to the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions curriculum guidelines and the Ontario secondary school graduation diploma are matters about which there will be no opportunity for discussion. I would remind the members that estimates will be coming forward and there will be a great deal of opportunity to discuss those initiatives in that forum.
In addition to that, as a result of the wide-ranging consultation that led to the report known as the secondary education review project and then to the document known as Renewal of Secondary Education, which eventually became the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions document, all of which has occurred over a period of about five and a half years, with very broad consultation and a good deal of sharing of the information with the members of the House, who were at liberty at any time to respond to any of the documentation that is provided, there will be necessitated as a result of the new directions some amendments to the Education Act which must come forward.
I would judge that in the spring, therefore, we will be coming forth with further amendments to the Education Act based upon the requirements of OSIS for the secondary school program and the secondary school graduation diploma.
There is no doubt the members opposite have been suggesting for some time we need a select committee. That is an interesting and intriguing concept. I do hope it is offered in the light of the possibility of some less than partisan discussion about a very important area of activity within Ontario. I hope it is not simply being offered as a suggestion for yet another travel club for members of the Legislature. From time to time, one worries that select committees seem to degenerate into that kind of activity or do not keep themselves elevated in the area of the thoughtful examination of policy, which is obviously essential.
Mr. Conway: Remember the tile drainage committee, about which it was said they drained the province.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes. I am happy to report to the member opposite the tile drainage committee had disbanded by the time he and I arrived in the Legislature, I believe. All we heard was its history, but there have been others.
Mr. Nixon: It was not nearly so bad as the company law committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I believe there was one called the select committee on company law which, to my understanding, travelled hither, thither, yon and otherwise. It was a very useful committee, there is no doubt about that, but it went on forever.
Mr. Conway: Be careful or I will tell the Ontario Law Reform Commission.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: By all means, tell the law reform commission.
Mr. Bradley: Look who was the chairman of that committee and look what he learned.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, as a matter of fact, the law reform commission has a new chairman who was the chairman of the select committee on company law.
None the less, it is an interesting suggestion which obviously should be looked at from time to time.
The member for Hamilton West has asked about sections 17 and 19 of the bill which provide for what we felt was the most important aspect of this piece of legislation; that is, a guarantee for both francophone students and, I would remind the members, for anglophone students in areas of the province which are predominantly French, of instruction and education in their mother tongue, in the language of their parents, without the overriding qualification of the words "where numbers warrant."
We think that provides the kind of support and initiative the francophones and the anglophones in some parts of this province require in order to ensure they are secure in their future, in their culture and in their language.
9:10 p.m.
In the Ministry of Education we have felt very strongly that this is the primary focus of this bill and that the amendments to the Education Act should be directed towards implementing that focus in the most appropriate fashion. That is why we have moved beyond the usual kind of philosophy of the ministry related to transportation.
We have moved in the direction of attempting to guarantee that, where a board has one or two children who require French-language education or English-language education and that group of children is so small that it would be inappropriate or impossible for that board to provide the education program itself, there would be a mechanism that would allow the board to ensure that those children were served appropriately in the appropriate language of instruction.
As we have done before in other areas of the province, we have gone to the stage of suggesting that where the distance to be travelled by these children is excessive, the school board will be responsible for the maintenance of those children in the other community during the school week. That is already in place, as members know, particularly for children in very remote parts of northern Ontario. I believe those children have been served very well in terms of the provision, particularly of secondary school education.
However, it is also suggested strongly that in more urban or suburban areas where the distances are not so great, the children should have access to that kind of program in a neighbouring board, and there be means of transportation provided which would ensure that those children would indeed be able to attend the classes which are arranged by the board.
We do not usually intrude in this manner in the area of transportation. Transportation is still a matter which is left primarily to the discretion of the local board of education or school board in order that it can arrange its affairs most appropriately. We felt it important in this piece of legislation to ensure that the availability of that educational program in the appropriate language of instruction be enhanced, in fact guaranteed, by ensuring that transportation or room and board would be provided.
I am hesitant to suggest we should go further than that at this point. I would like to try this first to see how it works before we suggest to boards of education that we must invade their territory in terms of the transportation policy within their own borders.
In most instances, they are doing pretty well. There are one or two instances in which it has been a problem, but the solution is also provided within this piece of legislation. That is the recommendation of the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario, which has been brought to bear on those circumstances in one or two areas of the province, but which could not be finalized because the Languages of Instruction Commission is empowered only to provide recommendations.
I would like to remind the member for Hamilton West that the French-language advisory committees will not disappear in Ontario. In those areas in the province in which the numbers of francophone students are relatively small compared to the total population served by a school board, and where guaranteed representation perhaps is not a viable alternative within the school board, it will be absolutely necessary to have a French-language advisory committee, or an English-language advisory committee as the case may be, in order to ensure that the other language group's education interests are served appropriately by that school board.
Therefore, I would suggest strongly it is imperative that this section of the act -- which ensures that the chairman of the French-language advisory committee or the English-language advisory committee is in fact capable of attending all committees of the board, including committees of the whole -- be included within this act.
I would hope the member would support it on the basis that at this point we are unlikely to suggest to anyone, nor do I think he would suggest, that the language advisory committees in Ontario be eliminated completely.
Both the member for Hamilton West, and the member for St. Catharines mentioned specifically the communication from the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario. The member for St. Catharines mentioned the communication which arrived today from the first woman president of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation -- a landmark decision by that august body of predominantly male teachers.
Mr. Sweeney: We are waiting for a male president of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Do not hold your breath.
Mr. Conway: Are you being sexist?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I am not being sexist. I am being realistic. I am being adulatory because OPSTF has done very well in bringing Mary Hill along as their president. Even though she is without any doubt a confirmed and convinced Liberal, she will serve the association very well.
Mr. Conway: Listen, it was once nearly good enough for you, so let she who is without sin cast the first stone.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member keeps dreaming. I do wish he would do something about these small fantasies he has while he is sitting in the House as well, fed, as I know they are, by interesting little bits of information from the former leader of his party which are not entirely soundly based in fact.
None the less, the communication from the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario and from the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation related specifically to section 15 regarding the transfer of funds from municipalities to school boards. I would remind members there is great variation in the way the municipalities in the province collect their local property taxes.
I am aware that in some parts of the province the tax bills go out once a year at the end of the year and it would be extremely difficult for some of those municipalities to provide funds on a more frequent basis than quarterly. They are already required to do it quarterly, but there is a provision to ensure that, if an arrangement is made otherwise whereby taxes may be collected six or eight times a year, there must be agreements between the board and the municipality about the appropriate transfer at the appropriate time.
All we are trying to do here is to make sure that when this money is to be transferred, it is transferred on time and not left in default to the benefit of the municipality and to the detriment of the school board. We have said very clearly that because it has to be transferred quarterly, it must be transferred before noon on the day it is to be transferred, which is a Friday; and this ensures, of course, that the school board then acquires the benefit of the interest when it is transferred into the bank account as soon as the transfer is made.
I am not sure at this point that I would be willing to consider anything more directive to the municipalities. I am sure they are not going to be wildly enthusiastic about what we are already suggesting, that there be a specific time at which this transfer must be effected because it must be effected in support of the school boards themselves. I hope that ALSBO, which suggested it did not like this -- it wanted it to be done more frequently -- will recognize that many of the municipalities in which it does not function, because ALSBO is for large school boards, in many of the municipalities that are significantly smaller the tax collection method is much less concentrated than it is in Metropolitan Toronto, Kitchener, the Waterloo area, Windsor or London.
