Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a new-Canadian adult class from Parkdale Collegiate Institute. They are sitting in the west gallery with their teacher, Mr. G. D’Oliveira.

Clerk of the House: The seventh order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 72, the Education Act, 1974.

EDUCATION ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur had the floor when we left off.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we adjourned at 5 o’clock I was pointing out the emphasis on law and order and the mechanical running of schools, as outlined in the duties of the principal in section 230 of the bill. I thought I would indicate to the House some of the things I find disturbing in terms of the duties of the teachers which are outlined in section 229 of the bill. If we take a look at section 229 (1) -- Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from High Park is much disturbed that I have to speak without a quorum.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Is the member drawing the attention of the Chair to the fact that --

Mr. Foulds: I wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing. However, if some other member wishes to do so, that is entirely his responsibility.

Mr. Shulman: I never interrupt.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Wishes to do what?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Let’s not have another fight over here.

Mr. Foulds: The first five subclauses outline the duties of a teacher.

“It is the duty of a teacher,

“(a) to teach diligently and faithfully the classes or subjects assigned to him by the principal;

“(b) to encourage the pupils in the pursuit of learning;

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

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): My Lord! We produce the angels of the schools.

Mr. Foulds: And:

“(d) to assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school --”

Mr. Lawlor: Even the minister couldn’t do that.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Great stuff. Great stuff.

Mr. Foulds: Also:

“(e) to maintain, under the direction of the principal, proper order and discipline in his classroom and while on duty in the school and on the school grounds.”

I would have hoped that a teacher would encourage the pupils not only in the pursuit of learning, but also in the pursuit of curiosity and wisdom. I would have hoped that, under section 229, teachers could have inculcated by precept and example the highest regard for scepticism, critical analysis, beauty and creativity, as well as those other more motherhood virtues that are outlined in the bill.

I would have hoped that somewhere in the bill we could have said that the aim of education was to extend the potential of our students so that their abilities would be put at the service of their fellow men. I would have hoped that the minister could have found it possible to include a section on the rights of teachers as well as on their duties. I would have hoped that the minister could have found it possible to include a section on the duties, responsibilities and rights of parents and students as well.

Section 250 of the bill deals with the duties of the supervisory officers. I would have liked to have seen it clearly spelled out in legislation in 1974 that it is among the duties of the supervisory officers -- who, as I understand the bill, are also the administrative officers of the board in many respects -- to reveal all the information on an issue or appointment to the elected trustees, that to deliberately withhold information from the duly elected board would be reason for dismissal.

I would suggest to you that the greatest single frustration that trustees have run into in the last two or three years, aside from their little contretemps with the ministry over ceilings, is the experience they have with their own administrative personnel, particularly in the now large regional boards, of the selective information they are given by the full-time professionals before a decision is made. I would have liked to have seen a section somewhere in the bill to avoid that possibility.

I would have liked to have seen a provision requiring that every supervisory officer of the board, or of the ministry should return to the classroom full-time, at least every five years; and that even during his supervisory period, or during his tenure as a bureaucrat, he should spend at least two days a month in the classroom, not as an inspector, not as a supervising officer, not as an administrative bureaucrat but under the supervision of a qualified practising teacher, as a student of the system in effect.

There must be nothing so galling to the classroom teacher as to receive gratuitous advice from a so-called supervisory officer who hasn’t been in the actual classroom situation for 10 to 15 years.

There is another section of this bill, the whole section in part I, describing the Ministry of Education, particularly section 10, which grants enormous power to the Minister of Education. And it is, I think, particularly important to understand what this piece of legislation does. It assigns to the minister in sections 8 to 10, but especially in section 10. enormous powers -- powers to such an extent that our educational system is by and large administered through regulations. Those regulations are often drafted, if not secretly -- and I don’t mean the word in a sinister sense -- then quietly in the back rooms of the monolith in the Mowat Block.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Never.

Mr. Foulds: I am going to make a suggestion to the minister about bringing some regulations to a committee of the Legislature which I hope that he will take seriously.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All regulations go to a regulations committee. A regulations committee reviews them after they have been brought in.

Mr. Foulds: But they are gazetted. I would like the minister to bring them in to the Legislature in some instances.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member should ask his friends in the teaching profession about regulation 191, if they know what that is.

Mr. Foulds: The power that the minister is given in regulations runs from item 2 -- could you bring a little order to the chamber, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me the problem is on your left.

Mr. Foulds: Precisely. Geographically, not ideologically.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): In either case?

Mr. Foulds: This power of regulation which was granted to the minister runs from item 2 -- governing admission of pupils; to item 6 -- governing the establishment, organization and administration of special education programmes, facilities and services for pupils; to item 24, prescribing the duties of pupils.

There are a couple of subsections of section 10, particularly subsection 3, which has to do, as I understand it, with the grants per pupil. That was slipped in by the minister’s predecessor simply as a housekeeping measure. That power is not a housekeeping measure. That power to institute the grants per pupil and the ceilings, which I understand is subsection 5, and particularly subsection 4, which grants the principle of retroactivity, I find very disturbing. I find it very disturbing that we as legislators are being asked to re-enact those provisions.

I know the minister is huddling with his officials, but I have a suggestion for him quite specifically. He is granted power in this section under subsection 7, a new section, to lower the school leaving age to 14, provided certain conditions are met, which will be prescribed by regulation.

I am not sure I agree in principle with lowering the school age to 14. I do in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in Ontario, but we agree only because of the failure of our school system. If it were working we would not find it necessary to provide this escape clause.

I would like to point out to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that his responsibility in this particular area is enormous and that the regulations should be brought before a standing committee of the Legislature before they are gazetted. In fact, that might not be a bad idea for all government regulations, including all regulations of the Ministry of Education. It would be one way of opening up government to the people of this province and removing suspicion from the minds of many people that this government acts in secrecy.

I think the important thing in devising the regulations under this particular section is that we must, very seriously, avoid the exploitation of children. We should not, for example, allow them to leave school simply to find jobs in the most minimal-paying industries; in the service industry at the minimum wage.

I would urge the minister that under the regulations a goodly portion of the time of these particular pupils must continue to be devoted to education in its truest sense of the word, whether that’s on the job, partly at school or in some intermediate place.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Has the member read the regulations?

Mr. Foulds: If this section is new, the minister hasn’t yet promulgated the regulations.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Draft regulations went all across the province.

Mr. Foulds: Well, why hasn’t he sent them to our research office?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I guess the member’s research office isn’t smart enough to obtain it.

Mr. Foulds: As a matter of fact, on occasion this ministry has refused to send them to our research office.

Some hon. members: Never, never.

Mr. Foulds: Fine, we’ve got that on the record.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Those regulations have been out to the public for about four months, and they do exactly what the member says.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Smarten them up.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Foulds: I would also suggest that these regulations must have, I suppose, a three-point partnership; that is, the school, the work place and the social worker liaison of some kind. I would suggest that that would be absolutely essential. As I say, Mr. Speaker, given the wretched attempts to deal with the exceptions in our school system, by our monolith in the Mowat Block, I suppose that the minister and the ministry felt this section necessary, but I would like to emphasize it is necessary only because our system has failed.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill basically continues the status quo. It perpetuates a school system that places intolerable burdens upon teachers. It continues a system that fails to develop the full potential of our students and fails to inculcate in them a sense of their social responsibilities. It provides for a continuation of the ceilings, which unduly hampers some progressive boards; not all, maybe not even 50 per cent of them. It continues to look upon students as statistics. It continues to vest wide powers in the minister, over which there is little countervailing force, either through the Legislature or through the power of the local boards of education. It perpetuates power in the hands of bureaucratic administrators. It limits the power of students, teachers and citizens in vital educational decision-making. It refuses to take advantage of the tremendous educational potential of Ontario. It nowhere recognizes the rights of our ethnic minority groups, whether they be native people such as the Cree and the Ojibway, or Italian or Latvian. It nowhere recognizes the importance of creativity in the learning process.

In short, Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough in 1974 simply to bring in a consolidation of the former school Acts, to tinker here and there with a bit of new wording, to add a new clause here. It is not good enough to continue along the present path. We had an opportunity to re-create and re-develop education in Ontario. The government failed to take that opportunity. When I think of the number of manhours that must have been put in by the ministry officials simply in drawing together this consolidation my heart despairs, because I think of the enormous amount of work that must have gone into this and yet we are in effect not very much further ahead.

How much more profitable it would have been to have spent that time developing a new Education Act, an Education Act that would be truly worthy of the name, an Education Act for Ontario in 1974.

In 1974 we need an Education Act for the last quarter of the 20th century. This bill is not it. Mr. Speaker, we will not divide the House on second reading, but we will call for votes in committee on certain clauses at the clause-by-clause stage, and we will do that at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, though it may be new, it is a supreme example of bureaucratic and legalistic pedantry. It has 226 pages with an occasional thought chasing vainly a rare idea.

The system of education in Ontario has serious structural faults which need to be thoroughly analysed, problems defined, and solutions devised. The Ontario government has not done so and, more dangerously still, has assumed that the Ontario system of education is the best in the world and needs only housekeeping.

Of course, the Education Act of 1974 is housekeeping, but the problems of education in Ontario are enormous and are not dealt with in this bill, not even hinted at.

Suppose right now we terminated all formal schooling including university and professional education, what would the effect on our society be? I posed this question before, but I would like to play this game again. Some might answer that society would disintegrate. Some might suggest that no calamity would ensue, as says the member for Lakeshore. Some might also claim that this kind of moratorium would be enormously welcome and beneficial.

If we move one step further and ask a more specific question, what groups in society would suffer most as a result of terminating formal education? Most of us would immediately assert that the losers would be the poor, the deprived, the mentally and physically handicapped, the lower socio-economic groups, the ethnic people, the native peoples and the teachers. Implied by this is our belief that the middle and upper classes, the professional entrepreneurs, the managers, etc., would be the least affected, and this is so because we recognize that these people have resources and access to resources that lower socio-economic groups and deprived people do not have.

