Hansard Transcript 1985-Jul-11 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: John B. Aird, the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1986, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

Mr. Sterling: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: This morning in the Toronto Sun, Lorrie Goldstein wrote and implied I would miss my chauffeur and my nice salary when I was no longer included in the cabinet. I want Mr. Goldstein to know that when this member was a cabinet minister, he did not take advantage of that perk and did not have a chauffeur for the last three and a half of the four years I was a cabinet minister. I hope some of my Liberal colleagues will follow that example with regard to what they do.

Also, when I became the member for Carleton-Grenville in 1977, I took a greater pay reduction than I did when I was no longer a cabinet minister and became the member for Carleton-Grenville once again.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MASTERS GAMES

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I wish to comment now on a Globe and Mail news article because I will be leaving the House very shortly to open the games for the physically disabled in Windsor.

The article, appearing this morning, cites some serious financial and organizational concerns regarding the world Masters Games in Toronto, beginning August 7. It states further that a request has been made to the federal government for $500,000 to ensure the success of these games. Because my ministry has been responsible for amateur sport, and given the commitment of the previous government, I feel I should clarify the existing government's position in this matter.

I wish to bring to the attention of this House that the provincial commitment was originally for $150,000 towards the operation of the games. An additional $25,000 has been provided for a sports medicine symposium and an additional $32,000 will allow the games' organizers to hire summer students. These provisions have raised our commitment to $207,000.

Therefore, while we support the concept and the worthiness of these world Masters Games and fully recognize the tremendous impact in athletic and economic terms, I am convinced this government has more than met its obligation to the Masters Games' organizers.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I would like to elaborate on the estimates for 1985-86 tabled today. Given that we are already into the second quarter of the current fiscal year, I feel it important to ensure that this Legislature is aware of the spending framework established by the previous government which has been in place to date.

In isolation, these estimates do not represent how this new government will direct the expenditure of public funds this fiscal year. We will be revising spending authorities as we review previously planned expenditures. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced in his ministerial statement on July 2 that we are already pursuing a government-wide freeze and review of all advertising expenditures.

As a reflection of this government's firm commitment to sound and fiscally responsible management, other activities will also be subjected to cost-conscious scrutiny. In particular, we will be reviewing the direct operating expenditures of all ministries, including salary budgets, travel and hospitality provisions and allocations for consulting services.

Through our examination of spending plans, we will be redirecting funds to the priorities on our agenda. We will, of course, seek legislative authority through supplementary estimates for any adjustments which involve expenditure increases in particular programs and activities. Each minister of this government will indicate very clearly the adjustments we will be proposing to these initial estimates before the start of ministry-by-ministry consideration of these documents in committee.

I would remind all members that the previous government had undertaken to commit a further $181 million over and above the $28.8 billion reflected in these estimates. As indicated by the Premier, we have already begun examining as expeditiously as possible these additional authorizations provided subsequent to the May 2 election.

DROWNING DEATHS

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is with profound regret that my first statement has to deal with the tragedy of the drownings at Balsam Chutes. I wish to offer my profound regrets at the tragic loss of three lives on Tuesday of this week at Balsam Chutes on the Muskoka River and to extend my personal condolences to the relatives and friends of the victims.

I would also like to clarify some confusion that has arisen as a result of this tragedy.

Members may have heard in the media that a log boom normally located just above Balsam Chutes and maintained by the Ministry of Natural Resources was not in place at the time of the accident and that this boom might have prevented the tragedy.

2:10 p.m.

While it is true that this boom was not in place at the time of the accident, I should clarify that such log booms are not intended to be safety devices for boaters. In this case, the boom prevents debris from going down the chutes and creating hazards for swimmers below the waterfall. In most other cases, these log booms, called trash guards by engineers, are designed to protect dam structures from debris.

Historically, this boom in particular has been carried away or damaged every year by debris, high water and ice. This year it was inspected on June 28 and, largely because of record high water levels in the area, it was not repaired immediately. It will be replaced as soon as high water conditions allow ministry staff to do this safely.

I should add that there are two signs along the river, about 100 yards above the chutes, which warn boaters of the danger and fast water ahead. I understand at least one of these signs is clearly legible from the river. The sound of the falls also is quite loud at this point.

There has also been some concern expressed about the fact that the Muskoka River was flowing out of the Mary Lake dam at more than four times its normal rate at the time of this unfortunate tragedy. The river was about two feet higher than normal at the time of this accident, following more than five inches of heavy, localized rainfall over the weekend.

Members familiar with this system of dams along the Big East and Muskoka Rivers between Algonquin Park and Bracebridge know its main purpose is to keep lake levels as close to a preset level as possible for recreational uses. Under such abnormal rainfall conditions, it is not possible to ensure a constant level of water flow.

It is indeed unfortunate that this tragedy occurred. Today I have instructed my staff to make sure the signs in place at this location, and others along the river, can easily be seen by boaters to prevent another tragedy of this type. I can only urge that boaters must always be conscious of any hazards, especially in unfamiliar waters and at a time when water levels in some areas of Ontario are at record high levels.

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Elston: One of the strong commitments of my ministry is to create enhanced cancer treatment services and facilities for the people of northeastern Ontario. Therefore, l wish to inform the members of the House that the Ministry of Health has successfully recruited additional medical staff for the cancer treatment centre now being developed at Laurentian Hospital, Sudbury.

Invited by my ministry, medical oncologist Dr. Thomas Bozek recently visited the Sudbury area and the cancer treatment program. He has subsequently indicated to us his intention to return and he will join the program staff this coming October.

Earlier this year, in June, and within less than a year of taking up his position as head of the Sudbury program, Dr. Robert Corringham had planned to resign his position. Dr. Corringham had cited his extremely heavy case load and the absence of specialist support as the reasons for taking this decision.

Therefore, I am pleased to inform the House that, as a result of the hiring of Dr. Bozek, Dr. Corringham will remain in his position. I should also add that an aggressive recruitment campaign to secure a third oncologist for Sudbury is continuing. Dr. Corringham's decision and Dr. Bozek's impending arrival now mean that cancer patients in Sudbury and throughout the northeast will continue to receive a number of cancer specialist services within their local area.

ONTARIO FINANCES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to provide the House with the results of my initial review of Ontario's fiscal and economic circumstances as I found them on assuming the office of Treasurer.

Four weeks ago my predecessor, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), presented a review of Ontario's recent economic record. The data, together with more recent economic indicators, show that the economy of Ontario is performing well. The 1985 outlook prepared by my ministry indicates the expansion will continue.

Real growth in the provincial economy is expected to be 4.8 per cent; inflation is projected to be under four per cent for the year; and the economy is expected to create 180,000 jobs in 1985, up from 147,000 in 1984.

However, there are some cautions and concerns in this outlook.

The unemployment rate, which now stands at 7.7 per cent, is expected to average 8.1 per cent for the year.

Mr. Brandt: The lowest in the country.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member's interjection is correct.

Rising public debt at all levels of government continues to threaten confidence in our economy. Excluding Ontario Hydro, Ontario's debt increased from $7.8 billion to $24.6 billion in the past decade alone.

There remain severe problems in the agriculture sector which must be addressed.

The recent federal budget will have a negative effect on Ontario's economy and is going to make it more difficult to deal with unemployment. Tax increases and higher fuel prices for consumers will reduce consumer spending and dampen economic activity in Ontario. The major impact of these developments will be felt in 1986.

Leading economic indicators show that the United States' economy is slowing down, making it more difficult to sell our goods in the American market.

The resolution of a number of important trade issues may also have a significant impact on the Ontario economy and our capacity to provide the jobs our citizens need. For example, ensuring that we maintain an environment of fair trade and investment is important to the continued strength and growth of all industry, particularly the Ontario automotive industry.

We must prepare for another round of multilateral trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and we must be fully prepared to face the challenges these will present to Ontario interests, not only in manufacturing but also in agriculture and other sectors of the economy.

As a response to emerging protectionist sentiment south of the border, it has been suggested we move quickly to enter free trade arrangements with the United States. I urge caution. We must be sure the price we pay for greater access to the American market is not too high in terms of our own jobs. The livelihood of our people is very much on the line.

The legislative committee on Ontario's economy announced by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was established yesterday and will, I hope, provide advice to this House on the matter of trade with the United States without delay.

I will now turn to a brief review of the fiscal circumstances we were presented with by the former government.

The members will recall that the fourth quarter Ontario Finances released four weeks ago reported net cash requirements of $1.7 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, that is, for the last fiscal year. The figures I will now share with the House reflect the spending plans of the previous government as we found them and the Treasury staff's forecast of revenues under the existing tax system.

On this basis, the net cash requirements of the province would grow to $2.2 billion. The previous government's throne speech included a large number of costly new programs and tax expenditures. I am advised these would have added at least a further $400 million to the deficit, bringing the total to $2.6 billion in this fiscal year. At the same time, the previous government committed itself to providing these programs without major tax increases.

It is evident that either revenue increases or spending restraints, or both, would have been required in their budget to keep the throne speech commitment to continued deficit reduction.

What does this mean for Ontario's credit rating? The members are all aware that there has been pressure on the credit rating for some time. Last fall the then Treasurer said, with respect to Standard and Poor's concern about the growing ratio of debt service costs to revenue, that it was his intention to stabilize this ratio. He also said his staff calculated that the 1985-86 deficit would have to be no more than $1.2 billion to do this. My staff informs me that this is still the case. In other words, a $1.2-billion deficit -- net cash requirement -- is the magic number. That is a long way from what we have been left with.

2:20 p.m.

The magnitude of the gap between $2.2 billion, or more likely $2.6 billion, and the $1.2-billion benchmark dealt with by the then Treasurer last fall makes it clear that the triple-A rating must be in jeopardy. However, any objective observer would agree that, based on the benchmarks of strength, diversity and growth in our economy, our creditworthiness is undoubtedly sound.

In these circumstances, we will be reordering the priorities of government to reflect the views and aspirations of the people of this province as expressed in the last election. We are committed to fulfilling the program outlined by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on July 2 and we will do so within a framework of fiscal responsibility and openness.

For example, we are committed to addressing the problems of unemployment, especially that of our youth.

We are committed to full funding for separate schools. Necessary funds have been set aside to begin the program this fall as announced by the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway). For the first school year, from September to August, the estimated cost of this initiative is $80 million, $34 million of which will be provided by the province in this fiscal year.

Ensuring the future viability of the agricultural sector is a priority for the government. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) will soon announce a program that will assist farmers in reducing the cost of their long-term debt.

My colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) will announce measures to address the pressing problem of the supply of affordable rental housing which will complement our recent changes to the rent review program.

My colleagues will be presenting the other elements of our government's program to the House this fall.

As I have already indicated, fiscal responsibility will be one of our highest priorities. Already we have begun to cut the cost of government by doing the following:

A review of $181 million in expenditure commitments made since May 2 has been initiated. This amount is the excess over the total spending provided for in the estimates tabled today, which were addressed by my colleague the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Ms. Caplan).

I am informed that the plans under way when this government assumed office provided for increased staffing levels which would have led to an overall increase in the size of the public service. This situation will also be reviewed by my colleagues on the Management Board of Cabinet.

We have initiated a major review of crown assets with a view to disposing of some crown corporations, surplus lands and other holdings, including Suncor.

The three provincial policy secretariats are being eliminated.

The Royal Commission on the Northern Environment has finally been wound up. This government intends to take positive steps to stimulate northern development and environmental enhancement, not study these matters endlessly.

A freeze on planned advertising has been imposed.

The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development committee will not be reappointed and its administrative structure will be wound down as quickly as possible. In doing so, I want to assure community groups, municipalities, universities, other public agencies and Ontario industries that funds will be available to complete projects or initiatives now under way.

My colleague the Chairman of Management Board will be undertaking the process of identifying other expenditure-reduction opportunities. Our preliminary assessment is that as much as $250 million can be saved from this year's spending plans.

As members of the House know, I have been and remain concerned about the size of Ontario Hydro's debt and borrowing. Hydro's debt, more than half of which has been borrowed abroad, is now $21.9 billion. While Hydro's borrowing this year is lower than it was last year, I will ensure future borrowing occurs within responsible limits. One of the first things I did on assuming office was to meet with the chairman of Hydro to assess its finances. I intend to keep a close watch on its capital market activities.

I might mention at this point that I have instructed my officials to conduct a review of the province's financial policies and fiscal advisory arrangements over the summer.

Before concluding this statement, I would like to say a few words about budget preparations. Next week I begin consulting with interested organizations and community groups to obtain their advice in the preparation of the budget I intend to have ready to present to this House in October.

Furthermore, I believe the prebudget consultation process can be improved. I intend to present a paper with the budget containing proposals to open up the process to ensure greater involvement by members of this House and by Ontarians in general.

I would also like to say that anyone in Ontario is, of course, welcome to send me his or her views and comments in preparation for the budget.

In summary, Ontario's economy continues to show considerable strength, notwithstanding some troubling concerns. We must address these concerns, and protect and strengthen our capacity to overcome the problems that face us, in particular the challenge of unacceptably high levels of unemployment. We are determined to fulfil our commitments, but we will do so in a fiscally responsible manner so we can confidently plan for the future.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) advised that he was dissatisfied with the answer given by a minister to a question in the oral question period. I later learned that his complaint referred to the matter which had already been disposed of in the adjournment debate on Tuesday of this week. There is no provision in the standing orders for such a complaint and, therefore, I must rule the member out of order.

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

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the honourable member wish to challenge my ruling?

Mr. Warner: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member wish to make any comments on my ruling?

Mr. Warner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I would say the honourable member cannot; he can only challenge.

Mr. Warner: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: On the same matter?

Mr. Warner: On a point of privilege, I wish to make a request of the Speaker that he take it into his purview to review substantially rules 28(a) and 28(b).

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO FINANCES

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have a question by surprise to the Treasurer, dash, Minister of Revenue.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Dash, House leader.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Yes -- dash, House leader. I would say with all those three jobs, "stroke" is a better appellation.

I am delighted with some parts of the so-called economic statement, because as I interpret it, the Treasurer has really told the world that what the Treasurer under our regime said was the state of affairs at the end of the fiscal year -- that is $1.7 billion cash requirements, down $600 million from the year before -- was true. He has gone on and implied that his interpretation of our spending for this year would require $2.2 billion of cash requirements.

