Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to you and to the House, 44 grade 11 and grade 12 students from Marathon High School under the supervision of Mr. and Mrs. Alec Gouthro, Miss Marianne Hoople, Mr. Gunther Wirtz and Mr. Victor Gionet. Would you please welcome them to the Legislature this morning.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a group of students, in the gallery, from South Peel Secondary School together with their teacher, Mrs. Wills. Would you join me in welcoming those students and their teacher.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I too would ask the members to welcome 25 students accompanied by Mrs. Reid from Danforth Technical School in the great riding of Riverdale.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome students from grade 12, Bendale Secondary School and their instructor, Mrs. Bournes, from the great metropolitan area of Scarborough. Would the House welcome them this morning.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, may I please ask you and the House to welcome 16 students from Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology in the beautiful riding of York Mills, with their teacher, Miss M. Belfiore.

Mr. Lewis: I thought there were students here from Scarborough West.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

SPENDING REVISIONS

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the “Supplementary Actions to the 1975 Ontario Budget” from the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) as of July 7, 1975, indicated that we were determined to find, within our original spending estimates, sufficient savings to finance $178 million in new measures. These savings were to be achieved without sacrificing the delivery of essential services, without defaulting on our commitments to local governments and without distorting our priorities.

A two-part plan was to be used to achieve these expenditure cuts and internal efficiencies. The first part of the plan involved programme cuts and postponements, while the second involved the cutting of internal government costs.

It was the second part of this plan which gave Management Board the responsibility of implementing eight cost-control measures in order to produce savings of some $81.9 million in 1975-76. This figure was later increased to $87.9 million, and it is with regard to these eight internal cost-cutting measures that I now report.

Measure 1 imposed an immediate cut on replacement staffing for all internal administrative functions and, with normal attrition, envisaged complement reductions of approximately 1,500 by the end of this fiscal year.

To realize the full impact of this measure, it must be seen in the context of the earlier cut ordered in the April budget for 1975-1976, and also our reductions in civil service complement in 1974-1975.

Mr. Nixon: That shows how much fat there was in the government to start with.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The Treasurer announced in the 1975 budget that the civil service complement levels had been reduced from the April 1, 1974, level by 2.3 per cent.

Mr. Nixon: It’s amazing you were able to do that.

Hon. Mr. Auld: This reduction, coupled with the further reduction of 1,500 by the end of the current fiscal year, brings the total combined reduction of civil service complement and OPP to well over 3,000, or just under four per cent

Mr. Nixon: How are we going to get along? Who misses them? Three thousand gone and who misses them?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Auld: This is being achieved despite allowing net increases to the complements of the Ontario Provincial Police, security guards, and environment plant operators.

Measures 2, 3 and 4 included an immediate moratorium on the hiring of consultants, a 10 per cent reduction in data processing budgets, and a 10 per cent reduction in direct operating expenditures.

Mr. Nixon: That’s why your speeches have improved.

Mr. Singer: Who is going to do the dirty tricks work?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Together, these measures are to produce a total saving of $62.9 million. These reductions now have been identified, or are in the process of being identified.

Mrs. Campbell: That is what your consultants are costing us.

Hon. Mr. Auld: However, the work of the government must go on, and to permit ministries to proceed with their approved programmes and projects, with reduced dollar amounts, the moratorium on the hiring of consultants has been lifted.

The further reduction of civil service complement by means of measure 1, and the saving of $62.9 million under measures 2, 3 and 4, have now been achieved in the first seven months. There remains a further $18 million under measures 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Those measures deal with reductions in planning and design staffs; improved inventory management; consolidation and rationalization of regional offices and a review of the resources devoted to research. All these, of course, take longer to analyse and, at this point in time, I can report that Management Board is monitoring the progress being made in these areas and, on these particular measures, I will probably have a report later on in the fiscal year.

Mr. Nixon: Spectacular.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I might just briefly report to the House that we have Telexed the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. Macdonald, this morning, indicating our support for the change he is proposing in terms of the $600 guideline and the move which he has made.

Mr. Lewis: My colleague from Carleton East (Mrs. Gigantes) suggests we all move to Ottawa, then the minister won’t have to Telex or phone. He wouldn’t even have to sit here at all; we could just move.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Education, now that the teachers predictably seem determined on a course of events which will lead to a very major and undesirable strike in the Metropolitan Toronto area has he plans for any personal intervention? What has he requested over the next few days specifically to try to deter what now appears to be an almost inevitable outcome?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to differ with my friend in saying “inevitable outcome.” I’ve always assumed, and I’m sure he knows from the last provincial election, one cannot presume any inevitable outcome of a secret ballot.

Mr. Lewis: Almost impossible, I say.

Mrs. Gigantes: Peace in our time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The NDP are the most surprised people.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think perhaps my friend was surprised at some of the conclusions from the secret ballots which were put into that ballot box.

Mr. MacDonald: Confession is good for the soul. I haven’t heard that kind of analysis before.

Mr. Lewis: That certainly gives me hope for the future.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don’t get too optimistic.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I emphasize that because --

Mr. Lewis: I am not too optimistic -- conscientious.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Let’s have one person speaking at a time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We are all jumping one step ahead of the procedures outlined in Bill 100 governing collective bargaining, which calls for a supervised vote on the last board offer and a supervised strike ballot which the Education Relations Commission is now in the process of organizing and which, I understand, will be held next week. Really, until that event takes place we cannot assume anything because a secret ballot is called for and a secret ballot will be held. Although we may be able to look into our crystal ball and foretell very well what’s going to happen, we have to assume until that happens that the people haven’t decided.

Mr. Lewis: Why is the minister waiting until it is too late?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We are not waiting. Let me say this, though: After the discussion of a few days ago, I again looked at the bill governing collective bargaining for teachers. We debated it long and hard in this Legislature and one of the cornerstones of that bill is the Education Relations Commission. I think I fulfilled my pledge to this House to appoint some of the best people possible to that commission. We have on there Owen Shime as chairman and the deputy chairman is Prof. Harry Arthurs.

Those commissioners, and I’ve spoken to them, are the ones, I think, who should come into play at this particular time. I think they, of course, are feeling their way because this is the first really serious case they’ve had to deal with. I’ve talked to Mr. Shime and as the commission he stands ready to be of any possible help, as charged by this House with overseeing teacher-board negotiations.

I think it is premature at this time to do anything else but to ask the commissioners what they see their role is or should be as we approach what might be a very serious situation. I certainly stand ready to be of assistance at any time, as I know my friend will be in his particular capacity with the parties.

Mr. Lewis: Nobody asks me.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This House passed a piece of legislation and we set up this important commission. I think they have to see what their role should be in this particular instance. I’m sure they also feel that until that vote is taken, we cannot say for sure that they are heading down the road toward a strike in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: One supplementary: Leaving the crystal ball aside, doesn’t the minister think he is leaving it dangerously late in this situation? Given the Ontario Education Relations Commission, given the vote -- which I suspect last night’s meeting probably predetermined -- doesn’t the minister think he is leaving it dangerously late, as Minister of Education, still to refuse personally to intervene with only about 10 days to go? Can the minister not summon himself to get the parties together to see if we can avoid the outcome?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as I said a few minutes ago, I stand ready, if the parties feel that I can be of assistance. If they will call me, I’d be happy to see what assistance I can be to them.

I want to emphasize very clearly that I don’t want to undercut this new Education Relations Commission which may be sitting there now devising ways in which it should talk to the parties.

Mr. Lewis: It is wondering what to do.

[10:15]

Hon. Mr. Wells: If they are wondering what to do, I have to suggest, with respect, that they are far more experienced labour mediators than either I and probably my colleague.

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes, much more than I am.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am sure that they are sitting there, given the responsibilities that this Legislature handed to them, to try to decide what they should do, because I am sure that there is no one in this Legislature or anywhere who wants to see a teachers’ strike in Metropolitan Toronto, none of us.

Mr. Lewis: Then you’d better move in on it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If the parties would like me to meet with them, if they will communicate with me I’ll certainly be happy to meet with them any time.

Mr. Nixon: Since the reports this morning indicate that the Toronto board is very unwilling to offer more than the 10 per cent or the 12 per cent of the federal guidelines, and according to one report an authoritative source is quoted as saying they are waiting to hear from the provincial authorities as to what they can do, would the minister not think that the minister would be justified in stepping in at this stage, as has been suggested by myself and the Leader of the Opposition, because the circumstances of the federal wage and price controls were not foreseen when we passed Bill 100 and when the Education Relations Commission was established.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think the answer the Toronto board was looking for was given by the Minister of Finance for Canada yesterday in the House of Commons, or in some statement to someone, and it is reported in the papers this morning. That, I think, is the most definitive answer we’ve had in that particular area as of yet, and we welcome that, because what we need are some hard, definite answers rather than grey, hazy answers.

Mr. Nixon: Wouldn’t this justify the minister’s personal intervention in this, since the situation has changed?

Hon. Mr. Wells: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think I just answered that particular question in my exchange with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps I haven’t made myself clear, Mr. Speaker, but the point is that the minister has said we passed the law and established the Education Relations Commission and that it should be allowed to function. My point was that we did not envisage federal wage and price controls which are imposed directly on this, which must surely involve the political authority and not the appointed authority -- and that’s the minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly it involves us at a particular time, but there is a separation of function here; we are talking about the function of negotiation and procedures to arrive at a contract in Metropolitan Toronto and the outcome of the various processes under Bill 100, and the Education Relations Commission is charged with overseeing that whole particular attitude.

Mr. Nixon: The minister is actually talking about an imminent strike.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think Mr. Macdonald said, and I think everyone has said -- and this certainly applies in the private sector as well as the public sector which is governed by the Ontario Labour Relations Act, again an Act of this Legislature -- that nothing in the federal programme negates any of the procedures or rights under any of these labour statutes and the people should continue using those particular bills. In this case, the Education Relations Commission is charged with overseeing matters concerning teacher-board negotiations. Let’s let them have a chance.

Mr. Nixon: After we have a strike.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary, if I may, do I correctly understand the minister to mean that the normal procedures and functions under Bill 100 are to be carried through, notwithstanding the intervention of the federal guidelines --

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer to that is yes.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I finish? -- and the exportation of his responsibility to Ottawa? Is that what we understand?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The normal procedures and the responsibilities and rights and everything under Bill 100 should be carried through and are in no way negated by the federal programme.

FARM INCOME STABILIZATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Now that he has mastered his portfolio in its entirety, what has happened to the farm income stabilization plan and when is he going to pursue the commitment made in the Throne Speech of the last Parliament?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have already been pursuing it. I met with the federal Minister of Agriculture and Food on Wednesday of this week and discussed the farm stabilization programme --

Mr. Nixon: You’re going to let them do that too, I understand.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and I am quite satisfied that things are moving along satisfactorily.

Mr. Lewis: Just a second -- on a supplementary -- with what is the minister quite satisfied? To what extent will the province fulfil the commitment he made to the farmers of Ontario? When are we to have the farm income stabilization plan which was promised and budgeted for?

Hon. W. Newman: If I remember correctly, we have always said that it should be on a national basis.

Mr. Lewis: Like everything.

Interjection.

Hon. W. Newman: Do you want to ruin the agricultural industry in this country?

Mr. Lewis: I’d like an agricultural industry in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. W. Newman: I’m telling you we just don’t want to ruin it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: I have said that I would be meeting with Mr. Whelan; I have met with him, and we have discussed farm stabilization programmes. I have already said in a speech that if we cannot make satisfactory arrangements on a national basis we will move into the field ourselves.

Mr. Lewis: Like controls.

Mr. Foulds: How long?

Mr. S. Smith: They may be our cousins but they are your masters.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Tell us, who is getting strained now?

Mr. Bullbrook: My colleague is on a different level, physically and intellectually, from the Minister of Housing.

HOUSING SITUATION AT RED LAKE

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of Housing. If I can ask “Mr. Danson” to come to attention for a moment, I would like to put a question to him.

Is he aware of the desperate housing situation in the little community of Red Lake? If so, is he prepared to respond to it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am certainly aware of the situation in Red Lake. I have the opportunity to discuss it with their representative quite often -- even more so now.

Mr. Singer: They talk about little else.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As I understand the problem -- and I don’t pretend to know all of the problems as yet -- the Red Lake situation is being dealt with continually in an attempt to provide new housing.

Mr. Reid: Meanwhile, they still have the problem.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister realize that the government purchased a larger portion of land to develop under the HOME programme and finds, because of services and related costs, that they cannot build houses at less than roughly $60,000 a house and that the council and the community are frantic because of the expansion of Reed Paper, Ontario-Minnesota and the Griffiths Mine? Would the minister meet with the council to try to iron it out since the housing crisis accelerates through the community? They called me just yesterday.

Mr. Renwick: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) shouldn’t prompt his colleague.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Frankly, I was not aware that this sort of situation had developed as to the cost.

Mr. Lewis: It has.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Perhaps that is brand new. Certainly I would be quite happy to meet with the council of Red Lake and discuss the matter with them.

Mr. Singer: And the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier).

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary question: Does the Minister of Housing understand that the first time most of us met the member for Kenora he was standing in the middle of the road in one of those northern towns with a banner that he himself had strung across the main street? We were in the presence of the then Premier and it said, “Mr. Robarts, Kenora needs housing”. That was in 1962 and we haven’t got it yet. That was his election platform in 1963.