Let us ask another question of ourselves in this game. What groups in society are suffering most under our present system of formal education? Most of us would be inclined to assert that the losers are the poor, the deprived, the mentally or physically handicapped, the lower socio-economic groups, the ethnic people, the native people, and the teachers.

Seven groups lose under our present system of education. I repeat: the poor, the deprived, the mentally and physically handicapped, the lower socio-economic groups, the ethnic people, the native people and the teachers.

The poor, the deprived and the lower socio-economic groups have been offered a model of education which stresses the ideal of equality, of upward mobility and of equal chance for everyone in principle, and in practice reinforces the status quo in a class-ridden society, teaches middle-class values to everyone, reinforces the class divisions consistently, and denies basic opportunity for continued education for the poor except for the most gifted, most brilliant and most outgoing members.

The hurdles that our education system sets up for the lower socio-economic groups are horrendous. Those of the lower classes who succeed have to be so much more brilliant, gifted and outgoing than any of their age peers from the better-off socio-economic classes.

The mentally or physically handicapped suffer from enormous difficulties. Our educational system largely doesn’t even try to help them. In this House, this needs hardly any elaboration. Only last week, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) made an impassioned and cogent plea for better treatment of the emotionally disturbed, where the child even with learning difficulties becomes a pariah in our system.

Among all these groups that suffer from our educational system I want to stress in some detail the difficulties of the children of immigrants of non-English origin. I do not want to minimize the problems of the native people by sin of omission -- this needs a speech to itself -- but I want to concentrate on the ethnic people. I shall include the Franco-Ontarians who, although after Indians are virtually the earliest arrivals to Ontario, are treated like and exhibit many problems of the newer immigrants; they are the perennial internal immigrants in Ontario, though they have the advantage that they can relate to another dominant cultural group in Canada, the French, albeit in another province.

What are the problems of the children of immigrants and immigrant families? The problems can be roughly organized into five main areas: 1. A large percentage of children of immigrant parents are under-achieving. 2. They lack the English language as it is generally used. 3. Although their families have a high degree of motivation at home, it is inappropriate to our system; and the parents of the children find it difficult to deal with the schools in spite of this high motivation for their children. 4. The system is inflexible. 5. The system pushes the disappearance of original ethnic culture and language.

One notes in almost every school which children with an ethnic background attend, that at least 35 per cent to 40 per cent of all children read at an average level of one-half year to 1 1/2 years behind the normal expected level. This trend is also noted in mathematics.

Many of the children enter kindergarten with a very limited speaking vocabulary -- on the average about 700 words. Research has shown that pupils need 2,500 to 8,000 words in their speaking vocabulary and approximately 18,000 words in their passive vocabulary to go easily into reading.

Most children in immigrant areas come to school ill-equipped to function and progress in school. These children have not acquired enough of the language to make progress according to standard educational norm. They have not acquired enough language in their home. The problem becomes more acute as the children pass through the grades, and it is not uncommon to find pupils in a grade 6 class reading from a range of level two to level seven or eight. This deficiency has now allowed the pupil to achieve mental sets and thought processes which are conducive to progress in his formal education. Teachers’ anecdotal reports, performance scores and psychologists’ assessments find these children to be slow learners.

I submit to you from the beginning -- and the evidence supports this -- that these pupils might not be mentally deficient but are educationally disadvantaged by our system.

The difficulties I have listed cannot easily be solved by one major change, but recently some work has been done in bilingual education which suggests that there is a positive transfer of learning from one language to another. The work has been done not only in the United States but, nearer home, in Toronto.

I have in front of me a report issued by the research department of the board of education for the city of Toronto. It is called, “Transition from Italian: The First Year.” It is written by Mary Purbhoo and Stan Shapson. It’s No. 126. I’ll read part of it into the record to point out the type of approach now being practised, albeit with great difficulties and no basic co-operation from the legal department of the Ministry of Education.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s not so; that’s not right.

Mr. Dukszta: Oh, I think it is quite correct --

Mr. Foulds: The minister should not be so obstructionistic about it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member is wrong.

Mr. Dukszta: Can I point out to the minister --

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member is wrong.

Mr. Foulds: It took over a year for the minister to give approval --

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member has been misinformed.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Parkdale has the floor.

Mr. Dukszta: I would like to point out to the minister that although he morally supports this thing -- and I give him credit for possibly morally supporting the whole approach -- both the Schools Administration Act and the one we are now discussing, which subsumes that Act, basically will not allow the programme to proceed, except in a most voluntaristic playtime approach. That’s what I am saying. Let me prove the point by reading part of this report and then commenting on it. The minister has reacted prematurely. Let him listen first.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Reacting prematurely? The member said we didn’t support it at all, and that’s absolutely wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Dukszta: Okay, Mr. Speaker. I will withdraw --

Mr. Lawlor: The minister doesn’t have to be perfect.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Dukszta: I will withdraw what I said that he is morally supporting it. What I am saying is that he is actually doing nothing to support this. It’s lip-service.

Mr. Foulds: He is paying lip-service to it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The members are wrong.

Mr. Foulds: Talk is cheap.

Mr. Dukszta: But let me tell you about the problem, Mr. Speaker. In September, 1973, two junior kindergarten classes at Gen. Mercer Public School, which is in my riding, began in a different way. Instead of being greeted with the usual “hello”, “come in” or “good morning,” the incoming children heard the familiar sounds of Italian, their mother tongue. They did not have to leave behind the language they were most familiar with when they had reached the classroom door.

These children were part of an experimental project, an Italian transitional kindergarten programme with a bilingual teacher and teaching assistant. The programme is designed to run for the two years of kindergarten, junior and senior. It begins with the teacher speaking mainly Italian. During the two years of transition, the use of the mother tongue means the introduction of a new concept need not be delayed because a word is not yet in a child’s English vocabulary.

At the same time, English is introduced gradually. As a result, by the third year of school the pupils will be ready to enter a regular programme where they may begin to read and write in English. The programme was developed as a result of various pressures from the ethnic community and educators. Parents from various ethnic communities in Toronto have been increasingly vocal in recent years about the right to maintain their language, and the school’s responsibility to aid their children in this goal.

Educators have found that students coming to school without sufficient command of the language or instruction in English, have, in many ways, been at a disadvantage. Some felt immigrant children were intellectually inferior, since they did not advance through the educational system at the average rate. In many areas, these children were viewed as problems the school had to cope with. Recently it has been recognized the academic failure of children from ethnic communities might result from other factors such as alienation, low self concept, or more basically, not knowing the dominant language and not being a member of the dominant culture. Academic failure, for this reason, was surely avoidable, and independent of academic ability, though not of achievement.

Bilingual education programmes acknowledged and used the child’s mother tongue to improve the situation. Gudschinsky had documented early examples of successful second-language programmes. Modiano also showed the child would read better in the dominant, national language, if he is first taught to read in his mother tongue. Other advantages of second-language programmes have been higher self concept, and increasing number of contacts between parents and schools. Thus, it was not surprising that Tony Grande, a Toronto teacher, proposed that ethnic children be introduced to the educational system through the medium of their mother tongue. He hoped to reduce the academic failure, which he himself found sadly typical of too many non-English-speaking people.

Grande suggested use be made of the child’s pre-schooling linguistic and cultural experience to advance his ability to speak, read and write in English. To set this objective, Grande proposed that children begin school with a bilingual teacher and assistant who would introduce curriculum content in their native language, while the children were learning the English language.

Based on the data of Modiano, he also felt reading and writing should be introduced in the child’s mother tongue. Reading and writing in English would begin later, shortly afterward the traditional all-English programme would be followed. In Grande’s own words, the child would be introduced to reading and writing in his mother tongue, while at the same time, oral language development in English would be accelerated in an atmosphere that is relatively secure from the point of view of the child.

It is anticipated the pace of learning to read and write English will be considerably accelerated, due to the fact the pupils have grasped the principles of reading and writing in the mother tongue, until the students will be functioning better, or at least as well as, their English-speaking age-mates. This whole experiment, which I am describing here, is of some importance, and maybe the minister, who knows about it, should be partially proud. He would be even prouder if he introduced it generally.

In the spring of 1973 a report on the feasibility and financial and legal implications of implementing a foreign-language programme to elementary schools was presented to the Toronto Board of Education In the Educating New Canadians Committee. Among the items considered in this report was Grande’s proposal for a transition programme for young children. As it turned out -- and I think this is the important point which I am quoting to vou. Mr. Speaker -- Grande’s proposal could not be accepted in its original form because the introduction of reading and writing in the mother tongue would not be in accordance with the language requirements of the Schools Administration Act.

I have looked through your bill of 226 pages and I don’t see this introduced or changed. This aspect of his proposal had to be amended before the programme could be implemented. Reading and writing would therefore begin in English. Although this had been one of Grande’s major specifications he accepted the modification.

The board approved this special programme as modified in the report from the Educating New Canadians Committee and adopted a set of guidelines for consideration of proposals for programmes in languages other than English and French at the elementary school level. The method proposed by the board for the operation of this transition programme was outlined as follows:

(a) that the bilingual teacher instruct the children for two years; (b) that the bilingual lay assistant remain with the children for two years; (c) that the children be of similar linguistic and cultural background; (d) that the ethnic community be involved in the operation of the programme; (e) that oral instruction be in the children’s mother tongue initially; (f) that there would be a research component involved in the programme; (g) that the regular pupil-teacher ratio be maintained in the junior kindergarten; (h) that the programme be of a developmental nature; and (i) that ethnic resource material be used, such as books and films, at a minimal budget increase.

In some ways, the programme would resemble the regular kindergarten programme. The pupil-teacher ratio would be the same in junior kindergarten and the programme would be based on the principles of child development. Furthermore, very little additional expense should be incurred. Mr. Speaker, by relying heavily on oral instruction in the mother tongue, the use of ethnic books, records, films and community involvement, the programme would be different. The board also asked that the research component be tied to the programme to aid in its evaluation.

Late in June, 1973, the Ministry of Education approved the modified version of the programme as a two-year project. Shortly thereafter, Italian was chosen as the language of instruction and Gen. Mercer as the school for its implementation. During the summer of 1973 all Italian-speaking parents who had children enrolled in junior kindergarten at Gen. Mercer were invited to attend a meeting at the school about an experimental transition programme.