I therefore suggest that ALSBO should seriously consider watching to see how this works for a period of time before it asks for further amendments to this section of the act.
The member for St. Catharines suggested there was no response to the ALSBO communication. There was a very full response to it. It was not on paper; it was on the basis of eyeball-to-eyeball discussion between the minister and the president of ALSBO, between the deputy minister and the executive director, or whatever they call her, of ALSBO and --
Mr. Sweeney: And you told them who is running education in this province.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I simply said this was a matter to be discussed by our usual means of communication, which is the regular meetings we have with the Ontario School Trustees' Council, at which ALSBO is represented. We had one of those meetings last week. That is the time to discuss all of these matters, instead of firing off all sorts of letters while the rest of the school trustees are not aware of what one group of school trustees is saying.
Mr. Sweeney: They need to be told they are not running the show.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I keep telling them that this is the place to do the communicating.
In addition to that, the director of the legislation branch had a very long discussion with the president of ALSBO, and as a result of those discussions it was suggested that no written response was necessary to the letter that was sent. Therefore, I think perhaps the member is being just a tiny bit misled in his suggestion that the only way to get a response from the minister about all this is to have a session in committee. If he wants a session in committee, that is perfectly fine; but to use it as a platform for ALSBO to complain it has not had a response from the ministry is entirely wrong. I would like the member to know this.
Mr. Bradley: I will have to check my good sources.
9:20 p.m.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: What I am telling him is fact. I do not care what his sources say; that is the fact. We have responded very clearly to the concerns expressed by the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario.
In addition to that, the member for St. Catharines suggested there were problems with early payments about which I was unsympathetic. I am not unsympathetic. I am very sympathetic. The difficulty is to persuade the Ministry of Treasury and Economics that the cash flow response necessary for that kind of activity is appropriate, given the difference between their fiscal year and our fiscal year and the kinds of problems and tensions that produces.
I have supported the position of the school boards before Treasury for six years and I will continue to support it. I think a larger proportion should be delivered early in the year. That is a matter I will continue to discuss with my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman).
Mr. Bradley: That is one of the few times the minister has not won.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: There have been several times I have not won. One does not win all the time.
The matter related to the sick leave credits is a matter I had not heard they were concerned about; that is, not half-time but part-time teachers who are hired on a part-time basis constantly.
I am not sure that is a valid criticism because we have specifically worded this to ensure that the kinds of benefits which would accrue to a full-time teacher are computed for the teacher who is teaching part-time or half-time. If there is a problem there, I will be happy to look at it. If there needs to be a change, we will certainly look at the change that may be necessary.
The member for Kitchener-Wilmot asked several questions, most of which I think I can answer except the one regarding 24 kilometres. I am not sure where that came from. It was in the act previously. Why was it decided? It was in the report of the joint committee that was set up by the Premier related to French-language instruction in Ontario. It was their recommendation that it be 24 kilometres.
Mr. Sweeney: That is only 14 miles.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I know. It is a significantly shorter distance than the distances usually included in the legislation regarding education. It is a matter that could be looked at rather critically. Perhaps that is what we should do in committee, look at the distance that would appear to be appropriate.
The member for Kitchener-Wilmot suggested as well that the removal of English as a subject of instruction in grades 9 to 12 was of some concern. Under Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions, there is a significant change in the requirements for francophone students in Ontario.
If a student is francophone, the five language components may all be French language or they may be French language plus English. It is required that there be one credit in English for all francophone students in the province, just as one credit in French is required for all anglophone students in the province. It is a matter of balance.
It is my understanding that the vast majority of francophone students in Ontario will study English on an annual basis during the entire four years of their secondary school program, because they recognize it as a necessity. However, to try to provide balance in the requirements for both francophones and anglophones under OSIS, we moved in the direction of removing that annual requirement for an English subject in the secondary school program.
The other matter related to English is, to state clearly, that the provisions which relate to francophone students in predominantly English parts of the province also relate to anglophone students in predominantly French parts of the province. That is the second section which I think the member questioned in his remarks.
Mr. Sweeney: The question had to do more with the admission of pupils who are not French-speaking to French-speaking --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am coming to that. Even at the present time, in areas where there is a French-language secondary school, there is an admissions committee that determines the facility, fluency and capability of the young person in the French language for purposes of admission to the school. That is not changed under this legislation. That admissions committee is still there.
I have raised and I will continue to raise what I consider to be a matter of concern that should be of import to both francophones and anglophones in this province, that is, that we have very large numbers of primarily anglophone students in our elementary schools who are being taught almost entirely in the French language and who are becoming extremely fluent as a result of immersion programs.
Many of those students would like to continue their secondary school program in the French language. It seems to me there needs to be a good deal of sympathy and understanding within the admissions committee in French-language secondary schools for the capacity, fluency and capability of those students as well. Many of them could probably benefit a great deal and probably would add a good deal to the school's ambiance. I doubt if it would in any way damage the atmosphere for the francophone students.
With those increasing numbers and the decreasing number of francophone students in Ontario, it would seem to be sensible if we could find a way to meld or mesh those students who in many instances have an equal capacity in the French language within the secondary school program. I hope it is something the admissions committee will look at with sympathy and understanding in the future.
I think that will happen because I am assured by some of the representatives of the various francophone organizations that they see this as something they should be looking at a good deal more openly than they have in the past. Perhaps with the guarantee that is provided in this bill, they will feel sufficiently secure to move in that direction with comfort and without concern.
I suggested earlier it was important that the other component regarding the languages instruction commission be supported vigorously because one of our problems has been a lack of capability for resolution of some of the problems. The problems went on, sometimes for inordinate periods, which did nothing to improve the atmosphere for the final resolution. Although it is a burden for the minister --
Mr. Martel: But the minister can carry it.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am thinking of ministers in the future, if I may say so.
Mr. Conway: Is this the announcement?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Although it may be a burden for the minister to have to make the final decision about this, it is one reasonable means of providing some finality to some of these difficult circumstances in a way that can be effective and can shorten the period of conflict, so we do not have the difficulties that have occurred in some parts of the province as a result of recommendations, particularly in the area of transportation of either francophone or anglophone students.
Mr. Eakins: I have my cheque book here. Is the minister running?
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think, therefore, this is a reasonable direction at this point. It is probably not perfect and it may have to be amended at some time in the future, but it is at least an initial step, which I think is the appropriate initial step in such circumstances.
Mr. Sweeney: It is preferable to the present situation.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, yes, almost anything would be.
Mr. Bradley: Has the minister checked this with the Orange Lodge?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: As a matter of fact, I do not think I have, but I do not think that will be a major problem either. For the benefit of the member for Renfrew North, I would simply like to say I have no plans to make plans. I have not seen any cheque or anything. I am not running for anything.
I am delighted, as I said earlier, that the members opposite have been so enthusiastic in their support of this piece of legislation. I would like to suggest that they will be equally enthusiastic in future if I agree to the suggestion that this bill does go forward to committee for one session. I do not know which committee it will be; that will depend on the House leader. Then we can have whatever hearings the member for St. Catharines thinks are necessary so we can report the bill fairly shortly in the House.
Motion agreed to.
9:30 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, perhaps with the agreement of the House, we could revert to motions.
The Deputy Speaker: May I ask the honour-able House leader if the motion refers to this matter?
Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes.
Agreed.
MOTION
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Bill 119, An Act to amend the Education Act, be referred to the standing committee on social development for one sitting for public hearings on November 6, 1984, with the bill then to be reported.