Mr. Speaker: Is this question of urgent public importance?

The hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk may ask his questions now.

Mr. Lewis: It was in your own community.

Mr. Nixon: Since 1962; it is almost incredible.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That housing was supplied.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would just like to respond to the hon. member by saying I wasn’t up in that part of the world at that time and didn’t see the banner. Neither was the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: We have had Tory government ever since and there is no housing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You weren’t there either.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member has only spent 15 minutes there.

Mr. Nixon: That was when you were a Liberal, for heaven’s sake.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And that was when the Liberals were in second place.

Mr. Nixon: We need him right now. We need him.

Mr. MacDonald: He’s got one foot in each of the sinking ships.

ADVERTISING OF RENT REVIEW

Mr. Nixon: I would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Did the minister consult with the Premier (Mr. Davis) before he authorized the insertion of the series of ads, specifically in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, Sept. 13, over his signature, purporting to be a notice to tenants informing him that the municipalities and the province would be co-operating in the establishment of rent review boards?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would be delighted to see what advertisement the member is referring to. Would he pass it over to me, please?

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on.

Mr. Nixon: This isn’t a supplementary, but just for clarification, surely he recalls the advertisement that was placed in support of the Conservatives’ third housing policy during the election campaign.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s better than not having any housing policy at all.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, we had a policy.

Mr. Nixon: Did he consult with the Premier before the advertisement was inserted, because the Minister of Housing, as he then was, signed the ad?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we are getting a bit more definitive. Really, I would think the leader of the Liberal Party would know by now --

Mr. W. Hodgson: You didn’t lose very well.

Mr. Yakabuski: He’s a poor loser.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- that he should tell me exactly what date it was, what advertisement he is referring to.

Mr. Nixon: I told the minister Saturday, Sept. 13.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As far as my consulting with the Premier is concerned, I consult with him daily and hourly if necessary.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary: Is the minister aware that the Election Expenses Commission, in reference to that ad, has passed a minute saying as follows: “In the opinion of the commission, the advertisement offended the spirit of the Act and it was incumbent upon a ministry of the government to exercise discretion during a campaign period with respect to the type of advertising and the provisions of this Act” -- that’s from the minutes. In view of that, what action is the minister, who was the Minister of Housing at the time, going to take? Is he recommending to the Treasurer that action be taken to recover from the Conservative Party the costs of these advertisements which, in the opinion of the Election Expenses Commission, offend the spirit of the Act?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, whether or not it offends the Act I am not absolutely sure, but what I will do is recommend to the Treasurer and the present Minister of Housing to consider whether it does offend.

Mr. Singer: He is going to second guess the commission, is he? That’s interesting.

Mr. Nixon: A question of the Treasurer: In view of the fact that this is an opinion expressed in the minutes of the Election Expenses Commission, would he take action as Treasurer to recoup from the Progressive Conservative Party the costs of these advertisements? In case he gets in touch with them from time to time.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think really it’s the Minister of Government Services (Mrs. Scrivener) who --

Mr. MacDonald: Going on along the line.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- runs the collection bureau of the government. My observation would be that one can’t get blood out of a stone. The Conservative Party doesn’t have the wealth the Liberal Party has.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That was the position before the election, Bob.

Mr. Nixon: I would like to direct a question to the Premier, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, because while there may be a degree of levity about that bloodless stone, surely this is the first infraction of the intent of the Act of any significance. It was used, no doubt under the direction of the Conservative campaign managers, to use public funds to shore up a situation which was becoming extremely serious. I would like to hear from the Premier what action he is going to take to see that this situation is put properly straight.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the third party in this House is asking me --

Mr. Nixon: Just call me the member for Brant; that’s what you used to do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I assumed he was still the leader of the third party for a period of time.

Mr. Nixon: What is the Premier going to do about the ad?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared --

Mr. Nixon: Is the party going to pay it back?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t had any communication that I know of from the commission. I assume, if they considered it serious, they would communicate with us as I am sure they will on any other concerns they have about the last election. There may have been other matters brought to their attention; I am not sure of this. I would like to ask the leader of the third party where were all the financial lists he was going to publish prior to the election?

Mr. Conway: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We haven’t seen them yet. Where are they?

ONTARIO NORTHLAND RAILWAY STAFFING

Mr. Bain: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Recently the Ontario Northland Railway has cut back freight crews because there is a temporary loss of business due to the pulp and paper mills’ unwillingness to sign a contract with the workers of those mills. Will the minister assure us that this temporary loss of business will not be used as an excuse to reduce permanently the number of freight crews?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that the freight crews had been reduced. I can see certainly the problems in the paper industry having an adverse effect on the volume of freight. I was aware of that. I will certainly discuss the matter with the chairman of the ONR at our next meeting which I believe is next Wednesday morning.

[10:30]

Mr. Bain: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: I assume the minister will make that information available to us. Also, I would like to ask the minister, in regard to the ONR, that although the ONR had budgeted to build loading sheds in Elk Lake to accommodate the shipping of the production of United Asbestos in Midlothian township, it was unable to obtain the contract to ship that mine’s production. Was the contract lost because the marketing experts in North Bay couldn’t get their bids straight?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This seems to be far removed from the original question and the answer thereto. This is supposed to be a supplementary to the answer given. A new question would be in order later, if we have the time.

PAYMENT FOR CATTLE PURCHASES

Mr. Worton: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Could the minister inform the House as to what steps his department is taking in relation to the suppliers of cattle to Essex Packers at the Guelph Correctional Centre, in order that they can be assured of payment for these cattle? As I understand it, there have been NSF cheques returned to many of the suppliers.

Hon. W. Newman: The Essex Packers beef operation at Guelph does have a financial problem. At this point in time we are trying to sort it out. I believe as of Oct. 17 all cheques are now being honoured by the -- I think it’s the Scotiabank, or one of them. Before that time there were some NSF cheques involved. There is some payment due from the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. J. R. Smith), which has been approved. Certainly, I have been in touch with the bank on a personal basis to try to see what we can do to ensure that the farmers get their money on those NSF cheques.

Mr. Singer: Can you guarantee payment personally?

Mr. Worton: A supplementary: Can we be assured that the money the minister has on hand will be kept in trust for those suppliers before other payments are made? I’m talking of people who are owed between $20,000 and $30,000.

Hon. Mr. Newman: I understand there is no legal way, because this was a commitment that was made to hold back the funds. As a matter of fact, we’re just working on that today.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Williams: A question for the Minister of Housing. Would the minister be prepared to give consideration in the preparation of his rent review legislation to incorporating therein a provision whereby all landlords would be required to post in appropriate, common areas of all the rental premises a schedule of rental rates, so that existing tenants would be assured of having an equity in application of rental rates to equal accommodation throughout the facilities; and so that potential future tenants would know what the prevailing rates were throughout the rental premises?

Mr. Samis: Who wrote that one?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we would certainly consider that in the development.

Mr. MacDonald: It is a good idea.

Mr. Martel: Tell them to wait. You’re courteous.

Mr. Laughren: Talk to Barney Danson about it.

METRO TORONTO CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY BUDGET

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. As the minister may know, the 1975 budget of the Metro Children’s Aid Society has not yet been approved by the ministry, although it has been recommended by Metro council. Would the minister explain to the House why he intends to cut some $800,000 from the budget of this vital community service, which has not been increased, as the minister knows, in about three years?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I surmise that the member has received his information from a press article dealing with a certain in camera session which is going on presently. When that proceeding is terminated I will be in a position to respond; but I would question the accuracy of the newspaper report on a number of accounts.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Would the minister advise the House when he will have this information?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: When the hearing is concluded I will have the information. Insofar as the cut is concerned, as you know if you read the article, there was a request by the Children’s Aid Society for 115 additional workers, when in fact my ministry had authorized 80 additional workers. There were some other matters with reference to funding, saying that the moneys were not in the ministry. It was a matter of allocation of those funds for different purposes, not that the funds were not in the budget.

As I have pointed out earlier, there are a number of inaccuracies in that particular paper, and when the hearing is concluded and I have the report, then I’ll be in a position to give you something on it.

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Eakins: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Housing: Will the minister inform us as to the status of the North Pickering project now that the government has reversed its previous support of the Pickering airport?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the decision on the airport has not had any change as far as the status of the North Pickering project as of this very moment.

Mr. Singer: As of this very moment.

Mr. Nixon: What about this afternoon?

Mr. Lewis: You don’t know that -- just keep your options open.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You don’t either.

Mr. Ruston: It changes moment by moment.

Mr. Singer: They might build the airport next year.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member with a supplementary?

Mr. Eakins: Given that the now cancelled airport was planned to stimulate economic activity, will the minister tell us exactly what economic base exists to justify the creation of a city the projected size of North Pickering?

Mr. Nixon: The Toronto-centred region plan.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I can’t tell the member that this morning.

Mr. Singer: No, no. Try for this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the members of the third party I am prepared to present whatever information can be gathered as to whether or not any change will be made in the status of that project.

The initial question from the hon. member, and quite properly so, is whether there was any change in the status, and the answer was no. Then to ask me to provide a total economic rationale on the city as it is now proposed is ludicrous. We will get it for him if it is necessary.

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION SUBSIDY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is it the minister’s intention to raise the artificial insemination subsidy for northern Ontario --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Right on, Bud.

Mr. Breaugh: Are you looking for a job, Rhodes?

Mr. Wildman: -- above its present level of $2 per service since it has remained --

An hon. member: You would go cheaper, would you?

Mr. Wildman: -- since the 1950s, and operators in Algoma are losing approximately $3.50 per service?

Hon. J. R. Smith: What a maiden speech.

An hon. member: That’s a lot of bull.

Mr. Wildman: Also, if the minister intends to raise the subsidy, when will he do that and by how much; and how will the subsidy be paid to ensure that only farmers using these services will benefit from the subsidies?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I know it is a very serious matter and the member wasn’t speaking for himself, but I would be glad to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Don’t bet on that.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Newman: May I say that we have had a stay of closing up the United Breeders in the northern part of the Province of Ontario and we are negotiating with them at this point in time to work out a satisfactory arrangement. We realize just how important the AI units are in northern Ontario to the breeding stock up there, to make sure that they still have the necessary materials there to help them, and we are already negotiating. We have had a stay of execution of closing down their operations and we hope to work out something satisfactory. It may not be on a direct fee basis, it may be on some other basis, but we are working with it at this time.

Mr. Wildman: A supplementary to that: If it is intended to maintain the quality of the stock through maintenance of the subsidy, can the minister give us some idea as to the amount that it might be raised to, since right now they are losing approximately $3.50 per service?

Hon. Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, some units are losing more than others on the service costs. It varies from unit to unit, and that is why it is not quite as simple as the member is saying. In some areas it goes up as high as $5 per service while other areas are only losing 25 cents per service, so we have to look at the overall picture.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Going to have an answer rated X.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is this one of Lorne’s special duties?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let’s have a select committee.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We are taking quite a bit of time on this and I think we had better get on. There are many other people wanting to ask questions. We had a couple of supplementaries there and that is enough on that for this morning.

KRAUSS-MAFFEI SYSTEM

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Is the minister able yet to honour the commitment given by his predecessor on at least three occasions that the figures would be produced for us as to the cost of Krauss-Maffei to the people of Ontario including extra-departmental costs? Those figures I had been promised, as I say, at least three times by the former minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Read your press reports.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think those figures are available. As a matter of fact, I don’t think there was any cost to the taxpayers of Ontario.

An hon. member: Oh, yes, there was.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, would the present minister undertake to look at Hansard and see the way the question was put and the way his predecessor gave answers, and undertake to honour the commitment given by his predecessor on at least three occasions?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I’ll certainly refer to Hansard and to the commitments made by my predecessor. But my previous answer still stands and I’ll supply the figures to back it up.

RETAIL GAS OPERATIONS

Mr. Philip: A question for the Premier: It’s my understanding that this morning two of his ministers will be meeting with the organization of Ontario retail gas and automotive services. Is the government prepared seriously to consider divorcement legislation prohibiting the oil companies from operating retail gas operations in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be properly directed to one of the two ministers who, I gather, are meeting with some of the retailers today.

Mr. Lewis: Why not let it be redirected to them?

Mr. Philip: I will redirect the question then.

Mr. Speaker: That will be permissible.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister of Energy.

Mr. Philip: To the Minister of Energy then: Is he prepared seriously to consider divorcement legislation prohibiting the oil companies from operating retail gas operations in this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: He was looking at another minister, but I think he was asking me.

Mr. Martel: You are the Minister of Energy, I think.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The last time I checked it was still on the door. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) and I did meet this morning with two representatives of the Ontario Retail Gasoline Association, at which time they presented to us a four-page submission of the problems that they see with their particular element of the petroleum industry and the problems that they are having. They also presented to us, in that four-page submission and in the discussions afterwards, some suggestions which, from their point of view would help to solve their problems as they see it.

We undertook to consider those recommendations within the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and within the Ministry of Energy. I told the two gentlemen that I would put this matter before the cabinet subcommittee, hopefully within the next 10 days, and consider it. Certainly some of the parts of their submission have the potential for further increasing prices to the consumer beyond what we think are acceptable prices at this time, looking ahead to the point where the royal commissioner will complete his work.