It is of some importance to mention this here since one of the main objections against this programme is that many of the ethnic parents, concerned about the possible lack of upward mobility for their children, will reject this type of programme out of hand without realizing how effective it is that their children not only will be able to keep their own cultural heritage but will actually learn English faster.

From the initial show of hands in that original group, it appeared that interest would be sufficient to introduce two separate classes, a morning and an afternoon session. At first, some parents misunderstood the nature of the programme thinking that it would teach Italian. After this misconception was straightened out, parent interest seemed to be as great as before. A number of parents decided to enrol their children in the programme immediately following the meeting. Others waited until they discussed it further at home. A bilingual teacher and a lay assistant were assigned to the project. The teacher’s summer preparation included working on plans for the programme in conjunction with consultants from the kindergarten department and collecting materials, such as books and records in Italian.

I read this in some detail to point out how it was done. Ill tell you that it has been very successful. I think it’s a major pointer for the future and that’s why I am saying the ministry should adopt this type of policy. The results on children’s learning in the immigrant families suggests that the transfer effect does exist. The use of both languages encourages, promotes, facilitates and accelerates academic achievement.

The effect on the child is that the child will become a better reader of English. There will be an expansion of education opportunities for him or her. There would be a happier child due to elimination of conflicts in the home between his parents and himself. There would be better-integrated individuals who can make a better contribution to the community in which they live. He will be a more confident child in the present because he can keep in touch with the values of his parents and see wide opportunities for the future.

The effect on the community, where the school now has become more relevant to its needs, will be a greater support for the school by the community and a greater involvement by the community in the school’s life. A major problem in an ethnic community is that parents have very little contact. Many would like to have contact with the school; unfortunately, they usually have very little because language is an enormous barrier.

The last major effect is multiculturalism. We speak quite often of the policy of multiculturalism, yet it’s mainly lip service. I have come to the conclusion the only way that we can, in fact, be fully sincere in our commitment to the multicultural society is to accept cultural groups characterized by their language rather than by their superficial cultural characteristics such as dance patterns or food habits. It is the language of each group which carries the culture forward. When the language is lost, the assimilation occurs very quickly. It is interesting to note that presently, more and more ethnic groups are concerned in the preservation of their language, and are making an effort to push educational authorities to introduce language classes for adults as well as for their children.

Let us return to the original question of lists. Compare the answer to this quite different question. The lists are identical. With or without schools, the relative penalties are absorbed by the same members of our society. How do we resolve this basic inconsistency? Obviously, we must use caution in any approach we take. Recently there has been a great move in the educational community toward the Illich position of deschooling. It is a policy we must abandon for a number of reasons. The whole Illich position on deschooling is an example of gross middle-class elitism. It will merely benefit the people who already have all the natural educational resources at home, or who can apply themselves to an alternative system. If we consistently apply the full Illich model to our educational system we’ll end up with a grossly under-educated proletariat. The people who will suffer are those who are listed already. The more outspoken anarchistic so-called libertarian children of the middle class will benefit.

On the other hand if we reject the de-schooled argument, and decide to tinker with the present system in order to improve the opportunities of the listed groups, we must recognize from the work of Jenks and his colleagues reported in the book “Inequality,” that tinkering merely maintains a status quo in equalizing opportunities.

Education of humans occurs primarily in the home, in the school, and at work. To devise a comprehensive and coherent policy, we must look at each of the sources to understand and suggest a policy. It is pointless to argue a position that fails to take into account each of the sources and their relationships. Education, as we use the term, is learning, and learners are all persons in our society. This has been partially recognized by the Ontario royal commission on higher education, living and learning.

The proposals I’m placing for the consideration of the House are the policy proposals of the New Democratic Party, as discussed and adopted in the party convention in Sudbury in September of this year. The analysis, and the policy, stems from the work of the education policy review committee. The committee was chaired by me and two other NDP members of the Legislature, the member for Port Arthur and the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren).

We met over a period of nine months prior to September of this year. The committee was composed not only of the three elected members, but a number of other people from the community including educators, students and even what is described as parents and lay people.

The policy I ask the House to consider is divided into four related parts. To understand the proposals, and attempt to relate them to the present system of education in Ontario, I’m dividing the proposals into four major groups. One is the learner sense of education; two is educational decision-making and finance; three is life-long education, and four, quality of education. For each part there will be a short preamble that will attempt to provide justification for the major proposals. These preambles focus on basic assumptions underlying the policy proposals. Although we have here but four major resolutions, the policy is intended as a comprehensive position that contains the philosophy, both for the party and for Ontario, how it may proceed, and how the party may proceed to implement this philosophy.

Many aspects of the resolutions are intended to bring attention to factors that have been rarely associated. I see this policy as one that deals head on with the economy and education, that deals with a coherent position on early education and upon later-life education, that faces up to the time-ridden problem of the quality or teacher-learner relationship, that acknowledges our own short- comings of the past and has, above all, the basis for creating new democratic relations in our society. The NDP has committed itself to a learning society that emphasizes human growth over material growth. I would like to specify some basic assumptions before I go ahead and enumerate a more detailed algorithmic specification of our policy.

The NDP has committed itself to emphasize co-operation among humans rather than competition. It is directed at equality of opportunity, equality of access and a better, more humane and more creative society. The policy must be implementable and must not penalize any segment of the society. Yet it must offer fundamental changes with far-reaching and beneficial effects. The policy must address itself to changing the quality of life in our society. It must present the means by which people can be productive, self-fulfilled and co-operative. It must redress the inequality that has persisted in hampering a wide sector of our fellow humans from being liberated economically, socially, morally and intellectually.

In doing this, the policy that is offered here is directed at the following propositions: The educational structure and processes that pre- vail in a society are a unique and clear expression of that society. Therefore, to bring about fundamental changes in education, one must first bring about fundamental changes in society. Unless education results in equalization of opportunities for all citizens, it fails in its most basic responsibility. Unless access of learning is equalized for all members of our society, educational structures will continue to uphold social and economic differences in society. Acquisition of the three basic skills -- reading, writing and mathematics -- is the most important and compelling training objective for schools.

Schools fail if they do not educate students to be aware of their own psychological, social and health needs and of others’ needs, and to develop a moral and social responsibility for the fulfilment of this need. Schools must not be viewed as a certification for life in society, but as an end in itself. Education is the life-long process of learning for all members of society in the home, in schools and in work. Quality of education cannot be achieved without changes in the quality of the relationship between teacher and learner.

To return to the first point -- learner-centred education -- it has become evident that knowledge acquired under compulsion has no hold on the mind. For this reason the NDP of Ontario will concentrate its efforts in establishing an education milieu that recognizes and responds to the principle that society owes to the learner the best it has to give. Learner-centred education is education that has its start in a reference point that respects and responds to those talents and skills that the learner brings to the learning situation. This approach to education envisages an end to fixation with classroom instruction, buildings, authoritarian relationships, separation from the real world and the “hidden” curriculum characterizing the present educational system of Ontario.

The educational tragedy of postwar years is that the slogan “equality of education” is now ashes in our mouths. “Equality of access” has also proved to be a meaningless phrase, for the fact remains that access and equality are bonded to the realities of socio- economic differences. School programmes designed in one way or another to rehabilitate students of the list group that I have mentioned already have failed, because skills acquired in isolation from home and neighbourhood are perceived by learners to have no life function and therefore are educational “put-upons.”

With this failure in mind the NDP recognizes the home and its neighbourhood as the first and final base of learning. In our socially stratified society, homes and their neighbourhoods differ enormously in terms of the quantity and quality of learning that they provide to their members. The question to be solved is: How do we establish policies that will equalize different homes and neighbourhoods with respect to educational opportunities? Again, that is a major point in which the present system has failed so lamentably.

The NDP is committed to equalizing opportunity, but in no sense contemplates making homes and neighbourhoods similar. Each home and neighbourhood has its own essential character, and the proposals offered here are intended to enrich these characteristics through local control. Evidence has accumulated to show that the learning process of a child is set in the first months and years of life, and that effective learning in the family and the home will determine the limit of the individual development of the particular child. Therefore we must allocate human and financial resources, educational and health workers, nursery schools and child-care centres to support early childhood education.

In order to ensure the learning opportunities, and in order to avoid the aridity of pious slogans, the government needs to employ some specific social and economic techniques to create equalization. The two concurrent drives that have occurred in our society -- the drive toward changing the system of education and equalizing opportunities in education, and the drive toward day care -- actually coincide very well, because an ideal day care centre should not only be a place where the children are left when the mothers go to work, but it should be also a centre in which the children can learn. The particular proposal I am putting before you would combine the two elements in which an attempt would be made not only to provide the children with day care so that the parents are free, but it would also be an essential enrichment of their life experience through means of a kindergarten or pre-school.

In addition we would suggest that a socio- economic index be calculated for each school catchment area. Secondly, in regard to pre-school education only, we propose that school areas be inversely funded in relation to their position on the socio-economic index. The consequences of this policy will be that lower socio-economic areas will receive major funds and resources to ensure that centres will be established and well run. Children of lower socio-economic families in middle-class school areas will not be penalized. Centres set up in these areas, with partial funding, will receive additional grants for those children from the lower socio-economic families. Obviously this policy suggestion is directly aimed at enhancing the opportunities for the list groups which I mentioned to the members in the beginning of this speech.

Implied in the position regarding early education is the establishment of learning centres. We advocate that these centres be locally controlled, while recognizing the virtual impossibility under the present system for working and poor-class parents to respond actively as local controllers. Many working- class people, due to labour conditions, ethnic backgrounds, shift work and their own experience as students, are hesitant and often unwilling or unable to assume responsibility for local control. Nor -- even more important -- are they provided with any opportunity to do so; nor are they really welcome in many of the schools where their language is such a barrier to them. With the implementation of this proposal, an educational climate would be established that would remove present barriers and facilitate full engagement of list-type parents in all educational activities.