Motion agreed to.
BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you notice my colleagues went home.
Mr. Bradley: Is a motion for adjournment in order?
Mr. Ruston: It is always in order.
Mr. Sweeney: They have heard the member too often in caucus, that is the problem.
Mr. Martel: When one is House leader, one is accused of everything from selling out to compromising to you name it.
When I spoke last, I was saying to my friends to my right I have had to listen to three solid years of harassment for getting a formula for funding for the cauci --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: For the cauci?
Mr. Martel: They resented it.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Cocci are bacteria.
Mr. Martel: Well, over there. They harassed me about the 30 for 22 formula for three years. Last time I was speaking I said to them, "Since you beggars opposed it all those years, I wonder if you want 30 for 27." My friend who was on the board at the time, the minister, I am wondering if she wants 30 for 26.
Mr. Sweeney: It seems reasonable.
Mr. Martel: I thought it might.
Mr. Sweeney: It takes time for these things to sink in.
Mr. Martel: Yes, a lot longer with the Liberals though. It took three years for it to sink in. Those people only look at the short run. I have been here a long time. I know these things are planned.
Mr. Sweeney: A 34 for 26 formula sounds even better.
Mr. Martel: It is interesting that none of them is screaming to get rid of the formula any longer, although their leader once said that when he fell below 30 he would be prepared to absorb the loss of all that staff.
Mr. Bradley: We know who is going to win the by-elections.
Mr. Martel: The members are not losing it in the interim, that is the interesting part. By the time we get around to it, it might be 30 for 25. There is a lottery currently going on as to who the next Liberal is going to be. The one I got when I pulled mine out of the draw was John Sweeney.
Mr. Sweeney: You are kidding.
Mr. Martel: No, he was --
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat for a moment? The member for St. Catharines has a burning point of privilege.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I want to dispel the rumour that the member for Sudbury East is going to take a position with the regional municipality of Sudbury in the social services department.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. The member for Sudbury East is now returning to the budget debate.
Mr. Sweeney: There was never any truth to that.
Mr. Ruston: The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has an appointment coming up.
Mr. Sweeney: Is that offer still standing?
Mr. Conway: Does Morley Rosenberg need an executive assistant?
Mr. Martel: Is the member looking for a job? I might recommend him.
Mr. Conway: I thought the member might be more compatible.
Mr. Martel: No. I thought I might recommend my friend from Renfrew North.
There was an interesting thing just happened two weeks ago. I was up at the mass for the Pope and I met the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor,) who was coming to Sudbury for an official sod-turning ceremony for a new police building. Do the members know where the new police building is? It is in Sudbury East. Can they imagine my delight that they were building it in Sudbury East?
It was not in the riding of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), but the minister said to me: "I cannot make it on Friday. I will not be there." I went to the sod-turning ceremony in Sudbury East, and the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe) was there. They had six tables and chairs at the front.
Mr. Bradley: And you were not in any of them.
Mr. Martel: No, I was not in any of them; the member is right. But the spare seat was filled.
Mr. Bradley: By the member for Sudbury.
Mr. Martel: Right on.
Mr. Bradley: How did I guess?
Mr. Martel: The story gets better. They called on everyone to speak.
Mr. Bradley: But they did not call on you.
Mr. Martel: You are right again. That is perception.
Mr. Bradley: I was at the opening of Highway 406 this morning. All the Tories on the platform spoke, and then, of course --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, member for St. Catharines. We are all wrapped up in the member for Sudbury East's budget debate comments here.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say some kind words to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) because when he came to Sudbury and we went out to a school in my riding -- he was then Minister without Portfolio -- he made sure I was well recognized.
He did not play any games with us. I said to him then and I say to him now, I give him credit for that. There are more people in Sudbury East who voted for me than for anyone else.
Hon. Mr. Snow: We keep trying to change that.
Mr. Martel: Yes, and you might some day.
Hon. Mr. Snow: But you keep winning.
Mr. Martel: But you had the integrity to recognize that. The problem is when other ministers come to town they do not.
I want to tell members what happened. The government was giving plaques, as the members know. It gives plaques with a shovel on them when it has an official project. It presented one to everyone save the member for Sudbury East.
Mr. Sweeney: A shovel for what?
Mr. Martel: Eventually, a brown paper envelope was delivered to me.
An hon. member: With a shovel in it.
Mr. Bradley: You always get it afterwards.
Mr. Martel: Yes, afterwards. I thought to myself, "The minister really does not enhance himself at all."
I always remember the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson), whom some people love to kick around, coming to Sudbury when we turned the sod for the new provincial building. He said to Bud Germa, my colleague then: "Bud, this is your riding. Come on up here and say a few words." He said to his staff, "Get Bud Germa a shovel so he can be in this with us because he represents the people of Sudbury, all of them, and he is in Queen's Park because more voted for him."
The minister really cheapens the whole process when he reduces himself to that sort of nitpicking and childishness. What he says to the people of Sudbury East is, "The democratic process is great as long as you elect a Tory."
But the Minister of Transportation and Communications did not do that, and he is a much bigger man -- I do not mean physically -- in my eyes and in the eyes of the electorate of Sudbury East. It did not do him one bit of damage. People said, "That is the way to do things."
Hon. Mr. Snow: The people in St. Charles loved me, too.
Mr. Martel: I put the minister in a report of mine: Jim Snow visiting with people at my request in St. Charles. One can be small about these things. It might appear to be small potatoes, but the minister really does not enhance himself in the eyes of the electorate when he does that to an opposition member because it insults all the people there. It says to them, "You really do not count."
I say to my friend the minister, and I say it sincerely, he gets more kudos when he recognizes the member up front as representing the people in that area.
The Premier (Mr. Davis) is always giving gratuitous advice. I will give my friend a bit of gratuitous advice. He is bigger than that; he really is. He does not have to play childish games. He really does not because it ain't gonna detract from his integrity that much. In fact, it will enhance it; it really will.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order -- pardon me --
Mr. Martel: I have not said anything out of order.
9:40 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I said, "Pardon me." It is on a point of personal privilege. I think the record has to be clarified. I think the member for Sudbury East somewhat slants the facts -- I will put it in that sense -- when he says there was no recognition made. That is not a fact. Granted, and I acknowledge it quite publicly and frankly without apology, it was not part of the platform program. As far as I am concerned that kind of event is put on by the government. Whether we like it or not, the government happens to be on this side of the House, and I make no apologies for that to the taxpayers of Ontario.
I know that I personally, along with at least one other person, recognized the member's presence publicly from the platform as part of the process. I did not call on him, granted, but I did recognize from the podium that he was there and thanked him for being there.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for St. Catharines wants to speak on that point of order.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of whatever he rose on -- was it privilege or order?
The Deputy Speaker: A point of order, correcting the member for Sudbury East.
Mr. Bradley: I rise on exactly that question, Mr. Speaker, and you will recognize this as well as others. Those people over there do not seem to recognize that it was not just the Tories in Ontario who paid for these projects; it was all the taxpayers of Ontario. It is a slap in the face to the 60 per cent of the people --
Mr. Sweeney: It is 75 per cent. There was only 25 per cent who did not vote Tory.
Mr. Bradley: -- or whatever the percentage was who did not vote Tory in my riding or in the riding of the member for Sudbury East. That is the whole issue, and the members opposite do not recognize that. It is their own Tory people who --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member has made his point. The minister referred to "government." The member for Sudbury East will continue with his remarks on the debate of the budget.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, let me say that I deliberately did not name the minister, because I did not want to embarrass him. I do not care for myself personally, because that does not cut the mustard, but the people I represent take part in the democratic process too. If I happen to win the riding, they as electors in this process are as entitled to the same recognition as that of a government member.