Now let him tell me this. What effect on cash requirements will the Treasurer's spending plans have?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Our spending is going to be based on the statement made by the new Premier (Mr. Peterson) of Ontario on the program he put before this House, which is going to be implemented on a timetable that will be made clear and is already under way with the presentation of Bill 30, which we hope will be passed this afternoon or later today.

The remaining parts of this program have been announced in this short session or will be announced during the summer recess, and the completion of the program will be announced later in the year.

The ramifications of the costs, balanced with the revenues that must support them, will be a part of the budget that I have already told the House I will be presenting in October.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I think I have no answer, no program, no budget. How can we really tell? The Treasurer says on page 13 that he is going to save $250 million in the year. Could he tell us which of the services of this government he is going to save that money on? Is he going to cut health care spending, educational spending, social services? What is he going to cut that on?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have already provided a list of what we have done in the few short days we have been in office. We have wound up the secretariats that have been the sacred cows of the Tory stable for these many years; we are cleaning up the aftermath of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, which is the aftermath of the political campaign of 1981; and the list remains before the members.

I can also assure the member that my colleague the new Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan) is extremely sensitive, capable and skilled, and with the co-operation of all her colleagues, we foresee no problem in paring -- that is, saving -- another quarter of a billion dollars from the spending estimates presented by my predecessor.

Mr. Rae: In one of the background papers to his much-heralded budget of May 1985, the Honourable Michael Wilson told the people of Canada that 30 per cent of corporations making profits do not pay any taxes here. Is it the Treasurer's intention, in reviewing the Ontario government's own spending plans, to deal directly with tax expenditures and loopholes in the province and the impact these are having on the deficit?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have already referred to the process of consultation and review that will take place over the next few weeks and months, but the leader of the third party may recall that, during my time as financial critic for the official opposition, I was called upon to criticize the tax initiatives taken by the former government on many occasions. I reviewed those very carefully during those years, and I hope the results of impressions formed in those days will not be lost, not only during the review period, but also during the budget I look forward to presenting to the House in October.

Miss Stephenson: In the light of the fact the provincial secretariats were in effect eliminated before this new government arrived, and that accounts for a saving of somewhere in the range of only $5 million, I wonder if I could ask the Treasurer how he is going to finance the elimination of Ontario hospital insurance plan premiums and the introduction of dental care?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member will be aware that both those important programs were part of the Liberal platform in the recent election campaign. We expect to have the responsibilities of government for at least four and perhaps 40 years. I see some looks of incredulity on the other side, but they know in their hearts that the start in government presented by the new Premier must be the sort of thing for which people are looking, in which they will have confidence, and that they will maintain over the years. Naturally, the fulfilment of these matters awaits a time in the future of this government, and I confidently look forward to that.

JOB CREATION

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have another question of the Treasurer. As I recall the job -- and it is one I held -- the title is Treasurer and Minister of Economics, and the economics side in many ways is the most important part because that is where the job creation measures must come.

Our government had a lot of measures to stimulate job creation in the small business sector. Where is this government taking any steps to help that sector? How is this government going to do it?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In the statement I just delivered, I refer to a climate of confidence, competition and free trade, which our policies are designed to foster. The Leader of the Opposition will recall that, during the campaign, when his very generous commitment to small business came into question, the comparison finally settled in our favour was the commitment by our Premier (Mr. Peterson), then the Leader of the Opposition, that our assistance to small business would be payable in conjunction with the provision of jobs associated with those dollars, and that is our commitment.

Miss Stephenson: It was not the people of Ontario who made that judgement.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I do not recall its having been settled in the government's favour; 52 to 48 was not that.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We are over here and you are over there.

Miss Stephenson: You are over there because of them.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: They vote too, you know.

Mr. F. S. Miller: The only side that is on his side is over there, where they are afraid to help any small business person in the province create a job through the tax system. Does this mean the government has given up faith in the small business sector and is not going to help it?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can assure the member that the opposite is the fact. The small business community has been in the past and will be in the future the engine for the provision of jobs, in small numbers per unit but together in large numbers -- jobs which can improve to a tremendous degree the employment prospects for all people, including young people in this province.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer admits his government is committed to reducing unemployment. However, in this statement he also admits that the unemployment rate will be 8.1 per cent on a calendar-year basis. Does he not realize that is an unacceptable rate for a province as rich as Ontario? What specific steps is he going to take to reduce that unemployment rate? What targets will he set to reduce that unemployment rate? Does he not think it is important to introduce a budget with specifics that will reduce the unemployment rate long before October?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to respond to this important question since the statistics having to do with employment reflected the figure put by my predecessor in her statement at 7.7 per cent unemployment, and indicated that over the year the average would be 8.1.

I do not think those figures are particularly significant in that they differ a bit because the unemployment level during January, February and March of the calendar year was considerably higher than the 7.7 per cent at the time the former Treasurer made her statement. The average over the whole year will be a bit higher than 7.7. We hope that in the averaging of these figures, the 7.7 per cent can be maintained or improved.

The member will also recall that in the election campaign we recently enjoyed, one of the principal components of the platform of the Liberal Party had to do with an employment program stressing opportunities for young people. This has yet to be announced by my colleague the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara), but the basis of the commitment had to do with providing a guarantee of a year's work for young people under the age of 24 who had a record of long-term unemployment.

This would be particularly associated with the responsibility of the young people who take advantage of the program to undertake educational upgrading as part of that year's employment, with the assistance of the correct ministry of government.

We hope, and I confidently expect, that program will be initiated and announced in the near future because it is needed, and I believe we as members of the Legislature must make a commitment to it.

Miss Stephenson: Last year a great deal of concern was expressed by the present Treasurer to the then Treasurer that there was not sufficient commitment to summer employment for young people in this province. Where is the Treasurer's commitment to summer employment for young people this year, since there is no economic statement, no budget and no measure of activity that is in any way visible in support of employment for young people during the summer months?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As the former Treasurer pointed out, or at least it was implicit in her question, unfortunately, when we talk about the improved level of employment, that is not reflected to the same degree for young people.

I believe there are still 150,000 young people under the age of 24 looking for work in Ontario at present, a number that is agonizingly large for us and much worse for them. The program I described in general terms a moment ago, which was part of the Liberal election platform and which I trust will be announced in specific terms by my colleagues, is designed to meet that problem in part.

2:40 p.m.

There is no point in going over old programs and threshing old straw, but the member may recall that the programs introduced by the then Treasurer in 1984 were a mess of 70 acronymic programs, which not even he understood. One of his closest friends and supporters, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who continues to try to get me into trouble, described the package as "a youth jab stew," to use his words. That was a good description, because it was so complex that nobody understood it, and when we look at the comparative figures, it did not work. We have a program that will be introduced, and it will work.

ONTARIO FINANCES

Mr. Rae: I am a little surprised the leader of the Tory party did not address this question, since it is at the very centre of the Treasurer's statement today. With respect to the taboo, sacred, almighty and holy question of the triple-A credit rating, the Treasurer has stated that in his judgement the rating is in jeopardy and that unless the province gets to $1.2 billion as a deficit figure, it will be lost.

I want the Treasurer to state categorically, if he can, that in any negotiations or discussions with Standard and Poor's to meet the triple-A target set by that agency, the government will not sacrifice basic programs in the areas of social services, education, job creation and the need to deal with unemployment in this province.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The leader of the New Democratic Party is aware of the phrase "within a framework of fiscal responsibility," which has been used from time to time on this side of the House. I can assure the member that implementation of the priorities set forth by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) a week ago will be entered into in that framework of fiscal priorities.

The obvious question that follows is, who judges that? I am the person who has been commissioned by the Premier, and in a sense by the Lieutenant Governor, to be the judge. That judgement will be arrived at by the government of Ontario, not by any other jurisdiction or by any emanation of the financial community. We understand our responsibilities to carry out the business of the province in a fair and judicious manner, and our priorities will be established here.

Mr. Rae: I hope the Treasurer agrees we will all be the judges of fiscal responsibility in this Legislature --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: And the people.

Mr. Rae: And the people of the province will ultimately judge.

However, because it is important, I want to focus on the fact that it is time we got away from the hocus-pocus of the triple-A rating. Does the Treasurer accept the fact that the real cost to British Columbia, for example, of the loss of one grade from the august authorities on Wall Street is about one eighth of a percentage point on its long-term borrowing rate?

Can the Treasurer tell us the impact on Ontario's borrowing will be minimal, since so little of our borrowing is done on public markets? Can he give us an estimate of what the cost will be so we can get this monkey off our backs once and for all and deal with fiscal responsibility in this Legislature and not allow the budget of our province to be sacrificed to Wall Street in the way budgets have been sacrificed in the past?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On the question of the impact of a possible reduction in rating, I want to deal with that in general terms and with some specific numbers.

We hope there will not be a derating, but that is not directly in our hands. There are two rating agencies -- as a matter of fact, there is also a rather small but significant Canadian rating agency, which already rates Ontario as "triple A (low)." I do not know what the former Treasurer, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), did to them on one occasion, but there it is.

My first question when this matter was dealt with by my officials was similar to the one the leader of the third party has placed before the House. I was told that if there were a derating of one section, or whatever they call it, it could cost between $3 million and $5 million a year in the first year for Ontario and for Ontario Hydro, or it could be between $6 million and $10 million in the first year.

The former Treasurer is going to get up on this and talk about the cumulative effect, and there is no doubt that if there is a lower rating year by year, the additional interest costs will be cumulative as the debt is rolled over. I am not in a position to make an extrapolation of that. If we are faced with a reduction in the rating, we will have to provide specific information immediately, depending on what that is.

I am still hoping that when the people in New York, Ottawa and Oshkosh look at the capabilities of the new government and realize they are judging the economy of this great jurisdiction, they will be able to maintain our credit rating. But that is something that is done externally and it is not going to influence our priorities directly in any inordinate way.

Mr. Grossman: I presume the Treasurer in his response next fall will confirm very clearly that we still today have the triple-A credit rating. I am sure he will be gracious enough to do that in responding to this.

In view of the Treasurer's own remarks that if any jurisdiction can maintain the triple-A credit rating, we should be able to do that, and having proved conclusively to the Premier that the $43-million increase in hospital budgets was an across-the-board increase of one per cent to every hospital without any political whim between hospitals, can he explain to us why this government is continuing to hold out the threat of reducing that $43-million grant to the hospitals across this province which badly need those dollars?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There were two parts to the question. There is no doubt the triple-A rating applies in this jurisdiction at present. My statement today was a disclosure of the spending programs of the previous government.

Miss Stephenson: By your interpretation.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is right. The spending estimates were those approved by the former Management Board and are tabled today from His Honour, signed by his own hand. Those spending estimates were the spending program of the previous government.

The previous government said clearly it was not going to raise taxes in any significant way. We know the projections for growth, and those have been factored into the revenue projections. If those were established -- if those people sitting over there, God forbid, were still in power -- the deficit, or cash requirement, would be at least $2.6 billion.

We need only think of the magic number put before this House repeatedly and in Hansard last year by the former Treasurer, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, when he said it would be $1.2 billion and beyond that the ratios would indicate severe and serious jeopardy.

While we could say that what the former Treasurer has indicated is a fact, the books -- the fiscal and financial situation we have fully disclosed today by tabling this information and making this statement -- indicate the jeopardy I have already referred to.

What was the member's second question?

There is a good deal to be said about this. Members may recall that after the trips to New York by the then Treasurer and the then Premier and all the fooling around in the Legislature in trying to extract some specific information from those two worthies, the then Premier did not feel it was incumbent upon him to establish the transfer levels to municipalities, hospital boards and school boards at the usual time in November.

As a matter of fact, he went fishing or something and decided his successor could deal with that knotty matter as soon as he or she took office. That is a fact. Then the decision was made by the new Premier that the transfers would be very low, indeed dramatically low, although in a sense it was hidden by being involved with the capital transfers as well. Do members remember that?

2:50 p.m.

As soon as that happened, the hospitals immediately contacted the government and private members, saying arbitration had established their salary and wage increases by as much as five per cent. The outgoing government of that day maintained the transfers at less than three per cent. Where is this going to break? How are we possibly going to do anything with it? In the last two days of the former government, it announced a one per cent improvement.

Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I understand the projections that have been viewed by the Treasurer and members of his staff have not been approved entirely by Management Board. That is a very significant error on the part of the Treasurer and one he should correct.

Mr. Speaker: I do not really think that is a point of privilege. It is a point of view.

Miss Stephenson: It is a point of fact.

Mr. Speaker: It is still not a point of privilege. I am sure you will be able to give your point of view on the supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer has given us a statement today of faith, hope and charity. It contains a lot of faith, some hope and he expects us to deal with it in the spirit of charity.

I ask the Treasurer, as a duty, to state before us what his priorities are in establishing a budget, because it will be very delayed this year. The Treasurer says he is going to establish priorities, but he does not tell us what they are.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Foulds: Is his priority the triple-A rating, which was that of the Tory party, or is it service to people in education, community and social services, and job creation?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The priorities were established in a statement by the Premier at the beginning of this session; they are all there for members to read again, and I advise them to do so. We have begun to initiate those priorities. A week ago Thursday, the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) introduced a bill with a full funding explanation. We are moving forward in these matters. The priorities were established by the leader of the government in his statement.

I recognize the fact that a budget in October falls almost in the middle of the normal cycle; therefore, any savings or revenue changes introduced and announced will not have much impact. I certainly hope to return to the normal budgetary cycle for next year and the decade following. That is what I intend to do.

I know the member wants a more direct answer about the triple-A rating. I say again, and I cannot say it more plainly, the priorities for our program are established by the Premier, and priorities for payment of those and the general initiatives involved will be established in this House by this government and by nobody and nowhere else.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, and a very significant one: The Treasurer has made a statement that has direct implications with regard to this House's understanding of the statement he has delivered today. He has indicated the figures put forward reflect the previous government's estimates of its programs. With respect, that is not accurate. What the Treasurer ought to be saying is that the statements reflect his government's estimates of the previous government's programs. That is a very important point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Treasurer wish to make a brief comment?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would just say to --

Interjections.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Stop the clock if you are going to let this tomfoolery continue. He is abusing our privileges in question period.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for your advice.

PUBLIC SERVANTS' RIGHTS

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Attorney General and concerns the question of the rights of the tens of thousands of people who work for the province.