Adult learning is equally as important as early childhood learning. In many therapeutic situations, the therapist is unwilling to deal with a child client unless both parents assume responsibility for supporting and encouraging the child. Similarly, early schooling cannot be effective without parental understanding and co-operation. Therefore, early- education centres will invariably involve three groups of people: (1) the centre’s resource group; (2) the child as learner; (3) the parents as learners and resources.

In addition to these groups, each neighbourhood centre area will have educational workers, hopefully sensitive and responsive to the needs, problems and values at home. These workers will be viewed as a means of establishing an educational-social utility with the objective of motivating individuals and families to self-learning and development.

Learner-centred education begins by taking the individual family, home and neighbourhood as they are, and creating a support system to enable developmental care. For this reason, some of the proposals here are specifically aimed at benefiting the list groups, individuals, families and neighbour- hoods. The major points are:

The major emphasis in the education of children must be placed on early childhood education, through community-controlled learning centres that are inversely funded in relation to the centre’s catchment area on a socio-economic index. Educational neighbourhood workers would be employed to work with teachers, children and parents in the community, and those workers would assume a responsibility to actively provide assistance and support to every family seeking to create a better educational environment within the home. Why we are looking at this is to compare it to, I suppose, either the social worker or the public health nurse or some other type of individual like this who works in the community. We should provide for an educational helper of this sort who can move into the community and into the family to advise, to help and, if necessary to guide the parents and the children.

All school children should be exposed to aspects of their own and their peers’ development and should be provided with practical training in working with children younger than themselves. It’s a very effective way of increasing the learning of younger people, just as much as having good transfer effects on the older children who teach the younger ones.

Classes giving current information on nutrition and health and its prenatal and post-natal significance should be available to all learners, young and old.

Training in parenthood should be an integral part of the curriculum for all learners, young and old.

Prenatal, health and genetic courses should be available to all students and parents on a community basis. Courses for parents and siblings of children with special needs -- mentally retarded, autistic, physically or perceptually handicapped -- should be available in ill schools.

Vocational and reform schools should be abolished and their students and staff integrated into academic schools where all learners should be given the opportunity to develop manual skills. This is an extremely important point, since many of the com- plaints from the ethnic community at the moment are that because of the language difficulty that their children have, they are judged to be inadequate in our system and they are pushed toward vocational schools instead of being in a general academic stream, with a consequent effect on their ability to enter higher schools and universities.

The second major point is that for newcomers to Canada, all academic instruction at the elementary level should be provided in their own language, with English and French being phased in slowly over a period of years, so as to maintain their academic competence at a satisfactory level. Where there is a sufficiently large ethnic minority the language and its grammar should be taught, along with their culture and history, as optional subjects for study.

I was recently at a commencement at Parkdale Collegiate Institute, and I was struck that only one ethnic group was receiving, if I am correct, language classes in its own, original language, which was the Polish group. Yet when one looked around that school, in which easily 75 per cent of the pupils were children of immigrant parents, no other ethnic group had language classes of its own.

At the reception afterwards, I inquired of the students who were non-Polish whether they would like to, and I received a really enthusiastic response to the question. Most of them said they would, in fact, like to have classes in their own language. I do suspect that some of the people think it would be easier to do it -- some of the students, undoubtedly. Originally the Polish students themselves thought that they could get away with a couple of classes more easily if they were done in their own language, but the development of interest in their own language grows on them and becomes quite fantastic.

Additionally, I think a competent translator should be made available through the school system to facilitate teacher-parent-child consultation where the parents do not speak the same language as the teacher.

Again, in the same school, a mother and father came to talk to me about a child who was at Parkdale Collegiate. They came to talk to me because they never did manage to get through to the one teacher who speaks Polish there, and they came to me mainly to inquire how their child was doing. They knew that I wasn’t teaching there, they knew why I was there, but they came to Inquire, in their own language, if I could find out how their child was doing. If we have someone in every school who can translate, then those things can be avoided.

More importantly, schools should assume the responsibility for ensuring that all learners are fully and adequately trained in the three basic skills -- reading, writing and arithmetic. They are essential for each individual to function adequately in society and to achieve a basic degree of self-control.

The manner of instruction at learning centres, in the home and neighbourhood, and at school, should be varied to suit the needs of the learner.

The funding arrangement in relation to the socio-economic learning centre area index will also apply to elementary schools, and in this way list-group neighbourhoods and schools will be enabled to provide:

1. Curriculum training in the arts that can be left to the choice of the people involved -- like ballet, drama, music, painting and sculpture -- if necessary, to be an integral part of education;

2. Summer camps organized around interesting and valuable education projects;

3. Sports activities with the objective of physical fitness;

4. Artistic and summer camp activities so that artists in our society will be paid resource personnel in each school area. A re-examination of the educational system, curriculum materials and instruction should be made to exclude all sex, race, ethnic and anti-labour bias. To ensure the removal of sexism, all teacher trainees should have some experience and be educated by women’s groups in the history, legal, social and economic factors underlying women’s place in society.

While supporting the necessity of improved ways in our society for protecting the rights of all students, the native child and his family, because of the colonial history of treatment of native people of Canada, warrant special consideration and special financing of programmes for the foreseeable future. The education of native people totally and wholly is the responsibility of native people, and our educational resources are to be accessed, if desired, by native people.

Physiological and counselling services should be available to fully meet the needs of list-group homes, schools and neighbourhoods. The NDP will strongly support the continuing development of Canadian studies programmes in order to strengthen cultural ties within our Canadian community and to preserve our national identity. Such programmes should teach an awareness of the bilingual heritage of Canada and, in particular, of our own Province of Ontario. They should also include a fair presentation of the contribution that Canadian women, labour and immigrants have made to the building of Canadian society. The use of school textbooks by Canadian authors with Canadian frames of reference and published by Canadian publishing companies will be encouraged and subsidized.

The second major proposal which I want the minister to consider is education decision-making and financing. The Ontario system of education is highly centralized. The present bill is making it even more centralized.

The trustee form of educational administration is, by and large, unresponsive to local needs and has evolved as the local instrument of ministerial policy. It takes an effort on the part of a trustee to be responsive to a community that he serves. Recent examples of the work of trustees in the city of Toronto show how much an effort it has become for some trustees to be involved with community groups and responsive to the community and community groups. It has become practically a full-time job. The way the job is designed right now with its marginal pay and marginal responsibility, it tends merely to provide the window dressing for the minister’s decisions and policies.

The administrative structure of the school is authoritarian and revolves around the principal. Parents, students, and even teachers, tend to be peripheral to the principal’s executive power. The difficulty of involving these groups in meaningful decision-making should not be underestimated, but arguments that many parents of lower socio-economic status or of ethnic origin are not interested in participating is largely an ad hominem value judgement, not related to the actuality of an educational structure which actively discourages participation.

The educational system has validity for any group of people only when they have participation in the decisions about the nature and purpose of the system. If opportunity for meaningful, non-tokenistic participation exists, parents, teachers and students learn very fast to participate. We have seen from experience in Toronto that when community groups begin to participate, they learn indeed to participate and to be expert in their own fields. It has long been known in the behavioural sciences field that a meaningful participation in decision-making about one’s own fate significantly reduces the degree of alienation.

That is not to say there are no interesting experiments going on. In many schools in which alternatives to the present administrative structure are tested, teachers feel free and useful; the participation of parents and community is not only encouraged but actively sought and students are involved. Parents play a significant role in some middle-class schools. In many secondary schools an active student council plays a role in the administrative structure; and in particular school districts elected trustees keep in regular contact with the community groups.

All these efforts are voluntary in nature and depend on constant personal involvement. If that is lacking, the natural inertia of the system reasserts itself and the structure returns to its more usual authoritarian mode. It has to be realistically recognized that the psychological barriers that so typically divide schools off in the depressed and culturally different communities cannot be dismantled by a voluntary grassroots community movement led by a committed trustee or a member of a community. The community school is a powerful tool for community regeneration, and it cannot depend upon the good will and hard work of a few individuals in an isolated district. Community development and community redevelopment in a modern urban industrial society are essential facets of our society, and the school must play a role in this development.

What this bill does, of course, is exactly the opposite. It doesn’t really change it; it merely modifies the already existing structure. Power has become more centralized, and according to the way I read it and the way I extrapolate the meaning of this bill, the power is more centralized now than it has ever been -- and it will be even more centralized in the minister’s hands. The whole present centralized educational structure should be remade. One way of doing it is to move the decision-making power in the ministry and in the other institutions straight to the local communities which, after all, are the final users and possessors of the schools in their district.

In our policy statement, the system would be divided into three main parts. The first level would be the home and school, the next level would be the community and school, and in the third level we are talking of public and school. Let me try to explain this concept.

In the first level, which is home and school, the first unit is a local school. Though the community is involved, for after all the residents of the area pay property taxes for their schools, three groups are more closely involved: teachers, parents and students. It is these three groups that should participate fully in a school council.

The tripartite school council should be the key decision-making body in the school. Obviously the participation of students would depend upon their age and educational achievement, for we cannot very well move toward an elementary school in which the students participate fully in decision-making. But obviously in the later grades of the secondary schools, the students should participate fully and meaningfully in the decision-making on a school council.

The second level is the community and school. The term “community” defies exact definition. Some very large geographical units may have a sense of community and are characterized by the relationships typical of a community; yet, on the whole, large size precludes ease of relating and destroys a sense of community. In an urban setting, an area from 30,000 to 40,000, centred on its secondary schools and with several elementary schools, could constitute a school district which because of its size would be capable of sustaining a community council and yet would still be small enough that a sense of community would not be lost. The community council should be composed generally of directly elected representatives from all adults in the community and representatives from the school councils, with seven to nine members to be elected every two years.

The third level is the public and school. Though the minister is elected and thus de jure reports to the public, more direct participation of the public should be envisaged by the creation of an Ontario Council of Education which, unlike the Ontario Council of Health, should be more autonomous. Some members of the Ontario Council of Education would be appointed by the ministry, some would be elected from the community council and some would represent teacher associations and post-secondary institutions.

In general terms, the community council would be akin to the present board of education but with increased members, smaller districts and greater power. Any major act of decentralization must involve transferring detailed financial responsibility from the hands of the ministry to the community council.