I say that to the minister sincerely. He would enhance himself, as my friends the member for Oakville (Mr. Snow) and the member for Lambton did when they came to town. In fact, people commented and gave them credit for their integrity.
If the minister believes the democratic process is only democratic as long as he wins, then he does not believe in the democratic process.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is not what we are talking about at all.
Mr. Martel: Yes, we are. That is what we are talking about. The minister is not insulting me; he is insulting the whole electorate. When he yaps about who pays the tax bill, I remind him that the people of Sudbury East pay as much taxes as the people in Sudbury or in his riding.
Hon. Mr. McCague: We are going to turn the sod for Honda next Friday. Does the member for Sudbury East want to come?
Mr. Martel: Would the minister invite me? I would come up with him. Good boy.
It enhances a cabinet minister when he has that integrity. Some do not realize that. It enhances him; it does not denigrate him. It also enhances the democratic process. The Minister of Government Services should try it some day.
I have always taken the position that a good cabinet minister who is confident of what he is doing does not have to play chintzy games. The good ones, such as McKeough when he was here or John Rhodes, never played those silly games. They had too much intestinal fortitude.
I was reading an article the other day, Mr. Speaker, that you will be interested in. It is a Tory ad from Saskatchewan, if you can imagine. It used to be said that the New Democratic Party could not run anything. The Tories said the NDP made it impossible for industry to locate in Saskatchewan.
The Tory ad that is now being run to entice industry into Saskatchewan goes something like this: To prove Saskatchewan is a great province in which to do business, they cite the previous 10 years from 1972 to 1982; they quote the 10 years of the Blakeney government.
"The province's compound annual rate of growth in those 10 years was 4.2 per cent compared to 2.7 for the rest of Canada." That is snot bad. "The gross domestic product rose strongly from $3.4 billion to $5.2 billion. Personal income rapidly rose from $2 billion to $12 billion. Exports expanded by four times to $6.5 billion. The population jumped 10 per cent during those 10 years. The dynamic economy thrived on a balanced mix of resources. One of the lowest per capita debt burdens in the country."
"Ten years as a growth leader in Canada. Gross domestic product rose 51 per cent. Nonresidential investment rose by 338 per cent. Retail sales rose 197 per cent. Personal disposable income rose 333 per cent. Farm cash receipts rose 345 per cent and farm land values rose 400 per cent. During the past decade, oil, potash and uranium thrust Saskatchewan to the forefront of Canadian mineral production."
This is not what the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) say when they go around. They say just the opposite. It goes on:
"Saskatchewan residents carry one of the lowest per capita debts in Canada and still enjoy an exceptional range of government services, and Saskatchewan's personal tax rate is the fourth lowest in all of Canada."
That is the Saskatchewan government -- I think the guy's name is Devine -- commenting on the 10 previous years, which were the Blakeney years. Is it not magnificent how Blakeney, with social planning, was able to put that province in the forefront? Now they have some of the lowest per capita debt. They also have the fourth lowest rate of personal income tax, which far exceeds, in a downward way, that of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Look at the other three and look at the per capita debt. Who is lower? It says "one of the lowest." It does not say "the lowest."
Mr. Martel: It is not us. For personal income tax in Ontario one has to throw in medicare. There are no medicare premiums in Saskatchewan. Ontario is far higher than Saskatchewan. I thought the minister would like to hear that. It is the advertisement the Saskatchewan government is now sending out to industry to encourage it to locate in Saskatchewan.
It is too bad that Ontario, with all its resources and being near the industrial heartland of the United States, did not do sound planning as is the case in Saskatchewan. We have been the beneficiary of location and resources, and we have frittered them away. I will come back to that in a moment.
I want to say a few words about the Premier. I do not think I have ever faced a tougher individual in this Legislature. He is a man Ontario looked on favourably. It is obvious from the polls and from some of his victories.
I thought his victories were not always fought on an appropriate basis. One is reminded of 1971. I was in that election when the Conservatives fought against separate schools. It is interesting to note that the Premier has now seen the wisdom of providing equal opportunity in the public system with one public separate system and one public school system. However, that is one of the most offensive things I can attribute to the Premier.
9:50 p.m.
After the 1981 election, I said history would not show the Premier in a good light over that issue. Maybe he was listening to me in his office, as he often does according to him. I am glad he has done that. It takes away a blemish that was on his record.
He is a tough individual, I guess a person that none of us knows very well. We have been around him for a long time, but none of us really cracked that exterior. I do not think even the Conservative members cracked the exterior. He is a very personal man, a very good family man, but nobody cracks that exterior.
I remember his predecessor John Robarts. We used to talk about the outdoors because he loved the outdoors and hunting and fishing. We had many a conversation about it over the four years I was here when he was still Premier. One does not get that way with this Premier, but there is his devotion to his family and sensitivity in some ways. He was always pragmatic. I think everything was measured in how many votes it was going to cost. I think that will show up in the long run. It may be the one blemish against the Premier.
I do not denigrate the work he did on the Constitution and so on, but there are other Premiers in other jurisdictions who took very courageous stands. I always felt the Premier waltzed with the rest of the province. The Conservatives are always pleased to say they go as fast as the public wants them to go. Maybe that is the reason for all that polling: so they never run into a roadblock.
That might be one of the things historians will eventually say; that he was very pragmatic. On decisive action -- I do not even want to put it in those terms, because he did do some things that were quite decisive -- in the forefront of breaking new ground totally, let us just leave it that he was pragmatic.
The Tories are going to miss him, more so than we. We are going to find that out in the next general election. But we wish him well whatever he does. We wish him well with the things he enjoys most, his family, and in whatever endeavour he faces. He will face it the same way he has faced his years as Premier and as Minister of Education.
I well recall when I was teaching that I used to get all these signatures of Bill Davis. I used to have to jump to those commands as a teacher and as a principal. But times change. We wish him well in whatever endeavours he undertakes, and we say that sincerely.
I want to turn to the budget, if I might. I can never recall the press being sucked in -- if I can use those terms -- as much as they were on the last budget. They were the most embarrassed group of people in the province. Remember the supersalesman telling them how much it was going to go up and it was going to cost so much? He scared the hell out of everyone. Then on budget day, they all brought their hankies out, wiped their brows and said: "Whew! God, he is not raising taxes."
Well he was, but he did not do it frontally. He used a whole series of little things. There is ad valorem, for instance, which keeps rolling the cash in; every time gas goes up, the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) takes a bigger grab. Then there is the Ontario health insurance plan. If a person happens to be covered by a company plan, it does not bother him. But it is now $756 per family per year. What a devastating figure for someone whose income is only $15,000. It did not hurt everyone, or it did not hurt them too much, at least they thought. I think we now probably pay taxes of 50 cents on the dollar in a variety of ways.
I always hear such nonsense as: "Look at Sweden and how much they take from you." They do it up front. But look at what Sweden puts back into the social system there. If we were ever even close to what they put back into Sweden on the dollars that are extracted from us, we would not have enough on 50 cents on the dollar, with the federal and provincial governments.
But, as I say, the Treasurer managed to fool them all, and the press was really dumb. If I were to guess why he will not become the next Premier, I would say it is because people will say that he is too smooth by half, that he is the sort of guy you cannot trust. I would have to concur with that. The public will see through him. He is too slick. People do not like slick people. That is why the Premier liked being called Bland Billy from Brampton --
Hon. Mr. Sterling: The member has no problems then.