There’s also the fact that the royal commissioner will be considering various problems of the retail sector of the petroleum industry in phase 2 of his work, including the question of price differentials between northern and southern Ontario in particular, and the commissioner will be holding public hearings around the province.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary: Would the minister care to explain how the price will be increased by this kind of divorcement legislation and would he care to explain whether he has considered the position of the Consumers’ Association of Canada in this regard which in fact agrees with the ORGA position?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It wasn’t just divorcement legislation that was discussed, it was a number of other possibilities which were put forward by their counsel, Mr. Bromstein. The Consumers’ Association did, I believe, appear before the royal commission. They have not sent anything directly to me. I haven’t seen any briefs from them. I don’t know whether the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has. He’s shaking his head, indicating he has not heard from them. I would be interested in hearing from them to know how they feel about ORGA’s position.

HAM RADIO OPERATORS

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware that ham radio operators provide many free emergency radio services; and is the minister likewise aware that the Province of Ontario is probably one of the only jurisdictions in North America that does not recognize the services of the ham radio operators by providing special licence plates? Will the minister give favourable consideration to permitting and providing special licence plates to the ham radio operators, and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of the excellent service that the ham radio clubs do give. I know I have a very active one in my own riding which has given excellent service during several emergency situations. I know this matter has been discussed previously. I will certainly look into the matter again.

HIGHWAY PAVING CONTRACTS

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of the Premier’s statement with regard to the paving of the Spadina corridor -- and I must quote in order to ask the question: “As a further proviso that arterial roads be placed in the Spadina corridor between Lawrence and Eglinton, we would require that Metro Council develop a plan to ensure that traffic generated by the new roadway will remain on other Metro Arterial roads” -- could the minister tell us whether or not a plan has been received from Metro pursuant to the proviso; and if it has not, will the minister remind Mr. Godfrey of this proviso when he does meet him?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge we have not received any plan from Metro on this matter as yet; the policy has not yet been decided. A meeting is scheduled with Mr. Godfrey some time next week. I certainly will bring this matter up again at that time.

[10:45]

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Warner: My question is of the Treasurer of this province. In the light of the indication of this government’s intention to cooperate fully with the federal government in its anti-inflation programme, and in the light of its indication yesterday of the increase in the sales tax of Jan. 1, 1976, does this government intend to make application to the anti-inflation board for such a large increase in the sales tax?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: This is a 40 per cent increase.

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mr. Warner: Can the minister give us a reason why the government should not apply to the anti-inflation board for such a large increase?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, because taxes in the white paper are something which are not considered in the guidelines.

Mr. Foulds: Doesn’t the government think it should set an example?

ELECTION CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier: Would he advise the House the amount of dollars promised during the election not budgeted for, and also advise if any of these promises have been gone through by orders in council?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there were two or three suggestions during the election campaign, the total of which was several hundreds of millions of dollars less than that promised by the Liberal Party of the Province of Ontario.

An hon. member: The third party.

Mr. Lewis: But considerably more than any undertaking that we made.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I am not sure. I have not checked the figures recently, but I think that the total was probably substantially less than that of official opposition now. Probably the largest amounts related to the question of the rent supplement for the senior citizens, which I can only assume from the member’s question he will personally oppose when it is brought to the House.

The other commitment that was given does involve an alteration in expenditure.

Mr. Ruston: You really are reaching.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was the commitment that if the federal government could not find a way to isolate or insulate the prime rate on interest from the housing industry, so that people could afford to purchase or carry houses, we were in fact prepared to introduce a form of tax credit up to $500 on the differential above, I recall, of 10.25 per cent. There are some dollars involved -- no question about it -- in the commitment that was given during that campaign.

I can only assume once again -- and I just hope the hon. member’s point of view is not shared by his colleagues -- that he personally will vote against that. But I sense that the majority of members in this House, if we bring in such legislation, will rather enthusiastically support it. I would think those were the two major commitments. As I say, they were hundreds of millions of dollars below those promised by the third party in this House today.

Mr. Nixon: How about the 89 others?

Mr. Conway: What would the election expenses commission think of that?

Mr. Sargent: The Premier had better be nice to us because we can put him out of business.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m being very nice. I’m giving the member’s colleagues a chance to vote for the legislation.

Mr. Sargent: Cut the doubletalk. Does the Premier plan to honour his commitment across Ontario and break down locally what he promised and let us know what the score is? Would he please?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out the two major components in what was said during the campaign. Yes, we’re quite prepared to live with those commitments.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mrs. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the provincial Treasurer. In the event that the new cozy arrangement between the members opposite and Ottawa does not work out, is the provincial Treasurer prepared to bring in his own excess profits tax as part of the anti-inflation programme, since he appears to be so strongly in favour of it and he has complete control over the corporations tax?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s a possibility.

Mr. Lewis: A possibility?

Mrs. Bryden: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I also notice that he is only in favour of an excess profits tax if the profits are not reinvested. Does that mean that if the oil companies with their huge profits, invested --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is the supplementary question flowing from the answer?

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: I’d like the Treasurer to define what that possibility is.

Mrs. Bryden: I just want to know if the oil companies invested their profits in some other country, for exploration in Australia, say, would he still not put an excess profits tax on them?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would think the suggestion we made yesterday would be that they be reinvested in Canada.

SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET

Mr. Shore: Mr. Speaker, could I direct a question to the hon. Treasurer? In his supplementary budget in July he indicated that because of the federal budget the revenue from corporation taxes and other items would be reduced by approximately $100 million, $60 million of which was as the result of corporation taxes. Two and one-half months later a revised supplement suggested instead of a $60-million adjustment it had gone up by $20 million.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Shore: Can he reconcile those figures which differ approximately $80 million?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’ll get a reconciliation for the member. Corporation taxes in some ways are the taxes most difficult to predict because of the insolvent payments. Without going into detail, it’s the one we really don’t know where we stand on until practically the last month of the year. I will get a reconciliation for the member of that apparent discrepancy.

Mr. Shore: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A very brief one.

Mr. Shore: It is very brief.

Mr. Speaker: Is it arising from the answer?

Mr. Shore: Yes. Can I assume that there are any major discrepancies in adjustment that would affect the reading of the budget as a result of the fact that the Treasurer can’t know until the last date?

Mr. Reid: Or are there any other mistakes?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’d want to think about that.

NIAGARA GRAPE CROP

Mr. Swart: This question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Would he inform the House whether the total grape crop in Niagara Peninsula has now been purchased under the financing plan announced during the last election? Would he also state whether he believes that this plan should be the continuing policy of the government and not just a plan in an election year?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it was not just an election year gimmick, if that is what the member is trying to say.

Mr. Nixon: No?

Mr. Singer: No? Perish the thought!

Hon. W. Newman: It was a programme to help the grape producers. As far as I know, to the best of my knowledge, it has been implemented. We also have an ongoing programme to replace -- I don’t know the various varieties as yet; I’m not that knowledgeable about grapes.

Mr. Nixon: Three years ago you were fostering imports.

Hon. W. Newman: As I say, we also have an ongoing programme to help bring in the kind of grapes that are more readily usable in the production of better wine in the Peninsula area.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Very progressive policy.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the time has expired now. May I suggest that there seem to be too many supplementaries. Surely not every question requires a supplementary. There are many people, I’m sorry to say, who have original questions which they wish to ask.

Mr. Bullbrook: And nobody has asked the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Henderson) a question yet.

Mr. Speaker: Right, I agree.

Mr. Bullbrook: If he gets in his seat we will ask him a question. How are you? How is that?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Very disappointing.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Snow presented the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission annual report for the year ending Dec. 31, 1974, and the Ontario Telephone Services Commission annual report for the year ending Dec. 31, 1974.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell presented the Ontario Energy Board annual report for the year ending Dec. 31, 1974, the Ministry of Energy annual report for the year ending March 31, 1975, and the Ontario Hydro annual report for the year 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 13th order; House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First, Mr. Chairman, let me follow what many members have said and congratulate you on your appointment to this very important position. You’ve handled it in an excellent manner to date and I’m sure that this will continue. We are going to miss some of the exchange, if you stay in that chair during the full debate, that we usually engage in about education in northern Ontario. But I’m sure that you’ll find ample time to put the deputy in so that we’ll be able to have lots of opportunity to debate some of your real concerns about education in your area. But congratulations on your appointment.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In presenting the estimates of the Ministry of Education, I am today asking the legislative assembly to approve expenditures for the fiscal year 1975-1976 of more than $1.7 billion.

Mr. Chairman: There is too much undercurrent in the Legislature, would you keep it down so we can hear what the minister has to say, please?

Hon. Mr. Wells: This is a large amount of money, and education in Ontario is a large and expensive enterprise. As we move through this debate we will be discussing the individual items that make up this total amount. When we get into the detail, I think that it is sometimes easy to overlook the forest because of the trees. Therefore, I would like to speak to a few basic issues in these remarks this morning.

[11:00]

In examining an expenditure of this size two very simple bread and butter questions arise. First, why are we spending this much money and, second, how do we know that we are getting our money’s worth? How do we know we are getting the quality that we have a right to expect?

In answering the first question I think we have to talk about where the money goes.

Basically the budget of the Ministry of Education breaks down into three major categories. In the first of these, 87.4 per cent of our budget is turned over directly to local school boards in grants to assist them in operating their schools.

Secondly, 8.6 per cent of this budget that we are discussing today is for transfer and statutory payments made directly to other educational agencies and programmes such as the teachers’ superannuation fund, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, the Ontario Educational Communications Authority, research and other grants.

Thirdly, the remaining four per cent of this budget can be categorized as direct operating expenditures, which include not only administration and support services but also the schools operated directly by the ministry, such as those for the blind and deaf, the Ontario Teacher Education College and our extensive correspondence course programme.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is far too much noise in the committee. Would you give the minister an opportunity to be heard, please?

Hon. Mr. Wells: These estimates, Mr. Chairman, for 1975-1976 represent an increase of 10.1 per cent over those of a year ago. I might say that the overwhelming percentage of this increase arises from increased grants to local school boards to avoid a situation where they might have to cut back on the quality of their programmes because of inflationary pressures on their budget.

I think it is also worth noting that we have been able to hold our budget increase to 10 per cent during a period when the inflation rate has been over 12 per cent.

Of course, in looking at spending in education, we also have to talk about the purpose or goal of education. You can go for your definition to sources like educational philosophers such as Plato and Rousseau all the way down to Dewey and Whitehead, or you can go to the man on the street. No matter where you go, I think that from any source two ideas emerge. The first is that there is a social purpose to education. We educate so that people can contribute to society and can live responsibly and in harmony with others. But there is also an individual purpose to education. We educate so that the individual can pursue those goals that have personal significance. If these are our goals, then to whom should they apply? That is a very important question.

Throughout most of history and in many parts of the world the answer in effect has usually been, to a small and privileged minority. This was once the answer in Ontario but in recent decades we have perhaps idealistically but nevertheless very purposefully and effectively said the answer to that question is to everyone. In doing so, we have set ourselves a social challenge of immense scope and consequence. I don’t think we have fully met that challenge in many quarters yet or perhaps fully come to realize the consequences of it. But we have come a long way from the stage in which we used to think that fairness and equality of educational opportunity demanded only that a place be found for everyone at the starting line.

There is much rhetoric surrounding the phrase, “equal educational opportunity for all.” In Ontario, we are taking the rhetoric seriously. We’ve taken realistic and effective steps to serve a larger and larger proportion of all age groups, and we have done so through a time of unprecedented population growth. In fact, from 1965 to 1970 we were building classrooms at a rate of five a day. But the challenge could not be met only by enlarging the system. Each increase in the percentage of the age group being served brought a proportionate increase in the range of needs to be met. To make sure that equality of opportunity was not a mockery we had to ensure that the exceptional needs were met. We had to ensure that the variety of programmes matched the variety of pupils’ abilities and interests, and that the ways in which schools assisted learning matched the many different ways in which people could learn.

It is in pursuing this challenge of universal and genuine access to opportunity that I think our cost lies. We can search for administrative efficiencies. We can bargain hard on teachers’ salaries and class size. We can eliminate unnecessary equipment and facilities -- and I think we are doing all these things -- but the plain fact that emerges is that the very large financial commitment which this province makes to education has its foundation in the fact that, through the schools, we are trying to provide a genuine opportunity to all the children of this province to develop their potential to as great a degree as possible.

The second question I would like to answer concerns the matter of quality. What are we doing to ensure that we are getting the quality to which we are entitled, to ensure that we are getting our money’s worth?

Quality, of course, means different things to different people. To some people it seems to mean a highly competitive system concentrating on a narrow range of academic subjects, graduating, in the end, a small group of highly literate students who, with minimum assistance, can perhaps write an analytical essay or tackle integral calculus to the complete satisfaction of their professors.

There are a great many voices today calling for a return to this highly elitist form of education but to me this would be a very regressive step. In my view, quality is defined in the same terms as we define our basic goal. A quality education system is one that develops efficiently and effectively the greatest possible potential of the largest possible number of students. It means a system where the academically talented can sharpen their intellectual wits to the highest possible standard.

