L020 - Thu 11 Jul 1985 / Jeu 11 jul 1985
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.
Mr. Martel: I join in this debate as one who was educated in the public school system but who spent his teaching career in the separate school system. I would like to approach this matter in a somewhat different light from the excellent speeches I have already heard and to try to put it in an historical context which I do not think anyone has attempted to do entirely.
Back in 1968 my leader at that time, Donald MacDonald, as the result of a 1968 convention --
Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is that the journalist Donald MacDonald?
Mr. Martel: Journalist, critic, author. He established a committee of New Democrats, six of us to be precise. It included the Ambassador to the United Nations, Stephen Lewis; a friend of many of us, Walter Pitman; the quiet fellow from the Ontario Federation of Labour, Cliff Pilkey; our friend the former Speaker, Jack Stokes; and Patrick Lawlor, QC. It was an excellent committee of which I was privileged to be the sixth member. I am still here, and they have gone on to better things.
At that time we attempted to piece together the rights of the separate schools to exist with equal funding. It was quite amazing, as we went back. If we look at it historically, we can find that as early as the capitulation of Quebec and Montreal and the Treaty of Paris in 1763, followed by the Quebec Act of 1774 --
Mr. Haggerty: Has the member been around that long?
Mr. Martel: Some say too long.
As early as that, the separate schools were granted the right to have their own school system, even though England at the time did not allow such religious freedom. In Canada it was allowed, and for a very good reason: the support of the clergy and French community was necessary because some rumblings were starting to occur in the United States.
At that time Quebec covered much of what is now southern Ontario. There was a legitimacy going back to almost the beginning, if one takes Champlain in 1609 and the first real settlement in this province. Right after the conquest the separate school systems were allowed to exist.
If one continues to trace this development in 1797, the Legislative Council of Upper Canada applied for the appropriation of wasteland for the establishment of respectable grammar schools, together with a college or university in each of the eight districts. The grammar school was, of course, for the purpose of educating the children of the rich. It was a few years before universal opportunity for education was to be a reality, even at the elementary school level.
In 1816 the first common school act was passed. One also sees that at that time in Upper Canada Bishop Strachan was attempting to establish an Anglican-supported school system. It did not quite succeed. None the less, the Family Compact was there and an attempt was made to develop a system beyond the separate school system.
If one continues to trace this, one will realize that at the time of the reunion of the Canadas -- Upper and Lower Canada -- in 1841, by the Act of Union, there was no legal provision in Upper Canada for segregation of Protestants and Roman Catholics in elementary schools, either common or grammar.
In spite of the type of arrangement quoted above, in the united province of Canada the question of educational development became paramount. The contrasting nature of the two sections of the united province demanded a different approach in several areas of government responsibility. Certainly, education was one of these. However, in 1841 an act was passed providing for the establishment of common schools throughout the province.
It included a section which said: "Any number of inhabitants of a different faith from the majority in such township or parish might choose their own trustees and might establish and maintain one of the more common schools under the same condition and receiving the same government support as other common schools."
Long before Confederation the right to a separate school system existed. It flourished and helped, which is really what happened in 1867, to bring about Confederation, which prevented the Americans from taking control. Many of us who have dabbled into a little bit of history know full well that in 1867 the union was developed because the Americans were doing a little growling about taking over some of the various parts of Canada as they existed at the time.
I can go on historically. In 1843, a further act exempted children from studying "from any religious books or to join in any exercise of devotion or religion which shall be objected to by his or her parents or guardians," and allowed parents, either Catholic or Protestant, to have a school of their own religious persuasion.
8:10 p.m.
What I am trying to develop is the historical significance of a separate school system in Canada that goes back to 1763 at least. This act was followed by the Common Schools Act of 1850 and the Supplementary School Act of 1853. The Supplementary School Act exempted all supporters of separate schools from taxation for public school purposes if they contributed in any rate or subscription an amount equal to the tax to which they would have been liable on their assessment for public school purposes had the separate schools not existed.
For some of us who have traditionally supported the separate school system, as I do, there really has been a dual tax system for many years. My children decided of their own choice that they wanted to go to a separate high school. In the town in which we live they can see the high school from which my wife and I graduated. They could have walked across the schoolyard into the high school, but they decided they would go to Sudbury to St. Charles College and Marymount College, getting up at 6:30 on their own rather than about 8:30. My daughter made that trek daily for five years.
Mr. Nixon: Did you get up at the same time and make their breakfasts?
Mr. Martel: I did not. I was just turning over for the first time then.
What I am driving at is that throughout that period we not only had to pay the regular high school tax but a rather substantial amount in tuition fees from grade 11 on, now verging on about $650 a year.
I can well recall when I first came here raising this matter with Darcy McKeough, not only as to how it affected my family but how it affected people in mixed marriages. I tried for years to get that little anomaly straightened out. If the man was the Catholic in a family, he could direct the taxes to the separate school system, but if the woman was the Catholic in the mixed marriage she could not. It was tremendously unfair in mixed marriages that if it was the man the taxes could be made payable directly to the school system of their choice, but if it was the woman this did not and could not occur. Until this day that exists.
I taught in the separate school system. It caused tremendous problems in many mixed marriages in which the husband really might not care where the children went to school and left it to his wife, but the taxes could not be directed in that way. He would either have to say on the forms that existed that he was a Catholic or enter into some Lucy-Goosey arrangement about renting the house to his wife so she held the rent and therefore paid the taxes in the area to which she wanted to direct it. It is a terrible system. Over the years I have moved a number of private bills to try to --
Mr. Haggerty: I think Darcy McKeough was a graduate of Ridley College. You were speaking to the wrong person.
Mr. Martel: To his credit, he attempted at one stage, in about 1969 or 1970, to see if it could be changed. He told me, and indicated at a committee meeting one night, he could not.
None the less, if I could just pick up the pieces very quickly, one other act, the Scott Act of 1863, ensured that the existing rights of Roman Catholic citizens would be protected and extended these to rural areas. As I understand from a statement the other day by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), it was his grandfather or great-grandfather who moved that piece of legislation.
In 1867 the British North America Act came into existence. Let me quote from one of the history books: "Once again, the relationship of French Canada and the Roman Catholic religion, and the fact that French Canada's support of the union was critical...." It was critical in that coming together to resist the United States. It is a very vital and important piece of history. That support was necessary if we were to withstand the intrusion into Canada by the United States. That agreement to allow Catholic schools to exist and to subsidize them played a major role in what is now Canada.
Finally, there was one other act, and that is where the problems for the separate school system occurred. About 1871 we moved to extend what was then the educational system into high school. As a province which had the right under the British North America Act, we did not extend to the separate school system the right to receive part of the taxes beyond the level of the day.
Historically, the separate school system and the right of Catholics to have taxation have been there since at least 1763. It was not always supported, but the right was there and at certain stages in our history it played a fundamental role in ensuring the unity which made Canada a country.