Mr. Martel: Not with him.
Hon. Mr. Sterling: No, the member himself.
Mr. Martel: No, no. I have never attempted to be slick or smooth. I say what I think up front, and I never look over my shoulder. If I take my lumps for it, fine; and if it goes well, then all the more power to me.
In that budget, the Treasurer set a series of programs in place to deal with the unemployed. I remember the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) used to try to sell what we were doing for youth in this province. It is a pile of nonsense. We have more youth unemployed now than we did before the Treasurer introduced his great program.
The Treasurer was setting the stage. He has the infrastructure in place with not much funding. I guarantee that in the next budget there will be all kinds of funding for those programs. The youth might starve this winter; that does not matter. The minister must set the stage for the next budget because it will be the eve of the election. How many people will suffer this winter? It does not matter.
We are pretty callous. Those of us who have jobs wring our hands in despair. We do not say to the minister that many hundreds of thousands of young people do not have jobs in Ontario, that many hundreds of thousands, young and old, do not have jobs. We do not care about them. We are so callous that we manipulate it for the next budget because that will be on election eve. The suffering does not matter.
One only has to come to Sudbury to recognize suffering. There are 19,000 unemployed in Sudbury and Manitoulin. What is being done? Not a thing. The Treasurer came to town a couple of weeks ago and he and the member for Sudbury signed an agreement on television. Do members know what it meant? Thirty part-time jobs. Imagine what that does in an area where there are 19,000 people unemployed. If that is the government's planning for the future for those people, it is grim, particularly if one looks at the fact that more than 12,000 people have left the Sudbury area.
With 19,000 unemployed now, one can imagine what the unemployment figure would have been if 12,000 people had not left the area in the past two or three years. The Treasurer came to town, got his picture on television and the whole business, for 30 part-time jobs. Whoopde-do! Is that not great stuff?
Mr. Bradley: I will get his constituency newsletter for the member. I have a copy.
Mr. Martel: I get them in my post office box on Spadina all the time.
Mr. Bradley: Does it not say $13 million or something?
Mr. Martel: Right. All they did with the budget this year was set the stage. It is perverse that the government could be so happy about it. I listened to the person currently occupying the chair -- no, it was not; or maybe it was -- a week or two ago, during the budget debate, saying what a great budget it was. No, I made a mistake, my friend -- I do not want you to rise on a point of order from the chair -- it was the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) who said what a great budget it was.
This budget has not created a job. It is good for the next election. That is what it is all about. Next year, there will be handsome funding to retrain people. It is too callous to put the plans and infrastructure in place now, and then next year to put the money in to do some retraining. That is the height of cynicism.
10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. McCague: The member should read Hansard.
Mr. Martel: I have read Hansard. I know there are 19,000 unemployed in Sudbury. What worries me in this age of technological change, which is creating the problems for all governments, is that we have not yet answered one question. We cannot stop technological change, but we have not decided how we are going to pay people.
When is someone with an ounce of brains over there going to answer that question? If we have technological change, and it is coming and inevitable, we have to say to industry we are not opposed to technological change but government and industry are going to have to sit down and decide how people are going to have an income. We spent over $12 billion last year in unemployment insurance and welfare in Canada. That does not allow anyone to buy a car or a fridge or a stove or anything. Those people just exist.
While they realize technological change is going to come if we are going to remain competitive, governments have to find the mechanism to pay people. How are we going to compensate the 1.5 million in Canada or the 600,000 in Ontario who are without jobs? I have not heard that here yet and I did not hear it during the federal election. People talked about retraining. For what? I could not help but admire the audacity of some of the leaders in the last federal election when they talked about retraining. What are we going to retrain them for, I say to my friend from Renfrew, if we do not have jobs.
There are skilled workmen in my area with two and three tickets who cannot find a job. They have retrained once already, some of them twice. With two and three tickets for different types of jobs, they are still without a job. Technological changes occur. We see it every day in this House. My friend from Renfrew keeps raising it. There is one plant shutdown after another, more layoffs, and no one deals with the problem of income.
When we talk about such things as early retirement, the government puts its head in the sand like an ostrich. I remember the 1981 election when the Premier said "If I am re-elected, we are going to send the whole matter of pensions to a select committee." That was three and a half years ago. It went to a select committee and we have not changed a damned thing.
The Treasurer went to a ministers' meeting this spring and led the charge on pensions and pension reform. One of the solutions is earlier retirement for our older workers, to give jobs to the younger people who will buy homes and cars and send their kids to school. Another solution might be a shorter work week, but we will not answer the basic question. If we allow technological change, how are we going to pay people? How are they going to have an income to live with dignity and retain their homes?
I look around the Sudbury basin, as worker after worker comes to me, losing his home because he is unemployed. We give him a part-time job. He was getting $260 a week unemployment. The government goes in there, as the Treasurer did a couple of weeks ago, and gives the guy a part-time job at minimum wage. When he goes back on unemployment insurance he has a $135-a-week income and he walks away from his home.
The members opposite sit there like fat cats and say, "You are going to hurt industry." What about the people who are losing their homes? What about the young people who do not even have a first job? Some of them are 23, 24, or 25. They are totally disenchanted. The cynicism of the budget is that they put some jobs and programs in place and do not fund them much, but next year, an election year, they will put the funding in.
That cynicism is almost too much to take because that whole group will suffer all winter without jobs. Everybody is after them. It used to be at one time if someone was living away from home at 20, he could get welfare if he could not get a job. Try it today. I am not sure what they are supposed to live on.
I remember the beautiful question my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) put to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) today. He asked, "Why was it so easy to force the Toronto Transit Commission workers back to work in Toronto when you are having some difficulty in Mississauga?"
I remember in that one-day session, my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and I asked the Treasurer what he was doing for the unemployed in Sudbury. He said. "What a great job my friend Jim Gordon is doing." He did not answer the questions that were put to him.
Power corrupts. What does absolute power do? It corrupts absolutely. I am not sure what the expression is, I have heard it many times. Do I have it right?
Mr. Conway: I fear Jim Gordon is both the member's curse and his nemesis.
Mr. Martel: No. He is nothing. I am just saying when one puts a question to the minister he does not answer; he gives some gobbledegook. He does not even deal with the 19,000 unemployed. That is a sort of cynicism about people who are distressed. We are trying to encourage the government to look at some alternatives that might provide jobs and they do not even want to talk about it. They are satisfied because 85 per cent do have jobs. Although they might have some fear that they might lose them with more automation, they are content. I guess I am not supposed to say that, but they are content because they have a job.
I would just say to my friends in the cabinet, it is too bad they do not take some of this stuff seriously. It is too bad the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) would not say to the rest of his colleagues, "We are telling industry they are not automating and they are not laying off until we find a solution as to how we pay people or until we find solutions on work weeks and schedules that employ most people." Nothing comes. They sit there and I do not know how.
We are a country, as I started out by saying, that is in the heartland of the industrial United States, wealthy with resources. This is a government, despite its 41 years in power, that has squandered those resources like no one else I know. When we had 85 or 95 per cent of the world's nickel, tell me why we did not use that capacity to induce industry to locate here rather than shipping it out. Tell me why in this day and age we still give exemptions to mining companies to ship their resources to be refined in Norway. Why are we sending nickel from Falconbridge Ltd. to create 1,200 or 1,300 jobs in Norway while Falconbridge lays off 1,300 in Sudbury? What are we doing with the resource wealth of this country? It just boggles the mind.