It also means a system in which care is taken in the beginning years to ensure that everyone acquires the basic knowledge and skills which are fundamental to everything else that follows. It means a chance for the fast learner to gallop ahead. It also means patient help for the perceptually handicapped child who mixes up his “b”s and “d”s and “p”s and “q”s so that he or she can reach a useful level of reading and writing.

A quality education system means the chance to study algebraic functions and relations as well as the chance to catch up with mechanical arithmetic. It means that those who need to are studying basic sentence structure while others, perhaps, are researching essays on the constitutional history of Canada.

Quality has as much to do with what goes on in the occupational classes as it does with what happens in grade 13. Quality is meeting the needs of the two million individual unique students who come every day to our schools and meeting these needs well. Quality also has to do with high standards, realistic standards which relate to individual goals.

It means, if one is university bound, meeting the standards of intellectual rigour which are realistic if one is going to go to university. It means that the student in a special vocational class, learning to be a service station attendant, for instance, is expected to be a first-rate service station attendant. It means, in whatever programme for whatever student, setting a target which requires hard work and persistence to reach but a target which is never out of reach. It means the honest assessment and reporting of achievement and it means levelling with parents regarding their children’s progress.

The quality of education and the public’s perception of quality of education has a close tie, I think, with the concept of local autonomy. In Ontario, we have probably gone farther than any other province with the concept of letting local school boards and local schools make vital curriculum and, indeed, spending decisions within the framework of broad provincial guidelines and standards laid down by the Ministry of Education, but this policy has given rise to an odd paradox in our province.

The idea of local autonomy is applauded, of course, by almost everyone. Few people argue with the basic policy of giving individual school boards and schools the flexibility to adapt their programmes to meet the specific needs of their pupils. The paradox lies in the fact that the practical application of local autonomy has been the source, directly and indirectly, of a great deal of the public concern expressed about education over the past few years. I think the reason is straightforward enough. When individual school boards or schools break with tradition in what they consider to be the best interests of their pupils, many parents cannot understand the reasons for the changes and this leads to a feeling that standards have been lowered and that there is no central sense of direction in our school system.

Usually, I find that such misunderstandings arise from a straight lack of communication between the schools and parents, or more broadly between the entire education community and the public. In fact, I am convinced that one of the biggest challenges for education today is to involve parents in the schools in a meaningful way. I say this because lack of involvement implies lack of communication and lack of communication brings the lack of knowledge, misunderstanding and mistrust. Without good, honest communication -- informing parents and others of what the schools are doing and why -- local school boards and schools cannot hope to initiate changes in their programmes without arousing suspicion and a sense of uneasiness among parents and among the public.

However, despite the sometimes unsettling side effects of local autonomy, we as a government remain firmly committed to the idea of delegating as much decision-making authority as possible to the local level, with a rider that the Ministry of Education will continue to fulfill its responsibility in making sure that high province-wide standards are being set and that high province-wide standards are being met in the best interests of all young people in the province.

Let me use a few specific examples to show how this shared responsibility between the ministry and local authorities must work. To start with, look at the core curriculum in our high schools. We have all heard some pretty emotional rhetoric on this matter and much of it bears little relation to what is actually happening in the schools.

To those who seem determined to perpetuate the myth that there is no core curriculum in our high schools, I can only suggest that they take an honest look at the present practices in virtually all of our secondary schools, because there is a core curriculum and the statistics prove it.

English and Canadian studies are, of course, mandatory for every student. In grades 9 and 10, 100 per cent of the pupils are taking mathematics, 89 per cent are taking science, 83 per cent are taking physical education. In the upper grades, English and maths and sciences are taken by just about every student. We have documented this.

The ministry’s official policy on the high school diploma requirements is laid out in a booklet called HS1. In it there is nothing to prevent a local school board from recommending to its students a solid core curriculum plus a good variety of meaningful and challenging options. In fact, I have been encouraging individual schools and school boards to take up this responsibility and to make sure that it is done. We put the onus on locally-elected school trustees and their principals to develop recommended core programmes for their pupils, because that’s where the responsibility belongs.

In saying this, it nonetheless continues to be our policy that a student and his parents, having examined and discussed the recommended package of subjects which has been suggested by the school, can substitute one subject for another in the package. This is allowed, after consultation with the principal, in the name of flexibility and attention to individual needs and goals. If there has been any doubt up to now about this interpretation of our policy, which I have just enunciated, let it be dispelled once and for all.

There are still those who, while espousing local autonomy, at the same time talk as if they would like to go back to the days when everything in education was dictated from Queen’s Park.

We don’t believe in that, because it doesn’t allow the schools the flexibility they need in meeting each child’s individual needs. It was like that years ago and we all know what happened -- many teenagers fell by the wayside soon after they passed the age of compulsory school attendance. Back then, only 40 per cent of the 15-to-19-year-olds were in school. Today the figure is 80 per cent.

Over the past year we have been taking decisive steps at the elementary school level, underlining again and again the overwhelming importance of the basic skills -- the knowledge and skills upon which all later learning is based -- in the early years of a child’s education. This is important. This is where the foundation is laid and we have left no room for doubt in anyone’s mind that the foundation must be strong.

As most members know, we introduced this year a new official curriculum policy for the primary and junior divisions of Ontario’s elementary schools. It’s called “The Formative Years” and it strongly re-emphasizes and stresses the three Rs -- reading, writing, arithmetic, spelling, grammar and all the other basics that are necessary to get a child off to a good start.

[11:15]

So, inherent in the concept of local autonomy in education is the onus and responsibility of locally-elected school trustees and their educators to make positively sure that the high standards set by the province are being met in every classroom across the province. In keeping with local autonomy, these are the people who must have the operational authority to ensure that the basics and a strong core curriculum are in every school and that the programmes offered are in keeping with the policies of the Ministry of Education.

However, it is obvious that the ministry has a part to play here, a greater role, perhaps, than has been perceived in recent years. We cannot abdicate our responsibility to monitor and evaluate current practices in education; and, believe me, we have no intention of doing so. In fact, for about 10 months now, we’ve been quietly regenerating the regional offices of the ministry which are located in nine cities across the province.

The tone of their activities is taking a turn away from what had been viewed as a passive, consultative role and we’re moving more in the direction of increased ministry involvement with the local school board and the local level. We see our regional office people fulfilling a very totally vital function in sensing needs, assessing the impact of our policies, explaining these policies and, together with local school people, ensuring that they are put into practice.

At the same time we’re moving in these directions, we’re also going to look at specific steps that can be taken to improve the evaluation of pupil performance, and the reporting of each pupil’s progress to parents.

We’ve already conducted extensive research into these matters. We’ve confirmed, for example, that there is indeed a great deal of standardized testing going on in Ontario schools, even though it seldom surfaces for public view. About 80 per cent of our elementary and secondary schools are using these kinds of tests for diagnosis and remedial purposes in order to help teachers identify problems and to take corrective measures with individual children.

The four most widely used tests in this province are: the Canadian test of basic skills; the metropolitan achievement test; the Stanford achievement test; and the sequential tests of educational progress. I mention these only to point out that such tests do exist and are being used widely in our schools at the present time. We know, in fact, that their use is increasing quite dramatically, and we encourage this most strongly. But we also believe that there is still much room for improvement in the whole area of testing, evaluation and reporting to parents.

To start with, we believe that there is a need to take a hard look at reporting methods that are used by schools to inform parents of the progress of their children. The basic purpose of reporting is to give parents a reliable indication of how well their child is doing at school, subject by subject, and to evaluate the various social and personal attributes that make for a well-adjusted, well-rounded child. Ideally, such reporting should be an early-warning system in some instances for parents and, at the same time, also a stimulus for praise, encouragement and parental guidance at home.

Today many schools do an excellent job of this. But, unfortunately, there are still many examples of schools leaving parents guessing as to the real meaning of report card jottings and often parents are not alerted to trouble spots until a problem is well-advanced.

There is one further aspect to this matter of reporting pupil progress to parents, and it is the very specific matter of giving parents a reliable indication of how well their child is faring in relation to other children in the same age or grade grouping. I see a valid need for an evaluation system to enable schools to tell parents that in such key areas of the curriculum as reading, mathematics and English, their child is achieving at such-and-such a level in relation, say, to province-wide or national norms.

I would not want to see a return to the days when pupils in each class were ranked first, second, third or so on down to last. The effects of this kind of pressurized comparison at the class level are far more destructive than beneficial, particularly on average and below-average pupils who are struggling to do as well as they are. However interesting such comparisons might be to parents, they can be devastating to a child’s confidence and performance. But I do think that parents deserve to know how well their child is achieving in comparison to other children measured against, say, provincial or national norms.

We are going to give serious consideration, beginning immediately, to ways in which tangible improvements can be achieved in this broad area of assessing pupil progress and reporting it to parents. We are going to assign a small team of people to investigate and evaluate what is being done at present in various areas of the province and to look at the best ideas and pupil reporting techniques that can be found. We will then inform schools and school boards of our findings and strongly suggest that they re-examine their reporting methods to ensure that parents expectations are being met.

The key is, as I said, to make sure that schools do a first-class reporting job to parents helping parents and the schools themselves to better evaluate each child’s progress and thus to better enable them to provide encouragement and assistance to the child as required.

I have mentioned these particular activities and plans to make it clear that we are turning a critical and introspective eye on our activities, that we are not complacent about the status quo, that we are determined to continue to evaluate and improve the quality of what is being done, that we are determined to continue to evaluate and improve the quality of education in this province, and that we are taking the kind of hard-nosed and practical measures that are needed to ensure that we are getting maximum value for our educational dollars.

I began these remarks by posing two questions: Why is the cost of education as great as it is and what are we doing to ensure that we are getting the quality that should result from this expenditure? I think I have given a general answer to the first question and a more detailed answer to the second.

I have said many times that Ontario takes a back seat to no one in the high quality and standards of our school system. This is due to the dedication and quality of those in education -- our teachers, our administrators, our trustees -- and our system serves well the children and young people of this province, as it should.

I would say that those who seem bent on criticism, seemingly for the sake of negatism alone, should ponder the fact that Ontario is still looked upon as a leader in education, which I guess is the reason this province at any given moment is the host to visitors from all over the world who have come here to look at what we are doing.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, let me add my congratulations to those of us who are delighted at your own appointment. I have known you for some time, perhaps longer than have most members of this Legislature, and I know you will handle those duties with fairness and talent.

Education in Ontario, 1975. Where is it at? Where is it going? This morning the minister has given us a speech, in which I think for the first time in the four years that he and I have exchanged words in the Legislature and in the committee he has shown some interest in the philosophical thrust of education. He has shown some real interest in where it’s at and where it’s going. I congratulate him for that.

It’s a moment that we in the Legislature have been looking for for a long time. I hope that it is genuine. I hope it’s more than window-dressing. I am sure it is.

I am not quite sure of the meaning of the minister’s statement. I am not quite sure whether we are taking a turn to the right or to the left or making a U-turn, but it’s interesting that we are re-evaluating our system, probably pretty toughly and pretty sincerely. About three years ago I think I once characterized education in this province as a vehicle à la Marshall McLuhan, which was speeding toward the future with eyes firmly fixed on the rear view mirror.

Over the past year, I haven’t been sure we knew even what highway we were on, this in spite of the goodwill and the good intentions of almost everybody connected with education from the minister on down through the educational administration here, down through the boards to the teachers and to the custodians, pupils and parents. I suppose it is fair to characterize education in 1975 in Ontario as the house that the Premier (Mr. Davis) built in the 1960s; it was sublet to the present Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) who, more quickly than any speculator, turned it over on a long-term lease to this minister. His lease has lasted longer than anyone expected; he has survived and survived handsomely. He has handled his ministry skilfully, and I personally believe with integrity. I think the statement this morning confirms that.

I was particularly struck by the humane and sensible quality of his definition of quality and standards as they apply to our school system. Far too often, in the past year and a half in particular, have those two words been defined in a reactionary and blind way which does not cope with realities of education in the 1970s.

It is not a bad system which we have. Often it rises above mediocrity -- in many cases to excellence -- through the efforts of trustees, teachers and educational administrators. Yet, in spite of that, as I was trying to put some thoughts together last night, I think there is a sense of unease throughout the province.

I cannot be wholly sanguine, and as I have travelled across the province in the last few months and years, I detect a note -- a strong and sometimes strident note -- of dissatisfaction. Maybe that’s part of the malaise of society as a whole which Ontario faces today but I have encountered a mood of frustration bursting into anger and, tragically, occasionally into violence as we have seen in very tragic incidents last spring in Brampton and more recently in Ottawa. That’s symbolic of something, not necessarily our school system but our society and its inter-relation to that school system.

It’s easy to say that those incidents and that kind of frustration is nobody’s fault but as a democratic socialist I believe in collective responsibility. I believe it to be more applicable to education than to almost any other area of our social endeavours and we, as a society, are responsible for what happens in our educational system.