Having played that major role in Canada and having been given short shrift some short years after, when the extension of the system to high school went on, Catholics have up until this time not been given the rights which they were guaranteed. I have heard people say to me, "That was a hundred years ago plus a few more since 1867."
Times change and one can change these things, but I am not sure that when something plays such an integral part in making this a country that one can remove it from a group. What if we took a right away that was in the Constitution? What other rights in the Constitution would be entrenched so that people who have rights would not be fearful of losing those rights?
That is very significant from where I stand. I have been questioned about the other school systems, and I think it is much like French language rights in Canada. Two groups were given rights of language; certain religious groups were at one time given rights to educational facilities. There were those who came after. It is quite right to suggest that this is what the Constitution is about and this is what the system is about. We cannot take it away from some. I am not sure whether there is a legitimacy to making a demand that because the separate school system was there all these years that somebody else should have it. The same would apply of course with languages.
We all know the difficulties in those two very sensitive areas. They are areas that appeal very deeply and raise strong feelings in people. We certainly do not try to ignore their feelings or their concerns. They are legitimate beliefs, but when we have a constitution it is rather difficult to suggest that we simply change it because times change.
I would like to say a few more words, if I might, because there is a misunderstanding about separate schools. Most of us look at education as a learning process for developing the mind and through other programs developing the physical side, but Catholics happen to believe there is another part that must be fed and advanced, and that is spiritual. A lot of people will not agree with that, and I don't ask people to agree with that philosophy, but it is a philosophy that Catholics believe. This is part of their system. It is not just the physical part or the mental part, but included in that is the spiritual development.
8:20 p.m.
In Catholic schools we attempt to put in place throughout the day, not just during religious lessons, some of the things we want to develop about life. I would not suggest for a moment that makes us any better than anyone else. It is what we believe. That does not make the separate school system any better than the public school system. However, we try to develop what we believe is the spiritual part of the total human being.
It is not enough to say we could teach religion for half an hour a day. If one wants to work the whole of life into the separate school system, one tries to do it in a variety of ways and subjects. In the process, we hope we teach tolerance, concern for others and respect for other people who have different opinions.
It is our hope and aim that through that we enrich our society. I am not saying we succeed all the time; we are human and we make mistakes. I have never taken the position that the separate school system I support is better than the public school system. That is why we on this side say the two systems must be equally funded and must have the same opportunities. We want those guarantees so there is no difference.
I want to conclude with another remark. Let me tell the members an interesting story. I was the principal of a separate school in a small town and a good friend of the principal of the public school. In the early 1960s, we decided we would go jointly to our two boards and suggest that since we did not have a shop in town and the kids in both the separate and public schools were being bused out of town to take shop, it would be nice if both boards could get together and have a shop put in one of the facilities and the other school could use them. In 1962, we were not favourably received. It was suggested that we should administer the schools and the board would run the affairs of the schools.
Both of us were treated summarily by our boards in the same way. It may have been a little too advanced for the time, but I happen to believe that attitude is slowly changing and there is more willingness to share. There are many ways in which we can share. It is absolutely ridiculous that in this day and age we send five school buses down the road to pick up children from five different school systems. It is a waste of money. It is time we started to share. If we look at it carefully, it is time that certain areas share facilities and staff if need be.
Coming from the north with areas that are spread out, I have always thought some things to be a little strange. I remember a man who taught for me at one time who became head of the art department for the separate school system in Sudbury. He would go to Levack, and coming back from Levack at the same time would be the art director for the public school system. I wondered whether it would not be wise to send one person to cover both schools in that area and reduce the costs. There is purchasing we could do together. We could share computer services if we wanted. There are a lot of things we could do jointly if we had the will.
I listened to as many speeches as I could despite having to attend a number of meetings and I think this Legislature is setting the tone for the type of co-operation we want, with systems where people are equal and deal with each other as equals. I do not think we will see the fuss that arose during the election campaign when I thought for a while we were developing a new system of education rather than funding what in the long run will be two grades, grades 11 and 12. To listen to some people, one would have thought we were developing a whole new educational system rather than finishing a system that was truncated back in 1871, or thereafter.
I hope the spirit of co-operation is here, and that tolerance and understanding will play a major role in the consideration of the bill as it goes through committee and clause-by-clause debate.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to say these few words, particularly in view of the fact that in 1968 I was able to help in drafting the New Democratic Party position which I put before the House again this evening.
Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I join in this debate with considerable emotion and sincerity. From the sincerity side, it is high time this assembly addressed itself to the essence of what we find in Bill 30. From the emotional side, we have heard a variety of members from all three parties indicate their rational reasons for supporting or not supporting this bill. By and large, they are all supporting it. We have also heard other personal reasons, familial or whatever. That is where I come in with the emotional side of it.
What brought me to Queen's Park in June 1977 was my determination, as a school teacher and administrator for 22 years, that there was something just a touch out of whack, generally, with education. It was something I felt I might be able to redress and address if I could become a member of Parliament.
Some members will recall -- I look to the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) -- when I came here in June 1977, that we had a particular problem to try to resolve: the French-language secondary school in Essex county. After that election in June 1977, we came here for a mini-session. We put ourselves to that task as a Legislature, and we also got into the estimates of the Ministry of Education. For me, that was a baptism by fire. Within the first couple of weeks as a member of Parliament, not only did I have to stand in this House and speak on behalf of our party on this French-language secondary school situation, but I also had to get into the estimates, along with the member for Ottawa Centre and a handful of other members I see in this Legislature tonight.
I came here with a determination to try to solve, from the government end of things, what I, as a very naïve school teacher and administrator, perceived to be some of the problems in government as it related to education. Boy, did I ever get an eye-opener. The system controls the Legislature. In so far as the Ministry of Education was concerned, I had to admit that in a sense, the mandarins were the bosses and we were not. We struggled with the French secondary school and a variety of other things, but it has taken some time, too long a time, for us to step forward and take hold of those issues that dictate the lifestyle and rights of people in Ontario.
8:30 p.m.
The member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) has given us all an interesting and complete historical background of the rights of the people in Ontario and Canada with regard to educational support. I do not want to bore members by repeating that. If anyone in this province has a question mark about the historical fact of educational right, human right if you will, in this province or this country, I simply refer to the comments and observations made yesterday by my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot.
For a brief moment I want to bring out one other personal fact. Many members of this Legislature have done this. I noted just before the supper break that the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) made reference to his family, two of whom had gone through a public secondary school and another two through a separate secondary school. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) made reference to his experience as a principal and his involvement with teaching in his own community.
I indicated at the beginning that I too have an emotional and personal contact here. I have the distinction of having a father who was raised as a Methodist and I have a mother who had the distinction of being raised as a Catholic. I am a product of that union and I am proud to say my parents raised me as a Catholic. I went through the elementary Catholic system here in Toronto and in London, Ontario. When I got to secondary school, at the end of grade 9, I transferred to a public high school. I had the honour and privilege of completing secondary school in a public high school.