The Attorney General will know that the accord refers specifically to the need for us to clarify and expand the rights of people who work for the government of Ontario. Does he think it is reasonable that civil servants should be prevented from participating in political activity of any kind whatsoever, even to the point of stopping people who work for the Ministry of Natural Resources, or any other ministry, from putting signs up on their lawns?

Does the Attorney General intend to deal with the rights of public servants in the very near future and with the question of the gag of the oath of secrecy that is now required in the province of Ontario? I remind the Attorney General this is not required of public servants in Britain or in the United States.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the member for his question. As he knows, the provisions of the Public Service Act and the regulations under it impose a series of very severe restrictions on public servants of high or low degree against participating in a wide range of political activities, all the way from running for office at the higher end to putting a sign on one's lawn at the lower end.

I am of the view, as is my party, and it is a matter about which we campaigned in the last election, that many of these restrictions are unduly severe and inappropriate in a fully democratic society. As soon as we are given a minute from the other tasks that have been imposed on us by the House, we propose to turn to a review of this legislation to see whether something cannot be done to make the rights of our public servants in the province more fully democratic and open.

Mr. Rae: The Attorney General will know, and he will know for a number of reasons in the light of his former activities before being elected to this place, that the government of Ontario is the respondent in a suit that has been filed by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

He will also know that Mr. Inniss is filing a grievance with respect to his inability as a public servant and as a member of the Ministry of the Environment even to share information with Environment Canada because he was told by his political superiors that he was not to release information with respect to pollution even to Environment Canada.

I hope the Attorney General realizes these cases are now pending and are not only costing money but in some cases costing considerable personal hardship as well.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Rae: Does the Attorney General not think it is important for the government to clarify its position quickly so these matters can be resolved?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Scott: With respect to the first case my friend referred to, a couple of weeks ago I used to think the applicants would probably win that case. I now suspect the Attorney General may win it.

In any event, it is before the court -- indeed, I think before the Supreme Court of Canada -- and the court will be asked to pass upon the impact of the charter in relation to provisions of our Public Service Act. It may be only a matter of months before that decision is at hand, and such a decision will be extremely helpful in assisting our review of the process.

As the member has said, I am well aware that it is a matter of very great concern to public servants. I have it very close to my own interests. We will attend to the matter as quickly as we can make an effective, thorough review.

Mr. Rae: As a final supplementary, the Attorney General will also know -- and this again is a matter of which I know he is personally aware -- that the government of Ontario, together with a number of other provinces, has joined with Alberta in an appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify the meaning of the words "freedom of association" in the Charter of Rights.

It is my understanding that the position of the government of Ontario restricts the meaning of those words to a very minimal point, which does not include the right to organize, the right to strike or even the right to substitute a right to arbitration for the right to strike.

Does the Attorney General not feel embarrassed and does the government not feel embarrassed to be joining with the government of Alberta in restricting the overall rights of workers in this province and in restricting the meaning of the words "freedom of association"?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will have to get a lecture on supplementary questions, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think that has anything to do with the first question, but I leave that up to you.

The fact is that the previous Attorney General and his government filed a brief in the case to which my friend has referred. We had no opportunity and, indeed, could not have been consulted with respect to it. I have no complaint about the previous Attorney General's conduct and decision-making in filing that brief. I have nothing more to say. The matter has been fully argued by the Supreme Court of Canada. I am not in the least embarrassed to have it decide the issues.

LEARNING DISABLED

Mr. Cousens: I would like to ask the Minister of Education a question that has to do with Bill 82, a very important piece of legislation. It concerns a 17-year-old boy from my riding. I know the Minister of Education and all members of this Legislature do not want to treat children with learning disabilities as guinea pigs, but as first-class citizens.

Can the minister do anything to help this very special boy, who has been studying and doing well at Gow School in the United States? He is now faced with the implementation of Bill 82. His psychologist has said that Robert would be at risk without the continued support of the co-ordinated remedial programs he is currently receiving. The York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board has said it obviously cannot offer at this time a comprehensive, full-day program similar to the one Robert is currently receiving at Gow School.

Can the minister do anything to allow this boy to maintain a high quality of education, or will he take a chance on his future and allow him to be placed in a substandard, second-class learning environment?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I take note of the honourable member's representation. I know, as do all members, that there have been difficult situations identified to many of us over the past number of years. The final plans for the implementation of Bill 82 are now being reviewed by the Ministry of Education. The member should refer his constituent to the regional office of the ministry in his constituency. If that is not satisfactory, I am certainly prepared to entertain a representation on his part, so I can review the file personally.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to receive that kind of support. I hope the minister can do more to help not only this young boy -- and I will send along the details on the matter --

Mr. Wildman: Than the previous government did.

Mr. Cousens: The member had his chance and he seems to abuse it. Let us be concerned about the boys and girls who are going ahead in this world and about whom there is still a chance to do something.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member address his supplementary to the chair.

Mr. Cousens: It is very difficult with the rump.

I hope the Minister of Education can take this boy seriously and all the other young people who are faced with a program problem this fall. There may be some cases where the program will not be available within the local jurisdiction to solve their needs. They could miss a year. If there is anything the minister can do to help them or any others, will he be prepared to do so in those special circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to assure the member for York Centre I take his representation very seriously. I know from personal experience the considerable difficulties a number of these students have found themselves in as a result of the evolutionary process that has been a part of the previous government's approach to special education. The final plans for the implementation of the special education legislation, Bill 82, are now being reviewed by the ministry. It is hoped that all boards will be in a position to offer appropriate placements and programs in September 1985.

If that is not the case in York region, I would reiterate to the member that in the first instance he should refer the parents to the regional office. If that does not meet with a satisfactory response, I would be very prepared to involve myself personally to ensure that this young person receives the appropriate placement to which the member makes reference.

Mr. Allen: Any Tory member of this assembly ought to be embarrassed to stand up and ask a question like that.

Is the minister aware that it is not just one case in one riding that has been left in an impoverished and difficult situation? Many of these parents, who are looking for fair treatment under the special education act this fall, have been left by the previous administration. Is he not aware that the solution is not on a one-to-one basis? Many boards do not have the facilities to meet the special needs of those children who have special learning disabilities and who have had go to private institutions.

Will the minister give the House a commitment that he will provide for those children who are going to be in places where they do not get service? Will he provide a moratorium of one year?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes, I am aware that there have been more than a few cases of particular difficulty. I have had some personal experiences in my own constituency, as my friend the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) points out. In my new responsibilities, I certainly intend to monitor very carefully the final implementation of Bill 82 and take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that a very high quality of special education is provided to all people in Ontario.

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION

Mr. Swart: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It concerns a proposed urbanization of the prime food lands in Brampton on which, as he knows, the Ontario Municipal Board has not yet made a decision. This is considered by many people as a very real signpost for food land preservation.

The minister will recall that the former Minister of Agriculture and Food notified the OMB and others concerned that it was his government's policy that there was no objection to including 4,000 acres of prime food land within the urban boundaries. As a member, the minister opposed that, as we did in this party. Now he is in charge of food land preservation policy.

Has the minister notified the Ontario Municipal Board that it would now be contrary to his government's policy to approve the redesignation of those 4,000 acres from agriculture for development? If he has not, is he going to do so quickly?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I want to thank the member for the question. He well knows that I too made a presentation before the hearing board expressing my concern about annexing prime agricultural land, which is best left for agricultural purposes.

3:10 p.m.

My answer is no, I have not written to the Ontario Municipal Board. I assure the member that it will be one thing I will immediately divert my attention to. I will see if there is anything that can be done now that the Ontario Municipal Board is in the process of making a decision. It may well be that there is nothing I can do at this time, but I will certainly look into it and do whatever I can.

Mr. Swart: I would like to say I am disappointed the minister did not give a flat commitment on this. I wonder whether he recalls that one statement in the brief he submitted to the OMB said, "There is no justification that would allow development of these agricultural lands."

Mr. Speaker: What would you like to ask the minister?

Mr. Swart: Will the minister either give this House a commitment that he will notify the Ontario Municipal Board that it now is contrary to government policy for that land to be included, or will he assure this House that when the matter comes before cabinet by appeal he will recommend to cabinet that it be disallowed?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I will certainly be having something to say when it comes before cabinet. I am in favour of our food land guidelines and I am in favour of protecting agricultural lands; I want to make that point clear. I will be defending that policy before cabinet. What I have to check out is whether there is anything I can do at this time when the OMB is currently meeting to make a decision on the matter. I am not sure there is anything I can do at this time, but if there is, I can assure the honourable member I will do it.

FIRST-CONTRACT DISPUTES

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I would like to respond to the question posed by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) in the House yesterday on the efforts of the ministry to resolve the question of the dispute in Thunder Bay and also to his supplementary question about retroactivity of first-contract arbitration legislation.

With respect to the dispute, I am sure the honourable member knows a mediator was appointed on April 2 of this year before the inception of the strike. The latest mediation meeting was late last month, on June 21, and the mediator remains available to the parties for any assistance they may request. We are continuing to monitor the situation.

The member also asked about the prospect of resolving the Kresge dispute by arbitration. I am sure he knows this, but I want to remind him of it. The Labour Relations Act contemplates arbitration only with the consent of both parties to the dispute. I have indicated to my officials that the mediator might explore with the parties whether an agreement can be reached to submit the matters in dispute to arbitration, but I note again the voluntary nature of that.

As well, the government has announced its intention, as I mentioned yesterday, to introduce first-contract legislation later in the session. The determination of the exact form of the legislation will be decided after close examination by the ministry. It is my intention that the legislation should be fair and proper. As the member knows one of the purposes of the legislation will be to resolve difficult first-collective-agreement negotiations without putting the parties through the hardship of a protracted work stoppage. At the same time, we recognize that the principle of free collective bargaining should be encouraged.

To conclude, in keeping with the purpose, I believe parties to a labour dispute in progress at the time the legislation is enacted should be afforded the opportunity to apply for first-contract arbitration, subject to meeting any conditions necessary to invoke the legislation.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister saying that a current first-contract dispute such as the Kresge one I outlined to him will be subjected to the same kind of attrition, the same kind of union-busting tactics that Eaton's engaged in with its workers? Does he not think it is extremely important for the first-contract disputes that are currently under way, whether at Kresge in Thunder Bay or wherever, that this government's legislation, which will be brought in this session but some months hence, cover those current disputes? Will the minister not ensure that they have a fair chance at this first-contract legislation, which he has promised to bring in?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think the honourable member would agree with me that it is reasonable that those disputes in progress at the time of the enactment of the legislation would be those to which it would refer. I hope by suggesting that, perhaps in this dispute and in a number of others, the two parties might want to be in contact with the mediator and move to a resolution of the dispute, if the parties cannot reach a first agreement through the arbitration process right now, rather than wait for the legislation.

PARTY ON LEGISLATIVE LAWN

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Attorney General. Will the minister confirm that on the evening of May 29, on the grounds of the Legislature of Ontario, he held a party for well over 100 people at which liquor was served, and that he openly and unashamedly stated for all to hear that he had not obtained a liquor licence and then invited them to enjoy, in his words, "illicit champagne"?

Hon. Mr. Scott: On that day, the St. David Liberal Association, which is unaccustomed to celebrating anything, decided to hold a celebration. Arrangements were made with the Speaker's office to hold it on the lawn. The event was catered, the punch was served and a good time was had by all. We departed from the premises in about two hours.

Mr. Gordon: I am astounded. I have to say I believe --

Mr. Speaker: Is your question, "Should I be astounded"?

Mr. Gordon: I believe the privileges and the reputation, not only of this member but of the members of this House, have been held in disrepute to the public.

I would like the Attorney General to explain how he, a lawyer trained in the law, not a neophyte lawyer; an MPP elected to make the laws in this province, and at the time this party was held, widely speculated to be the next Attorney General, did not comprehend the seriousness of what he was doing? Of all people, he should have known the seriousness of this offence.

The caterers, En Ville, certainly knew the seriousness of the offence because they have told us they were shocked when they arrived to find that the minister had not sought a permit. I say to the minister, how can he expect the people of this province --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gordon: Are you going to cover up? Are you covering up? Is that what you are going to do as Speaker? On a point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of privilege?

Mr. Gordon: My point of privilege is this, Mr. Speaker. How can we expect the people of this province to obey the liquor laws of Ontario when they know the chief law officer of the crown arrogantly, knowingly and deliberately flouted the law and set himself above the law?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened to the member very carefully. His last sentence was, "I would like to say," after he had asked a question.

Mr. McClellan: He also accused you of covering up, Mr. Speaker.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am quite concerned by what the member has said. I believe he accused the Speaker of covering up.

Mr. Gordon: I asked whether you would allow me to continue or whether you were going to cover up.

Mr. Speaker: I am very much alarmed by that language. I would say the supplementary has been completed and I will ask the Attorney General to respond.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The event in question was put on by the St. David Liberal Association. I was the guest of honour. I made the arrangements by asking the Speaker's office for permission to have a short party between five and seven o'clock on the lawn, and that permission was granted. The food and other arrangements were made by others. I was not aware of what was arranged.

I take it very seriously if the member is prepared to accuse me of a criminal offence, which I think he did. He has the privilege of the chamber and he is entitled to say that but I am upset by it and I make that response.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw the remark to you about covering up.

Mr. Speaker: I accept the honourable member's withdrawal.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The Minister of Health is aware, I am sure, that the review that had been ongoing with regard to the assistive devices program by the Conservative Party when it was in power has long been completed. What is the intention of the Ministry of Health? Will it expand the assistive devices program for those over 18 or is the status quo going to prevail?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have been actively reviewing the programs that are now in place in a number of segments of our ministry. Some initiatives have been taken in areas where we had commitments early on. The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) knows about some of them very well. Other initiatives will be dealt with as we are able to come to grips with the time constraints and that is one area we are actively looking at.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I remind the minister that the expansion of the assistive devices program was endorsed by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), a former critic for the Liberal Party, and by the former member for Hamilton Centre, Sheila Copps, when she was the critic. It is endorsed by the Canadian Paraplegic Association and the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped. All the work has been done and all the groups are on side.

The Conservatives had promised that they were finally going to do it. Why can the minister not get on with it since thousands of physically handicapped individuals in this province need the assistance of the assistive devices program? It is something that should be done immediately. When is the minister going to do it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am sure the member realizes it takes more than a snap of the forgers to put programs in place. We have been actively working on some of the issues that deal specifically with implementing programs. That is one of the programs we are looking at and he ought to know it takes a little time to do it.