The minister and I have debated legislation and estimates now for four years. I think one of the things which came across to me most strongly during our debate on the collective bargaining Act between teachers and boards was the frustration which faces trustees. That frustration arises to some extent because of their desire to serve and to accomplish something within their local authority which, somehow, on their part, doesn’t seem to have been satisfied. They don’t seem to have been able to serve in the way they would have liked to. I think we should pay some attention to that in the coming years and in the coming review of education, because I think it is extremely important that the trustees be made to feel a vital and contributing part of our education system.

[11:30]

Over the last seven months -- in checking my calendar -- I have spoken on education to 19 different groups throughout the province. I suppose the strongest sense that I had at those meetings was one of unfocused frustration on the part of trustees, on the part of teachers, on the part of educational administrators. Why does it emerge, and why has it emerged? I think this is one of the fundamental questions we must address ourselves to. It has emerged over the last two years in a particularly non-productive way.

We know there is concern and compassion in our school system. There is insensitivity, too. But somehow I get the very strong sense that there is no sense of joy in our educational system. I don’t mean fun in the superficial sense. I mean the sense of joy as it’s created because of curiosity being exploited and challenged, so that there is a very real explorative learning and educational experience taking place.

I think we must address ourselves to one of the things that has been lost. Somehow we have forgotten to look at education through children’s eyes and through adolescents’ eyes. Somehow most of the theory and most of the administration of that theory is seen through educators’ eyes.

There’s a very marvellous record that I’m playing fairly frequently these days for my three-year-old son. It’s by the Limeliters and called “Through Children’s Eyes.” I recommend it to the minister, and I recommend it to some of his staff. It reawakens you, because as adults we narrow our vision. That kind of thing occasionally reawakens you to the perceptions of children. We must, if we are to get a handle on education sensibly, begin to look through children’s eyes.

It is more difficult to administer and to carry out our education system now in 1975 than it was a mere 10 or 20 years ago. There is just the very simple fact that secondary school enrolments, say in 1950, were approximately 40 per cent of the eligible age group; and now in the 1970s the eligible age group that attends secondary schools is between 80 per cent and 85 per cent.

I suggest, however, that’s not an achievement of our educational system; that’s a simple fact of life that we must live with. And it provides us with the challenge that the minister mentioned earlier, not only in absolute numbers -- which the Premier and his building programme responded to -- but it provides us with a challenge in the spectrum of students the educational system must serve -- and which, frankly, has not been responded to.

One of the reasons I have found most of the debates on education unsatisfactory over the last few years is that most of those debates are centred around individual crises -- responding to them, reacting to them -- rather than looking ahead to see what we should be doing with our system. I just quickly want to itemize three or four of those particular issues or concerns, because out of them, I believe, comes part of the reason for the malaise, part of the reason why in very real terms we should start emphasizing, as we have said in this House before, the human element in education.

Of course, as we all know, there was the regionalization of school boards; and I think it’s fair to say that resulted in a depersonalization of the school system in terms of larger units, larger schools, larger groups of teachers having to deal with larger groups of administrators farther away. Secondly, the very simple thing that the secondary school system depersonalized in education to an incredible degree was the whole question of ribbon timetabling, which provided an apparent choice in taking subjects but in reality simply provided supermarket education without consumer protection.

The minister this morning talked a bit about guiding people to take the choices in the core curriculum that are necessary if they are going on to university. But we cannot do that unless we supply the supportive personnel in terms of guidance and other types of counselling for it to take place.

Debates in the past four to six years have also centred on ceilings, which somehow or other got teachers and trustees both channelled into thinking that if only we had enough money, everything would be all right. That is simply not so, and one of the hopeful things about the minister’s statement this morning is the growing awareness and recognition of that.

Debates have also centred on teacher-board negotiation procedures. I suppose we are into a present crisis in Metropolitan Toronto, where it will be hard to avoid debate on that topic over the next few weeks. Unfortunately, it will prevent us from talking about some of the essentials of the educational system. I want to make a slight excursus in my remarks to talk about the Metropolitan Toronto situation.

The minister and his government sweated for two years to bring forth quite a good piece of legislation --

An hon. member: Excursus?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, excursus. I’ll have to upgrade the educational level of some of my colleagues.

Mr. Laughren: We came through the Ontario educational system, you know.

Mr. Foulds: In spite of bringing in quite a good piece of collective bargaining legislation regarding governing teacher-board negotiations, we now have the spectre of a possible strike in Metropolitan Toronto secondary schools. I do not know how the minister can be as sanguine as he apparently is, or certainly as he has appeared over the past few days. Perhaps he is just putting on a front thinking the ship will go sailing along and that there are not the two dangers of Scylla and Charybdis that the ship must avoid.

My contacts and the contacts we have had with both sides of that unfortunate dispute in the past few days and weeks lead me to believe that the forces are almost inexorable; that unless there is a personal initiative on the part of the minister, either through the Education Relations Commission or directly, to get some pretty serious mediation efforts going in the next couple of days, we are going to be forced with either a strike or lockout or combination of both.

I think we understand that the minister’s efforts and those of the Education Relations Commission must be towards the avoidance of a strike. Certainly that has been the thrust of our party’s contacts and conversations with some representatives from both sides over the last few days and weeks. I think if it is handled with authority over the next few days we can avoid the kind of York county situation. It’s easier to avoid that before the fact than after the fact. We can avoid the frame of mind that set in in York county after the strike began.

The Education Relations Commission seems to have been caught, frankly, without procedures for taking the two votes, the acceptance or rejection vote on the last board offer and the strike vote. I know that has caused some acrimony and some frustration on the part of both parties. To some teachers I have talked to it is seen as almost a deliberate delaying tactic, and that can only lead to acrimony.

The most unfortunate part of that situation has been, I think, the minister’s statement of two or three days ago that it might take 18 months to determine the ultimate outcome. I think that was an unfortunate statement; I think he realizes that. It was seen, rightly or wrongly, as thoughtless and provocative and it did not help to bring the two sides together.

What is even more amazing, frankly, is that this government seems ready to abdicate its responsibility. It seems almost delighted to have the federal government subvert the integrity of Bill 100, its own legislation governing teacher-board negotiations. The federal wage controls, for that is exactly what they are, have thrown an unwelcome confusion over collective bargaining procedures in Ontario and the most crucial of those right now are the negotiations between the Metro Toronto School Board and its secondary teachers.

I think one of the things the minister could do is to give his assurance to both sides that he is prepared to go with the board and the teachers to Ottawa, seeing that this government has taken a policy decision to surrender that authority to Ottawa. I think he should go with the board and the teachers to seek approval by the anti-inflation board for whatever agreement is hammered out by both sides.

I think an early announcement of the factors and the level of the per pupil grants for next year would also speed up and assist the collective bargaining process, not only in this agreement but in the many agreements which are not yet signed across the province.

The time to avoid a teacher walkout or a board lockout is now and the minister’s efforts must be toward that direction, not to abrogate Bill 100 but to assist it. Government policy at the present time -- not merely in education but its economic policy as announced by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in the last day or two -- is to abrogate Bill 100 and its integrity.

I would like to turn now and briefly restate a few of the basic principles which we believe should be governing education in Ontario. Both Conservatives and Liberals, I think fairly from their point of view, view education simply as a way to reinforce the status quo. We, as democratic socialists, see education as an instrument and means of social change. We see education as a way for individuals to free themselves, their intelligence and their spirits, in order to help not only themselves but to help their fellow students and their fellow men to do likewise. In economic terms, the Liberals and Conservatives are reluctantly committed to making poverty endurable. We in the New Democratic Party are committed to the eradication of poverty. In educational terms, we are committed --

[11:45]

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: Have we got another guru of grunts over there?

Mr. Foulds: I think so.

Mr. Martel: He took Ed Havrot’s place, that’s why.

Mr. Foulds: In educational terms, we are committed to the eradication of ignorance and prejudice. Because of our view of society, we feel the provincial government’s spending priorities must be on services to people and we count education as one of those primary services to people. We view education as a partnership between those who serve and those who are served by our educational system, and therefore we would welcome the participation of the community, of parents, of students, of teachers, in the formulation of educational aims and objectives as well as in the formulation of educational policy. I want to give you one of two small examples, and I am sure that my colleague from Oakwood will elaborate on this one during the course of these debates. We believe that any student who speaks any language as his mother tongue has the right to contribute fully to our society. Therefore, for non-English and non-French speaking students, academic instruction at the elementary level should be provided in their own language with a proportion of English and/or French being phased in and increased over a period of years so as to maintain their academic confidence and their cultural integrity. We should do that not merely at the early levels of education but at the point that person enters the educational system of this province.

As well, we believe that where there is a sufficiently large ethnic minority, that language and its grammar should be taught along with culture and history of that group as optional subjects for study later on in the curriculum, say at the secondary level. We also believe -- and I think that this is most important -- that competent translators and counsellors 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.

In that area and in many other areas, we believe that it is important and vital and necessary that the alternatives be provided within our educational system. That’s why we believe in the emphasis that must be placed on the elementary and the pre-elementary levels. What the minister has said this morning will not work --

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Foulds: -- unless we start very early on in the school system and we redress the balance and increase the amount of support staff and help through the per-pupil grant at the elementary --

Mr. Martel: At the bottom.

Mr. Foulds: -- and pre-elementary levels. I would like for once to see us in Ontario really tackle in a wholehearted way the problems of education for the handicapped and for those in special education institutions throughout this province. I would like to see us really take a vital look at teacher education in this province, because if any area is the key to the revitalization of our school system, it is that area.

Mr. Martel: The minister could have been doing something about the deaf children’s problem in northern Ontario since he became minister. Yes, and he has done nothing.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: I believe that we need to take and make as part of the centre of attention of the Ministry of Education, education for those alternate students we neglect at the present time; from the northern core schools dealing with native people to the language programmes and the cultural programmes that are necessary in Metropolitan Toronto.

I want to conclude by saying it’s a pretty good system -- but for almost $2 billion, it should be a hell of a lot better.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Ferris: Mr. Chairman, I add my congratulations to the others on your appointment. I’m sure you’ll do an excellent job. As the Liberal education critic, I will attempt to limit my opening general remarks to a short comment on a few of the more obvious concerns as they relate to the general area, and reserve more specific comments and questions to individual items as they are voted. I am sure my colleagues will have a few concerns they wish to bring to the minister’s attention as well.

We are taking this position in view of the limited amount of time, probably about eight or ten hours, to discuss expenditures in the area of $1.7 billion. Without question, we are in a time of greater uncertainty and uneasiness than has ever existed in the Province of Ontario in the field of education. We are in a position where with each succeeding day the competence of our system to deliver good, basic education is being questioned.

But perhaps even more important in the situation that surrounds us is the question of whether, in fact, we will have schools open to which to send our children. The fact is that of the 34,000 secondary school teachers in this province, approximately 20,000 are either working without a contract or are engaged in negotiations for contracts beginning Jan. 1, 1976. This creates a great deal of uncertainty. In this area, the province has unquestionably abdicated to the federal government the responsibility for dealing with this purely provincial matter. Who would not be uneasy? Then to add to this unease, we are told by the minister that even if settlements are reached it may be a year and a half before the final pay settlement is agreed to, and then there may be rollbacks.

I feel this was a very bad statement that the minister made. I’m sure it has created a great deal of uneasiness in the teaching profession.

I think it is rather strange that the minister can stand and act so cool in the face of what I believe is an obvious strike situation, and not be prepared to intervene or take action himself in the matter.

On another matter, the Liberal Party has brought to the minister’s attention its concern with ceilings. At this point I would like to quote a few sentences from the comments of Stanley Hartt, the mediator and fact-finder appointed by the Education Relations Commission in the Metro Toronto dispute with the OSSTF:

“I believe the ceilings are incompatible with collective bargaining with the adoption of the Act, Bill 100, and the formal recognition of the teachers’ rights to negotiate cost items without any restrictions in the Act. As to the limits of negotiating power or the use of the right to strike, it would be hypocritical to limit these newly-introduced rights to teachers by the enforcement of ceilings. Not only that, it may indeed be counter-productive.

“Ceilings, far from acting as insulation for the boards from salary demands by giving them a ground for refusing the demands larger than a predetermined figure, have become targets and in that manner become goals in themselves rather than limits.

“Furthermore, the policy of continuing those labour agreements on a school year basis, which have been traditionally negotiated on that basis, is inconsistent with the policy of setting ceilings on a calendar year basis. Since the school boards, as prudent budgeters, cannot make offers predicated on assumed or estimated increases in the ceilings but must deal with what is known, the teachers are thus faced with a final offer which is less than the ceilings will probably allow in the following year.

“The situation where both teachers and boards are asked to plan, as it were, in a vacuum or in anticipation of what a situation will be is a classic study in bad management.”

Surely, even the minister must agree that ceilings have changed their whole purpose over these few years and as restraining forces have become ineffective due to being pierced or the ceilings themselves being increased in eleventh hour situations.

In a discussion of the estimates in November, 1974, the minister made mention of evaluation at the student level and of the educational system as a whole. Again today much has been said about that evaluation process. I sincerely hope that the minister is sincere when he says there will be a great deal of attention spent in the next few months on this matter. It is apparent there are many groups concerned with what they feel are diminishing levels of competence in the basic skills.

As a very small example of concern, I draw to your attention of a survey conducted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Because they were concerned, they solicited opinions from colleges and universities across Canada.

Interjection.