Let me read a little article from the Globe and Mail -- if members think I am so far out -- regarding a Mr. Rommel in Sudbury. Mr. Rommel is age 30, just one of 1,050 Inco workers laid off amid a global recession. We all recognize the global recession, but some of us on that select committee in 1978 recommended we start a nickel institute in Canada that could find some diverse use for nickel and manufacture those commodities in this country. They did not do it. They did not accept one recommendation. I say to my friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), not one recommendation of the select committee on the Inco and Falconbridge layoffs was ever introduced. Not one. I just wonder where we are.
Poor Mr. Rommel lost his home and he decided to pack up and leave. He is moving out.
10:10 p.m.
Let me just quote from the article: "In fact, many civic and business officials seem determined to put on the best face." They do not like it when we talk like this down here. They get very angry with us. They say we create a bad image for Sudbury. "Some Sudbury residents are actually unaware that the soup kitchen on Minto Street is serving 200 free meals a day." Is that not wonderful? In the nickel capital of the world, an area that has made literally hundreds of billions of dollars of profit, 200 free meals a day are being served.
Mr. Conway: The church basements are full in Ottawa.
Mr. Martel: They go there for their food, not just to sleep. When one talks about rent, we have 530 families that need geared-to-income housing. They cannot afford to stay in the houses they are in. We have asked the minister to get into the subsidization of apartments in any variety of ways. The government does not care. The situation does not affect enough people and therefore is not going to influence the Big Blue Machine's victory, so to hell, why worry about them. They are only people.
In the industrial heartland in terms of mineral wealth, there is a soup kitchen serving at least 200 meals daily. What have we done? The minister came to town and he offered us 30 part-time jobs. It is really frustrating.
In the city of Sudbury there are now 19,000 unemployed people, and 12,000 to 14,000 people have moved out or it would be even worse. There are 824 unemployables on welfare, but 1,802 employables on welfare. With the greatest mineral deposit in the world, we have not diversified one job.
My colleague the member for Nickel Belt and I put together a paper called A Challenge to Sudbury in which we suggested the government could act as a catalyst. I hear all these beggars say, 'Government cannot do it all."
The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller), who used to be one of the worst people to follow a recommendation by this party, said that if one wants to get an industry going he should maybe put up a little of the equity capital in it. When the Minister of Industry and Trade was there last year, it is interesting that he took 37.5 per cent equity in a small company. He bragged about it. He said, "I know Martel is out there, and I know what he is going to say to the press after: 'They have stolen our policy of government putting some equity in.'"
I learned that when I was in West Germany with a select committee. When the West Germans wanted people to locate on the Russian border and industry to provide jobs for people who were there, they became the catalyst. They did not own it, they did not try to run it, but they put in some of the equity capital and induced people to locate there. In Sudbury, the potential for that sort of thing is endless. I am going to go over some of it.
We sent this document to both levels of government. That we did not get a response is understandable. If the government had to answer any of these things, it would have to answer in the affirmative because most of the ideas we put in this report came from provincial and federal government studies.
One of them was a nickel institute recommended years ago by government staff in the Ministry of Natural Resources. The purpose of the institute would be to find sources for nickel. I will list a couple of the items made from nickel that we imported in 1981. In that year, $21 million worth of stainless steel cutlery was imported into Ontario. We do not have the capacity? We do not have the resources? We get a great deal of it from Sweden.
There was $40 million worth of stainless steel surgical instruments. We do not have stainless steel? We do not have the platinum that might go into it? There was $241 million worth of valves, $43 million worth of heat exchangers, $22 million worth of dairy and milk product plant machinery, $92 million worth of X-ray equipment, $83 million worth of gas turbines and parts from nickel. All these were imported.
When we sent our paper to the government, we thought that if there was a nickel institute it would try to find for import replacement those areas in which government could become the catalyst in starting some of those industries or bringing together pools of capital to do it. There has not even been a response, and yet these are the sorts of manufactured goods we are bringing into Canada made from nickel.
It does not amaze the government, does it? It does not make it ask, "What the hell are we doing with our natural resources?" But the government has its own policy. It has section 104 of the Mining Act, which says one cannot ship the stuff out unprocessed. But when the House is not in session, the government also gives Inco, Falconbridge and a whole series of other companies exemptions so they can continue to send it out processed or semi-processed, and then we import all these commodities instead of trying to replace them.
Mr. Mackenzie: It just gave some new exemptions.
Mr. Martel: Yes, it just gave some new exemptions.
The Pope came to town. I do not mean His Holiness; I am talking about Alan. He came to Sudbury recently.
The Deputy Speaker: You mean the Minister of Natural Resources.
Mr. Conway: No, he is the Pope, is he not?
Mr. Martel: That is right. The Minister of Natural Resources came to town.
Mr. Conway: No. North of the French River it is not the Pope; it would be "Your Highness."
Mr. Martel: It would not be Alan.
Mr. Conway: But if Alan is the Pope, what is Larry?
Mr. Martel: "Alan Pope Condemns the New Democratic Party." He comes to Sudbury and those are the headlines at a nominating convention. He does not talk about the problems of the Sudbury area. He maligns us and then he uses the red scare. He says, "The socialists want to nationalize, and we have to fight those beggars."
I am glad the minister is here. The Treasurer applauded that. When we had an emergency debate here a couple of years ago on Inco and Falconbridge, as the Treasurer applauds loudly, I want to remind him that the person who called for the nationalization of Inco and Falconbridge in one fell swoop was none other than the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon). More applause, please.
When the Pope comes to town and says that socialists are going to nationalize, he forgets about his own colleague, who gets front-page stuff in the Toronto Star because he calls for the nationalization of lnco and Falconbridge.
Mr. Conway: Is the member for Sudbury not a democratic socialist?
Mr. Martel: He is not even a Conservative, I am told.
The Pope comes to town and he does not talk about the 19,000 people who are unemployed. He does not mention a word about any solutions to any problem facing those 19,000 people. He says the socialists are going to nationalize, forgetting his own colleague and forgetting about the plight of 19,000 people.
I am going to turn back to our document because one of the things we recommended in this document a couple of years ago was the production of fertilizer in Sudbury. We have a big acid rain problem. The government says it is doing something about it. Inco is the biggest single source, and Inco knows it. Because Inco has the capacity since it bought out CIL, we suggested that it should produce more sulphuric acid. There is a phosphate deposit near Cargill township, and if one puts phosphate with sulphuric acid, one makes fertilizer.
That was one of our recommendations in A Challenge to Sudbury, that the government become the catalyst in trying to make that happen. Do you know what the Pope did? I got the headlines from the paper of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) -- it is nice to own your own paper: "Alan Pope Assures Piché Jobs Won't Be Exported." Is that not wonderful?
We suggested we should take these phosphates from Cargill, process them there and then bring them to Sudbury, combine them with the sulphur dioxide, the sulphuric acid, and make fertilizer. There are two communities in northern Ontario that could benefit from that sort of enterprise.
The member for Cochrane North gets up in indignation and says, "Those socialists want to take jobs from around the Cochrane area." If the Treasurer does not believe me, I will quote him.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe you.
Mr. Martel: You believe me? Then I will not quote him.
10:20 p.m.