I have been working very hard on specific programs. I again mention the program for which the member for Port Arthur is very much personally engaged, and one we are working on speedily. The program of the member for Windsor-Riverside is another I am personally concerned with. I am looking at it hard, but I cannot do it overnight. I am working at it and I will do something about it soon. The member will have to wait for my schedule on it because there are also other time constraints in place at the Ministry of Health with respect to other issues.

Mr. Pope: The Minister of Health is aware that the previous government committed itself to expansion and funded the expanded assistive devices program as of July l. Has the minister implemented those long-standing commitments? If not, why? If he is going to expand them, how will he do so?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The former Minister of Health, once removed, will realize it was not during his mandate those steps were taken. He might well explain why he was unable to act in those situations. It might be very interesting to ask him a little about it. We are reviewing all the programs that have been tucked away since May 2 and up to June 26. I have commented to the member for Windsor-Riverside that we are looking at these programs, and I am proceeding with as much dispatch as I can possibly muster under the circumstances.

Mr. Pope: I will expect an explanation tomorrow on that issue. He knows it was approved in February.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Pope: Today we have witnessed the biggest cop-out on political commitments since Neville Chamberlain. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) will know where that quote comes from. I want to question the Attorney General, since the Premier would not give us a straight answer last Friday. He went out and gave his opinion to the press. He would not answer the questions in the House.

On the issue of extra billing, I want to know why the government is doing a song and dance. The Attorney General knows the Quebec option allows extra billing to continue; it does not end it. He is doing a dance on this. I want to ask him whether the government has sought, or whether he is aware of an opinion that the extra-billing provisions of the Canada Health Act may be unconstitutional or at variance with the charter provisions, or that a reasonable challenge to the provisions exists?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not know whether my ministry has sought such an opinion, but I will undertake to find out and let the member know.

Mr. Pope: I asked whether the Attorney General was aware of such an opinion, that extra-billing provisions could be contrary to the Constitution or the charter. He is aware of public reports that the constitutionality of the issue is in question, that it may be challenged in the courts.

On the separate school issue, even though the preponderance of public opinion was that it was constitutional --

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary has been asked.

Mr. Pope: I am asking why this government is treating the constitutionality of extra billing differently from that of separate school funding.

Hon. Mr. Scott: There is a difference. In the medical matter, the bill is a federal act. In the school matter, the bill is provincial. There are, therefore, constitutional imperatives dictated by that simple fact that relate to the division of powers.

The member asked if the ministry had obtained an opinion on the Health Act. I undertook to find out for him.

PETITIONS

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Laughren: I have over 500 petitions, many of which are from the riding of Cochrane South, believe it or not, which read as follows:

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

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

"That the practice of renting out provincial parks be stopped and, as outstanding leases expire, the Ministry of Natural Resources resume direct management of the parks."

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition from over 200 residents of Sault Ste. Marie on the issue of the extension of public funding to Roman Catholic separate secondary schools.

Mr. Speaker: There are quite a number of private conversations. It is difficult to hear.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Ferraro: I have a petition signed by 79 of my constituents pertaining to the separate school funding and I would like to present it to the Legislature.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Gordon: I am not satisfied with the answer that I received. I want to serve notice that I want to question the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) further this evening.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the member knows how to proceed with a written notice.

MOTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the terms of reference for the select committee on energy appointed on Wednesday, July 10, 1985, by order of the House be:

To inquire into and report within 10 months on Ontario Hydro affairs;

And that the select committee have authority to sit during adjournments and the interval between sessions and have full power to employ such staff as it deems necessary and to hold meetings and hearings in such places as the committee may deem advisable, subject to budget approval from the Board of Internal Economy.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that substitution be permitted on select committees during the 1985 summer adjournment provided that written notice of substitution is given to the chairman of the committee before the committee meets or in the first 30 minutes after the committee meeting is called to order.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that in addition to the committees authorized on July 10, 1985, to meet during the summer adjournment, the following committees be permitted to meet during the summer adjournment: the standing committee on members' services to consider matters included in its terms of reference, and the select committee on energy.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the select committee on economic affairs and the standing committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to meet this evening, and the select committee on energy and the standing committee on general government be authorized to meet in the morning of Friday, July 12, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BROCKVILLE ROWING CLUB INC. ACT

Mr. Runciman moved, seconded by Mr. Eves, first reading of Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the Brockville Rowing Club Inc.

Motion agreed to.

FAMEE FURLANE OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Jackson moved, seconded by Mr. Rowe, first reading of Bill Pr1, An Act to revive Famee Furlane of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE ACT

Mr. Barlow moved, seconded by Mr. Sheppard, fast reading of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Cambridge.

Motion agreed to.

CENTRAL PIPELINE CO. LTD. ACT

Mr. Cordiano moved, seconded by Mr. Ferraro, first reading of Bill Pr13, An Act to revive Central Pipeline Co. Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL ANHYDROUS AMMONIA CO. LTD. ACT

Mr. Cordiano moved, seconded by Mr. Ferraro, first reading of Bill Pr14, An Act to revive Agricultural Anhydrous Ammonia Co. Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Ms. Gigantes: Many of the comments I would have made yesterday or the day before concerning Bill 30 have already been expressed by other members of this Legislature and for that I am grateful. It is clear to me that in the time leading up to and during the past election, the experience of many members of this House was similar right across this province. The people of Ontario were asking questions about the intent of the bill that has become Bill 30 and also about the education system of this province.

There are a couple of points I would like to make in addition to those that other members have made.

3:40 p.m.

During the campaign in the fall by-election in Ottawa Centre and later in the spring, it was quite clear to me through discussions at doorsteps, on the streets of Ottawa Centre, at public meetings and in media interviews, that many people in Ontario did not understand the school system. They are people who have a fair familiarity with the politics of the province and many other matters and would be thought to be people who would understand the nature of our education system. However, they simply did not recognize or understand that we have a separate school system of long standing in this province -- in many cases, the misunderstanding was that basic -- and that the separate school system, which has existed and worked in this province on behalf of hundreds of thousands of children over the decades, has received public funding, and that has flowed from the original understanding on which the terms of Confederation were based and which will remain in this province because of the wishes of a large segment of Ontario residents.

The questions raised about education during this election, and during the by-election in Ottawa Centre in December, were serious ones. In many minds, they had their source in a concern about our education system as a whole. It seems to me that concern flows directly from a sense on the part of many residents of this province that our education system in 1985 is inadequate. In turn, that flows from the fact we have a system essentially developed and structured during the 1950s and 1960s, which has not adapted or flourished in the ways it should to meet the educational needs of the 1980s and soon the 1990s.

The kinds of difficulties the education system has been going through were predicted. They are associated in large measure with the question of declining enrolment, which the former Conservative government undertook to study through a commission headed by Mr. Jackson back in the 1970s. That commission reported to the then Conservative government in a very serious fashion -- I believe the year was 1978 -- that declining enrolment as a phenomenon was going to undermine the education system of this province unless the problems it generated were addressed seriously in education planning and funding.

When I was first elected as the representative for Carleton East in 1975, the level of provincial funding in Ontario was 60 per cent. As we know, it is now 48 per cent. What has happened in the meantime is what was predicted by the Jackson commission. We have seen closures of schools, undermining of programs and the total failure of the education system to advance instead of retreat in the past decade. When I say "advance," I do not mean to grow, to become more technical or a number of sophisticated things; I am talking about very basic things, such as those addressed by the Commission on Declining School Enrolment.

In 1978, when the then minister, Mr. Wells, produced figures on classroom size for the edification of this Legislature, we learned -- and I must say I learned to my shock -- that more than 25 per cent of the primary grade classes, grades 1, 2 and 3, had in excess of 30 children. That is the same kind of standard we used to have when I started primary school. In other words, we have not gone any further in enriching the educational programs we offer to children in a time when an enriched educational program becomes more and more desperately required.

If we do not begin addressing that problem in the primary grades, we end up with the disasters we have experienced in our high schools where, in spite of all the sophisticated programs and multiplicity of guidelines we have had from the Ministry of Education, we have a drop-out rate that is scandalous. It used to be a fact in your day and mine, Mr. Speaker, that when kids dropped out of school at grade 8, they could get a job and could consider themselves to be relatively well educated when compared with the rest of their neighbours and colleagues. That is no longer the case, but our kids are still dropping out, and with what opportunity?

Our education system simply is not keeping up with the times and is not meeting the needs of our young people. That fact generated an enormous amount of the concern we felt in the discussions surrounding what has now become Bill 30. The fact that our education system has not been keeping up with the needs of this society creates the enormous reaction at the thought of trying a new kind of enrichment program in the separate school system.

People concerned about the education system in this province have real concerns about not focusing on that question as a primary question. That is where I put the blame for the existing situation, not only with regard to the uproar we have all felt and will continue to feel surrounding the issues embodied in Bill 30 but also with regard to the very strong kind of commitment we have seen not just from teachers or from people who have what one might say is a self-interest in the non-Catholic school system but also from parents and families across this province.

We simply have to address the issues those people are raising with us. Those issues are generated by an education system that is not meeting the needs of this province and its young people. I hope the new government will direct itself to meeting those issues and to providing the funding we need in both the Catholic system and the non-Catholic system, the total public education system of this province. If that is done, many of the very serious concerns that have been brought to members' attention by the residents of this province will be truly answered, because that is what many, probably most of them, are based on.

3:50 p.m.

I want to mention two other things. One is the kind of fascinating experiment we are going through with regard to discussion of this bill as an indication of the understanding shown by ourselves, the public and parliaments across this country concerning the Charter of Rights and the work of parliaments.

Only recently, for the first time under our Constitution, has it been possible for people to say of a major piece of legislation, "This should not proceed until the courts decide." In good faith, many people across this province have been led to that position, but we should consider very carefully what it means. If we took that approach literally on all subjects of legislation where serious questions of debate arose, we would be suggesting the courts decide which issues should be dealt with by the legislatures of this country. That really would be putting the cart before the horse.

We in this House, many organized groups outside this House, perhaps the lawyers of Ontario and certainly a large body of the public of Ontario are going to have to come to a new understanding of the relationship between legislative bodies such as this one, the initiatives that must and should be undertaken by such legislative bodies and the role of the courts in carrying out their duties under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whatever the courts decide, it seems to me perfectly reasonable that we should initiate and let the courts give opinions. It seems to me perfectly unreasonable that we should say we can initiate nothing until a court gives an opinion.

Further, the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) raised a question yesterday in which he tried to suggest that, in relationship to the Charter of Rights, the constitutional question ought to be whether we are obliged to extend funding within the Roman Catholic separate school system of Ontario. I think that is to put the question the wrong way too. The question the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has suggested as a reference to the Ontario Court of Appeal, I think is the correct one. When the member for Carleton-Grenville talks about the Constitution being a limit on initiatives, he is sadly off base and quite misunderstands the role of a legislative body vis-à-vis the role of the courts.

I hope this Legislature and the public of Ontario will be enlightened on this matter as we proceed through the discussions in this House and as the reference to the Court of Appeal goes on and a determination is made. I am hopeful too that the Court of Appeal will address the question that is being put before us in a positive sense and will be willing to respond to a legislative question of how legislation may be better framed, if it needs better framing, and to give this Legislature guidance, if it needs guidance, but to underscore the right of this legislative body, and others across Canada, to initiate policy and changes in the fundamental relationships in our society.

There is one other subject I want to raise most briefly. During my earlier incarnation as the member for Carleton East in this Legislature, I had the opportunity to speak for my party as the Education critic. During that approximately two-year period, I did my best to inform myself as well as I could in an area about which I was not expert, and to think about the questions raised, for example, around the issues of independence, alternatives and religious schooling. As I looked at children in school and talked to teachers and families, I became more and more impressed with the fact that our education system in the 1980s still does not recognize the existence of television. That fact has profound implications for our views of the role of religious education in our education system.

Television is probably a more forceful instrument of the education of our children now than schools are. Most people who are parents would probably acknowledge that. The benefits of television have been very great for our young people, as they have for all of us. Television also has its drawbacks, of which we are all aware. Perhaps one of the strongest drawbacks, in the Canadian context in particular, is that what children see on television from the very earliest age -- and each child is exposed to many hours on the average -- is a very homogenized, commercialized view of life that has religious implications in itself.

In fact, if one looks to television for religious education, in many instances one gets very commercialized religious education. One gets 100 Huntley Street; I hope I will not be sued. This is perfectly understandable given the advent of television and its power, given its homogenizing effect in educating our children and given the way it eliminates the sense we had as children, of differences between groups and communities. It is the kind of thing we have all noted for some time exists among airports. Every airport looks like every other airport; it does not matter which country it is in.

On television, everything is homogenized and commercialized. It does not matter whether one is a child in a Roman Catholic family or in a Mennonite family. As long as there is a TV in the home, the child gets a very bland, one-level view of what society is like and what religion is like. When that is true and it is combined with the fact that many families feel the education system is not providing for the 1985 needs of children, as it did not provide for the 1980 needs of children, we understand why families now will perhaps choose more than ever to try to provide, through a school system, a view of life that offers an alternative view; for example, a view of life in the Catholic school system that provides education in a religious context.

The same is true of many of our independent or alternative schools. In some cases, it is an educational point of view that families are looking for when they pay enormous fees to put their children in independent or alternative schools. In other cases, they are looking for education provided in a religious context. In either case, what they are looking for seems to me to be an antidote to the blandness, perhaps the secularism and the commercialism and homogenization of world view they know is sweeping around their children on television.

The separate school system in this province has provided an important alternative within our public education system. It should be funded to provide that alternative through all the grades of our school system, and it should be provided with funding equal to the non-Catholic school system in this province.

I support the principle of Bill 30 and I am pleased to see it before us. I hope the discussions of the next few months will bring us to the point in this province where the terrors that have been proposed around Bill 30 will fade. I hope there will be new life and vigour, by a new government committed to taking education seriously and to reforming the education system of this province, to help assure all the people concerned that the public education system in its totality is one that provides what our children need.

4 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: I wish to make a contribution to the debate on Bill 30, legislation to extend funding to the Roman Catholic separate school boards across Ontario, legislation to ensure that the separate school board system in this province will have equal access to the funding needs of that system, as the public school boards already have.