Mr. Ferris: I will only dwell on the Ontario results which show that, in reply to the statement that high school students are lacking in basic skills, 14 out of 21 Ontario universities agreed; 66 per cent, if you will, said yes, the students did lack in basic skills, and in fact only one Ontario university disagreed. To that same statement, 18 of 25 community colleges in Ontario agreed there was a lack of basic skills. That is almost 75 per cent of that group.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was the same in 1948.

Mr. MacDonald: Most of the people who are making the criticism may be in the same category. They likely couldn’t spell right then.

Mr. Ferris: It proves we haven’t changed much. The minister will state that they have acted to strengthen the secondary school programme by making courses in English studies and Canadian studies compulsory.

Mr. Kerrio: The government wasn’t spending the money then.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member didn’t have as many children then and I didn’t.

Mr. Ferris: Those statements in themselves might be the worst offence of all because we are trying to appear to have what the community wants. In reality, because the course guidelines are so broad in general, the end results may bear no relationship to what the majority of society would class as a basic skill. The elementary levels are subject to the same sort of guidelines. I believe this is even a worse situation because this is the foundation on which we are building. In the formative years education in the primary and junior divisions still does not provide the solution. We must, at both levels, develop a minimal level of basic skills that can be measured and be achieved as well.

The other areas I would touch on briefly today are the increasing of grants at the elementary level. Much has been said about this subject and it is difficult to see any significant adjustments that have been made by the ministry in any recent times. In light of the higher teacher costs due to a more qualified staff complement, it would seem an area that requires action.

While funds for special education have been increased, that area of the educational system deserves immediate further attention. In all boards there are children who are waiting for placement in special education areas as well as situations where some educational opportunities are not even available in Ontario.

The funding of special education for Metro Toronto is a very serious matter and needs even closer review in this area. In the area of community schools and the use of these facilities, there is much work still to be done to ensure maximum utilization of our resources.

We must enlarge our view to cover uses such as daycare centres within or attached to schools and through the complete range to developing evening and community activities more fully. While doing this, we must recognize the added burden and operational costs involved to local boards and develop additional methods of financing over and above the fixed dollar grants, such as the $10,000 grant for community schools so that in the long term the operational costs do not escalate to the point where money would be diverted from the primary educational areas to facilitate maintenance. Our first concern must always be the development of our greatest natural resource, our children. Mr. Chairman, my further comments will be made during the individual votes.

[12:00]

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to reply to the opening remarks of the critics?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, I would like to thank my friend, the education critic for the official Opposition, for his kind words. I would like to reciprocate by saying that one thing I have always enjoyed in the past few years that I have been minister has been debating with him about educational matters. While we don’t agree on everything, I think we have very stimulating debates and we get down to some of the real nitty-gritty issues that should be debated in this Legislature in so far as education is concerned.

Mr. Laughren: He’d make a fine minister, wouldn’t he?

Hon. Mr. Wells: While I welcome the educational critic for the Liberal Party and congratulate him on his election and presence in this House, I must say to him with some regret that he has perpetuated the Liberal’s traditional position of straying away from the philosophic issues and getting into the usual rhetoric. In fact, I thought he perhaps was using speech No. 3 from the election campaign. It’s all very well to say that the curriculum guideline for the primary years is unsatisfactory; if he says that, why doesn’t he get up and tell us exactly what kind of a curriculum guideline the Liberal Party would put out in the elementary schools?

Mr. Good: We didn’t lose 23 seats.

Mr. Reid: Oh, come on. You are spending $2 billion, you have all those experts and you can’t do any better than you are now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We’re not doing so badly.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would also like to say that while perhaps we heard speech No. 3 on education -- the same kind of thing that we heard in the campaign -- I just made a quick note of what he said; it was something like: “We should do away with educational ceilings. We should spend more money on special education. We should spend more money on community schools. We should spend more money, period.”

Mr. Good: Still smarting, eh? Still smarting.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Where is speech No. 4 that all the Liberal candidates used to make about reducing the provincial debt in this province and coming to grips with government spending? They can’t have it both ways.

I would also like to comment -- I say this with great respect, but I said it during the campaign -- that if the hon. member is going to use some of the statements that were made during the campaign, I said during the campaign in a speech, because education was being made such an important issue and one that was brought to the fore, that I would challenge and love the opportunity to debate it with the then Leader of the Official Opposition. He didn’t see fit to debate it with me, nor has he seen fit to debate it with me yet; I regret that he is not even present here today for these estimates.

Mr. Reid: Oh, that’s a cheap shot.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that is perhaps typical, because he has never debated education in this House in any meaningful way during the years that I have been minister. Yet he goes around this province talking about what we have done in education and makes personal slurs on the Premier of this province in regard to the educational system. This was perhaps one of the most regrettable things of the election campaign.

I am sure the present education critic of the Liberal Party doesn’t agree with that kind of attitude. I am sure that as a member of the London Board of Education and the former director of education for the Roman Catholic Separate School Board in Waterloo county, he wouldn’t agree with those statements either. Those kinds of ads and campaigns and personal attacks and personal connection of what is happening in the educational system with the Premier of this province were one of the most disgusting things that happened in the last election campaign. I hope the hon. member doesn’t associate himself with them.

Mr. Good: Oh, come on, what kind of nonsense is that? He was the architect of the system.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am sure that the hon. member for Waterloo North wouldn’t want to be associated with those campaigns. Let’s allow that campaign to vanish --

Mr. Good: Yes, because you lost 23 seats with it, you want to forget about it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let’s allow that campaign to vanish into obscurity and admit that the Liberals let some advertising agency talk them into a thoroughly disgusting approach towards education in this province.

Mr. Martel: It almost reminds me of that fellow from Detroit in 1971 --

Mr. Reid: You used to have a majority over there. What happened to it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: You used to be in second place too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was more fun being the Official Opposition, wasn’t it?

Mr. Reid: A little.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The fact of the matter is that we are still over here governing this province and governing it to the best of our ability.

Mr. Good: Not for long. You will not be there for very long.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The fact of the matter is that you with your advertising agency programme are sitting in third place.

Mr. Reid: Well, it worked so well for you in 1971 we thought we would try it in 1975.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, you copied it; you admit it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that with those remarks, and given the fact that we do not have unlimited time as we usually do in estimates in this House -- we only have something like 30 hours left -- perhaps we can continue with the vote by vote discussion.

On vote 2801:

Mr. Chairman: I assume we will take the vote in its entirety, not item by item.

Mr. Foulds: It would probably be quicker to do it item by item.

Mr. Chairman: Item by item? Is that the way the committee wants it?

Mr. Foulds: I do not know how the other spokesmen feel.

Mr. Chairman: Item 1, vote 2801 agreed to. On item 2, general administration.

Mr. Foulds: I was intrigued by the minister’s claim that a mere four per cent of the money spent on education is spent on administration. I believe that he included in his statement that that was not merely the ministry administration but the administrative costs of school boards and the regional offices as well. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, the four per cent included not only the general administrative costs but also the costs associated with the schools that we run directly as a ministry and the Ontario Teacher Education College.

Mr. Martel: And the school for the deaf?

Mr. Foulds: Did it include the costs for the ministry regional offices --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: -- and the regional school boards administration?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Which regional school boards do you mean?

Mr. Foulds: The county boards, the boards of education as opposed to the ministry’s.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No. Their administrative costs of operation are in the general legislative grants.

Mr. Foulds: I do not know then whether this is the proper place to try to seek the information, but I wonder, during the next three and a half hours of debate in terms of education which will have to be sufficient this year, if we can find out if there is a rough ballpark figure that the ministry has of the percentage the boards across the province spend on administration as opposed to operational costs and teaching costs.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That would rightly come under the general legislative grant vote, because it is part of that money. We do a computer printout of the percentage of the budget that is spent on teaching salaries and non-teaching salaries, and I think we have a figure. I do not know that it will be that completely definitive, but it could be assigned to the general area of administration. We will get that for you.

Mr. Foulds: I would appreciate that, if that is not too difficult.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not think it is too difficult. I do not know how up to date it will be. It may be a couple of years behind but we will get you one.

Mr. Foulds: Fine.

Mr. Ferris: Could the minister give me some explanation as to the large increase in salaries and wages in general administration, as to the number of bodies for the ranges in there?

Hon. Mr. Wells: In general administration, which is item 2 that we are talking about now, there has been an increase of three positions.

Mr. Ferris: Is the amount correct, an increase of about $700,000?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, that’s right. The increases have been caused by salary and benefits revisions to employees who are there; they are normal increases. There are some increases in grants and in the Experience 75 programme. There is an increase of about $300,000 in there for the Experience 75 programme which is the summer programme for young people.

Mr. Ferris: In salaries and wages? I felt the $700,000 was rather high for three people.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That $700,000 is for the whole vote of general administration.

Mr. Ferris: The Experience 75 programme has approximately how much money?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It has $322,000.

Mr. Godfrey: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister of Education tell me -- possibly I am in the wrong place here -- if any of those grants are toward other areas of special instruction for children with learning disabilities?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Would my friend have an example of what he is talking about?

Mr. Godfrey: Yes, sir, I am concerned -- you did mention in your original discussion the fact that you were aware of learning handicaps and children with learning disabilities. You put that down as reversing the “p”s and “b”s but I am sure it was not your intention to simplify the issue.

As we well know, children with learning handicaps are a very serious problem in our school system at present. At present that is being funded from the general budget of schools and I feel that in many cases they are confined and unable to provide the necessary backup and research personnel in order to get into this question. To put it frankly, much of our cost in education later in the elementary school system is because of failure to identify these high-risk children in their early ages, at the age of 4 and 5. My question is directed to know whether any of these special grants are concerned with identifying or setting up some sort of a team which would work to this end?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, the grants in this vote are not directly concerned with the area my friend has indicated. These grants are paid mainly to organizations. Among the organizations to which the grants are paid will be organizations for children with learning disabilities -- the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and others -- for special projects and special things they are doing; but these grants are not for the direct operational programmes in the schools. Those are funded through the general funds.

Mr. Godfrey: Thank you. Then, sir, if I may give notice, I will be asking further questions when that section comes up.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, I think that’s good. I certainly don’t disagree with your comments about the importance of this particular area and I certainly wouldn’t want anything in my speech to have suggested that we view that area lightly because we do not.

Mr. Martel: A brief question of the minister. There has been some discussion with respect to the transfer of grants and funding from the Ministry of Community and Social Services to the Ministry of Education for handicapped children who are not able to attend regular classrooms. This is the result of a court ruling last May or June and I understand there has been considerable discussion between the two ministries.

Has the decision been made on whether the Ministry of Education will be responsible for the funding of youngsters under 16 or will it remain with the Ministry of Community and Social Services which, apparently, is trying to put it where it rightly belongs and that’s in the Ministry of Education?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Perhaps that question might more rightly be dealt with when we get into the special education vote. I don’t have any special education people here. We are discussing it. I don’t think we have come to any conclusion yet.

It is not quite as simple as what you are saying. The Community and Social Services people are, in fact, paying the fees for these children to go to schools, a lot of them outside this province. The question that really arises is should that be happening or should the schools in this province be providing the programmes to take the place of those programmes provided in schools outside?

I must point out there is a great difference of opinion. I have talked, as you have I am sure, to parents whose children are going to schools in Connecticut and New Hampshire and places like that. They feel very doubtful that there ever would be programmes in Ontario to take the place of those schools. I disagree with that and I think we have to develop those. Maybe under the special education vote we could deal in more detail with that.

[12:15]

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, before I ask my question, may I say to the Minister of Education that I almost completely agree with the statement which he made this morning, in terms of what he hopes education in this province can be, and there will be no quarrel from this particular side of the House if in fact that is what we are truly working toward. I believe, however, that we will try to draw your attention from time to time in these estimates that there are places where you feel things are being done or should be done but where, in fact, they are not.

The second point I would make in response to another remark of yours is this: It is not the intention of the Liberal Party to add hundreds of thousands or millions more dollars to the educational budget of this province, but rather to question your ministry as to whether or not the dollars which are presently being spent are being spent in the best ways and under the correct set of priorities. I would hope that that would at least partially set the record straight.

I have a specific question: With respect to general administration, I note that there is a grant to the James Bay Education Centre of $580,000. Would the minister please advise me if that is the total cost of operating that particular education centre?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is not the total cost. It’s certainly a large portion of the cost.

Mr. Sweeney: What other sources of income does this education centre have?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Their sources of income are: The government of Ontario, which is the grant that we are talking about; the government of Canada; other individuals, which is a very small amount; and other revenue which they haven’t defined. Those are the areas of revenue.

Mr. Sweeney: Would it be proper to say then that by far the greatest amount of the cost of operating that particular institution is borne by the provincial government? A very high percentage?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, that would be right.

Mr. Sweeney: Would it logically follow then that the policies and the educational philosophies that occur in that particular institution are those of the provincial government? Is that a logical sequence?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No. No, that isn’t a logical sequence. As my friend may know, that centre is set up as a corporation, a non-profit corporation, I guess, incorporated under the statutes of this province. It isn’t a school board. It isn’t an elected body. It is set up with certain goals and objectives, and the board of governors of that institution has shaped to a large degree the kind of programmes that have developed in that institution. That is, those programmes except for, say, the ones concerning elementary-secondary school, which are in conformity with our programmes. The things that have gone on there do not necessarily represent the direction that has been given from the Ministry of Education.