I can recall as a very young person some of the anxiety we went through because there were those old games of some religious discrimination being played between young people many years ago in the late 1930s and early 1940s. I am very pleased to say I do not see that now. On the other hand, as far as the funding of the school systems is concerned, there is some discrimination and this bill will remove that.
Let me go a step beyond that to point out that I was privileged to be a secondary school teacher in the public school system. No one ever questioned me about my religious background. They could not have cared less. As a matter of fact, when I became a superintendent in the separate school system, one of my former bosses came up to me and said, "I did not realize you were a Roman Catholic." I said to him, "Does it matter?" He said, "I could not care less." That is the way it was.
I had the opportunity and privilege to work in both school systems and I have seen many others who did so. I have to say to the people who are saying the world is going to crash to an end with this and there will be all kinds of problems, that will not be the case. There are still some people who are concerned and upset. The member for Durham West made reference to the possibility of another Northern Ireland. I am sorry, but I simply cannot see that and I do not accept it. There has been acceptance within our community.
Mr. Ashe: I did not say that. The paper said it. I do not agree at all.
Hon. Mr. Van Horne: The member was making reference to what the paper said. I appreciate that.
I am sure we have all had letters of concern about this bill and about the prospect. Let me submit that if we assess the total number of people who come into contact with us, the number of people in our ridings and the number of people in this province of ours, those letters of abject concern are very limited and small.
The biases that may have been there years ago, in my view, are not there. The bias, the distinction or problem, if you will, has come from the way the government has addressed itself to the two different school systems. If we are honest with each other, any member in this Legislature who has looked at the way the ministry over the years has tried to accommodate the funding formulae -- and they are as wide as this chamber -- that member will have to admit there was a degree of hypocrisy there, because in the backroom way of dealing with moneys and formulae, it was really trying to acknowledge the difference but not admit it publicly.
This legislation will bring things out into the open. It will bring a situation of difference over the years onto the scene to be resolved, I hope, once and for all. I am pleased with the efforts of my colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) who has worked hard and diligently to bring this legislation to us, aided and accompanied by our cabinet, particularly the member for St. David, the Attorney General.
I am very pleased to see the form this bill is taking. I am sure there will be all kinds of suggestions for change and amendment to bring it more properly into focus in the eyes of those who think this or that factor is slightly out of focus, but let me submit that this is a darned good starting point. I would again like to commend our Minister of Education and our Attorney General.
I submit that our committee has a tremendous task at hand. All three parties represented on this committee are duty bound to listen to what is said to them and to do what is best by dint of their responsibility as committee members and to report back to us a bill, perhaps in more perfected form, that will suit all the needs of the people of this province.
In so far as the specifics of the bill are concerned, I submit that the accessibility and job security sections should reflect the need for both school systems affected by it to maintain their autonomy and the quality of systems they have built up over the years. I submit to all members that none of us want to see any diminution of the factors of quality and autonomy that our two school systems in this province have built up over the years.
8:40 p.m.
I submit too that there is a need for some questions to be raised about the capital costs in factoring some things, and again the member for Sudbury East made some reference to this when he talked about sharing. Particularly with my experience in the secondary school panel, I am looking at what might happen if there is a wholesale move to the application of all of the technical and commercial credits in the secondary system for secondary separate schools that currently do not have them. That would cause such a groundswell of financial problems that we would hardly be able to suffer them. There is a tremendous need for sharing, or at least for a look at sharing, of that kind of facility at the secondary level. I hope those questions come to the committee. If they do not, I hope the committee members, when they have people coming to them, will ask, "What do you think about this?" because, believe me, it is a major problem.
I hope, as was mentioned by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) in his multi-wisdomed words to us yesterday, albeit they were rather interrupted by the clock, that we do not see the official opposition finding it irresistible to use this piece of legislation to arrive at some kind of political turnabout. We are all aware that we have one former cabinet minister, now clustering about him two or three others, who is of the view that there is something wrong, that something is going to destroy this province and that all kinds of turmoil could come from this bill. I hope there is not a beginning of what could be a turnaround to use this bill in an adverse way. I am fairly convinced that those members opposite, who I know from the last two parliaments, will exercise their wisdom to not let that happen.
In conclusion, I am pleased to offer these few words to the debate. I very sincerely wish the committee members well. I look forward to having them report back to us so we can complete this exercise as soon as possible.
Mr. Harris: I am pleased to join in this debate, which I believe is a very historic one, on the second reading of Bill 30.
First, Mr. Speaker, at my very first formal opportunity, let me congratulate you on your election to the office of Speaker of this assembly and, as others have done who have gone before me, assure you of my wholehearted and complete support in your endeavours of presiding over this Legislative Assembly. If I ever object at any point, bear in mind it is in the heat of the moment and not in the overall tone of how I regard not only the office but also you personally.
Second, I want to congratulate the Minister of Education, the member for Renfrew North -- it is still Renfrew North; I am not sure where it will be after redistribution comes through.
Hon. Mr. Van Horne: Nipissing East.
Mr. Harris: It is funny the member should mention Nipissing, because I understand the member for Renfrew North is on the hunt for ridings and will be in Nipissing in a couple of weeks to speak to the local Liberal association on July 20, I believe. I am not certain whether he is going there to promote the Liberal cause in the great riding of Nipissing or whether he is on the hunt for a new riding.
I want to tell the minister that I welcome him to Nipissing at any time. I am surprised he did not call and ask what I was doing on that evening to see if we could get together; one body in there could bring the number of people up considerably. However, I do congratulate the minister on his appointment.
I said I was pleased to join in this debate. I want to add that I have no difficulty in supporting a principle of fairness, a principle of what I believe is the honouring of a constitutional commitment. It is a commitment that brought this province into Confederation; indeed, it is a cornerstone commitment, if I understand it correctly, that led to the formation of Canada. I am talking about a province, Ontario, and a country I am very proud of and very fortunate to live in and to be a part of, and to be a part of the opportunities this province and country have afforded me as a citizen.
There are many people in my riding who have concerns about this legislation. I believe it is important to listen to what those people have to say. There has been a lot of what I believe to be misinformation and a lot of misunderstanding about the implications of this bill.
I am delighted the full hearing process proposed by my party and by my leader has been agreed to by all parties. I look forward to hearing from all interested parties during the hearings, particularly from parents, students, teachers, church groups and taxpayers. I hope the committee will accept my invitation to come and use Nipissing as one of the hearing sites. I say that because I know there are many people in the riding of Nipissing who are concerned about the implications of implementation of this bill.
Many of the concerns have been expressed already in this debate. I do want to hear from the public on many of the clauses that are contained in Bill 30, but let me mention a couple of concerns shared by me and my constituents.