The members of this assembly may know that during the recent election campaign, completed on May 2, in certain parts of Ontario the issue of extension of funding was much debated across individual constituencies. In some constituencies, such as the one I represent, it was probably the single most debated issue in the election campaign. I am not so sure whether it was the single most important issue or whether the general population perceived it to be the single most important issue, but it certainly was the single most debated issue.

There was never an hour, let alone a day, when this matter was not constantly brought up. Organized groups, such as the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Friends of Public Education and individuals of the Catholic persuasion or of other religions, constantly referred to this issue during the election campaign.

To put the issue in some perspective, we have to realize that in the electoral district of Essex South the independent candidate ran in third place, ahead of the New Democratic Party candidate. The independent candidate received approximately 20 per cent of the votes and finished only 200 votes behind the Progressive Conservative candidate. The organization, funds and assistance received by the independent candidate, who ran on a single issue, were as great as, if not greater than, those of any of the other candidates in that riding, and I include myself.

Some members of the past government did have the opportunity to campaign on behalf of their political candidates during the past election; so some of them realize exactly what I am talking about. I believe the issue became dominant for two or three reasons. The main reason was fear. A second reason was misunderstanding and, I say with great regret, there was some bigotry. I believe we can address the matter of fear and the matter of confusion, but I do not believe we can address the third issue I have raised.

A great many people were concerned that their single secondary schools in a community were going to be lost to another school system in which they would have no part, no say and no access. If one takes a moment to look at the geography of the Essex South riding, one can see very quickly that there are secondary high schools in Amherstburg, Harrow, Kingsville and Leamington. All these communities serve the surrounding rural municipalities and are anywhere from 10 to 15 kilometres apart.

If a person and his or her family lived in Harrow, for example, and had children in one of the secondary public high schools, I can see why they would be very annoyed at having access to that school taken away and their children forced to go from their own community to one with which they were not familiar and in which they did not reside.

I understand that. I accept these genuine concerns and I believe Bill 30 addresses them. I understand the agony a family would feel if it was forced to send children to a school in which part of the makeup of the school was religious education. I can understand the concern if the family were of a different belief, thinking their children would be forced to submit to the teachings of some other religion. I believe Bill 30 addresses that issue.

It is my understanding that Bill 30 would exclude students from any religious participation if they wished. As Bill 30 indicates, they would be excluded on the basis of distance. Anyone who had to stay in Amherstburg, Harrow, Leamington or Kingsville because the distance would be impractical would automatically be excluded after an application was made.

I believe these two issues, access and religion, were part of the major confusion I talked about earlier. No one in the constituency fully understood, and may not today, that access will be guaranteed where there is space. If anyone knows of a case, I would like it pointed out to me, because I have yet to find a situation where a person has been denied a seat in a school because of access. If access is dealt with in a proper manner, it will not be a problem.

4:10 p.m.

As I look over my own constituency, I can see that while sorting out the situation may be difficult, the conclusion will meet the requirements that are being demanded by the general population, number one being access and number two being exclusion from religious courses.

Let me put it this way. In Essex county there are no separate secondary schools except for St. Anne in Windsor. There are no buildings to be used by the separate school board. While I may say their public proposal of last year was not thought out, that does not solve the problem we face. Thank goodness, they withdrew their public proposal. The fact still remains that there are no separate secondary school buildings to be used.

The parents who are seeking this type of education will ultimately have to turn to Windsor to get it for their children. I already know of a campaign being carried on by Essex county parents which would, if it were accepted, allow buses from Windsor to pick up students in Essex county so they could get their separate school education in Windsor.

If that were to be the case, one does not have to guess that, over a period of time, some of the facilities now being used in Essex would not be used to the maximum. Over a period of years, one or some of these buildings may end up at half-capacity. Does anyone here believe the public school board in Essex wants to maintain a building being used at half-capacity when it knows the building, the school, can be filled and used by the community?

The parents in Essex county who are seeking separate school education for their children will accept the scenario I have just described, but they absolutely prefer education in their own community. Because of geography, historical circumstances and the makeup of Essex, that is not available today. Those are the facts.

We will get to the point where a facility may become available someplace in Essex. It may be in Essex North riding, and perhaps the new member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) will want to enlarge on some of the things I have said today. It may end up that these buildings become available in his riding. We are all one county. Sooner or later the public school board is going to say it cannot operate a school which was built for 1,000 students when there are only 350 or 400 students. It will ask if it can make an arrangement with the separate school board for it to take over the responsibility and operation of the school.

When that happens, the board will have to decide how it will treat the students who will be attending that school who are not of the Catholic religion. Certainly it cannot deny them access, because the space is already there. It cannot ask the students to take the Catholic religion as part of their studies, because Bill 30 says one does not have to submit to this as long as one meets the requirements.

These requirements may be expanded by this very able committee appointed to review this matter. Those students will not be required to take religious studies, because Bill 30 states distance is one of the criteria which will exempt a student from this obligation which will be placed on all other students of Catholic persuasion. That takes care of one of the main issues.

The other issue is more philosophical. I hear it brought up on many occasions. It is that all our separate schools must maintain their Catholic character. My answer is that in some areas of Ontario that may be very right and practical. In other areas of Ontario, because of the geographic makeup of the area, because of the way the system has been established and used, and for historical reasons, the Catholic character of a school may not be noticeable.

What are we to do about that? Are we to say that people living in a community should be bused out of the community because we have to adhere to a philosophy of the Catholic character of a certain school? I hope not. I hope we will stick to Bill 30 and, because of distance and the other reasons listed, say: "You can stay in that school. You will get as good an education as Ontario can buy for you. You will be exempt from the religion. You will have access." On the other hand, the students who are of Catholic persuasion can maintain their religious courses and do what they do in the other separate schools. In my view, this sounds like a very reasonable view of how things may eventually end up in Essex county.

I want to forewarn the members serving on the committee that in their hearings across Ontario they are probably going to receive most criticism in Windsor and Essex county. I hope I have explained why they will receive that criticism. I hope I have helped the members of the committee prepare themselves before they have the opportunity to visit Essex county. I also hope they have an opportunity to take advantage of all the nice things we have in Essex county.

Mr. Jackson: Tomatoes are in season.

Mr. Mancini: Probably tomatoes will be out of season, but they may have tomatoes thrown at them.

In their explanations to the general public, the members of the committee will have to be clear and precise. The views they hold will have to be expressed honestly, clearly and in a precise manner. The last thing we need in Essex county is more confusion. The last thing we need is a committee of the Legislature trying to pretend it is against something it will later on vote for.

They should take the questions and answer them. Some of them will be uncomfortable. I went through six weeks of it and I found some days were highly uncomfortable. However, I think the fact that during the election campaign I tried to answer the questions straight on and did not try to waffle on my position was one reason, as we got into the campaign, that some of the people understood the issues more clearly.

4:20 p.m.

There is the issue of outright opposition to the Catholic system. The issue of outright denial of the fact that this is going to happen will be something I do not believe the members of the committee will be able to deal with. When they are approached, as I was during the past campaign and as I am even up to this point; when they receive correspondence, as I do on a daily basis, it generally says: "This is against the Constitution. It is against the Charter of Rights. You are segregating our children. You have no right to do this."

All along, nothing is mentioned about the historical nature of our education system in Ontario; nothing is mentioned about the 120-year tradition of separate schools in Ontario. I wonder if all the people are aware that we do have two systems, one of which is funded up to grade 10 and needs just two more years of funding to be fully funded.

We are not fundamentally changing the education system of this province; we are not segregating people from each other; we are not going to force religion on people for any reason whatsoever, and we are not going to deny people access to their schools. These things have to be enunciated clearly as members of the committee travel the province.

I realize all Ontario is not the same. Essex county may not fit exactly into this piece of legislation, or maybe it will. Other parts of Ontario may not fit exactly into this piece of legislation, but the members of the committee have been charged with the solemn responsibility of holding hearings, listening to the public of Ontario and coming back with their able recommendations.

I believe from what I have seen in the chamber and from what I have heard prior to the election, during the election and after the election, that the three political parties stand by the announcement made by former Premier Davis. I do not want to get into a wrangle about whether the implementation was done properly, whether not enough was done between last year and this year and all that kind of stuff. Those days are past now.

The government of the day has moved on the matters of concern. The issue will be going to the Court of Appeal to test its constitutionality. We have taken an interim step to make funds available for 7,000 students, school boards and teachers, all the people who worked together in good faith. We have taken a step to ensure we do not have 7,000 students who do not know where they are going to be. We have ensured that the teachers and other people will be hired. We have ensured, as we promised during the election campaign -- I am sure many members from all sides of the House promised -- a full and open debate without a deadline. We have kept our promises.

I hope as we proceed in the months ahead -- and it may take months; we do not know exactly how many briefs or how many individuals are going to want to be heard -- we can proceed with a great deal of sensitivity and openness of mind and a continued determination to keep the promise that was made to the separate school system.

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, first let me take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. The job of Speaker is not easy at the best of times, but to be responsible for the good behaviour of a minority Legislature is an even more difficult task. I have been impressed with the way you have carried out your job. You are being both firm and fair in seeing that the business of the House is conducted with efficiency and decorum. Let me assure you that I and my colleagues on this side will work with you to ensure this House works, and works well, for the benefit of all Ontario.

I am pleased to have the chance to speak in this debate. Few issues are of greater concern to parents and all who interest themselves in the affairs of the community. Education is a key responsibility of this government and Legislature.

I know all of us are aware of the historic nature of this debate, its significance in the evaluation of education in Ontario and respect for the views and beliefs of minorities. I know all of us are aware of the significance of this legislation in its relationship to the British North America Act and the new Constitution of Canada.

All members are aware of these things and know that members of all parties in the previous Legislature voted to accept the proposal that provincial funding to separate schools be extended to grade 13.

Over the past few days, I have been meeting with the people of my riding, Northumberland. I have talked to a good cross-section of people. I have met with parents, teachers and ministers of varying denominations, such as the United Church, Presbyterian, Anglican and several priests of the Roman Catholic faith.

During these meetings, I have talked about separate school funding. I have explained what extended funding means and what Ontario has done in the past. While we in this House have a fair idea of what it is all about, I must say the people of Northumberland are less certain. They are concerned, worried and do not know what impact extended funding to separate schools will have on the fine public school system. In addition, they are concerned about the cost.

Already there has been a degree of uncertainty about the cost of this reform. They want a full and honest accounting. At the back of their minds is a certain distrust of what we are about. I came away from those discussions concerned. I have been speaking to well-informed, well-educated community leaders, yet these people, those who help shape opinion in the community, were mystified and a bit distrustful of what the government and this Legislature are about.

We are elected both to lead and to serve. We do not pass laws to please ourselves or make policies to serve our own individual whims. We pass laws and make policy to serve the people. We cannot operate in a vacuum in this Legislature. We must fully explain what we are doing and what we are about because we are here to carry out the people's business, not just to get our names in the newspapers and history books.

The people of Northumberland want a full, honest, open and above-board debate on the extension of funding to separate schools. They want to know what we are doing and why. They want to see how this debate is going to proceed, every step of the way. The people deserve to know what extended funding will mean. I believe it is our responsibility to open the doors and let light shine in on the process, debate, disagreements and compromises that will be part of making the bill law.

I ask the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) to ensure that the process that will begin extended funding to separate schools will be conducted 100 per cent in a public forum. This is what the people want, I believe it is what they deserve and I hope I will have one or two delegations from the great riding of Northumberland.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to participate in this debate because it truly is a historic occasion. It is necessary for as many members as possible to be participants in the process of formally debating this bill. I also have wanted to get on the record, for some time, my own personal response to a number of questions that have been raised about the whole issue of the extension of funding to Catholic schools.

First, I am amused somewhat that there are some people who are paying for advertisements on radio and in newspapers and saying at public forums that there is no debate on this, that a debate has not occurred on the extension of funding. Some people seem to be making quite a lengthy case that no debate has happened.

I would like to know where these people have been, because for 15 years, in my riding on the streets of Oshawa, in the Canadian Legion, the Canadian Corps, the high schools, Catholic schools and public schools, the council chambers, at conventions of my party and other political parties, and here at Queen's Park, the debate about the extension of funding for Catholic schools has gone on. Maybe these people were not aware that this discussion was under way; maybe they do not consider that to be a full formal debate.

As a member of this Legislature, I have been very busy for 15 years debating whether this was a good or a bad idea. I have to report to the House that in my community, as in many others, that debate has gone on. Certainly it went on during the last election campaign. If people wanted to say that there was no formal debate among the three leaders, this is true; however, one cannot say that there was no debate, because I was a participant in that debate on the doorsteps in the city of Oshawa. In my riding, someone raised this issue almost every day. Every time we went to a forum where candidates from all the political parties were present, the question was asked and the debate continued. I believe the debate has gone on for more than a decade. We have had enough debate and the time has now come for decisions to be reached.

I regret somewhat the process whereby all of this has come about. I regret that we never will see the legislation which would have been proposed by William Grenville Davis regarding this extension of funding. I regret that in more than a year his government could not, would not and did not provide the House with its legislative approach to the extension of funding. It would have been preferable certainly to use that process, to have the legislation before us for a longer period, to have a somewhat longer legislative debate about it, but for the life of me I cannot understand people who say there has been no debate.

I can understand people who question the process. One morning the Premier of Ontario stood up, virtually unannounced, and said, "This is what we are going to do." Then the process becomes somewhat murkier. It would have been familiar if a Minister of Education, for example, that same afternoon had stood in his or her place and said, "Here is the bill." Then we would have gone off for our formal debating process and our formal process of legislative hearings; submissions would have been made and all of that would have been the normal legislative process.

This bill has come about by a different process. It came about because the Premier of Ontario said he finally wanted to extend funding. We do not really know on exactly what basis the Premier of Ontario came to that decision. One can read Claire Hoy's book and get one version of how that happened, or one can listen to gossip in the halls here and get several other versions, but we do not know exactly whether that went through the normal process of cabinet, or whether committees of various ministries met. However, we do know that the intention of a government was spelled out by means of a ministerial statement. We know now that there is a piece of legislation in front of us.

I want to give the new government some credit, because in about 15 days it did what the previous government could not do in a period of 15 years; it put the question in legislative form. I believe, as do many others, that this current legislative form is not perfect, that there are problems that will have to be resolved; but I do give them that much recognition. We finally have a bill; it is in front of the Legislature, and the formal debate is going on. We also know that public hearings, of the sort that we usually do around here, are being scheduled over the course of the summer. So at least we are back again on familiar territory.