Mr. Sweeney: Excuse me for belabouring this issue, but in your estimation who would you say is primarily responsible for making the policy decisions for that institution? Is it the board?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The board of governors of what is officially known as the Moosonee Education Centre. Just so that you won’t be confused about this, maybe I should give you a bit of the history that has been going on over the last six months. There have been very extensive reviews of what has been happening at the James Bay Education Centre. There was an external team sent in by us that prepared a report, there was an internal review of the centre and its operation by the board of governors, and there has then been a process of melding those two together with discussions between the two, somewhat akin to a co-operative evaluation review of the school system. There is now a report, which I am ready to make public in the next week or two -- a compilation of all these various recommendations.

I think the only thing which is holding up my making that report public is the determination of how and what we are going to do with those recommendations. I think that’s very vital to the publication of that report. For instance one of the things in that report is that the centre has spent over the amount of money we have allotted for them and somebody is going to have to find that money for them. At this present time we are discussing with them how that can be handled. As I’ve indicated to you now they have only certain sources of revenue and we are the biggest source of that revenue.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I would finish by saying I can see by the minister’s final remarks that he realizes where my questions are leading. I’ll wait until that report is available to finish them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Thank you.

Mr. McClellan: I wanted to follow up very briefly on the issue raised by the previous speaker. I’m going to have to apologize right off the bat that I’m not as well prepared this time as, I assure you, I will be next time. Is the board of governors of the Moosonee Education Centre an elected body or an appointed body?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is an appointed body.

Mr. McClellan: I’m aware of some of the history around the Moosonee Education Centre dating back to 1968 and 1969 although I’ve lost track a bit in the last two years. I’m still curious as to why the ministry feels it’s necessary to appoint a board of governors to the Moosonee Education Centre rather than to allow the community to elect its own representatives to control its own education facility?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That very point is dealt with in the report. There are recommendations, not necessarily unanimous recommendations, from all the people who contributed to the report. There are recommendations and I think I would have to say at this point that I agree with you. I think we should be moving toward an elected body to govern that centre in some way.

There is a little more connected with it than simply that. There is the determination of who will handle the elementary and secondary school programmes; maybe we should have an elected board of education there. Then the question arises as to whether that whole programme should come under the board; or perhaps the education centre, in the context of being taken away from the elementary and secondary programmes, should be an adjunct to community colleges or something like that. These things have to be answered.

Mr. McClellan: When will the report be available?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It should be available within a week or so. It is being printed.

Mr. Ferris: My question was the same, the availability of the report.

Mr. Warner: To the Minister of Education -- my community neighbour -- I take it from the amount shown under the grant to OISE, in excess of $2 million, that the concept of research within the educational field is still left to the ivory tower syndrome and is not to be extended to those who are actually in the field and practising?

I take it this government is not yet considering some sort of support, both philosophic and in real dollar terms, to the opportunity for teachers and other educational personnel to be actively involved in research within the classroom and without the classroom during their tenure of the school year. Research must be kept within the confines of that OISE tower and it cannot extend into the practical circumstance of the classroom.

I would appreciate hearing from the minister if there have been any thoughts in this direction? If and when are we going to see a change of attitude reflected through the government so that research can be done on a more practical basis and so that educators do have the opportunity to do research within the classroom setting? Could the minister comment?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes. First of all, it certainly is not the government’s attitude, opinion or indeed action that research should be done in an ivory tower unrelated to the school system, because research done that way would be useless. I think that certainly three or four years ago we determined that the idea of esoteric research done somewhere off in an ivory tower that never related to the school system and never got back to the school system -- we just couldn’t afford that luxury to a great extent. I am sure there is some of that still done.

So the first point I think that has to be made is that I think it is unfair to say that all the research done at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education is ivory tower research unrelated to the school system.

I guess I thought that the opening speeches would be in the nature of past debates and would perhaps last a little longer than I had anticipated this morning, but I had hoped to bring over here today -- and just pile them up here so you could see them -- copies of the research reports that have been coming out from OISE. I don’t know whether you have seen them recently.

Mr. Laughren: You wouldn’t distribute them to us anyway.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But they don’t all deal with in-basket programmes, or whatever they are.

Mr. Foulds: In-basket stimulation exercises.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The in-basket stimulation programme, incidently, is not a bad programme. But there are some very good research reports that have come out on class size and on special education and a whole variety of topics -- and they are available. Here they are. My staff is very efficient.

Mr. Foulds: That is what I call efficient staff.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right. This is just a sample of some of them. I had hoped that you would get them, because the idea is that the OISE reports are all produced in this manner. They are not made public in the sense that someone calls a press conference and releases them to the press, but they are all public in the sense that they are released to school boards, and to libraries and so forth, and they are here.

There is one on the class size question, which was done by Doris Ryan and T. Barr Greenfield. There is one on open-concept programmes and open-area schools. There is a junior kindergarten study; occupational graduates in the labour force; evaluation of the student guidance information service; moral values clarification; teacher computer studies -- and so forth.

Mr. Foulds: Now tell us what is in the reports.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will save that for Monday.

Then, of course, there is a series of five on the individualized system, on the HS-1 credit system in the high schools, and these were headed up by the late Gerry Fleming as a co-ordinator. I don’t know whether the House was aware that he passed away around Sept. 24. Certainly, it is a great loss to education in this province. As you know, he was the author of that very large volume, “Education in Ontario.” He was a very prolific writer and had developed many of these reports. He had sort of headed up this one that was done by quite a group of different people, but there are five volumes here on the HS-1 system, which make very interesting and stimulating reading.

These are the kinds of things that OISE has been doing. As you know, they also have a field office operation charged with the responsibility of getting these things out to the schools. It is no good just having these reports; they have got to be disseminated to the schools.

That deals with OISE, and we now come to grips with the other matter that my friend has raised. There is also in these estimates contractual research, I think to the tune of about $2 million, and then there are grants in aid of research. They are apart and above this $2.52 million for the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. That money goes to them in a block grant for them to plan their own research programme.

The contractual research money, which is above this amount of money and is in a later vote, is open for anyone to apply for -- that is, I shouldn’t say anyone -- but different groups, including teacher groups, school boards, universities, and OISE. They can again apply for one of these contract research projects, so that some of that $2 million will go back to OISE because it won the bid to do certain research. But it also goes to various other groups, so that it does give the opportunity for other groups to carry on research.

[12:30]

Then you move down to the grants in aid of research, which are small grants to individuals in this province who have a research project that they think is useful and they submit that project. There is a committee that does the judging and then they grant up to $80,000 to assist individuals in research that it is believed should be supported.

I can give you a list of those later on in the estimates when we come to that, but that is roughly how the research works.

Mr. Ferris: Could you tell me how much of the educational research grants is going to OISE?

Hon. Mr. Wells: About $800,000 of the $2 million.

Mr. Warner: I would not quarrel with the minister on the volume of print material which has been produced by OISE. I am well aware of the amount of material which comes out to the schools. What I take exception to is this philosophy that everything must flow in one direction. It must start at OISE and flow out to every educational area in the province. What I am suggesting is that the government look at a two-way system of communication, that the government actually look at the prospect of a classroom teacher, for example, being able to spend part of his or her time during a year to be doing some research that is based on practical experience, some research that can be done within the classroom setting as well as within the school setting and the community setting and that that person can work with someone from OISE.

It seems to be a very practical kind of solution and no doubt the minister is aware, as he has travelled around this province in a very earnest and forthright way to obtain information on the educational climate, that one of the frustrations of the 105,000 teachers in this province is the inability to participate in a meaningful way to further the educational process. By that I mean that there is an overriding feeling among many teachers that we teach for the most part as we are taught, and that somehow we would like to escape that kind of feeling.

I am suggesting to the government that in part that can be dealt with by providing a two-way communication with OISE. Give teachers, principals and vice-principals, trustees and community leaders the opportunity to partake in educational research and let’s stop this one-way flow from OISE as the tower out to the rest of this province.

I am wondering if the minister could suggest that at some point in time his ministry would consider that proposal, and at some point in time during this Legislature come back and comment on its feasibility?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be happy to. I certainly don’t disagree with that position. It has got to be a two-way street and if people feel that they have some research that is really practical and can be helpful and would like to do that I think they should have ways of having that supported. We had hoped our grants in aid of research would do that but it may be that they are too officially research-oriented to really let the classroom teacher get at it.

There is a programme run among ourselves, OTF and I think the trustees council for educational research available to teachers. I think it is $750 a project, but I am sure while this is there that there is a limited number of these available, but that is a small programme that is available.

Mr. Laughren: While we are on the vote for OISE, I want to say a couple of things about a seminar which I believe they sponsored in the Sudbury area recently.

I don’t think OISE deserves to be the whipping boy that it has been over the years, I might add. I think they have done some good research. I wish those reports were circulated as a matter of course to the members of the Legislature, particularly those who have an interest in the educational portfolio, because I don’t get those reports.

OISE sponsored a seminar on community schools and involvement of the community in the schools in the Sudbury area. When you went through the brochure which went out it was very interesting about how you encouraged volunteers in the schools and how, if the community was involved in the educational process, you had a better educational system and so forth, as though it was something that everybody should be a part of. There at the very last it said, “Registration fee, $40.”

How in the name of heaven are you going to get the community involved, the housewives involved, in an area like Sudbury -- or any area for that matter -- if you have a registration fee of $40? Do you know what those seminars end up being? They end up being -- what’s the word? -- incestuous. They end up talking to each other. Surely that is not the purpose? I think that is what my colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere was saying when he said the direction should not be one way.

I suspect there wasn’t very much input from other than the professional educators and social workers in the Sudbury area at that seminar. I didn’t attend; I can’t afford it. I am broke since the election, I might add. It was my view that there were a lot of other people in the same position. Of course, the strike in the area doesn’t help matters, either.

But that aside, surely that is not the kind of involvement we are seeking to improve the involvement of the community in our schools. I hope that, somehow, the word will go back to OISE that is not the kind of community involvement we require when, indeed, they end up talking to themselves.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will be glad to pass that on. We have nothing to do with setting those fees. I guess my friend felt a little the way I did when I opened up a letter from the federal Conservative leadership convention and found it is going to cost $150 to register as a delegate. Some people assume that all Conservatives are rich, and that is not so.

Mr. Laughren: Who are you talking about?

Mr. Ferris: Would the minister give some breakdown on the miscellaneous grants to be paid by the minister, which increased in excess of 20 per cent, as to where they are directed?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Would you like me to read the list of them to you?

Mr. Ferris: Yes, I would.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The basic reason -- or one of the major reasons for increases in these grants this year, incidentally, was the very large grant to the Army Cadet League of Canada as a founding grant to sustain its activities. It will not be an ongoing grant because a grant was made to them of $125,000.

There are grants to the Air Cadet League $3,000; Association Canadienne d’Education de Langue Francaise $7,500; Association Francaise du Conseil Scolaire de l’Ontario $1,000; Association Canadienne-Francaise de l’Ontario $14,000; Boy Scouts of Canada $17,500; Bramalea Majorettes and Drum Corps $1,500; Cadet Organization Pre-School $5,000.

Mr. Foulds: That is the one we want.

Mr. Ferris: I wished to hear the major adjustments for the increase.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I should say it is very difficult to tell you what the major adjustments are. The major adjustment over the year before was that blanket grant to the Army Cadet League as a founding grant. There is about a page and a half of grants to various bands, organizations, associations and so forth which write to the government, the ministry or to the members’ direct attention, and ask for assistance. Various groups come to talk to us for assistance in the various programmes. Maybe it would be better if I sent you the list.

Mr. Ferris: It would be better for all of us.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Minister, could you give me the difference between this year’s grant to OISE and last year’s grant to OISE?

Hon. Mr. Wells: There has been no change. The block grant to OISE is the same.

Mr. Moffatt: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I wasn’t sure whether there was an increase there. I’m having some difficulty sorting out, because of the novelty of my position --

Mr. Foulds: It is just the kind of bookkeeping they do.

Mr. Moffatt: -- some of the items that are carried one under the other.

I wanted to say that it seems to me that the minister expressed a sentiment that I support earlier in his remarks when he indicated that the problems that seem to be evident and which were referred to in educational terms in the election were the result of communication problems. I would suggest that the communication between OISE and its clientele is the biggest problem.

I have been a teacher for 15 years and one of the biggest problems that I and my colleagues in that profession had was finding access to the kinds of documents which you presented in the House this morning. It seems to me if you are going to talk about communication between schools and their clientele in the community as being the problem source, then it seems reasonable to assume that you’ll start in the place where that solution should be found, that is, in the research part of the ministry and OISE should be the leading example of delivering its product to its clientele rather than the recipient of criticism because people don’t understand it.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on item 2?

Mr. Foulds: On what basis do you make a judgment on the miscellaneous grants? Is it simply on a first come, first served basis for separate areas?

Hon. Mr. Wells: There is a special list of criteria for organizations connected with education. You can pretty well connect any organization with education for most groups fulfil some kind of educational rule for assistance. There are some people who have some particular problem -- some particular purpose they need the grant for.