The basic budget, rightly so, I believe, can only be decided at the governmental level; yet once the actual amount of money is allotted to an educational district, its community council should be able to decide upon its priorities and how to dispose of the money.

I would also like to say something about the teachers. Teachers are full and very significant partners in the educational undertaking. Their duties, as much as their rights, have to be recognized and codified. Like any other group in society they have a societal right to organize among themselves. This right to organize becomes nominal if their collective bargaining rights, whether with the board, the ministry or the parents, are destroyed by compulsory arbitration. The whole concept of an essential service as a means of compelling someone to work against his will is largely mythical, even when applied to hospital workers much more than to teachers, and should be seen not as an actuality but as a manipulative political act of the governing party. NDP policy already provides a clear opposition to any compulsory arbitration.

Promotion in schools has always led to teachers becoming administrators. If promotion to administrative positions were not the criterion for a greater increase in salary, then the teachers would remain in teaching.

The teacher is a trained individual, and though using volunteers, even students, as teaching aides is both useful and acceptable in the context of involving the community and blurring the hard edges of the professional role, volunteers should not become unpaid substitutes for a teacher.

The most difficult undertaking is the upgrading of the quality of education for the teachers, and on this subject this resolution carries no definite statements but suggests that any future consideration of the quality of a teacher’s education programme must take into account that much of the preparation of teachers should be carried on outside formal academic classrooms, should be in the community or even in industry. To enable the teacher to become a learning resource person, the expansion of his training or change in emphasis is essential, especially in terms of the teacher gaining some knowledge and skill in the area of inter-personal and social relationships. In the context of sabbatical educational leaves being proposed for all working adults in Ontario, which is another major point of which I will speak later, the teacher must have an opportunity for continuous education while remaining on full pay. Though a sabbatical is both an educational and a rest break for any professional or worker, it should be remembered that in our society the need for the continuous upgrading of skills makes a sabbatical leave a necessity for the educational system, just as much as for other systems.

The role of the principal should be changed to that comparable with the non-medical administrator in a hospital. In any event, the assumption of major decision-making responsibility in a school by a tripartite school council will bring, of necessity, a devolution and a change in the role and powers of the principal.

The fifth point will deal with students. Clearly, the recognition of student rights is long overdue. A bill of rights, along the lines of UNICEF and the rights of the child, should be legislated. To encourage students to play an active role in all school management affairs is not enough; students should be directly involved as co-equal partners in administrative decisions. The voting age for offices on the school council should be, or maybe could be lowered, to about 14 years.

The last point on this particular aspect is finances generally. Education is the general responsibility of everyone and should be paid for from graduated income tax on persons and on industry. To ensure that the consumer will not pay for educational benefits, some control over levels of profits is essential and industrial and business growth limits should be established. The present property tax should be phased out with all deliberate speed.

The third major section is life-long education. An NDP government would seek to provide, by example in the public sector, and by encouragement in the private sector, socially useful alternatives to post-secondary education. Community-initiated and community-controlled, independently generated learning projects would be government-supported to the same extent, to use an example, as programmes such as OFY. Alternatives for young adults would be funded as realistically as are traditional forms of post-secondary education. Subsidies would be made available as well to voluntary organizations, such as Pollution Probe, which make important contributions to the development of adult education.

An NDP government would, by legislation and example, provide opportunities for the employment of individuals who wish to pursue post-secondary education on a part-time or intermittent basis. Employees should have the right to time off for study purposes. They should also have incentives to participate in co-operative educational programmes. Students should be paid fair market value for labour performed in practical training situations. Part-time students would be as eligible for student assistance programmes as full- time students.

The present distinction between part-time and full-time students at both undergraduate and graduate levels should be abolished and complete programme integration should take place as soon as possible in order to give part-time students equal access. Where possible, scheduling should be on an extended day basis to ensure such access. It should also be possible for secondary school students to study part-time at post-secondary institutions. One of our key proposals in this policy is that the NDP government would devise legislation and/or structures to extend the sabbatical concept to make study leaves possible for all residents of Ontario.

We are most keen about this and we find this a most important aspect that everyone should have a right to a sabbatical, in the way we have been able to extend sabbatical leave to people who work at the universities. It is a great opportunity both for relaxation and for educational purposes, and this right should be extended to all workers and all residents of Ontario. The implementational difficulties are great, but if the desire is there and we’ve made a decision to do so, I’m certain we can extend sabbatical leave to all workers of Ontario in the same form as a university does.

Among other things in this part about education for adults, an NDP government would drop the three-year attachment to the labour force clause as a prerequisite for eligibility for OMR programmes. It would expand the scope of retraining to include services, such as general literacy training and pretraining. Special provisions for adults resuming their education are, of necessity, of great importance. Access to post-secondary educational institutions would be made more available to adults, and policies of free tuition and family support would be linked to the guaranteed annual income system. All students who have dropped out of full-time or regular education for two years or more should have the right to admission to post-secondary institutions without formal requirements. Absence from the institutional schools for long periods of time should not affect a prospective student’s eligibility for financial aid. Moreover, any makeup work necessary for admission to a post-secondary institution should be provided free. Old people should be used as learning resources in the community.

Another aspect of this section is education in the work place. An NDP government would devise legislation and/or structures that would bring about a change in the responsibilities of all employers. In both public and private sectors of the economy, employers of 50 or more employees will establish, fund and staff educational facilities for their employees within their place of work. Employers of fewer than 50 will co-operate with other small employers to provide the required facilities. In addition, every employer will be expected to organize and fund physical and sports activities for his employees.

It is impossible for us to think of extending sabbatical leaves to the workers unless we provide by law that the worker who takes the educational leave has to be paid the same salary as he has been paid when he was working. Otherwise, the system will fail and lamentably will not be able to work.

The last remark on that third point which I am making on the policy, is extension of the public educational system to service adults. Major programmes of adult education, formal and informal, should be developed as part of the public education system.

Alternatives to the process of full-time schooling must be identified and developed, and incentive financing must be devised to encourage boards to experiment with such alternatives. The participation of business and industry, as well as the recreation and social service sectors, must be encouraged in order that learning environments in these settings be developed, allowing young people to arrange a variety of school-community action programmes. The educational system must be responsible for the development and assessment of these community programmes.

In addition to the Ministry of Education, an NDP government would seek the co-operation of other ministries, such as the Ministry of Lands and Forests or the Ministry of Health, in devising alternatives for young adults.

An NDP government would initiate an intense investigation into the curriculum of the formal school system. The new emphasis on lifetime learning based on a series of interrupted educational experiences brings into question the present curriculum based on the expectation of a youth-oriented educational system. If one assumes that education is lifelong, then not only do we need to correct the present failures of the educational system in the elementary and secondary schools, but we must make a major effort to introduce and to build a system of education for the adults which largely, if not totally, is now lacking in our society.

Again I should stress that the lack does not extend itself to all the classes in our society, since if one is privileged enough, one can always bring oneself to be involved in upgrading one’s education. But the great majority of our population have no opportunity -- and I mean especially workers -- of extending their education or improving the quality of their life unless we adopt a series or the suggestions that the NDP education policy is presenting for the government.

The last part -- and I am almost coming to the end of what I am saying --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): What he is reading, he means.

Mr. Dukszta: No, I was doing both. I thought I was speaking just now.

Hon. Mr. Wells: A little off the principle of the bill on the last one.

Mr. Dukszta: I disagree entirely that we are off. We are talking of the system of education in Ontario and I am being critical of what the minister has failed to do. I am not going to be entirely constrained by the bill. The minister’s responsibility is education and I am speaking to that, to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, may we stick to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Dukszta: I am indeed speaking to the principle of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There is nothing in that bill to do with the secondary education.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): He’s miles off.

Hon. Mr. Wells: However, carry on.

Mr. Dukszta: Thank you. The last part I would like to talk about is the quality of education. I sincerely hope that is on the subject.

Universal schooling, whatever else it does at present, or does not, ensures that economic relationships in society are held constant. To bring about fundamental change we need to examine and alter economic relationships. But the problem remains concerning the role that schools might play in assisting the onset of societal change.

When we ask ourselves what functions schools carry out, we can specifically state: the teaching of curriculum; the teaching of abstract and technical skills; the development of values, and the development of character building. But all of these learning activities are worked out through competitive, authoritarian and creatively stifling structures, and these are the factors that young people bring to the adult marketplace. Knowledge and skills that are learned in curriculum are reproduced in adult life, in social relationships, in every sphere of political and social life, not in terms of their intrinsic merit, but in the form of irrational authority, competition and rule-following.

Reward and privilege built into society and into the school are like money -- they force the emergence of these factors at the expense of creativity, curiosity, skills and knowledge for their own sake. What is learned in schools is the rewards for these forms of behavior in society, and hence there are limits to school reform.

The schools sorts and certifies its pupils for society. In this pervasive evaluation process, social relationships are necessarily authoritarian. Over time, people have come to accept authoritarianism as a condition of human-kind. Such is the success of our schools. Instead of freeing, they often enslave. Instead of emancipating the minds of young people, they usually prepare our youth to fit into and maintain our present institutions and institutional arrangements.

What I am trying to say here is that our schools -- and I have no real suggestion how we can change this -- prepare us only for society as it is. The schools act as a fossilizing apparatus for continuing the status quo in our society. We have not inbuilt any possibility of change or of producing a different individual than we are producing already.

It is a question which cannot be solved easily. I don’t intend to produce for this point any answers or even suggestions. I wanted to bring only to the notice of the House, at least to the notice of Hansard, if nothing else, some of the ideas that the NDP education policy has been thinking about and which have been become our platform.

One of the interesting ideas that we did discuss and which needs to be examined thoroughly over and over again, is that if we remove the necessity for certification or the necessity for specifying one’s educational grades when we are applying for a job, we would probably strike a major blow for forcing society to approach an individual from the point of view of an individual and not what are his grades or what is his training or what are his degrees. That, I suspect, belongs in the realm of the future and not in the realm of the practical or possible, although it happens to be one of the more exciting ideas to me personally. But since nobody particularly is listening I presume I can go on saying it, if nothing else.