A number of people who called me want to know about the legislative process. It is a little difficult to explain to people that, in my view, this was going to happen in one of two ways. Either legislation would be brought before us and we would debate it and formulate the rules and conditions under which funding would be extended, or someone would challenge it before a court system. Off it would go through various court levels and, ultimately, some court would decide how this extension would be brought forward.

In my personal opinion, one of those two ways was inevitable. Given what has happened in Manitoba with French language rights, I think I have greater faith in the legislative process here than I have in the judicial process to handle matters of this kind. I think a court of law would have looked at the fine points of law and addressed itself only to those, but a Legislature has a little more flexibility than that.

For one thing, it is pretty difficult for ordinary citizens to appear before the Supreme Court. It is not difficult at all for them to appear before a legislative committee. I think this is the preferred route. I think it gives us, members of the Legislature, the opportunity to say our piece, to participate in the committee process. It gives the public at large the opportunity, without having to hire lawyers and go off to a Supreme Court somewhere, to voice its opinions as well.

There is no shortage of opinion on the matter. The province may well be polarized. There may well be interest groups which have a particular axe they want to grind quite legitimately. But there is no question that Ontario is ready to speak to this matter. It has been for some time.

Another thing does bother me a bit. People are saying that this is being done by order in council. It is important for us to point out to them there is a distinction to be made here. The actual conditions under which the extending will happen is being done by legislation. The granting of money is being done by regulation by order in council.

There are some who may proclaim, as I have done in this chamber on occasion, that that is not exactly the way they would like to do it. I have argued for some time that the setting of regulations, issuing grants by order in council for municipal councils, school boards and several other agencies, is not my preferred means of regulating how much money they get. However, I do want to point out that it has been done by order in council since I have been a member and for a long time before that. The grants to school boards have traditionally been set by means of a government regulation issued by an order in council. Since I have been a member, quite frankly, I have not heard a school board in Ontario complain about that type of process.

I have heard them complain a lot about the amount, but not about the process. It is the accepted way for grants to be set for school boards. It has been done that way for a long time, and that is the norm. So there is nothing unusual being done in the way of providing the funding. That is the normal procedure.

Finally, I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about what seems to be a major concern of some of my constituents: the effect of the funding. I want very much to put that into a proper perspective.

What we are talking about is extending funding to an existing school system for two more years. That school system has been in place for more than a century, and the province has not disrupted into street fights, it has not provided a great divisive system of education. There have been two publicly funded school systems in Ontario since Confederation; in fact, prior to Confederation. I do not believe for a minute that there will be great disorder around here. I know for a fact that there are going to be some pretty healthy arguments, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I came from a small town in eastern Ontario where being an Irish Catholic was not exactly the greatest thing in the world. There were very strong United Empire Loyalist folks there. They were very fine people. We did not understand one another a whole lot.

4:40 p.m.

About this time of the year, near July 12, big things happened in Napanee. Even for us Irish Catholics, a parade was an occasion, and we all turned out. We thought it was great. The farmers cleaned up the horses, everybody got dressed up, and they brought out flags and banners. In the morning all the guys with the fifes and the drum got in the back of a pickup truck and rode around town.

It was great stuff. All the little Irish Catholic kids thought it was a great occasion. We would go up to the fairgrounds and sneak in under the fence and listen to some really good speakers denounce the papists. I thought: "This is great. Who are these papists?" I went home and asked my dad and he explained, "We are the papists."

I was upset about it because these were my friends, the parents of all the kids I played hockey and ball with, and they were denouncing me. I could not understand why they would do that. I thought: "The next time I go to the rink or the ball park I will be in big trouble. They will not let me play." The truth is that when you went to the ball park if you could play ball, papist or not, you were on the team and they seemed to like you just about as much as they did the day before.

Across the road from my house was an old Northern Irishman named Bidwell Kimmett. He was a favourite of mine because he had one of the first television sets in Napanee. In his lifetime he never did learn how to run a television set; so whenever he wanted to change channels he had to get me to go across the street and adjust the set for him. I was saddened somewhat thinking that Bidwell, since he was grand master of the Orange Lodge, might consider me to be an enemy to him and his family. He did not. His favourite saying used to be, "The Breaughs are damned fine people, for Catholics." In his own way, he meant that as a compliment, and my parents and I took it as a compliment.

Things have changed a bit in Ontario. I was surprised three years ago when I was invited to sit on the reviewing stand for the Twelfth of July parade by the Orange Lodge in Oshawa. I thought, "We have truly become ecumenical here."

I do not think there will be any major problems around the funding. From conversations with people on both my public board and the Catholic board, I know they have been getting ready for this for some time. There will be some kids who will move from one school system to another, as there will be some teachers and some other staff who will, but they can handle those problems. In some other jurisdictions, I know the problems will be somewhat greater than that, but they are not going to be severe. There will be arguments and there will be people who will be angry at our legislative committee. So what? That is not new. There have been some people in here angry at our committees for a long time, a lot of them with good reason.

I believe now is the time we can approach this in a very direct and open way. The only regret I have about this bill is that it has been booted around for more than a year and people have not had a chance to see it. I find, even in conversation with people who are opposed to the funding, that their concerns are being addressed by the legislation. That is as good as it gets, folks; it does not get any better. Not everybody can have his own way in any law that is written, but when people's concerns are talked about and there is a chance to debate them and to make a submission to a committee, that is as good as the legislative process gets. It is not a perfect system.

I am happy to support this bill today. I hope there will be some refinements to the bill as it goes through the committee process. I know not everybody is going to be happy with it all; I have known that for a long time. Not everybody in Oshawa is in favour of extending funding to the Catholic schools. I can hazard a guess, because Oshawa is a place where there is no real need for a poll to find out how people are thinking. If one walks down the street, people say very quickly how they feel about a given issue.

My little right arm and left, where people poke me all the time, tell me the community is not evenly split. Probably most people do not care a whole lot whether the government extends funding to the Catholic schools. If I were looking for the largest single group in my constituency, I would identify that group as being the largest chunk of people. Among the others, those who think it is a great idea and those who think it is a terrible idea, there is probably an even split. I think it is our job to step into that middle ground, unpleasant as it might be, and devise a system that is fair to everybody, to kids in Catholic schools and to kids in public schools.

I regret the bill cannot address itself to the long-standing and vexing problem of underfunding for education in general, but there will be other occasions when we can do that. Our new Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) being such a generous person, I am sure he will address himself directly in his first budget to that problem and resolve some of those difficulties.

What we have before us today at last is a bill to do this. The process is beginning a familiar phase. I support the bill. I wish those members well who are going to spend their summer on the committee that will hold these hearings. It is going to be a difficult job, but I know most of the members on that committee and I know it is their intention to have full public hearings to give people their chance before a legislative committee, and that is as good as it gets.

The legislation is not perfect, but it is the best we are going to get for now, and it is our job as legislators to deal with this bill, here on second reading, in principle, and as it goes through committee, to make it as good as it can be on second reading, in principle, and as it goes through committee.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: If I can take up the time of the House for a moment, I would like to inform the members that, pursuant to standing order 28(b), the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and this matter will be debated at 10:30 p.m.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, this is my first chance to recognize you in your new position and to join with all other members of this House in congratulating you and recognizing the experience and the personal qualities of fairness, sensitivity and good judgement you bring to the position. In the few days we have watched you, we have seen you on occasion pause to ponder a particular question. Within a few seconds you have always come up with the right answer that so far has pleased everyone. I believe all of us can expect that sort of contribution from you to continue.

I did not plan on speaking on this question when I came in, but since no one jumped to his or her feet, I thought I had better fill the void and speak for a few minutes on this very important question.

To sort of set the record straight, I want to say that a person with my Irish name is almost always assumed to be of the Catholic religion. The name is also very Catholic in that about 25 or 30 years ago, Cardinal McGuigan was, I believe, the first cardinal in Canada or in Toronto. He carried the same initials as my grandfather, his name being James C. I do not know whether the C coincided with my grandfather's name of Charles, but he was Cardinal J. C. McGuigan.

During my days as a student at the Ontario Agricultural College, at about the time Cardinal McGuigan was elevated to that office, for a good many years I carried the nickname The Cardinal. I do not wish to be called that again, not that I would be offended in any way, but that is part of my youth that has dropped behind me.

I was often asked if I was related to the cardinal. In a joking way, I always said: "Yes, I am related to the cardinal. He is my father." People would do a double-take and say, "Is he?" Then realizing the impossibility of it, they would laugh and we would make a big joke of it. Trying to have a fallback position, which is a good political position if anyone has ever been offended, I was always prepared to say, "In spite of the fact that I am a Protestant, he could easily be my spiritual father."

4:50 p.m.

I think that illustrates the feeling I bring to this debate. In this great country of Canada, because of our history and geography and because of the nature of the people who have come to make their homes in this country from every ethnic, religious and cultural corner of the globe, and blessed with the natural resources and space we have and the necessity to work together to survive, we have developed a great spirit of co-operation.

At first we built railways in Canada by private enterprise, but when it became apparent that we needed the co-operation and finances of the entire country, we made it a national system as opposed to the great country to the south of us, where the railways and airlines and whole transportation system are pretty much private. In Canada we have the spirit that brought about a communal ownership of those means of serving ourselves.

Not many of us ride Canadian railways. I understand only one per cent of those who travel from city to city use the railway system. I have ridden railways in both the United States and Canada, and the roadbeds here are far superior to those in the private-enterprise system of the great country to the south. It has been said jokingly that the only time they know a train has jumped the track is when the ride suddenly becomes smooth.

In Canada we have been on the track in many parts of our history and culture, through our post office system, the nuclear system owned by the government of Canada and our broadcast and airline systems, and in our daily living we carry through that same co-operation.

I want to talk for a minute about my riding, Kent-Elgin, which is very old. It is one of the earliest settled parts of Ontario because the settlers came through the lakes to Detroit and up to the headwaters of the Thames River. They settled by the river rather than the lake, as one might expect. It is largely an agricultural area, one of the richest in Canada because it is made up of great soils brought about by the river and the former lake bed that covered that whole area and has the advantage of the most southerly climate in Canada.

Agriculture flourished there, and various waves of immigration developed. There were British immigrants from the very beginning, joined by French from Detroit and, following the First World War, by displaced people from Europe, many of whom were Catholic, followed by the wave of immigrants after the Second World War, many of them, but not all, Catholic.

These immigrants bought their farms wherever pieces of land were available. They did not congregate in one part of the county, which meant people from many different backgrounds were intermingled. As generations have gone on, those families have intermarried; so it is very common in our part of the country to find Protestant and Catholic people married to each other. To be personal about it, of my two daughters who are married, both are married to Catholic boys. Among my own brothers and sisters, one of them is married to a Catholic girl. That has had a very salutary effect upon our understanding of and feelings for one another.

During the election campaign, I was seldom confronted by the question of extra funding. Occasionally I would meet someone who appeared to have suddenly discovered in 1985 that we have a separate school system. I did not argue with him. There is not much point in arguing during the course of an election. I take the views of people. It appeared to me that suddenly, after almost 140 years -- we had the first separate schools in 1841 -- they discovered we had a separate school system. They did not realize we have had harmony and a good system and that we have avoided the disharmony that has characterized so much of this world.

There is no worse disharmony than that built upon religious bias. We should be proud that in Canada and Ontario we have handled this situation so well in the past and that we came into the 1985 election united. Three parties were all committed to the same issue. I am rather offended at times when I hear people in this Legislature trying to dig out some of the divisive factors. We are not supposed to impute motives to people. Maybe they are just digging in on the nuances. That is their duty, to dig in on the various nuances and bring out the facts. But sometimes I feel these people are laying the groundwork for another election and are trying to build upon those religious differences. Mr. Speaker, whether or not you will rule me out of order about imputing motives, that does offend me.

I am proud that we have three parties who supported this principle. Now that we have the bill before us, we have a system whereby we can take it to the public -- albeit we have very little time to do it -- and we can debate it as much as time allows. I am a little offended too when people stand up and say that somehow or other we are trying to hide this bill, when the very people who are making the charge are those who refused to debate it during the course of the election.

I, along with the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy), attended an all-party meeting. It was also attended by the two candidates from the New Democratic Party. But conspicuously absent from that debate were the candidates of the Progressive Conservative Party.

We went to the meeting a little apprehensive, knowing it could be charged with a lot of emotion and we might be debating this question before 400, 500 or 1,000 people. To our relief and surprise, we found that in the middle of an election campaign there were not more than 50 or 60 people there who were interested in this very important subject. In my riding -- I should not call it my riding; the riding does not belong to me -- in the riding of Kent-Elgin it has been received very warmly and with a great deal of understanding.

5 p.m.

I recognize the difficulties members have brought up. There will be some. People will perhaps have to move from one locality to another to maintain their jobs. One would be sorry to see a person forced to do that; yet every day people in business are required to move because of their jobs. We had a demonstration in front of the Legislature just yesterday of people, many of whom are not only having to move, but have no place to go. When those people lose their farms, in almost every case they lose their houses as well. I place that before members as making a person who has to move from town A to town B pretty insignificant compared to those who, because of economic conditions -- and many of those are influenced by governments -- have to move and have no place to go.

I think those difficulties can be worked out if we have the will, goodwill and good sense to try to make this transfer as smooth as possible, rather than trying to exploit the natural problems that arise.

I simply want to say I am pleased to take part in this debate. I congratulate the Minister of Education, who in a very few days brought forth a bill many people have said is not perfect. I do not think we probably ever have put forward a perfect bill from the Legislature, one that would not develop some problems or evoke some criticism from various people. It is probably as perfect a bill as the average and may prove in actual fact to be better than that.

I ask all members in the spirit of Canada, of a country that has gained worldwide renown -- I think back to the Pearson era -- as a country that can settle differences and act as a mediator in world affairs, to use that same hospitality and largeness of spirit to handle this local matter.

Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to join the chorus of congratulations on your appointment and say that, along with the other members over here, I will be supporting you and trying to make life a little easier for you. There are no conditions to that, or perhaps I should say "some."

Although the Minister of Education is absent, I would like to go on record as saying how pleased I am that he has taken up that position. It is a very onerous one. Over the years I have known him, I have not only learned to respect his professional abilities but also have developed a real genuine affection for him. I would certainly want to assure him that in the course of what could be some difficult months ahead we will be supporting him.