It’s very hard to define any set of criteria, but we try to make them, first and foremost, relevant in some way to the educational system and to serve the concerns of young people.

Mr. Foulds: The second question I have is on the grant to the Council of Ministers of Education and interprovincial programmes. Do you make public, or does the council make public, an annual report?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, as far as I know they do; I think they make that public. Would you like one?

Mr. Foulds: Yes. That’s something that your ministry has not done to my knowledge. I must say to my colleagues that I get stuff from OISE and they are welcome to relieve me of half the books in my office but I don’t get that and I would appreciate a copy.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This appears to be my copy; there is nothing incriminating in it, but I have a few marginal notes. I will see that a copy is sent over to the hon. member.

[12:45]

Mr. Foulds: You are the chairman.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I was the chairman. The chairman this year is probably a friend of yours, the Minister of Education of British Columbia.

Mr. Laughren: Oh yes, a fine fellow.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh? Who said that? We got you on that one because the minister is a very fine woman.

Mr. Foulds: Sexist.

Mr. Laughren: You caught me on that one.

Mr. Chairman: Item 2 carried? Carried.

Item 3, communications services.

Mr. Ferris: Could the minister explain the increase of $133,000 in salaries and wages and how many bodies it represents?

Mr. Foulds: Better yet, how many minds?

Hon. Mr. Wells: In the communications services branch there are 50 people, and the increase there is mainly due to salary and benefit revisions and some increases in order to facilitate our translation and editing in the French language.

Mr. Ferris: Are there any additional people?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, there are no additional people. In fact, we have to remember we are looking at the figures in the estimates that were presented last March and prior to the constraint programmes that we are going through. There are areas that are being looked at, and this is one of them. There will be certain changes here.

Mr. Sweeney: I just caught the tail-end of the minister’s last statement; it was something about editing in the French language. Would he please explain?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Some of our increase in the moneys in this vote was for increases in French-language translating and editing. We are committed to a programme to make more and more documents and books of the Ministry of Education available in the French language.

Mr. Sweeney: I guess I didn’t understand the choice of the word “editing”.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Editing is a perfectly acceptable word to use.

Mr. Chairman: Item 3 carried?

Item 4, budget services. Carried?

Item 5, education data processing.

Mr. Moffat: There appears to be an increase here in the neighbourhood of $3.5 million; I have looked through the attached explanatory notes and to my mind they don’t explain anything. My confusion is now based on printed confusion, rather than just ephemeral confusion. I wonder if the minister could explain what the difference is.

Mr. Ferris: He’s confused all the time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The increase that is shown here concerns the fact that we switched over from operating the hardware and the data processing operation as a ministry to the Ministry of Government Services, and in so doing there was a division of costs and so forth. The division, as I understand it, was not the right one and necessitated changes in moneys in the amount that we had to have in our budget in order to reimburse Government Services for the service that they provide for us in the data processing field.

Mr. Shore: Who saved the money as a result of this redirection?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Who saved the money?

Mr. Shore: Yes. Which ministry has got a reduction now as a result of that?

Mr. Sweeney: The $3 million had to go some place.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In this particular area -- and we are just going through about our first year of this change -- I think the hon. member would have to ask the Minister of Government Services (Mrs. Scrivener) about this, because it was a major change in philosophy towards educational data processing. I think it is going to take a while to know whether this was a cost-saving mechanism or not. It should have been; it should have saved money and it should have made the whole operation more efficient. That is certainly what all the experts said.

In other words, instead of us operating a data processing organization and a couple of other ministries, Government Services now operates all the hardware and the data processing service for all the ministries of the government. On paper and certainly in everyone’s mind that should save money but I think you will have to ask Government Services about that.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Minister, that sounds strangely like the remarks of your colleague with respect to regional government.

Mr. Shore: Wouldn’t it be advisable, sir, if you could have your ministry people check that out and report back to this committee?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think we can do that but not in the light of these estimates we are doing. I think it is going to take a little more experience with the whole programme; perhaps another six months. When we come to the estimates in the spring -- I am assuming we will all be here ready to go to these estimates again -- we could have a full report on the comparisons of the operation then.

Mr. Shore: At this time, I’d like an accountability of the mathematics. I would be satisfied with that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The mathematics of which?

Mr. Shore: Apparently there is $3 million here out of Government Services for the transition. Where did the other reduction come from, if it did?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Okay. I should say there is a large sum in here which has nothing to do with the matter I was just discussing. It is a new initiative and that was in the student guidance information service, for terminals in the schools.

I think you are aware of the student guidance information service which connects with the central terminals here to provide, I think, a very useful and good service. In order to make it more effective and more available to the schools you need to have terminals in the schools. We have proposed a programme which has been cut down slightly from when these estimates were introduced and it is going forward on a smaller scale. There is a large sum of money for that in here, something like $1 million.

Mr. Moffatt: I still find this rather confusing. Apparently your ministry has picked up educational data processing which was previously carried by another ministry --

Hon. Mr. Wells: It’s the other way around. We originally had the data processing and Government Services has now taken the function over.

Mr. Moffatt: What you don’t do now somebody else is doing and it is costing you more. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I don’t think that’s correct.

Mr. Moffatt: I am glad I asked.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What we have in these figures are amounts to allow us to pay for the services we are getting from Government Services. We are not sure at this time whether or not it will cost us more. It probably won’t but we need this extra money in order to compensate for what was thought would be needed, which wasn’t in last year’s estimates. We need more money this year.

Mr. Moffat: I still think you said what I said.

Mr. Laughren: I think so.

Mr. Moffatt: You are no longer picking up part of this operation. Another ministry is doing it and it is going to cost you more. I think we deserve some better explanation than that.

I also would like to mention that what is happening here, it seems to me, with the transfer to data processing on a much larger scale, is the kind of misguided priorities which a number of school boards have engaged in over the past several years. What I think does happen is that the people who are in charge of providing services to the schools wind up being the dictators as far as what the whole process is about. It becomes more important to school board administrators to have an efficient-looking system than to have the kind of educational programme which will benefit the children in the classrooms.

I think the explanation you gave sir, with respect, is not the kind of explanation we deserve. It seems to me to be the same kind of explanation I have had given me by various business administrators when I have found that a budget to provide additional materials needed in a classroom was subtracted because the budget was tight. What happened was the budget priorities were altered. I would suspect that at this point budget priorities are being altered in favour of data processing and away from the delivery of educational programmes to students.

Mr. Ferris: Would it be reasonable that in making an adjustment of this size and in this kind of facility and as well as in the student guidance information for $1 million, that there would have been a feasibility study or cost justification of some nature carried out and could that be provided to the members?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That question would have to be asked of the Ministry of Government Services. They carried out all the feasibility studies and presented all the reports. Government Services and the Management Board of Cabinet did all the work in that regard.

Mr. Ferris: Is the minister telling me he picked up an additional $2 million expenses and didn’t know why he had it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No. And I apologize if I have left you with the impression that there was an extra $2 million that was concerned completely with that switchover, because that is not right. As I indicated, there is about $1 million in here that is that new initiative for the student guidance information service. And that has nothing to do with the switchover. There is a certain amount of money in there, nearly $300,000, that deals only with the salary revisions and changes and benefits for the employees. It’s really not the whole sum of money that is concerned with this matter. We are talking about the switchover between government services and ourselves.

Mr. Ferris: In the student guidance information -- and I ask because I would assume that it is in your jurisdiction -- there must be some long-range plan, or is there additional funding that will be required in an ongoing manner in this? And do you have access to those kinds of reports?

Hon. Mr. Wells: You should read the report on planning for student guidance information service. It will tell you something about the programme. The programme, of course, if carried to its logical conclusion, would be completed when we had a terminal in every school -- unless someone decided that there should be two terminals -- and I certainly don’t think we have the financial resources to even contemplate that kind of a programme. This programme provides a number of new terminals for secondary schools, and there are now actually very few in secondary schools. Most of the schools using the service send in their request for information. It is compiled and then the reports are sent back in computer forms. It would be far better if it could be done in each individual school.

Mr. Ferris: That’s my question. It relates to what the other member was saying -- if it’s re-directing money into computers rather than to school affairs, I would like to know what that is going to be.

Items 5 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Item 11, Languages of Instruction Commission.

Mr. Foulds: I wonder if the minister could give us an up to date report on the activities of that commission; what initiatives are they taking in terms of advancing the French language in the province’s schools?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that the Languages of Instruction Commission has been doing an excellent job. As you know, they were appointed as a result of the amendments we made a while ago in this House in order to provide a place where people with legitimate complaints or concerns about what was happening in the area of minority language programmes could appeal if no other means of settling a matter was arrived at.

The commission has met and handled many cases over the past year. Many of the matters that they have dealt with have been handled, I think, very satisfactorily.

I think it would be quite fair to say that perhaps it appeared in the beginning that the commission was not going to be able to fulfill its proper function. As you will recall when I brought this change into the House, I said that we weren’t going to make the decision of the commission binding on any school board or French language committee, but that the weight of their power would help redress whatever situation happened to be occurring.

It looked at first that perhaps this wasn’t going to happen, but I am happy to say that, perhaps in some cases with the assistance of the minister and some of our people working with areas after the Language of Instruction Commission had brought in its report, many very touchy areas in this province had been brought to, I think, a very satisfactory conclusion. We have areas such as Essex county where the French language secondary school is proceeding and other areas where thorny issues have been settled and conditions are better.

[1:00]

Mr. Foulds: One further question: Do those hot-spot areas that have been cooled out include Elliot Lake, in your estimation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, as a matter of fact I think that the Elliot Lake situation has been taken care of. I think the last word I had from the Languages of Instruction Commission and from some of our people who have been meeting with the Elliot Lake people was that a solution has been arrived at, and as far as I know it has been accepted by all.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. Are your remarks going to be very brief?

Mr. Warner: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Perhaps I could just add to that that I think the solution was that a homogeneous French language secondary school is going to be constructed for September, 1977, up there. That is the final resolution.

Mr. Foulds: Homogeneous?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is one where all the people are French speaking.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Better than two per cent anyway.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Warner: Is it within the parameters of that commission, the Languages of Instruction Commission, to consider languages other than the two official languages of this country -- in fact, to include the native people’s native language and languages of other cultural groups, particularly those that as we know are concentrated within the large urban centres of this province?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, that is not one of the purposes for this body, and that is why it has that very particular name, the Languages of Instruction Commission. It is to deal with the official languages of instruction, English and French, and the official rights that are guaranteed in the legislation for people to have full instruction in those languages in the schools. It is not to deal with the other very important problem. That is not to say the other problem or the concerns of people in that area aren’t important, but this particular body is there for a specific purpose concerning languages of instruction, English and French.

Mr. Warner: I must comment then that I am deeply concerned that the Ministry of Education is not, I would take it from your remarks -- and if I have misconstrued them I stand corrected -- taking seriously enough the remarks made by my colleague, our critic, that languages of instruction in this province have to be taken care of in terms of more than just the two official languages. We have the possibility of some very serious problems, not only within our school system but within our whole social system, unless we offer a language of instruction more than just English and French. I would plead with the ministry to consider that very seriously if it wishes to stave off some very serious problems from the ethnic communities.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be happy to deal with that. I am sure we will come to it in one of the future votes, because it really has nothing to do with this area. I would be happy to deal with it later on. I really don’t think that my friend, the critic, said exactly what you have just said. I don’t think he said he wanted languages other than English and French to be official languages of instruction in the school system of this province.

Mr. Warner: Neither did I.

Mr. Chairman: Is there going to be further discussion on item 11?

Mr. Foulds: I think there will be, yes. I don’t think we should carry it.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, may I quickly go over what would appear to be the order of business for next week so the members can be prepared.

On Monday we will have the Leader of the Official Opposition make his contribution to the debate with respect to the loyal address. In order to accommodate that, the standing committee on estimates will not sit Monday afternoon so that members may be here for that contribution. There will be no session on Monday evening.

On Tuesday the leader of the Liberal Party will make his contribution; there will be no meeting of the standing committee on estimates that afternoon, but the standing committee on estimates will meet Tuesday night as will the House.

Wednesday, of course, will be committee day. There will be no meeting of the House but we will be in committee.

On Thursday we will start with the legislative programme which is now on the order paper and in the order that it appears on the order paper, unless the mail interruption is still operative and we have to deal with the legislation proposed by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, which makes some provisions for that.

A week from today, Friday, we will have Throne Speech debate in the House.

I have no record yet as to whether the select committees have come to some agreement among themselves as to when they will meet next week, but I assume their members will be advised once arrangements, including the timetable, have been made.

If there are no questions about House business next week -- or are there any questions?

Mr. Foulds: I have one question. I take it that on Tuesday evening we will return to committee of the whole in the House to consider these estimates. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’m glad the hon. member has raised that. The committee of supply will in fact convene at the conclusion of the speeches on Monday and Tuesday; there would be no reason for the committee of supply not carrying on on Monday afternoon, if there were time, on Tuesday afternoon after Mr. Nixon, and on Tuesday evening. Indeed, if the legislative programme were wound up quickly, the committee might even sit on Thursday, but I think that’s not too much of a possibility.

The private members’ hour provided for in the standing orders for Monday afternoon will not be an item on Monday because of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1:05 p.m.