There is nothing in this bill and nothing from this minister to ensure that the public and the separate boards will work together to maximize the use of facilities, to avoid duplication of facilities and in some areas, such as smaller centres in northern Ontario, even to share in some programs that otherwise could not be delivered. I am talking particularly about communities with only one high school, about small towns in northern Ontario and about some of the other small towns throughout Ontario.
I believe we need assurances that the same high level of programs and options of programs that are now available across this province will continue to be available. I believe our students and their parents can expect no less. I and my party will be seeking those assurances in the weeks and months ahead.
I am very disappointed that this bill does not allow, in those areas where both the separate school board and the public school board agree, a consolidation of the board into one, with separate panels. For example, if one looks at my area of the riding of Nipissing, it could allow for a public panel, a separate panel and a francophone panel.
Many separate school supporters in my riding, who are in favour of extension and the principle of this bill, are concerned about the escalating costs of public education in Ontario; whether the costs are raised through property taxes or general revenue, they are concerned.
I believe the taxpayers have a right to expect the most efficient delivery of educational programs possible. I fully understand this will result in two publicly funded educational systems, one Roman Catholic and one nondenominational, but I and many of Catholic denomination in my riding believe it is possible to arrive at that goal while still maximizing the facilities and the programs in both systems.
8:50 p.m.
I am not only surprised and disappointed but also a little bit shocked, I say sincerely, that this Minister of Education and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), who is here in the House tonight and who I used to think was concerned about the cost of government, have not provided in this bill the option, at least in those areas where there is agreement from all parties and from all boards, to consolidate into the most efficient model possible. For some areas of the province, this model could guarantee the delivery of more and lower-cost programs without jeopardizing the language of choice or the Catholicity of the separate school system.
I urge the minister and the Treasurer, as well as the rest of the Liberal Party, to reconsider the decision to cut off that option, for efficiency and for a better range of programs and options, particularly in the nonmetropolitan areas and in the smaller centres of this province where it may be the preferred local option by all parties.
I know there are many members who want to speak on this bill. Tonight is not the time to cover all the aspects that I or my constituents may be concerned about, but I do want to mention a few.
Many in this Legislature have spoken about access over the past couple of days and again this afternoon and this evening. I too am concerned about fairness in access to the best possible education and range of programs in the province for every student in the province, regardless of religion.
Many have spoken about the protection of jobs for teachers and employees of the public school system. I too am concerned. I am delighted that I believe, in so far as I have been able to ascertain to this point, that this bill incorporates many of the protections my party has advocated. I will follow with interest the comments of those groups that are most concerned and most affected in the hearing process that goes on after second reading.
I am concerned, as I mentioned earlier, about the protection of the public school system. I am surprised and disappointed so far at what I perceive to be -- maybe I am getting the wrong impression, but it is what I perceive from being in this Legislature over the past couple of weeks -- a lack of assurances from the Liberal government, not just from the Liberal Minister of Education but from the Liberal government.
The government has been unwilling to give those assurances in question period or through any other vehicle it has learned to use very quickly. Sometimes it is more effective in question period to communicate to the people of this province. I am concerned about the uncertainty it is creating in not assuring that the public school system will not suffer one iota as a result of the way this government plans to implement this legislation.
I am very disappointed in this Treasurer and in this minister for not having given consideration to some of the lower-cost options even when there is unanimous consent for the sharing of resources through consolidation. I am talking about resources such as office space, administration, buses, facilities and in some cases the actual sharing of programs which otherwise, in many areas of this province, could not be delivered by either system individually.
I believe we should be encouraging this sharing if parties agree, not making it more difficult. I look forward with great anticipation to the views of the interested public on this bill, especially from the people of Nipissing.
As I said earlier, I thank the minister for living up to the Conservative Party's commitment to take this bill to the people in the fashion he has proposed.
I want to conclude by reaffirming that I will be supporting this bill in principle later this evening.
Mr. Wiseman: First of all, I would like to congratulate the Speaker and tell him that even though it is a little noisy down here, I am fortunate to have the former Speaker beside me. The other day, when I tried to get a supplementary on, he said it would not happen and the Speaker did say he would not allow it.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Education. I look upon him as a friend, and I think the same thing goes for him. When he is in my riding talking to some of our close friends who happen to be of the Liberal persuasion, I hear some kind things coming back about the member for Lanark. I wish him well because he has quite a job ahead of him.
I want to share with the House some problems I see with this piece of legislation and areas I would like to see addressed when it goes to committee.
Dealing first with religious instruction, I understand from my days on the public school board that the faith of the many Jehovah's Witnesses in our area does not allow them to take part in any religious instruction, even the Lord's Prayer, and we grant them an exemption from that. Since there are going to be two publicly funded systems when we are finished, I feel children of the Protestant faith who go to a Roman Catholic separate school should have that same privilege granted to them not to take religious instruction in that facility if they so wish.
On the issue of protection for teachers, during the last election campaign and since that time, once they knew the bill was coming in, a lot of the teachers in my area were worried about what would happen after 10 years to the present teachers who are in the system.
I realize they will be protected for up to 10 years, but, for example, I have two granddaughters who will be just about the age to go into the teaching profession, if they so wish, at that time. When he is thinking about this, will the minister take into consideration whether, if there are positions available on a separate school board and they have the qualifications, all things being equal, and they apply along with someone from the Roman Catholic faith, they will be treated fairly in applying for those positions?
I ask because that does not happen in my riding at present. To get a position with the separate school board one has to be of the Roman Catholic faith. Since it will be publicly funded, and we hear so much about human rights, I think that issue should be addressed and looked after in the bill.
9 p.m.
Also in regard to protection of teachers, nothing was said during the election campaign about their credits being transferred along with them. I know from talking to both the Roman Catholic teachers' federation and the Protestant teachers' federation that the Roman Catholic federation does not have quite such good benefits as the public system does at present. I think teachers should be protected there.
If teachers move from the public school system to the separate system through no fault of their own, I feel they should not be discriminated against. If they have what it takes for promotion or would have had if they had stayed in the public school system, that should be carried over. They should be given those chances for promotion in either system.
The minister probably has not had a chance yet, but I think it would be in everyone's best interest, after talking to unions representing both Catholic teachers and Protestant teachers, to have one union representing both the Roman Catholic schools and the Protestant schools. I think that would be a good move and make it simpler to have some interaction between the two systems.
During the last election there were fears in the public school system that we are going to increase funding for the separate schools on the back of the public school system. The Liberal candidate in my riding at each meet-the-candidates night said the Liberal Party would bring the funding up to 60 per cent. He may have been ambitious in saying that -- maybe it was the party's position; maybe it was not -- but I think some additional funding to the public school system at this time would help to smooth over the situation.
Accessibility has been mentioned many times. Because there are going to be two publicly funded school systems, there should be equal access. The same rules should apply to both. Students should not have to go through a mediator or director of education who would decide whether there is room. They should make room as they have to do in the public school system.