I am certainly pleased to participate in the debate on this very important piece of legislation. At the outset, I want to assure the minister and my colleagues that I intend to support second reading of the bill, if for no other reason than to expedite wider public participation in the deliberations as the bill goes forth to committee.

In supporting second reading of the bill, I do so with a daily deepening sense of concern about the lack of meaningful public participation to date. The decision by the new government to press on with implementation of funding this September and beyond without waiting for the due process of the courts and the findings of our legislative committee will surely add to the sense of public frustration, divisiveness on this issue and even some growing sense of cynicism.

We all recognize we are dealing with a major public decision that will fundamentally affect the lives not only of this generation, but of generations yet unborn in this century and the next. In light of this time perspective and in light of the events over the last few months, it surely would have been wise and statesmanlike to delay implementation for a season or until the work of the committee and the court had been completed. Short-term annoyances and inconveniences would surely have been vastly outweighed by long-term satisfaction, had we decided to proceed just a little more slowly.

The manner in which the government is now proceeding almost makes a mockery of its recent claim to more open government. Because I was a member of Premier Davis's cabinet at the time he announced his intentions to extend Roman Catholic secondary school funding, I am associated with that decision. Had I been fundamentally opposed at that time to such an important declaration of intent, the only honourable step for me would have been to resign. That is a step I did not take because at that time I felt the extension of secondary school funding was socially desirable, economically manageable and politically feasible.

My own views at that time were based on four basic assumptions or premises. The first was that this issue enjoyed a substantial degree of consensus among the people of Ontario, even if that consensus had remained largely unexpressed and inarticulate. I was not aware that it had been, and I would argue with those who would say this debate had been, raging ever since 1971. I do not think it really had. While not everyone was likely to support the extension, I felt at least it would not become a major divisive issue. That was premise number one.

My second premise was that extended funding was not only constitutionally valid, but probably there was some obligation in the Constitution to extend funding. I also assumed at the time that the whole matter would be consonant and consistent with the religious equality rights expressed in the new Charter of Rights.

My third premise was that although there would be some extra costs for all taxpayers, these would be modest and manageable.

My fourth premise was that Premier Davis, who had demonstrated his outstanding leadership abilities on so many issues and who had given this subject a great deal of personal thought and study, would provide the required leadership over the next two years to implement intention into legislation.

Time and circumstances have somewhat shattered my confidence in the four premises for support. I would like to amplify this by dealing separately with my four assumptions and premises.

The results of the May 2 election and the public debate, especially in the latter part of the campaign, clearly indicated to me in Ottawa West that there was no general consensus on this subject. I have listened to other members in this House say the same thing. It was a very major issue in the election and the most major issue I have encountered in my three election campaigns.

5:10 p.m.

On the contrary, this issue was becoming a divisive one. Although much of the electorate's anger was and continues to be directed at the nonconsultative process and the so-called three-party conspiracy of silence, a good deal of the discontent I feel is also against the objective of extending funding itself.

In my contacts with many hundreds of citizens of Ottawa West, with views both for and against extension, I have been impressed time and time again with the intellectual level of their argument. There is an enormous amount of collective wisdom among our electorate on this question. If we utilize it wisely, it can help us reach a proper solution.

The views of those opposing extension cannot be dismissed lightly as simply those of bigots and anti-Catholics. There is a genuine concern about the economic costs and the possible social divisiveness that two parallel secondary school systems may have on our society. People are genuinely concerned about the seeming anachronism of extending public support for one religious educational system in a society at the very time religious equality has been enshrined in our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More citizens simply must be given the opportunity to voice these genuine concerns freely and in detail before any final and irrevocable action is taken by government.

If we are to create the social environment necessary to achieve some genuine public consensus on this issue and to avoid further divisiveness on this volatile matter, then surely it was a mistake for the present government to announce it would introduce extension this September on separate secondary school funding by decree. The people out there who think about this know they are now facing a fait accompli. They know the government has crossed the Rubicon. Nobody for one moment expects that once funding has been granted for one, two or three years it will ever be withdrawn.

My second premise for initially supporting extended funding was that it would be constitutionally valid as well as compatible with our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With the advantage of hindsight, I have had some questions about the validity of this premise. We may have to wait several years for the final judicial decision to be handed down, but in the interim a number of dilemmas have already surfaced which illustrate the enormous difficulty of reconciling the interest of secondary school funding with the new charter.

I cite an example which relates to the provision of access to Roman Catholic schools for non-Roman Catholic students. Access for non-Roman Catholic students is to be conditional upon space being available. That condition destroys the principle of equality between Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic students. Therefore, to achieve equality, the legislation proposes, as I understand it, to impose similar reciprocal limitations on Roman Catholic students wishing to enter public secondary schools.

In an effort to achieve that equality in that respect, the legislation impales itself on the horns of another dilemma. It removes Roman Catholic students' basic right, which they have enjoyed all these years, to have access to public high schools regardless of space availability.

There is another example of likely failure in achieving equality among our citizens in this proposed legislation and that relates to Catholic and non-Catholic teachers. Catholic and non-Catholic teachers who move from the public secondary school system to Roman Catholic schools will be immune from firings because of personal decisions which are frowned upon by the church, such as abortion and divorce, and which are grounds for dismissal of Roman Catholics employed earlier. In attempting to protect the new arrivals, we breach the principle of equality for those Roman Catholic teachers who have been serving on Catholic boards prior to this legislation.

Finally, another example where the legislation is likely to result in inequality in perpetuity involves non-Roman Catholic teachers wishing to join the Catholic system after the 10-year transition period. With the substantial transfer of Roman Catholic students to the Catholic system, as well as the overall declining enrolment, 10 years from now non-Roman Catholic teachers will in all likelihood find it much more difficult to find teaching positions than will be the case for Roman Catholic teachers. The latter will continue to enjoy a hiring preference in the Roman Catholic system and at the same time have the option to teach in the public system.

These examples may be regarded by many as simply nitpicking and trivial, but in a society that is becoming increasingly sensitive to religious equality under the new charter, I feel these will be growing irritants and will eventually be widely unacceptable. I very much hope our committee will listen most attentively when these matters are brought before it by our electorate.

My third premise for support was that added costs were considered modest and manageable, something in the neighbourhood of $40 million for the first year. More recently -- and this was confirmed today -- we have been told these are now estimated at double that during the first year and will increase dramatically after that to approximately $150 million per year when the extended program is completed.

All of us who have been involved in forecasting public expenditures will expect these upwardly revised projections will in time be further revised higher rather than lower. Of course, all this will come at a time when education costs will undoubtedly increase substantially as Bill 82, designed to foster special education, reaches full maturity. It will also come at a time when we will be expected to finance new programs to prepare our students for the rapidly changing technological labour market.

It is against priorities such as these that the extension of separate school funding is being measured by many of my constituents with some concern. I hope they will be allowed to express this fully when the committee meets.

On a more personal note, my fourth and final premise in initially supporting extension was that my esteemed previous leader would be negotiating through the perhaps murky waters and leading us to the implementation of his announced intentions. That premise, as we all know, has been proved incorrect. He is gone to his well-earned retirement from public life, and I am a private member in opposition.

Therefore, during the months ahead, through systematic dialogue and survey, I intend to obtain a much more accurate assessment of how my ultimate bosses, namely, the constituents of Ottawa West, feel about this crucial subject. I want to know especially how the silent majority there feels about this particular issue.

We have had close to 1,000 inquiries and letters. At the present time, almost 75 per cent oppose the measure. I am not concluding that represents and reflects the feeling of all the people of Ottawa West, but during the course of the next few months, I will certainly try in the best ways open to me to get a true sense of their feelings. Through that, I will be coming here to represent and reflect their views. I believe that is a good illustration of, or is the best way I can put into effect, a participatory rather than perhaps what one might call a representative democracy.

Ms. Bryden: I am pleased to participate in this historic debate on Bill 30 because at last the Legislature is being given an opportunity to discuss both the principles of completion of funding for separate schools and the terms under which the extension of grants is to be made. This discussion is a year late, unfortunately, but it is happening now, as it should.

I have served for 10 years in the Legislature. During that period I saw the Progressive Conservative government remove more and more issues from the scrutiny of this House. School grants were one of them. They could be designed, adjusted, cut back or increased without the approval of the Legislature. Ontario hospital insurance plan premiums could be raised -- they were never lowered -- and premium assistance thresholds changed without consulting the Legislature.

Many other vital policy changes could be made by the government without coming here. This was all done through legislation which gave the cabinet or a minister these sweeping powers. It was an anti-democratic trend, which became the hallmark of the Progressive Conservative government and, I believe, led to its downfall.

5:20 p.m.

I hope the fact that we are now dealing in the Legislature with a fundamental change in school grants is an indication there will be a swing away from that style of government from now on. Certainly, our party was among the first to ask for involvement of the Legislature at a very early stage in this particular policy change.

Another thing Bill 30 accomplishes is to make us much more aware that there are many conflicting interests in our pluralistic society. In the field of education there are the interests of the parents who want to have a say in the kind of education their children receive; the interests of society which wishes to foster a literate, skilled and healthy populace; the interests of the individual in having equal and full opportunity to attain his or her maximum potential; the interests of competing philosophies and religions for recognition in our education system, and the interests of teachers, supervisors, administrators and support staff who deliver our educational services. Finally, there are historic and constitutional traditions and guarantees to be respected.

The debate on the completion of funding has made us much more aware of all these interests. I hope this awareness will lead us to a new consensus on the best kind of education system for Ontario in the late 20th century.

It seems to me this consensus must be based on acceptance of the goal of quality education for all our young people, and equality of treatment for all students in the tax-supported schools. That means we can no longer tolerate a situation where, for example, the per-student grant in the separate schools of Metropolitan Toronto was $823 less in 1983 than the per student grant in the public schools. It means that we can no longer deny a full continuum of education from kindergarten to grade 12 or 13 to parents and students who choose either side of our entrenched, dual education system.

I support the extension of full grants to the grades above grade 8 in separate schools strictly on the grounds of fairness and justice. We cannot treat students in the Roman Catholic system as second-class students. We cannot deny them all the options for academic and skills training, cultural activities and enriched courses which are offered to their counterparts in the public system. They have been deliberately discriminated against by the Progressive Conservative government over many years. The former Premier, William Davis, recognized this discrimination only a year ago. One wonders what struck him on the road to Damascus.

There are those who say it is discriminatory to give this kind of equality only to Roman Catholic separate schools. That may be true, but the special treatment protecting the existing rights of both Roman Catholic and Protestant minorities was written into our Constitution in 1867, and it is specifically allowed to continue under the Charter of Rights. It is a recognition of a long, historic evolution of a dual tax-supported system based on different philosophies. It has been accepted for many years.

Given that acceptance, I think we then have to then consider whether these grants should be equal for both sides of that dual system.

To extend similar special treatment either to other denominations or to nonreligious private schools would, in my opinion, put the question of equality for students, which I mentioned previously, in question. I doubt if any other minority group could build a viable education system to meet today's broad and diversified educational needs. The numbers are simply not there, and few groups could offer a province-wide service equal in scope to what the present dual system can provide. Even if one gave equal grants per student, the kind of education that other groups could provide would not be anything like that available in the present dual system, nor do I believe that a majority of Ontario residents want a balkanized education system.

I think it is very unfortunate that extension was finally adopted by Mr. Davis and his party at the end of a long period of cutbacks in provincial support for education. The drop in the provincial share of the education dollar from 60 per cent in 1975 to less than 48 per cent in 1984 forced school boards to choose between reducing quality of education and hitting the municipal property taxpayers more heavily. Most chose the latter.

Since most school ratepayers had come to expect a continuation of this restrictive trend, they feared that the additional burden for extension would be financed by reducing still further provincial grants to public schools. They saw in extension a threat to maintaining the quality of education in the public schools or an increase in the property tax burden. I think they were justified in those fears.

The public boards would, in fact, lose grants and taxpayer money for the children who switched to the separate schools. Often the loss would not be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in overhead or supervisory costs at the public school level. When this switch occurred in schools already facing declining enrolment, the twin impact on revenues could be disastrous. The public secondary schools might no longer be able to afford the diversified curriculum and cultural courses that have become part of the educational services available in the larger public secondary schools.

While the legislation does contain substantial guarantees to establish equality of access and protect the jobs of teachers, supervisors and support staff, it fails to contain the ultimate guarantee: that the province will reverse its policy of reducing the provincial share of education costs. The only way to assure quality of education and equality of education for both sides of the dual system is to increase the provincial share for operating and capital grants to both sides of the system.

This was a major premise in the New Democratic Party's convention resolution passed a year ago when we reviewed and confirmed our 15-year-old policy of support for equality of funding for both sides of the dual system. Our resolution said in clause 3, "The NDP calls for the phased-in removal of the education portion of residential property taxes to reverse the shifting of provincial obligations to local taxpayers, and that funding for the public system be not reduced but adequate operating and capital funding be provided by the government of Ontario for both systems."

The absence of this kind of guarantee or commitment by the government at the time the proposal was first advanced by Mr. Davis has led to a tremendous amount of concern and misunderstanding by users and supporters of the public school system. Scenarios have been painted of sharp declines in the quality of education in the public schools. Instead of achieving equality between the two systems, it has been alleged that the extension will make the public system second-class.

While the scenarios may not all be accurate, the lack of information on the details of implementation have led to a buildup of fears and animosities. I regret this very much and I fault the Progressive Conservative government for letting it happen. I think it could have been avoided if the government had made a commitment to end the abysmal underfunding of our education system and had based its plans for equality on that premise.

5:30 p.m.

This kind of guarantee would envisage additional grants to smaller schools which may emerge in the public system following implementation, grants which would enable these schools to maintain their quality of education in a declining enrolment situation. Similar grants should, of course, be available to schools of the same size on either side of the system, but the problem may be mainly on the public side.

If this kind of guarantee cannot be written into this legislation, I hope the government will at least give us an assurance before the debate concludes that it does intend to reverse the trend towards a lower provincial share of the education dollar. After all, the province has the broader taxing capacity and can use taxes more related to ability to pay than the property tax. A greater provincial share is the only route to achieving true equality of educational opportunity on both sides of the dual system in this province.