To enable us to remove the certification and sorting function from schools, we need to offer some proposals of change for the employment marketplace. Some time ago in Canada we decided to remove religious denomination from job application forms so as to avoid prejudice against applicants on the basis of their religious beliefs. Similarly, we could argue that educational background be excluded from the marketplace employer’s information concerning applicants.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented these proposals which are in essence the NDP educational policy, not because I have even the slightest hope that the present government will implement necessary structural changes in our educational system, but as a blueprint for what the NDP, when in power, will implement.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the principle of section 10, dealing with subsection 7. This is a section, Mr. Speaker, which is going to bring in new legislation to permit the minister to make regulations so that certain students, under certain conditions, may be excused from school at age 14 rather than having to stay until age 16.

The member for Port Arthur, as I recall, mentioned that he felt the system had failed, since this legislation was necessary, and in a sense maybe there is some truth in that.

The reintroduction of this section suggests perhaps the system has failed to require this. But then, of course, the member for Parkdale said that no one can benefit from being exposed to education under compulsion. I don’t know where they stand on this subject, in the party to the left, but I think a few things should be said about it.

I personally agree there should be some alternative other than keeping kids in school until age 16, for two reasons. First, for those who are deriving no benefit from being in school there must surely be a better way for them; secondly, for those people in my own riding, namely the Amish and old order Mennonite people, who because of religious conviction have not seen fit to keep their children in school beyond grade 8.

It is apparent to most attendance officers that after section 6 of the Schools Administration Act had been changed and clause C taken out in subsection 2, the Act was practically unenforceable. After a time, in many areas of the province, the Act was not enforced in its entirety to keep students in school until age 16. It was unenforceable for good reasons. In many instances it would have created hardships for students in the 15- to 16-year age bracket who were out working, happily employed, and contributing to the welfare and financial benefit of their families. I agree that was the proper thing to do.

In those areas of my riding where the old order Mennonite and Amish people, because of religious conviction, have their own schools -- up to grade 8 -- it was most important to them to have their children, after that period, learn the fundamentals of good farming practices; their daughters learn housework, canning and storage and preservation of fruits and vegetables that is so much a part of their life.

But now, Mr. Speaker, there are foreseeable problems that could result with this section, depending on how the minister chooses to apply it. In an article in the Nov. 8 issue of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, the school board foresees problems with this section because of a directive sent from the deputy minister, Mr. Waldrum, in rather strong terms -- so the article in the paper said -- with the recommendations.

The school board in my area feels the procedure recommended in this directive is a rather complicated and cumbersome arrangement. It would mean that the Ministry of Education has proposed that trustee committees be set up to approve each application after exhaustive research, and suggests they might be set up now, even though the legislation might be some time off.

It has been suggested to the Ministry of Education that there would probably be an easier and simpler manner in which to handle the problem. The individual hearing by a committee of trustees to deal with the problem would not be -- and this is borne out by things previously said in this Legislature -- as simple as an arrangement whereby if the pupil, the parents, teacher and principal, and a member of the school board agreed that the child is deriving no further benefit from being in school, an alternative arrangement can be made, satisfactory to all concerned.

The superintendent of operations said he has not only opposed the suggested committee, but the whole concept of a large formal operation. He has suggested to the Ministry or Education that a much easier and more effective system would be to have both parents and school officials meet with an outside party and make the decision as is done successfully in other provinces. But he said the minister didn’t seem to think much of the suggestion. If and when the legislation is enacted it will simply make legitimate something that is happening now. This, Mr. Hunsberger said, had particular reference to the Mennonite students, on whom school officials now tend to turn a blind eye, and rightly so.

I just want to leave one thought with the minister, Mr. Speaker, and that is that this procedure, while it should be thorough and while all people involved with this decision should be made aware of it and have input into it, I don’t think it necessarily need be a cumbersome system in which the school board is involved in any great formal proceeding. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the minister’s attention, if I may, to one item in the report; it’s page 136, section 22. I mention it now, Mr. Speaker, so that when the whole matter of the report goes into committee of the whole House he may have an answer to this problem for the committee.

This section reads: “Permit the school buildings and premises and school buses owned by the boards to be used for any educational or other lawful purpose.”

In my area we have a public school, Kew Beach Public School, which has at the present time four vacant rooms. A group called the Kew Beach Co-operative Day Nursery would like very much to use that empty space, or part of it, for a day nursery, which we need in our particular area. They have made application which has now been approved by the Ministry of Community and Social Services; they have approved a grant to set up the capital requirements. The Toronto Board of Education are quite prepared to give a lease to this group to use the empty space, and the Community and Social Services ministry do require this lease. However, to take this action the school board does require the approval of the Ministry of Education.

I wish to bring that to the attention of the minister, and I hope when this does go into committee he may be able to bring in an amendment that would accomplish that purpose. I think, Mr. Speaker, that doing this would greatly enlarge the opportunity to have daycare centres in our schools, and with the declining enrolment here in Metro, and probably other parts of the province, I think this would be a very good use for empty school classrooms at the present time. I’ll leave that, Mr. Speaker, with the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak? The member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments I’d like to make in regard to the bill about changes that I expected but which haven’t happened. The first that I’ll suggest to the minister is on the question of the eligibility of electors.

Of course, in this bill we again see where it’s a necessity for an elector for either type of board, separate or public, to be a Canadian citizen or a British subject, and that he have those same qualifications to be a member of either board. I think there are many people in this province who have come to the point where they don’t accept that; they feel that it should be a prerequisite of membership on boards and of the right to vote that you be a Canadian citizen. The question of British subject I think should be dropped. Those people, if they desire the right to vote, should take out citizenship just like every other landed immigrant who comes to this province.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As long as you want them still to be Canadian.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Oh, yes.

Mr. Deacon: That’s right, that’s the point.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s the point I am trying to make.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Some people don’t even want them to be Canadian citizens.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is not acceptable.

Mi. R. S. Smith: I am not saying that.

Mr. Deacon: Especially with the new three-year policy.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I am not saying that. I am suggesting to the minister that he should amend his bill right through so that it reads “Canadian citizen” and not “or British subject.” I think there are parts of the educational Acts, particularly in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, which stipulate that Canadian citizenship is a criterion for sitting on the board. This apparently doesn’t apply to the rest of the province according to these Acts, and I find that differential a little hard to understand.

So I would ask the minister if he would consider, between now and when this bill goes to committee, that amendments be brought forward to make this Act in concord with the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

The other point that I wanted to bring up is perhaps a little more controversial. Section 116(3) again brings back the fact that in order for a person to be a supporter of the separate school system he must be a Roman Catholic. I think it is time we were past that stage, too, and that people have the right to choose to which board they want to direct their taxes and send their children for their education. This decision should be based on the fact that they are Canadian citizens and residents of the Province of Ontario, rather than on their religious beliefs.

There are a number of people in my area who have chosen to send their children to the separate school system for a number of different reasons. They are not of the Roman Catholic faith, and because of that they have been forced to pay double taxation. They pay their taxes to the province, they pay their taxes to the local public school board, and then they are forced to pay a sum in excess of $500 per year for each of their children who attend the separate school system.

I think that is discriminatory, just as I tried to explain to the minister the other day that it was discriminatory that grades 9 and 10 weren’t treated on the same basis in both systems, since they are recognized in both systems. Since both systems are recognized, I believe that the individual citizen should have the right to decide where he sends his taxes. I don’t think the minister should be able to tell me or anybody else what system I want to support. I think it is almost a basic freedom that the government is taking away from the people.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member is taking away the freedom granted under the Scott Act.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will talk to the member when I deal with it.

Mr. R. S. Smith: If the minister wants to comment, it is fine.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I am just saying I am wondering if my friend has read the Scott Act and the history of the Roman Catholic separate school system in this province. You are suggesting the taking away of a basic thing that is unique to the Scott Act in the Roman Catholic separate school system. It is there for Roman Catholics. If others want to go, that is fine; but it is there for them. The Roman Catholic citizens of this province don’t want other people to be able to direct their support there.

Mr. Deacon: That is not what I understand.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is just not true. It is an untrue statement the minister is making.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is not untrue. Can the member prove to me that the separate school trustees of this province and those who run the Roman Catholic system would like to have others to be able to direct their taxes to that system?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Oh, certainly I can.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, they have never told this to me in any meetings that we have had.

Mr. R. S. Smith: There have been representations made to the minister that every citizen be given the right to direct his taxes as he sees fit.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. R. S. Smith: And the minister knows as well as I that --

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, they haven’t.

Mr. R. S. Smith: -- representations have been made to him where there is, in the case of a mixed marriage --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, now, that is a different situation. A mixed marriage situation; that is different.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The minister is not even dealing with that here, is he? He is not going to deal with that either, is he?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing has the floor. The minister will have a chance to reply.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I would like to see him get into the debate. It doesn’t hurt him once in a while.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The trouble is the member always seems to be wrong on his facts; that is his problem.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): The member for Nipissing’s party isn’t agreeing with him.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The problem is that the minister always seems to be wrong in his answers. The fact of the matter is that people do want that right; many people want that right.

Many people within both systems want the right for a number of reasons. In my area, specifically, many people want to provide for their children a bilingual education or a French-language education, which is available to them in the separate school system and which is not available to them at all times in the public school system. For that reason, they want to send their children to the separate school system in order to allow them to avail themselves of that right, which should be a right in this province in spite of what Bill 22 says in our sister province. That doesn’t worry me and it shouldn’t worry the minister either.

The fact of the matter is that there has been no movement in this bill in either of those areas, in the first where both parents are non-Roman Catholics and in the second where there is the case of a mixed marriage. The Roman Catholic separate school system -- as an historic event, which few seem to understand; you have read something back 80 years ago and you have based all your answers on that -- has accepted, without the right to taxation, to educate many pupils from that type of marriage. In my area alone, it has cost thousands and thousands of dollars over the years to the supporters of that system, because of the stubbornness of this government in not bringing in equitable legislation. I would ask the minister to consider amendments in those two areas in committee.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the views expressed by my colleague from Nipissing with regard to eligibility of non-Roman Catholics to send their children and to direct their support to separate schools. I find in my own area there are those who would like to do this and it is not to do with religious grounds. It is to do with other advantages that they have seen and that they have experienced, whether it is the spirit or whatever it is, in some of the separate schools that we have.