It is my hope that when this bill goes to committee the government will not be arrogant but will be open to good, honest amendments so that, down the road, people of all faiths will be able to get into either system without any barriers. If anything short of this were to happen, it would not only be a mistake for the government of the day but a mistake for every one of us as legislators.
I have faith that the minister will listen. He has not been arrogant to date and I hope he will listen to these amendments and act upon them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The member for Windsor-Riverside.
Mr. Laughren: You are close. It is Nickel Belt. I know it is difficult. I am a long way from you. I understand that and I feel it too.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: Look at the camera angle; the member cannot complain.
Mr. Laughren: It is a great camera angle. I did want to make some very brief comments on this bill, partly because I began my political career in this chamber in 1971.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member must have been 21 then.
Mr. Laughren: I was a boy legislator. I can recall being engaged in this kind of debate, not here but out in the hustings during that 1971 election. I certainly recall those days. Having being elected in a basically Catholic, Franco-Ontarian riding, I have no hesitation in rising to support this bill.
The puzzling part of what has got us here today is the way it has unfolded during the past year. A lot of us were greatly puzzled on June 12, 1984, a year ago, when the then Premier stood in his place in this chamber and announced the change in policy. I never understood the dynamic that brought him to that point on that day until I read Claire Hoy's book on the Davis years called Bill Davis, A Biography.
Mr. Haggerty: He convinced you.
Mr. Laughren: Claire Hoy and I have always been close.
I want to read a little from the chapter entitled "Cardinal Blessings," which deals with the separate school issue. I never thought I would be standing in my place and quoting Claire Hoy, but here I am.
"In May 1984, the Davis inner circle met for a strategy session and whether to call a snap election....It was at that session that Davis dropped a bombshell. Shortly after regaining his majority in 1981, he had held his annual pre-Easter meeting with Roman Catholic officials. What made that meeting different was that he had promised Cardinal Carter that during the life of the current government, he would end a 110-year-old dispute by extending public aid to Roman Catholic separate schools beyond grade 10 to grades 11, 12 and 13....
"`Everybody was absolutely stunned,' says one of those at the meeting. `He'd done it completely on his own hook. So everybody convinces him he'd better go and see the cardinal and make him understand this isn't the time to do this at the start of a campaign because it could hurt him politically and could drive up sectarian divisions when the Pope was arriving. You know the classic Bill Davis approach: "We're making progress; it's the reality, not the smoke and mirrors, that matters.'"
"So off Davis went to explain his predicament. But this time the cardinal, whom the opposition consistently accused of being too cosy with Davis, with considerable justification, wasn't buying. `He told Davis he was shocked he tried to renege on a deal. He said he was a man of his word, a man of honour, and he couldn't believe he would back out. And then the cardinal hit him with the big stick and said, "If you want to run an election without keeping your word, count on having opposition from every pulpit in every Catholic church in Ontario." Well, Davis just folded like a three-dollar accordion.'" -- Is that not a beautiful expression? -- "`That is why there was no election. Nobody will talk about it, but that's what happened.'"
Who knows for sure, but there are quotation marks in that section from Claire Hoy's book, Bill Davis, A Biography, and it surely was a strange time in 1984 when that change was announced.
What we have seen since that time has reinforced the strange feelings within the Conservative Party, both in its failure to put it on the agenda during that last year and then the strange messages and vibrations that have been emanating from the Conservative Party in the Legislature since the May 2 election, a lot of qualifying comments having been made.
We are here tonight and we are going to vote on this bill. I presume it is going to pass with a considerable majority. I came to the decision to support this, not simply because it was the policy of this party back in 1971, but also because when I thought it through, there were a number of things that had convinced me over the intervening 14 years to vote this way and to debate this way.
There was the question of the British North America Act and the guarantees that were made to the minorities in Quebec and Ontario. That was an important component in bringing us together as a country.
9:10 p.m.
There was also the reality of 1985, or in those days of 1971. The reality is that there are two systems and the point is the two systems are thriving. We are not going to do away with one of the systems. If we are going to have two systems, why not make them equal? It does not make sense for one to be less than the other. To presume that someone could do away with the separate system at this point in our history is downright silly. If one agrees we are going to have both systems, I do not know how to justify not having them equal.
There is no change in principle. That is what bothered me about the debate in the last year. The support is already there up to grade 10. It is not quite equal for grades 9 and 10; nevertheless, there is public support there. We are not talking about a change in principle here; we are merely talking about extending an existing principle. That seems to make sense to me. It is not something we should be trying to divide people over. The principle is already there and well established.
I am concerned about small communities. My colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) made the point extremely well. It applies not only to this bill, but it applies to the French governance bill too. There are very serious problems there. I could not support the French governance bill in its present form because of what it does to a public board in a community such as Chapleau.
I do not know whether the minister is aware of that, but it would give dominance to one sector over the other in a community such as Chapleau. That simply would not be accepted in that community; it would be divisive in that community. That bill needs to be amended before it is brought in. There simply is no question about that.
I would not be supporting this bill if it did not provide job protection for people in the public system. It does provide those guarantees and that is terribly important. Of course, there is the question of right of access. That is of utmost importance when there is a publicly funded system.
For those reasons, I will be pleased to stand in my place in about an hour in support of extending public aid to the separate system up to the end of grade 13.
Mr. Pope: It is a privilege to join in this debate. I will be very brief. I just rise to talk about this issue because in certain aspects of this issue the government has not been particularly forthcoming. I felt it appropriate at this time to put some of these issues on the record.
Mr. Haggerty: Where has the member been for the last 12 months?
Mr. Pope: I have been in the same place as the member has probably. He might find this interesting because he was part of the organization whose leader during the course of the last election campaign, specifically in Windsor on April 19, told the people of Ontario, irrespective of what the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada decided on the constitutional reference, his party was going to amend the legislation or go for an amendment to the Charter of Rights or put in a notwithstanding clause and proceed with the funding.
That is fine. That is a legitimate position to take. But they now are proceeding with a constitutional reference that will put everyone in this province who has an interest in this matter to considerable expense in a three-year process. They know it will be a three-year process with no result other than that they will amend the legislation or the charter or put in a notwithstanding clause to accomplish the same purpose.
Have they been up front with the people of Ontario about the constitutional challenge issue when they are going to change the legislation anyway and when the member's leader said in Windsor on April 19 he was going to do it? He expects the trustees' organizations, the parents' organizations and the school boards of this province to engage lawyers in a three-year process at cost to themselves on a constitutional reference when he knows the majority of opinion on this constitutional issue is that this bill is constitutionally valid and need not be challenged by the government in the courts.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is nonsense.
Mr. Pope: Is that right? I think the member had better go back and read Hansard again.
The only issue I am rising to talk about tonight is the fact that this government does have a policy it now refuses to state in the Legislature. They are going to proceed. That is a legitimate decision for the government to take. However, they are still initiating the constitutional reference on this issue when there is no legitimate need to do so. They are going to amend the legislation, put in a notwithstanding clause or seek an amendment to the charter to accomplish the same goals.