Another principle that must be part of our consensus in the education system is accountability. I think this bill increases the accountability of both sides of the dual system by including significant guarantees to establish equality of access and protection of the jobs of teachers, supervisors and support staff and to establish that there shall be no discrimination in employment. These are now parts of the bill, and I think a lot of these guarantees would not be there if our party and some other members had not spoken out during the debate on implementation that did occur over the past year, stating that these must be written into the legislation.

I feel that these guarantees go a long way to meeting the problems of adjustment and implementation. Some of them could be strengthened, and it is possible we will be considering some amendments when we get to committee stage. One that strikes me as requiring some reconsideration is the limit of 10 years on the period during which teachers will be guaranteed the right to be hired from one system to the other without loss of pay, benefits, seniority and so on.

I think teachers and all staff affected by the extension policy should be guaranteed pay, benefits and opportunities for promotion equivalent to what they would have had if they had stayed in the public system, and that this should be for their entire careers as teachers, support staff or supervisors, not just for 10 years. The principle should be that they should not be disadvantaged by the implementation of extension.

My party colleagues and I reject the argument that extension of full funding to the Roman Catholic schools will justify the extension of funding to private schools. We reject it on the grounds of accountability and viability. While some private schools have introduced more diversity into our educational system, we feel a greater degree of diversity can be developed within the tax-supported system, while at the same time we can concentrate our funding on schools which are fully accountable to the taxpayers who put up the funds.

Many people say this legislation will be divisive. I feel it will be just the opposite. It will bring Roman Catholic school boards and public school boards into closer contact. They will have to sit down and plan sharing of facilities to avoid duplication. They will have to accept students on an equal basis. They will have to adopt hiring practices that do not discriminate on the basis of creed. I would hope the definition of "creed" will be expanded to include lifestyle. I understand that is the intent.

In many areas under this program, students will be sharing school buildings, gymnasiums, cafeterias, schoolyards and even certain specialized courses that may be offered in one or the other components of the dual system.

The best way to build co-operation and break down barriers between people and students is for the two systems to be put in a position of equality. Negotiations between equals are always more productive. I think this bill will promote that situation.

I intend to support it, but I hope it will be accompanied by a new general deal on provincial financing of education, as I think that is essential to make it work.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of this bill, and it is a unique opportunity for me because it is the first time I have been able to participate in a debate in this House. I am honoured to be able to participate in support of Bill 30. May I preface my remarks with my congratulatory note to you on being appointed Speaker. This is the first opportunity I have had to do so.

As Minister of Colleges and Universities, I believe I have a special interest in this bill. Our commitment in the ministry is to the highest-quality post-secondary education system this province can afford. In order to achieve that objective, it is necessary that the system out of which students for colleges and universities come is of the best quality the province can afford.

I view Bill 30, among other things, as a major and historic step for the province in its commitment to enhance the quality of education. We have debated and discussed the particularity of Bill 30 at many levels; the questions of access, guarantees, constitutionality and all of these things are important.

I believe the bill addresses these questions appropriately, but the real meat of Bill 30 is that this province has taken a giant step to reaffirm its commitment to all of Ontario to enhance the quality of education.

Let me tell you a little bit about the experience I had during the election campaign in dealing with this question of full funding for the separate secondary school system. There was confusion in the riding of York North and there were a number of misunderstandings. Many voters expressed their concerns to me, saying they did not know what the government of the day was trying to do, where it was going and what the implications were. Earlier in the session, we saw a continuance of that confusion when the former Minister of Education refused to present a bill to the House.

I applaud the Minister of Education for going beyond that threshold and giving the province certainty, because my experience during the election campaign was that people wanted certainty. They really believed it was the appropriate and compassionate thing to do, to finally have a full realization and full funding of a system that has existed since before Confederation.

In the riding of York North there is a Catholic population expanding in leaps and bounds. In particular, they were concerned with having a system that would take students in a separate secondary system right up to the university or college level or entry into the work force.

5:40 p.m.

Some objections lodged with me during the election were unacceptable because they were based on a partisanship that is no longer a part of this province. This is an expansive measure; it is a realization of a concept and a commitment that began in 1867, although it existed before that.

As we approach implementation this September 1, we must realize that the implementation must be compassionate to all sectors of the education system. I am thinking of a public secondary school in Woodbridge that has a shrinking enrolment. Teachers came to me from that school and said, "We do not want to lose our school."

If the implementation of this bill is done compassionately, we can accommodate these shifting realities in York North, in York region and in the entire province. Our commitment to education must be comprehensive; it must be a commitment to the diverse realities of the community. That is the kind of system I look to as a feeder system to the colleges and universities of the province.

Other objections I heard related to the constitutionality of Bill 30. We have dealt appropriately with that in our commitment to have a reference to the Ontario Court of Appeal and have that question determined.

Other objections concerned the loss of schools and the disruption and confusion that would exist: "Where will my children be going to school?" We have dealt with that question too. We have determined courageously to proceed with the bill and the implementation of funding based on the commitment that was made more than a year ago.

As we proceed on this road and expand our commitment to education and the quality of education, those fears and uncertainties will be laid to rest. The system we will have after implementation will be superior to the one we had before. Surely that is the ultimate goal.

Our education system will continue to change, grow, diversify and expand to respond to the changing complexities of our society. I applaud this step because it gives us the courage and vitality to proceed with those changes that will be needed in the future.

I end by saying that in the riding of York North, the people I met during the election campaign and those who have contacted me since then confirmed their support for the bill. People, not only of the Catholic faith but also of Protestant faiths or those of no faith, suggest to me that while it is a difficult measure, it is one that is timely; it is a measure that is long overdue.

Mr. Ashe: I rise in this debate with as much personal family background on this issue as any member in this chamber. I have had two children who have gone through the public secondary school system and two children who have gone through the separate high school system. I have had the input, the reaction, the surroundings of four children of mine, two within each system. All four of them went through pretty well; it did not really matter which system they received their education in. I do respect, as I am sure all members do, the right of both systems to funding.

If we think back on this issue, the debate has been going on in varying times and on various issues over time for something in the area of 140 years. There were many things I found very disconcerting during the recent election campaign, but the one related to this issue -- I am sure many members in all parts of the province found the same thing -- was how many people did not recognize how long this issue had been going on. The issue was there 140 years ago; it was resolved, if you will, 140 years ago.

Many people would argue that the concept of the two systems should not have been enshrined in the British North America Act in 1867; they would argue that it should not have happened. That is fine. However, there are not too many people around today who were here during the debate that took place in 1867.

When I got into this issue at people's doors, one thing I was able to point out -- as I am sure many members did during the election campaign -- was that if one were any kind of historian, it would be safe to say it was quite possible we would not have this country we call Canada without the accommodation that was acknowledged and written into law in the British North America Act. I think we can all subscribe to that. Also, if that had been in the back of people's minds when they looked at this and other issues, we might not have had the divisiveness that took place.

I found it very difficult to talk to people at their doors when they did not recognize the background and history, as well as the length of that history. What I found even more difficult to accept was those people who thought this was the first time government had been looking at the funding of the separate school system; not that this was an extension of 15, 17 or 18 per cent of the total educational concept up to and through secondary school, but that this was the first time. As far as these people were concerned, it was a great evolution -- a great revolution -- into a whole new era, a whole new space, that was taking place. We know that is not the case. It is a relative acknowledgement of something that has progressed in time.

If a difference of opinion has built up over the decades, I suppose it was the intent of the Fathers of Confederation when they wrote the British North America Act. In my view, there is no doubt they thought they were saying that the basic level of education should be funded in both systems. It is easy to say that at that time what we now call grade school, up to and including grade 8, probably fitted the bill. It is safe to say that as time went on and the extension took place to grade 10, maybe that filled the bill of the time, so to speak, by saying: "That is a basic education. Anything beyond that is over and above."

I do not think anybody in Ontario, regardless of his or her position on this issue, could challenge that a basic education in Ontario today is considered to be at least a high school or secondary education. It is on that basis, if none other, that the slight extension of two or three years -- depending on whether one wants to temporarily include grade 13 -- will take place.

There are a few other things that bothered me in my own constituency of Durham West. Contrary to the views expressed by all the members opposite, it is safe to say that probably many candidates in all parties -- but probably as many Liberals, frankly, as other candidates during the campaign -- did not support the position of either the present or past government on this issue.

The Liberal candidate in my own riding debated regularly and was opposed to the initiative of the government. Maybe that caused the other three candidates -- we had four in my riding -- a little more concern and a little more heartache than was necessary. It would be interesting to hear what he is saying. He has been very quiet on the issue in the past few weeks in the local press. We will see what happens over a period of time.

5:50 p.m.

I guess we all figure these issues come and go. I would like to refer to a couple of items in a newspaper. Here is a very large headline: "Ontario Will Be Like Northern Ireland with Extension of Separate Funding." Here is another one: "Full School Funding Threat to Democracy, Says Public School Board Head." The story under that heading goes on to talk about the fact that the chairman of the Durham Board of Education called the provincial government plan to extend funding to Catholic high schools this fall a "threat to democracy."

That is not out of a newspaper of 10 years ago or even 10 weeks ago. It is from a paper that was put to press and delivered to my door yesterday. These are the very divisive things that are being said, stirring up the community, and I think it is safe to say that many of the media have not been very helpful in this regard. I sincerely hope not too many other areas have that kind of local publicity on this issue, because it does nothing to help our communities and our constituencies.

I guess members can presume by now that I will be supporting Bill 30. As many other members have mentioned, there are a few shortcomings. I am particularly concerned about student access, both in the case of a separate school supporter going into the public school system and vice versa. Frankly, that is a step backwards from what has been in effect virtually since day one. There have been no restrictions, at least one way, on a Catholic going into the public school system. It was not a question of whether there was a space available in the public system; space was always made available. That is a step backwards in this bill, and I suggest probably the reverse is the same. Perhaps we should think about removing that restriction.

In closing, I have one other concern I am afraid I must put on the public record. Again, it affected all parties during the election and all representatives of those parties. It happened to be about seven or eight days before the election took place. It is safe to say most of us were handling this issue within our constituencies. We were talking about it at great length in public meetings and from door to door. We hoped we were satisfying the concerns of many of our constituents on this issue: it was fair; there was a historical background to it; it would work; the concerns of teachers, parents and students would be accommodated and taken care of, and once it all flowed into place, with a little movement here and there, it would all work out.

To use a colloquial expression, I think we were all getting away with that explanation because it was valid, reasonable, responsible and represented the views of most members of the three political parties involved.

Unfortunately, a week or so before the election, a certain archbishop spoke out very loudly and, in my view, very inappropriately on this issue. He focused all the attention and made it very valid in the minds of all those opponents to extension that they could stand up and say, "If a prince of the church says it is wrong, I knew it was wrong from day one." That was a very difficult and divisive time for all of us and a very inappropriate one.

I honestly believe there has been too much involvement by the church recently in government and political affairs. I say that in a nondenominational way. I say that about the Catholic bishops and the United Church, and I have obviously made reference already to an Anglican archbishop. The church has its own very valid place in society. I am an active churchgoer myself; so I am not speaking to that from any other point of view. However, I think it is very unfortunate when the church finds time to get away from its pastoral duties and becomes involved in the politics and government of the country or the province. I hope they will put all their time and energy back where they should be: in their pastoral duties.

I hope that at 10:15 tonight, all members will see fit to support Bill 30.

Mr. Mackenzie: I do not intend to be long on this, but I would not have missed the opportunity to speak in this debate for the world. I want to say that I consider this a rather historic occasion. It is an occasion when for the first time I did not put down any notes at all. In the four minutes I have, I would like to give some quick personal reflections on the issue.

I remember well the debate in our party. There was support for the idea prior to that, but in effect we had almost a two-year debate in our party in 1969 and 1970, leading up to a major convention debate over what our position was going to be on extended funding. The debate throughout the party and at the convention was a good one. The decision was made and it was a tough one. It was made back in the time when there was still a lot of opposition to it, but we stood for the full funding.

At the risk of simplification, the rationale was that we had one public school system in this country; it was known as the public system and the separate system, but it was really a two-stream public school system. The intent of the early founders of our province and of our country was that the two streams had equality. The fact was that equality did not exist, because the funding was not complete for one of the two streams in our public school system in Ontario. I accepted that argument in the course of the debate in our party. I think it is an accurate, although very simple, explanation of the situation we were in.

I see the decision to extend full funding as a matter of meeting a commitment we have reneged on for better than 100 years in Ontario. I see it as an issue of fairness and equity in our province. I see it as an issue that was long overdue and an issue that was used politically from time to time.

I well remember being the campaign manager in Hamilton Mountain in the 1971 election. If the Liberals think they got clobbered in that election over their support for separate schools, I suspect our party was hit even worse. I probably built up more resentment to the Tory party over what I thought was dishonest use of an issue in that election than over just about any other issue I can think of. I remember well as campaign manager what we ran into and the kind of campaign against us on that issue.

I do not know why the former Premier did what he did the way he did or with as little consultation as he did. It surprised all of us, but for this party it was a pleasant surprise. It redressed a wrong and met a commitment we had reneged on for many years in Ontario. It is something that probably will lead eventually to more co-operation and equality and a better education system in Ontario.

I do not fear the implementation of full funding in Ontario as some do. I can say very clearly that I would feel fear if we were to try to back off from that kind of commitment or if people in our community were to try to use some of the prejudices or fears that are there, because it is an issue that could be divisive and very tough for the people of Ontario.

It is an issue that should be settled quickly but as fairly as possible. This is a rather historic occasion at a time when we heal and bring people together in this province and not divide them. I hope that is the thrust of the debate.

I want to make it very clear that I am both proud and happy to stand here in support of Bill 30 in this House today.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

July 11, 1985

ESTIMATES

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MASTERS GAMES

ESTIMATES

DROWNING DEATHS

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

ONTARIO FINANCES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO FINANCES

JOB CREATION

ONTARIO FINANCES

PUBLIC SERVANTS' RIGHTS

LEARNING DISABLED

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION

FIRST-CONTRACT DISPUTES

PARTY ON LEGISLATIVE LAWN

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

EXTRA BILLING

PETITIONS

PROVINCIAL PARKS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

MOTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BROCKVILLE ROWING CLUB INC. ACT

FAMEE FURLANE OF HAMILTON ACT

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE ACT

CENTRAL PIPELINE CO. LTD. ACT

AGRICULTURAL ANHYDROUS AMMONIA CO. LTD. ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)