Anyway, what does the Pope say? He says the following: "Mr. Pope assured Mr. Piché that his ministry believed in processing all resources at source." Jesus, when did processing at source happen? This government just gave Falconbridge until 1989 to continue to send its nickel unrefined to Norway. What kind of games do those beggars play with people who do not have jobs? "We believe in processing at source." What a lot of nonsense. Then the Pope goes on. He was not satisfied. Cargill deposits were no exception to the rule and we would deal with them in Cargill. That is where we do it, except there is a little hooker in there.
Mr. Conway: This is a family show.
Mr. Martel: This is a little hooker. Oh, pardon me. What does the owner of the phosphate deposit say? The owner says: "We cannot get an adequate supply of sulphuric acid, so therefore we want to ship it to the United States. We cannot get a guaranteed supply of sulphuric acid, so we have to take the phosphates out of the ground and send them to the United States, if we can only get a fair transportation cost."
I say no way.
Mr. Mackenzie: Did Inco not tell us it could not sell its sulphuric acid?
Mr. Martel: That is right. My colleague says Inco said it could not sell enough sulphuric and, if it produced more, it would glut the world market and drive the price of sulphuric acid down.
Here we have two products in northern Ontario. If we combined them, we could be producing our own fertilizer. I say it is up to the government, not to start it necessarily, but to become the catalyst to make it happen.
However, when we send them a copy of A Challenge to Sudbury, as we did to the man who now occupies the seat as Treasurer, who wants to be number one and will announce shortly, I presume, when he was at the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, he did not bother responding to A Challenge to Sudbury or any of the recommendations we made as some solution to the problems confronting the Sudbury area. There was nary an answer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not so.
Mr. Martel: Oh, yes, it is so. The minister should tell me what would be wrong with a fertilizer plant using the acids from Sudbury and the phosphates from Cargill to make fertilizer. We would not even have to import it.
He also said at that time that we should be producing and moving to import replacement. We listed all the various things we import, from cutlery down to equipment and so on. We also recommended that the government had to get involved.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is a good newsletter, I am sure.
Mr. Martel: I want to say I got an interesting letter from a member of the Progressive Conservative executive. He thought I would want to see this personal letter that was being sent out by the member for Sudbury. He said he brought $70 million singlehandedly. The ante is up in the last six months. He got tired carrying the bags back to Sudbury with all the money in them, but he persisted and over two or three years he managed to lug it all back. It is a tough job, carrying $100 million back to Sudbury.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a tough job, but he will have help soon.
Mr. Martel: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He will have help soon; not to worry.
Mr. Martel: The member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) said that to me in 1967.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Bud Germa in 1981.
Mr. Martel: He brought $60 million singlehandedly. What a nice way to carry it.
The occupational health centre is an interesting one. I want the Treasurer to listen to this. He interjected. The occupational health centre was approved by the member for York East (Mr. Elgie) before his friend even came to Queen's Park. With all the meetings we had on the occupational health centre, the member for Sudbury declined to come to any of them.
Mr. Conway: That looks like a pretty jazzy Queen's Park report. Mind you, if he brought $70 million home --
Mr. Martel: No, $100 million. What audacity! He had nothing to do with it. I had worked on it and it was approved before he got elected. I am glad he brought it. We could not have sent it by Brinks.
Then there is the Sudbury 2001 funding base for entrepreneurial projects, $300,000. This must be the goat project which was such an abysmal mess. What else has he taken responsibility for?
Mr. Conway: Did the member for Sudbury bring goats there?
Mr. Martel: On his back as well. He literally carried the goats and the money to Sudbury. He is a strong man.
There was $10,750,000. I know the Treasurer would agree that figure was arrived at before the last provincial election. It was announced during the election. I guess the member for Sudbury put it on his back and took that $10 million with him.
If I can be serious for a moment, I am glad that people like Dr. Gilles Demarais, whom I know the Treasurer knows, and Johnny Gagnon are the two guys who were probably most instrumental in the cancer treatment centre. Dr. Demarais is the radiologist who came to me in 1974 when we started to pursue it. He knew of the difficulty where someone had a relative who had cancer and had to come to Toronto for treatment. Dr. Demarais headed that whole thing up and John Gagnon from the steelworkers, who helped to bury 100 steelworkers who died of cancer, were responsible for that project, if anyone was.
I added my few comments and a whole series of letters, but I do not take credit for it.
Mr. Bradley: Is that what it says in there?
Mr. Martel: No, it does not. It was the member for Sudbury who did it. It was not Dr. Demarais and it was not Johnny Gagnon.
Mr. Conway: What did the Tories say privately about the member for Sudbury?
Mr. Martel: I cannot repeat it. Anyway, let me go back to A Challenge to Sudbury. There are opportunities for the government to get involved. Inco needs a new smelter. If they got a new smelter, there would be jobs in construction and pollution would be reduced. The sulphuric acid, together with the phosphates from Cargill, would make fertilizer. Can we get an answer?
I know if one gets up to ask a question of the Treasurer, he says right away, "My friend Gordon spoke to me about that." We are talking seriously about a job that would create 10 years of employment in the construction industry. We know Inco cannot afford a new smelter at present. One could move to such things as loan guarantees or equity participation. There is a whole variety of ways in which one could deal with the problem, but we cannot even get an answer out of them. They do not talk; they are mute.
One little program we tried to get started was the third stage of an agricultural development in Valley East. I wrote to the Treasurer, because with the various funds he has that could create 150 jobs, and I wrote to the Minister of Northern Affairs. What did the Treasurer say? "We are not interested. We did stage 1 and we did stage 2." We have heard all the pompous talk about what the government is doing.
We ask them to provide the funding. We will need $3 million for stage 3 of the agricultural development in that area. Then we get a little letter from the Treasurer saying: "I am sorry. We do not have funding for stage 3 of the agricultural development," which would provide jobs. As I said, he came to town a week ago. He signed a thing for 30 part-time jobs. We certainly appreciated that. It really took down the unemployment in Sudbury, from 19,000 to 18,970.
10:30 p.m.
On motion by Mr. Martel, the debate was adjourned.
Mr. Speaker: It being 10:30 of the clock, I call on the member for Windsor-Sandwich pursuant to standing order 28(a).
ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I hope my friend the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) will stay. It is too bad he left the Ministry of Health.
The last week or so has demonstrated to me and to the people of the community I represent the complete and utter failure of this Minister of Health (Mr. Norton), of his ministry and of the district health council to appreciate the crisis that has been allowed to develop in the delivery of health and hospital care services in Windsor.
I am sorry the minister and the entire Tory caucus are not here.
Warning signals have been present for the past two years at least, but they have been ignored. They cannot be ignored any longer. Tonight I want to speak during this adjournment debate about the politics of health and hospital care in my community.
Many of the facts surrounding this struggle for decent chronic care facilities are well known. The minister knows, his officials know and the community knows that the present facility is a disgrace. It is a 60-year-old former school that houses 150 of the citizens of Windsor and Essex county in a building so bad that it has taken $1.5 million just to meet today's fire and safety standards.
The minister, his ministry and the community know that the tortured history of this proposal for a new chronic care hospital facility is more than a decade old. It goes from the exciting days of the early 1970s, when the construction of a new 300-bed facility first received approval in principle, to the dismal, disgraceful fall of 1984, when the present minister with the apparent compliance of the district health council proposed even more studies while sick patients lay in beds in hallways, in outpatient departments and in paediatric units, or waited until late at night for admission to hospitals, because of the desperate level of overcrowding.