Why can the member not be up front? His leader said point blank on April 19 in Windsor this would be the Liberal Party's policy when it formed the government. That is what he said. The government has tried to skate around it. That is its policy. That is what was said in response to the students in Windsor on April 19. That is what was reported in every paper in southern Ontario. Yet the government is proceeding to initiate the constitutional reference and it says the court should start to decide it by September. It has been very cute with that.
The member knows full well the government must prepare its factum. It must advertise the fact that this reference is taking place. It must give time for others who have an interest in this matter to prepare their briefs for the Court of Appeal. All parties have a right to be represented at that court and will make representations there. That decision will ultimately be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
It is an expensive three-year project this government is undertaking for no purpose other than to lay a judicial smokescreen over a political decision. Let us admit it is that. Let us admit we are going to go ahead and fund in any event, despite the constitutional reference, and if there are challenges, use the constitutional reference as a defensive mechanism to expedite the process of a hearing before the courts, instead of initiating a reference and trying to pretend, as the government has in response to questions in the last two weeks, it will await the outcome of the court's decision and then decide what to do.
The policy was clearly stated by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in Windsor. The government is going to amend or put in a notwithstanding clause and proceed in any event. All I am pleading for is that the government not abuse the courts in this fashion. Do not mislead those who have an interest in this matter in this way. Do not put them to this expense. Do not put them through a three-year process when the government knows what the final result will be.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: Nobody knows what the member's party's policy is. It has been all over the map on this issue.
Mr. Pope: Our policy as a government was not to initiate a constitutional reference. The members opposite know it and I know it. I support this bill. I am going to vote for it on second reading, but members opposite have misled the people of Ontario with their policy on the constitutional reference.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I believe the word "misled" is not allowed. Would you retract it?
Mr. Pope: I am sorry, I did not say they were misleading the House. I said they misled the people of Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: Do you wish to retract the word "misled"?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have never heard the argument put by anyone who is used to the practices of this House that the word "mislead" could be used in direct reference to a member of the House when it refers to the people or the members of the House or the community at large. According to its practices over many years, I do not believe it is permitted in this House for an honourable member to refer to any other honourable member as having misled anybody.
Mr. Pope: Speaking to the point raised by the House leader, I clearly said that during the election campaign the people of Ontario were misled on the constitutional reference issue.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: You did not put it in the passive. You put it in the active. Substitute something else.
The Acting Speaker: As you know, I am being initiated in this role.
Mr. Pope: Let me help you. I will withdraw the word and substitute "misinformed."
The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I know you have been initiated tonight in your role, and it has been in the context of a great deal of eloquence, participating in one of the most historic debates that has ever been heard in this Legislature.
In a general and universal manner, I would like to address the whole issue before us and the tragic irony that has surrounded it. On June 12, when the former Premier announced his decision to extend funding to separate schools at the secondary school level, it was greeted by all members of the Legislature, by both the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and the leader of the third party, with such eloquence that rarely in the four years I have been in this House have I ever heard such eloquent compliments showered upon the Premier.
Never have I sensed such unanimity and solidarity in this Legislature as in support of that decision, because we all perceived at the moment of that announcement that the issue was a noble issue that historically, with the courage of the Premier, addressed a fundamental inequity that had been with us for many years. It was an issue of justice, tolerance and acceptance of diversity and pluralism in education, one of the main institutions in our society, from the point of view that diversity and pluralism was a blessing and not a curse on society.
Yet what tragic irony that the very individual, the man who presented this noble cause and led this noble issue, came to be compared to Hitler, or if I may be more specific, came to be compared to the process used by Hitler in the introduction of his type of regime in Nazi Germany.
What tragic irony that a man who had contributed a quarter of a century to public office had to retire with this type of insulting -- if I may say it -- reaction on the part of many in society, especially those whose profession and work one would qualify as being noble.
I know there are reasons for this, but the tragic irony is that the strongest opposition to this policy came from those in the noble profession of moulding the hearts of people, of promoting tolerance and harmony in a society and country that has been blessed with harmony and tolerance. The opposition came from the noble profession of teachers, those who mould the minds of our new generation, teachers who perhaps would have been expected to welcome the nobility and courage of this historic decision.
I refer obviously to the federation of the teaching profession that referred it for a constitutional challenge and, I would not say violently but very aggressively, campaigned during the election against a policy and program that had the support of all three parties and all members of the Legislature at the time of its announcement.
It is obvious there must be reasons there is such a tragic irony that those who opposed it most violently are those who would have been expected to have welcomed such a noble cause.
I recall reading an article by the editor of the religious section of the Toronto Star. I do not recall the exact date and I do not have a copy of that particular article, but it tried to explain the reason why, ironically, those who are charged with spiritual guidance and with the spiritual side of human existence reacted the way they did. The reason given in the explanation of Archbishop Garnsworthy's very strong statement was that education had in the past number of years been secularized to the degree that many other religious denominations did not have the opportunity of pursuing the same options as the Catholic population in Ontario and that perhaps we should look at some solution for providing that type of equity, that type of similar public funding to others who are concerned about the values in education and who may also want to promote, in the same manner as had been done for years in the separate school boards, the concern for certain values or certain approaches.
That is why, in our bill, in addressing the answer to that dilemma, in acquiescing to the concerns so strongly expressed by spiritual leaders in this society, we should take into consideration what the Shapiro commission will eventually present. We cannot divorce this legislation from the implications it will have, the continuing concerns that diversity and pluralism in society have to be perceived as a blessing and that educational institutions will have to reflect that in some way.
There is a definite relationship, in the wisdom of the Minister of Education, between setting up the framework for this legislation and contemplating the long-term implications of another decision that will probably be made some time in the fall when the Shapiro commission presents its recommendations to the government on how we can resolve the dilemma of allowing for that diversity, allowing for that pluralism to be reflected in major institutions, such as the educational institutions of this province.
I was a teacher for more than 12 years prior to venturing into the educative process of becoming a politician -- a process, I am sure, that will continue for many years if I am blessed to serve the people of Ontario in my riding. The teaching profession may have reacted as strongly as it did because of the nature of the job, which is one of security. I cannot think of any profession so security-oriented as the teaching profession. Under the conditions of declining enrolment and some of the problems that have been faced in that profession, there had been a genuine concern about the impact on jobs and job security in the implementation of this policy.
I tried to argue during the election to convince my constituents that there had been a public debate, that public discussion had been around on this very issue for many years -- as the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, the Minister of Community and Social Services, had expressed in his comments -- and that the Commission for Planning and Implementing Change in the Governance and Administration of Secondary Education in Ontario had held public hearings to discuss the concerns that teachers had expressed.