I would be very surprised, if the minister inquired, if there was opposition in either the Roman Catholic system or among Protestant groups to this change. I don’t believe that still exists, because certainly when this question was discussed a few years ago and when the Canadian Council of Churches did their investigation into the situation in 1969, they indicated their very strong support for this change because they didn’t feel a school system should be divided on denominational or religious grounds. They felt these should not be the criteria and it should be open to people to move to one or the other and, in effect, to have a choice between two school systems.

The second point I wanted to indicate is my support for my colleague from Waterloo North with regard to attendance. In York county, I was pleased on different occasions to find where there had been attendance problems that one way or another the school board worked it out, even though it wasn’t perhaps quite within the regulations. They found that it was important for the youngsters that a way be devised whereby a youngster did not have to attend school and, in effect, got his education in another form for a period of time, until such time as that youngster maybe would be able to accept with a different spirit the education that was available to him or her. I think it is important that this attendance matter be modernized in this bill, and I am sorry that it hasn’t been.

The third thing that bothers me very much is in clause 179 with regard to closed committee meetings. That is used time and time again as an excuse to keep the public out of the discussions so that they are unaware of the background for decisions made by the board. The board comes to a regular meeting where they have made their decisions beforehand in a closed committee meeting, and it is not the basis on which our policies should be developed and our decisions made.

I would hope that the minister would consider changing that clause so, in fact, the only time that a committee meeting could be closed is when it was dealing with a personal situation, a private situation, where it would be harmful if it were brought out into the open. But as for general board policies and general matters that are so often dis cussed in these meetings, I think they should be ruled out absolutely. No excuse should be given the boards for closed committee meetings unless it is for those specific matters of personnel situations.

With those comments, I hope that the minister will reconsider these clauses which my colleagues and I have raised.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to the bill?

The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I was interested, while listening to my colleague from Nipissing, to page through some of the sections of Bill 72, particularly with respect to the matter he first raised. That, of course, is the matter of the right to vote in an election for those supporting either separate or public schools in the Province of Ontario and the matter, of course, of Canadian citizenship.

I noticed in section 63(7) that a certain form was to be completed, a declaration with respect to persons who are objected to. I noticed in section 95 that the matter of citizenship is raised again and I saw it again under rural separate schools in section 97(6). In each of these cases, the matter of Canadian citizenship is referred to as a criterion for voting. However, another clause, unfortunately, is added on -- a clause which no longer has any reason to be added on within the Province of Ontario. That clause contains those four words which we dealt with at some length in changes to the Municipal Elections Act when the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) was Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for municipal affairs under the Treasurer (Mr. White).

At that time, some changes were accepted by the ministry and this phrase, “or other British subjects,” was seen to be no longer a requirement within our society in Ontario. This especially becomes more important since the matter of citizenship is more available now with the proposed federal changes to allow a person coming from anywhere else in the world to become a Canadian citizen after three years within Canada. I think that three-year term seems to be an effective and reasonable balance as one acquires knowledge of a new society; yet one treasures, of course, the background and aspirations that one had in some other country.

I do think, though, that we have an opportunity, as we consolidate these various educational Acts, to once again stress the importance of Canadian citizenship. I would suggest to the minister that before this matter goes to committee, it would be worthwhile to reconsider the portions of the sections themselves to which I’ve referred and make the appropriate changes.

Canadian citizenship should be the only criterion for voting in Ontario elections, whether it’s for school boards, for municipal officials or for members of the Legislature of Ontario. I don’t think that this ancient tradition that we have had has any particular meaning now. It is no longer the case that persons have come into our society who happen to have been British subjects, namely those from the British Isles, and who share with us many of the same backgrounds and traditions and, therefore, a presumed knowledge to be able to involve themselves almost immediately in our society and in our election patterns.

There was great merit in the days when that did happen, because persons coming from the United Kingdom were able to fit rather quickly into our way of doing things since it was, in most ways, a copy of the manners in which they were familiar. However, such is no longer the case when we look at the changes in the patterns of immigration into Canada. The matter of being a British subject is therefore no longer an automatic acceptance of the fact that the persons who happen to be British subjects have any necessary depth of knowledge of our society, because they may have come from a society much different, although it gives them the benefit to be called British subjects.

I think, accordingly, that the matter should be best resolved by depending for these benefits and responsibilities of election on the sole criterion of Canadian citizenship. I do not think that we discriminate against anyone that way. I think, rather, we encourage persons to involve themselves in our society, to accept a commitment by becoming Canadian citizens and by, in that sense, leaving the ties of an earlier involvement: but leaving those ties positively, with good memories and with a commitment to their own and their children’s future, and I think that future is best moved forward by setting a certain dividing line. The dividing line, I think, should be that of Canadian citizenship, in a proud and positive way and not in any way something negative or derogatory of some other person or some other person’s past. It is surely sufficient to call upon the people who are within this province who wish to join with us to accept the responsibilities of citizenship and to move forward with us to develop the kind of society within Ontario and Canada that we think should be for the mutual benefit of all of us.

I think the matter of citizenship is a sine qua non as we look forward to developing a sound basis of growth within the province. I hope the minister will reconsider this, as I have said, not on a negative basis, that we oppose or are against persons of other traditions, but rather to encourage those to join with us positively as Canadians so that we can develop the best form, in this case, of an education programme within the province that we can hope for. Just as we have called for this under the Election Act and under other statutes, we again call for it here. We think it is most important and we think the time has come that this kind of an approach should be taken positively, for the future not only of those of us who are within this chamber, as members of the Legislature, but also for the children and grandchildren yet to come, who can benefit from this kind of positive step forward as we look toward citizenship within our own country as the sole guideline upon which the right to elect trustees is based.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak on Bill 72 before the minister replies? Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank all the hon. members who have contributed to this debate. I found it very interesting to listen to comments on various sections. I think that we’ve heard these comments, exactly that, on various sections. We’ve also heard the New Democratic Party educational policy read for us, and we’ve also heard some comments on the principle of the bill.

I think we have strayed a fair deal from the principle of the bill. I think my friend from Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) stuck to it and then everyone else got off into little areas. However, I suppose in a debate like this, that is acceptable.

I agree with a lot of the things that my friend from Port Arthur says from time to time, but I think he got kind of carried away in this particular debate, because the principle of this bill is to consolidate the present education Acts, not to bring into this Legislature a new Education Act. It consolidates the Ministry of Education Act, the Schools Administration Act, the Public Schools Act, the Separate Schools Act and the Secondary Schools and Boards of Education Act. It does this for a very good reason, because we are now operating under these five individual Acts and the idea is to bring them together, take out the ambiguities, the duplications and the obscure references, to systemize the legislation, to get rid of some of the complexities and to make it a much more useful document.

This is the body of education law in this province that has grown over the 100 years that this province has been in Confederation. There were other consolidations. Consolidations have happened early in this century. There were consolidations around the years just before 1954, I think as a result partly of the Hope commission report, but of course not going as far as that commission suggested, we are now completing that job and consolidating that legislation.

This is the framework of the legislation under which one of the finest educational systems on this continent has developed. I am not going to say it is perfect. It is very easy to join the doom and gloomers today to criticize everything in our educational system, but it just isn’t as bad as some people would say. I know my friend from Port Arthur wouldn’t want to be accused of this.

We have to be very careful, in laying blame on the educational system, that we are not blaming all those in it. If the educational system in this province has failed, it means that I as minister have failed, and the trustees have failed. It means all the teachers of this province have failed in their job; and this certainly isn’t so, I think my friend would agree.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Stop strawmanning!

Hon. Mr. Wells: The teachers of this province have done an excellent job; parents are doing a good job; students today are learning more and better than ever. But I don’t intend to get carried away on this line of reasoning because that is not really what this bill is about. It is not a new Act, it is a consolidation of the present legislation under which our present system has evolved. It is not like the system we had in this province 25 years ago. There have been changes in the legislation, but also in the system, and they occur under the general guidelines of this legislation.

Mr. R. S. Smith: In some respects.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Some of the guidelines this legislation allows us to bring in are regulations. I want to assure the members of this House, that, certainly since I have been minister, regulations under our legislation have been very thoroughly discussed with all those affected and who can bring input. I am sorry we didn’t have available a copy for your group on the 14- and 15-year-old school leaving regulation. This regulation has been out for consideration over many weeks by the various school boards. We wanted them to give their input; and we got it, as my friend from Waterloo indicated. Some boards thought the regulation was good, others thought it too cumbersome. They have all come in now and we are looking at those --

Mr. W. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could interrupt and announce some results of the New Brunswick election. Hatfield has won with one more seat than when he retired.

Mr. Deacon: Nice to have a Tory win somewhere!

Mr. Breithaupt: It is not going to happen here.

Mr. Renwick: Tough for New Brunswick.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s an omen of things to come.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Things to come, everywhere.

The regulations that have been and will be developed under this legislation are discussed fully with all those concerned. If my friend would talk to some of his friends in the Ontario Teachers’ Federation he will find that we have been meeting for nearly 18 months on regulation 191 and others. We have regular meetings six times a year to discuss various changes contemplated.

We have the same kind of meetings with school boards. We have at least annual if not semi-annual meetings with home and school groups, educational officials and so forth. All the regulations this ministry develops are created co-operatively, because we are working as a team in this enterprise.

Under the legislation we have had, which now is consolidated in the Education Act, we are able to develop the real meat on our educational system. It is a system which, first and foremost, is concerned with the students. The emphasis, of course, changes from year to year. That is why you don’t build these things into the legislation; you allow the guidelines under which we can develop a system, a system which first and foremost has as its objective the welfare of the young people, the students in our schools.