Tonight, in these remarks on the politics of health care and hospital care in Windsor, I intend to be blunt because to remain silent is to do a disservice to my community and to the people in it. Let me first say that the district health council and the members of that council have not performed the role that Windsor and Essex county have every right to expect from such an organization. The silence from that quarter in the face of irrefutable overcrowding statistics has been deafening.
The suggestion that this problem is somehow the result of the inability of the hospital community to reach a consensus borders on the incredible. It is time for the district health council to speak out and to involve itself in this issue, or it is time to rid ourselves of an organization so dedicated to running interference for the Ministry of Health that it has outlived its usefulness.
As for the minister -- I say this with respect and with some sadness because I believe that the minister, while he is not here tonight, is a good and generous man in many ways -- the time has come to stop playing politics with this facility.
I take no comfort in standing in my place day after day, month after month and year after year, complaining of the neglect of this ministry. I want action. I want our ill and our elderly treated with the decency and dignity they deserve.
In the past few days I have heard from senior nurses in two hospitals that the word is being spread in Windsor that we will not get a chronic care facility until that community elects a Tory and that Conservatives are holding out that option as a bit of blackmail.
Let me say to the minister tonight and to his Tory colleagues, in paraphrasing the ad that John Houseman uses: "In politics you get elected the old-fashioned way. You earn the right to serve."
In my community, through the politics of neglect that is being callously practised on a daily basis in this totally unacceptable delay in approving a new chronic care hospital, the Conservatives have not earned the right to serve. They have shown that by their neglect and their absence again tonight.
As the days drag to months and the months drag to years, the Tory government and the Tory minister earns only contempt for making the weak in our society the pawns in a political power game.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to briefly address the House on this point. My colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich has served notice of his dissatisfaction according to the standing orders. You ruled, of course, that was in order. We had an evening session during which there was a rather lively debate. My colleagues the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) have made interesting contributions to the debate.
It concerns me a great deal to note that at 10:30 tonight, as my friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich rose in his place to deal with a matter very important to him and to the Windsor community, at least six members of the government party, which has more than 70 members in this assembly, walked out of the chamber. To a man, they walked out of the chamber.
It concerns me that an elementary courtesy would not have been followed whereby at least one member of the government party might have stayed behind at least to show some interest on the part of the government in the ongoing matters of debate before this Legislature.
I realize it is late and members have other commitments. There were at least six members of the government party in this House at 10:30. When the member for Windsor-Sandwich rose in his place to deal with his concern, every one of those members left the chamber at that time. I do not think the interests of the Legislature are well served when that kind of conduct, for whatever reason, takes place.
I do not want to be unduly prickly about this, but it concerns me as a member of this Legislature that not one of the six or seven members who were here could find it in his heart to remain behind to give the House a minimum quorum and to show some interest on the government side in the matters my friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich very properly brings to the attention of this House.
Referring to standing orders 28 and 5, I want to draw that to your attention and to the attention of the House for whatever action might be considered.
10:40 p.m.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your indulgence for a moment. What sort of situation is the Speaker in if an entire side of the House leaves when the standing rules are in effect? How would this zoo operate if everyone on this side of the House did not come in on Thursday? Where would that leave the Speaker?
Obviously, the government does nothing but show disdain for the whole process. While it might be 10:30 p.m., the rules call for this sort of debate if a member so desires. This is not the first time ministers have failed to stay around to respond. I guess that is their option.
I say this sincerely. If the Liberal and the New Democratic parties refused to come in on Thursdays, how would the Speaker be able to allow this House to continue to operate? I would suspect the Speaker would be in some difficulty. He might say, "There is a quorum," and then he would have some difficulty because neither of the opposition parties would be in attendance. Could we play that game all the time? Whenever it pleased us, could we simply vacate the building as the Tories have done tonight?
What position is the Speaker left in, and the way the system is supposed to work, when we see nothing but absolute disdain for what someone might have to say? Mr. Speaker, you have a responsibility to indicate --
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Martel: You say no. Then maybe we should try it and see how this House would operate, and whether it could operate legitimately, without the opposition parties being in here.
Mr. Bradley: Bring on the television cameras.
Mr. Martel: You say it could not operate? That is what the government has done. I do not think we on this side of the House should put up with that kind of -- I will not say it, but I think honourable members know the word of which I am thinking. It rhymes with "rap."
Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time you indicated to them your displeasure at the conduct they are demonstrating.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) make a good point. It is really a matter of courtesy. There is nothing out of order. As I read the standing orders, there is provision for a member to be heard for up to five minutes at 10:30 p.m. There is provision for a reply of up to five minutes.
Mr. Wrye: We will wait for it.
Mr. Speaker: Maybe you will.
Mr. Wrye: In the fullness of time.
Mr. Speaker: There is nothing the Speaker can do to enforce that.
I would like to make one thing very clear, and I have made this point many times. It is not the responsibility of the Speaker to ensure attendance in this House.
Mr. Martel: I understand that.
Mr. Speaker: That is the point I wanted to make.
Mr. Martel: Might I ask the Speaker one question to help me then? What position would the Speaker be in, let us say Thursday, if the opposition parties did not show up? What would you do, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: That is a rather hypothetical question.
Mr. Martel: It is not a hypothetical question, because they are playing the game.
What position would you be in? Would it be legal? Maybe you could find out whether it would be legal, whether this House would be able to operate if the opposition parties chose not to come in to listen to the stupid ministerial statements that are nothing but gobbledegook anyway.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, very briefly on that point: I do not want to belabour this, but I think the member for Sudbury East raises a hypothetical but none the less important point.
It might be helpful over the coming days if you would confer with your constitutional and parliamentary advisers who adorn the table and presumably the learned halls of academe to see exactly what the situation is. The rather breathtaking conduct of this 71-member majority government here at 10:30 of the clock tonight begs the question.
I am a great believer in parliamentary courtesies. We are here to talk, to debate and to listen. I recognize that some people have pressing obligations, but I do not think it is too much to ask, since the rules of standing order 28 provide for this.
Under that standing order, the normal business of the House carries on for such a member as my friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich, who indicated tonight his interest to pursue a very important matter in his community. We pay parliamentary secretaries to stand in for the ministers. You will well appreciate, Mr. Speaker, how ably you discharged that responsibility prior to your becoming Speaker.
I can accept that a minister might not be able to be here, but I find it very difficult that not one member of the 71-member majority government or one of the six who were here at 10:30 could not find it in his heart to be here.
If it is not a breach of the quorum, and it probably is, it is certainly a breach of one of the basic parliamentary courtesies that as long as the ordinary business of the House is carrying on, there should be at least one representative from each of the three parties. That is the way we carry on the business of the committees, and it should certainly apply in the House as well.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, it is usual that when one adjourns the debate, someone over there moves the adjournment of the House. Am I wrong?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Martel: I am wrong; it is just automatic. I thought someone usually moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. Speaker: No, at 10:30 of the clock it is automatic.
Mr. Martel: I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr. Speaker: I do not want to be argumentative, and I will find out what the honourable members have asked.
Referring to standing order 28(b), if I may just quote from the bottom of page 7, where it talks about the time limitations: "five minutes to be allowed to the member raising the matter and five minutes to the minister or to his parliamentary assistant to reply if he so wishes." There is no obligation on their part to reply.
Mr. Conway: But our question is, does the standard rule of quorum apply? Do we have a quorum when, while the business of the House is going on, one side departs the scene entirely? That is the question on which I would appreciate your thought and consideration.
Mr. Speaker: All right. I will just reinforce my own knowledge on that. I will not say; I will wait until I find out.
The House adjourned at 10:46 p.m.