What I perhaps did not understand is that the discussion that was really lacking, the vacuum that existed, arose because the former Premier made an announcement of implementation prior to discussing the very question of whether there should be implementation. Discussing the process of implementation is quite different from discussing the whole issue of whether we should implement the policy.
9:30 p.m.
The ultimate tragic irony is that there are those who feel this issue was a critical part of the reality of May 2. I know the concerns when governments go through the type of process that the last government has gone through. There is a search for the reason that the results of May 2 have decimated our party to the degree they have.
I am deeply concerned about pointing to this issue as having led in a main way to the present reality, where the Liberal Party has formed a government and our party is on the opposition side. When we start politicizing the issue by seeing it as a political cause of things we see today, I think there is a danger it may in many ways deform the noble aspect of what the Premier originally intended this to be.
I will tell the members about the teaching profession. In the years I served as a member of that profession, for one reason or another one did not find many Tories among secondary school teachers. I listened to the remarks during the debate by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) who implied that the members on this side of the House had been politicizing this issue. During the election campaign, when the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, a unionized profession, strongly and adamantly attacked this issue, I did not see the members of the third party strongly defend the policy in the terms in which they are defending it today.
Mr. Allen: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member was not present in many constituencies and did not see us doing it.
Mr. Shymko: We may try to search in retrospect for answers and reasons as to why things happened the way they did. However, I think it will be a tragedy for this debate if we try to imply that an issue and policy that has united us is today disuniting us or that it has implications of disunity for our society in this province, implications of harm and the creation of intolerance by stressing that diversity and pluralism may not be a blessing but a curse on society.
I support the bill. However, I do ask the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) to take into consideration what will happen when the Shapiro commission reports, because there is a direct relationship between what we are doing today and what we will eventually be faced with doing when that commission reports, in terms of going in the direction of diversity and pluralism in education as it applies to private and independent schools.
I compliment the members of the standing committee on social development who will be sitting through the summer listening to presentations, petitions and briefs from the public. They are under the capable leadership of the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). I had the honour of serving with him on that committee during the past four years. I compliment the ability of those who are members of that committee.
I thank the members for the opportunity to address this very important issue and to point out the tragic irony to which it has deteriorated.
Ms. E. J. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have this opportunity to address the Legislature and you in your present capacity, and to compliment you on your position.
It is my particular pleasure as the member for London South to address this question of education for the separate school system. As the members will recall, a previous member from London, albeit from London North, the late Premier John Robarts, probably took the first major step in recent years in looking at the financial situation of the separate school system.
In 1963, under the Ontario foundation tax plan, he addressed the fact that there was a great inequality in funding for the education of a certain portion of our young people. I have taken the opportunity to re-read his words at the time. I would remind members that he did not speak primarily of the history, although he knew well the history of the separate school funding; nor did he speak primarily of the constitutional rights, although he knew well the constitution of the country. He spoke primarily of the needs of the children of the province and to the importance of seeing that each child in this province received a properly-funded education and therefore the best education to equip him or her for life.
He spoke, as well, of the province's need to have well-educated children, so these children might grow up into the kind of adults who contribute to the life and welfare of the province. I am happy to report that I recall that people accepted this by and large with very good grace, and that very shortly, what he put forward in equalization of funding became an unquestioned part of our economic system that no one ever considered holding hard feelings about.
I look about me today and I feel confident that a year or two years from now we will say the same; that this province is ready to look at the needs of the young people and to look primarily at what we can do for them in the use of their education and what later they will be able to do for us as adults in this province.
I am happy also to serve under our present House leader and Treasurer who in 1969 was willing to put his own political career at risk in order to support the extension of funding that he believed would be good for the province. He recognized the same thinking as that of the late Premier and spoke to it then.
Now, we are fortunate in this Legislature to all be willing to work together towards a happy solution in this problem. We have all lived to see the extension of Catholic education downward to kindergarten and pre-kindergarten. In fact, when my children went to separate school, we took for granted that they did not get kindergarten in that system, but the province saw in its good grace that these children should have what the children in the public school system had. There was no great kerfuffle at that time; I doubt that most of us can even remember the year in which that happened.
I think the reason there is a difference in the emotional structure this time is because of the teachers' needs to be secure in their positions and in their rights. I trust our Minister of Education and those working with him on the committee will assure the safety of these teachers in their rights, their seniority and all the other areas that are so important to them. In that way, they will assure that this funding, as has previous funding, goes through in this province leaving not any bitterness, but rather a good feeling for everybody that we, indeed, are mature, sharing and responsible people.
As the government whip, I am happy to report as well on behalf of our one member who is away on government business and unable to attend, the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), that this party is fully in support of the motion in front of us and that we will, I assume and presume, be supporting it unanimously upon division.
9:40 p.m.
Mr. Jackson: It is a privilege to participate in this historic debate on perhaps the most significant piece of education legislation in this House in many years. Personally, it is somewhat of an emotional moment for me, after having spent nine of some of the best years I have had as a public school trustee with the Halton Board of Education prior to coming to this House. In the short time I have been here, I have been most impressed with the calibre of the members of this assembly. They very clearly share a deep and abiding love for the growth, education and hopes of all the children of this great province of ours.
I want to address my initial comments to the Minister of Education. I want to congratulate him on the care he has shown in the introduction of Bill 30. The open public hearings and the expected amendments to the general legislative grants, allowing separate school boards to plan for the implementation of extension to secondary school education, should do much to allay the anxieties of both its supporters and its critics.
At the outset, I want to state clearly and unequivocally my support in principle for Bill 30. Any comments I may make in this Legislature or in any other forum will be to suggest improvements to this bill. To my colleagues in the Legislature who have spoken in the debate, I congratulate them on the temper of their comments and their sincere attempts to bring to the attention of our Minister of Education both their support and their concerns. I have benefited from their comments as they have broadened my appreciation of the complexities inherent in this bill.
I am also pleased that the debate so far has largely avoided partisan politics and the inevitable scoring of debating points. This attitude will do much to assure the public of our deep conviction in the viability, integrity and continuing commitment of public education. We all have every right to be proud of our educational system. We have the best-qualified teachers in the world, a broad offering of programs to all our children and magnificent facilities, equipment and teaching materials. None of that should be adversely affected by the passing of this bill.
The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) has brought the attention of this House to our tardiness in bringing this issue before the Legislature. Perhaps there should have been immediate debate on this issue after the June 12 announcement. However, what point is there in harping on what might have been? Let us, together, look ahead to what we can do.
I was very interested to hear the comments of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Like me and many members of this Legislature, he has had a great deal to do with Ontario's school system. He brings to this debate great knowledge, understanding and conviction. The minister reminded us last evening of a few facts about both the separate school system as we currently know it and the issues surrounding this whole debate. His comments were refreshing.
The Minister of Community and Social Services noted that in the elementary school system there has never been, and there is not now, guaranteed access to separate schools for children of parents with another or no particular religious affiliation. The question arises in my mind as to whether the analogy to the elementary school system is appropriate. We have not had a history of parallel separate and public schools. We need to carefully explore ways and means to use our existing facilities to avoid unnecessary major expenditures. I for one am not about to repeat history. We are now making history.