Let me read you one of the guidelines that is presently in the works; our primary junior guideline, which will be published very soon in the new year. Let’s see how close it comes to some of the things that have been said in this House. This is the guideline published under the authority of this legislation. It says:

“It is the policy of the government of Ontario that every child will have the opportunity to develop as completely as possible in the direction of his talents and his needs. We, on behalf of the educational community and other citizens, pledge support for an education that endeavours to provide a fuller life during a child’s years in the primary and junior divisions, and endeavours to nurture every child’s growth so that each may be able to continue his education with satisfaction and may share the life of the community with competence, integrity and joy.

“It follows that the curriculum will provide opportunities for each child to the limit of his or her potential:

“1. To develop and maintain confidence and a sense of self-worth.

“2. To acquire the basic skills fundamental to his continued education.” [And, of course, that means reading and writing and speaking and mathematics.]

“3. To gain the knowledge and acquire the attitudes that he needs for active participation in Canadian society.

“4. To develop the moral and aesthetic sensitivity necessary for a complete and responsible life.

“It is equally the policy of the government of Ontario that education in the primary and junior divisions be conducted so that each child has the opportunity to develop abilities and aspirations without the limitations imposed by sex role stereotypes.”

That’s the kind of thing that goes into a curriculum guideline published under the authority of this Act. And this is part of the whole process of decentralization that has gone on within this ministry. I really reject the point of view that is put forward that this Education Act actually centralizes more power in the Ministry of Education, because it does not. The emphasis has been to decentralize, to give more authority to the school units.

Mr. Foulds: The legislation doesn’t do that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh yes it does.

Mr. Foulds: Your goodwill may do it, but the legislation doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We used to operate school inspectors. We don’t inspect schools any more. Each school jurisdiction does its own inspecting, its own evaluation. We set general guidelines like this for curriculum. It’s up to the school boards to implement them, to put the flesh on these bones, to do a lot of the things. They have a great degree of autonomy here, some of which is not exercised, particularly by trustees who are continually complaining about no autonomy.

An hon. member: Who are those regional officers?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yet they give up and abdicate this complete area of curriculum where they have a great deal of autonomy.

Mr. Foulds: Because they have been so frustrated.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, they don’t meet frustration. Let me just give you an example.

You know I read that story about those courses in Chinese, and I support a lot of what the hon. member said about using as a language of instruction the native language of various of our ethnic groups to provide this transitional approach to education. We support this and we’ve tried to work with boards.

It’s not something that you necessarily can do overnight. We’ve been working with groups. We’ve had experimental projects in the separate school board. I know that the Toronto school board has operated the one they have indicated there. We support this and we are working with many groups to develop it.

I read in the paper, as my friend did, that comment about the Chinese programme. Yet I find in checking my files that in December, 1973, we gave a verbal go-ahead to the Toronto board. We didn’t receive anything formal from them until August, 1974, and after receiving a formal proposal in August, 1974, I sent a letter back on Sept. 23, 1974, approving the proposal. In return I got a very nice letter of thanks from the chairman of the Toronto board; “Thank you for the co-operation of the ministry and for the help that our regional director had given ...” She ended up by saying:

“Children and adults in both school communities have worked very hard to get these programmes prepared. I am positive that we will learn many valuable lessons here which will be helpful in other bilingual-bicultural situations. We are most grateful for your co-operation and interest.”

Now the ministry and the Toronto board worked hand-in-hand in developing those programmes. I think that probably the reporter who had written that story for the Star perhaps missed some of the pertinent details about the development of that programme.

As my friend says, unfortunately, the Chinese programme in two schools in Toronto has been held up. No one has mentioned the Greek cultural programme in Frankland and Jackman schools which is on stream and which should be beginning in the new year. This again has been developed and will be a very good programme.

There is another component to that, not connected with the kind of transitional use of the language as a tool in helping the child to fit in and develop better in the school. These cultural programmes are also to help maintain the cultural heritage of these groups in the school, but also these programmes are going to be available in that school for members in that community who are not members of that cultural background. They will be able to attend those classes if they wish, too, in order that they might better understand the culture of what is a majority of the students in that school.

This is something that we wanted to get worked into these programmes and which the Toronto board has done in conjunction with the parents. This offers a great opportunity for a much better understanding of the culture in these neighbourhoods than was there before. I think these programmes are going to be very good.

As for the other comment that some members made, Mr. Speaker, I’m really going to leave, if I may, a lot of the comments about the various sections to answer when we go over this bill clause by clause in committee. I think the time to do that is there. I can review the Hansard and I will be prepared to answer. Some of the suggestions, I think we can accommodate. Others I don’t think we can, but we can discuss them fully as we go through section by section in committee.

Mr. Good: Standing committee?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Standing committee, oh yes. I indicated a long time ago we would do that in standing committee.

Mr. Good: Yes, as long as the minister remembers.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I always remember. I never forget.

I just want to say, because this really relates very directly to the principle of the bill, which is consolidating these Acts, that in consolidating the Acts we are taking what has been known as the Separate Schools Act and putting it into this total Act.

As my friend from Windsor-Walkerville has indicated, there has been some concern in certain quarters about this. There are two sections in the Act which have been worked on long and hard by all of us to overcome those concerns, both those people in the separate school trustees’ association and our own people. I think this is done, first of all, in part 4, which is the Roman Catholic separate schools section of the Act.

Section 79 says:

“This part applies to separate schools for Roman Catholics now or hereafter established and shall have the same effect as if this part were a special Act respecting separate schools for Roman Catholics.”

That is the first section that is there to make sure there is protection guaranteed to those people. The second is in the very beginning of the Act, just before part 1 on page 10. It is set out as subsection 16 of section 1. It says:

“The consolidation in this Act of the Acts referred to in section 272 shall not adversely affect any right or privilege respecting separate schools enjoyed by separate school boards or their supporters under the Acts repealed by this Act as they existed immediately prior to the coming into force of this Act.”

I think those two sections give protection and a guarantee to any of our separate school supporters who felt there was some problem, and some concern about amalgamating the Separate Schools Act into this consolidation.

Indeed Rev. Ray Durocher who is on the staff of the Ontario Separate School Trustees’ Association has written some very helpful and explanatory letters on this matter that have appeared in both the Catholic paper and the Globe and Mail. He’s been a great help to us. He’s worked on our task force along with Donald Felker and Percy Muir and our own people. They have come up with some of these things to overcome some of the problems that were presented by various groups. Rev. Fr. Durocher feels that this answers that particular matter.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill is the consolidation of these educational Acts. We have removed obsolete references and we have systematized the legislation.

Because of the kind of legislation, and I guess the size of the educational system in this province, there are of necessity some fairly technical sections; but I want to assure my friends that our concern is for the children in the schools. That will always be the concern of this ministry and that is what matters in this legislation. I guess of necessity, as with all legislation, we need technical terms. They look rather ominous, they look rather overpowering in legislation, but the spirit and heart of this legislation is the education of the young people in our schools and it will always remain that way.

Motion agreed to, second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this is to go to the standing committee.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Standing committee.

Mr. Deacon: It is nice to have another bill go to standing committee.

Mr. Good: That is two in a row.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can even get another one for the member.

Mr. Good: There are only seven in the last --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

HEALTH INSURANCE ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 145, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Mi. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, we intend to advise that these bills might be called with respect to the Ministry of Health. They came on rather quickly and since they have only been printed about a day or so --

Mr. Renwick: The parliamentary assistant is not in his seat, so it has been improperly called in any event. The leader of the House introduced the bill from a seat other than his own.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It has been customary for the last several years for the parliamentary assistant --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order -- that’s all right, you get up and I will sit down -- it hasn’t been customary around this place for many years for this to happen, and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It has been customary since we have had parliamentary assistants. In fact they were requested to move over to the opposite side so they would be facing the main questioners.

Mr. Renwick: With the permission of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Well, do we have permission for the parliamentary assistant to sit on the right of the Speaker?

Agreed.

Mr. Renwick: Certainly he has permission, provided he has the courtesy to ask for it.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to request the permission of the House.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the bill was not properly introduced. Will the parliamentary assistant please now, having the consent of the House to do so, introduce it properly?

Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the bill was properly introduced.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect for the opinions which you are giving off the cuff without consideration, the parliamentary assistant is required to ask the permission of the House before he moves from one seat to a seat which is not his own, and any proceeding taken by that person from a seat other than his own in this assembly is out of order. Now, let’s abide by the simple courtesies of the rules of the House.

HEALTH INSURANCE ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 145, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Mr. Breithaupt: Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, before we proceed, whether since the bill does not appear as printed on the order paper it is proper to proceed with the bill?

Mr. Renwick: Of course it isn’t. It is not on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I missed the point.

Mr. Breithaupt: On the order paper, Mr. Speaker, the bill is not marked as printed.

Mr. Renwick: It is not on the order paper.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): It is not on the order paper at all.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could advise us as to whether, even though the bill does appear under item 34 on the order paper, it is proper to proceed with it when it is not marked as being printed?

Mr. Speaker: No, that’s true. I hadn’t noticed that. The member is quite correct. If you wish to delay it, we will have to delay it. Is that the wish of the House?

Mr. Renwick: I think the bill should be stood down, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed?

Agreed.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Five minutes. It’s close enough.

Mr. Breithaupt: Before the adjournment motion, Mr. Speaker, could we inquire as to whether it is the intention to proceed with this bill and Bill 146, as well as with the bills standing in the name of the Attorney General (Mr. Welch), Bills 140, 141 and 142, tomorrow evening? Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Food does not know that.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I just don’t know.

Mr. Breithaupt: Thank you.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Does anybody over there know?

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

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Reid: Here comes the House leader. Maybe we can find out before we adjourn.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will allow the House leader to clarify the question if he can. Did he hear the question?

Mr. Reid: What is going on tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: This is a request for tomorrow’s programme.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I will just put the question again. Might it be the intention of the House leader to go ahead with the two bills standing in the name of the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), Bills 145 and 146, tomorrow evening, since we will be dealing with that no-confidence motion tomorrow afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, that is quite correct, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of business tomorrow we will deal with the notice of motion standing in the name of the member for Scarborough West; then we will proceed with these two bills, to be followed, if required, by the bills as I called them in the name of the Attorney General.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.