I listened intently to the comments of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), who spoke about the uneasiness of the commonly held concerns about the implementation of this bill. I assure him that at least this member of the standing committee on social development will ensure that each and every one of these implementation issues will get a fair hearing. I am pleased at his support for this bill.
As a member of the standing committee on social development, I can assure members of the Legislature that I have an open mind on the issues that will be raised. I trust all of us will listen to the variety of views which no doubt will be brought forward at all the public hearings. To do otherwise would make a farce of that process and the deliberations of this Legislature. My constituents in Burlington South would tolerate no less. They expect me, along with all the members, to be thoughtful, rational and accountable for our actions.
As we proceed through the various but necessary steps to give royal assent to Bill 30, I ask members of the House to keep in mind two overall objectives of this legislation. The first is to ensure that there is a smooth transition to the extension of a fully comprehensive, separate secondary school system. The second is to ensure the viability and integrity of programs in public secondary schools that have been buffeted by declining enrolments and now by a transfer of students to the separate secondary school system.
From my discussions with a number of people across the province, I have gathered there is a general feeling that major urban centres with large student populations will not be as adversely affected. However, it is my understanding that rural and northern school boards will have serious difficulties operating secondary schools.
As well, I am concerned that the viability of French-speaking secondary schools be maintained so the goal of preserving French language and culture not be compromised. It is my intention, as a member of the standing committee on social development, to request the staff of the Ministry of Education to table in the Legislature its report on the analysis of the effects of Bill 30 on the programs available to students in both the public and separate school systems as well as on the preservation of viable secondary education for French-speaking students.
I want a professional opinion from senior educators, devoid of political partisanship, to assure the public that we have made a decision on reasoned and balanced grounds.
As the public hearings proceed, I will be particularly interested in views expressed on matters that still need clarification. These questions include: Does the bill ensure sufficient phase-up costs for separate secondary schools and phase-down costs, where necessary, for public ones? General legislative grants will need to embody the concepts of phase-up and phase-down costs, which are above and beyond the normal grants.
It has been brought to my attention that in a number of coterminous jurisdictions, students are not being adequately informed of programs in both public and separate schools. To the degree that this is accurate, it is an unacceptable practice. Students must not become pawns in the hands of school boards, which are empowered to offer programs. Students then make choices of those, and intelligent choices cannot be made without information. Steps may have to be taken to ensure, in legislation, that dissemination of information to students will not be compromised.
Another question: Do we really need a planning and implementation commission? Moreover, will it still be appropriate? We have some of the best talent in the province within the Ministry of Education. If this commission is a duplication of the kinds of services already available through the ministry, not only will it be an unnecessary cost but it will also be a lasting burden. This is the area of fiscal experimentation in this legislation that should be of concern to every member of the Legislature.
On this point, one example is the question of who should decide what type of school a student shall attend if there is a transfer of facilities. I would feel much more comfortable if parents and students could appeal to an independent and locally based tribunal with public accountability. This is not a foreign process to our educational system, as our minister knows. I am referring to the current method by which disputes involving exceptional pupils are decided.
9:50 p.m.
I have a further concern, that the deputy minister and his staff may become so removed from school boards that when the commission disappears, so will that intimate knowledge, an absolute necessity for this Legislature to be assured that its policies are being implemented by school boards along with recommendations for adjustments to the act and regulations that need further refinement.
I am most concerned about the powers of the commission to establish guidelines which will have the effect of ministerial directives. This power rightfully belongs under the control of the Minister of Education. In my opinion, there should be no directives without ministerial approval. I have some serious reservations about potential delegation of powers of this magnitude by the minister. This should be a fair and judicial process with a sensitive appellate mechanism.
I will be very interested to listen to the views of the public and the trustees they elected to represent them on this issue during the public hearings in the next few months. I will need to appreciate more fully the concepts of limited student accessibility to either of the two publicly funded school systems. I have always viewed public institutions as being free and open to all. The concept of limited openness of publicly funded institutions is foreign to my way of thinking.
If there are practical reasons for limited accessibility and we can rectify the inherent problems over time, then we should do so. The concept of unlimited openness is part of my philosophy and belief in a democratic government. However, I intend to be open-minded on the question and attempt to appreciate the government's view on limited accessibility to both the public and separate secondary school systems. As well, I will ask the members of the standing committee on social development to interview educators in Saskatchewan and Alberta on how they have dealt with this important issue.
There are other matters that will need to be clarified and perhaps changed if Bill 30 is to be an effective piece of legislation. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that this will happen in a logical and orderly manner, as there is an overwhelming desire by almost all members of this Legislature to enact Bill 30. As I have stated previously, I intend to listen carefully to the concerns of the public during the hearings and elicit solutions to those concerns. If the remedies suggested are reasonable, I will support them.
I congratulate my colleagues in the Legislature on their positive attitudes in the debate and exhort them to project that positive image to the public in order that it is assured of our intentions to act in a responsible and nonpartisan manner in the continuing evolution of publicly supported education in Ontario.
Mr. Rae: It is a very real pleasure for me to be able to wind up the debate for our party on the question of the extension of public funding to the last few years of high school for the Roman Catholic separate school system. In the time available to me I want to talk about the recent past, the present and the future.
There has been a tremendous tendency in this debate, as is perhaps natural, for us to reflect on what our great-grandfathers may or may not have done, what our grandfathers and parents may have done and what we did when we were going to school. It might be wise for a moment if we spent a little more time in this Legislature talking about the future of education.
Having taken what I and many of us feel is a step to right a historic injustice, we now have to reflect on public education, broadly defined as the two great strands of education in this province that have been publicly funded since Ontario was born. It is important for us to spend considerable time talking about how we can make those two strands work together and co-operate and how we make sure that we in our own time, in the 1980s and 1990s, can be innovative and creative in bringing communities together to ensure that we provide the best possible education for all the people of this province, which I am sure all of us will agree has to be our common objective.
Perhaps I can emphasize this theme for a moment and say to the minister that when I talk to the parents in my riding and go into the schools in my riding, whether they be Catholic or public elementary schools, public junior high schools or high schools, whatever they may be, the issues that come to mind are not the issues of religion but the questions of literacy, opportunity and quality of education. It is problems of class size and problems of kids who are going through school not having a chance to learn the basics and in some cases not learning the basics.
I see the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) nodding his head. He knows what I am talking about. He knows there are many people who have made Ontario their home, and whose parents have chosen to make Ontario their home, who are going through the school system and not getting a chance and a fair break.
I will be quite blunt with the members of this House. As leader of our party, I am far more concerned that, whether these children are educated in the Roman Catholic secondary school system or the public secondary school system, we have a job to do to make sure they have a chance and are educated with a chance to learn and to grow in the world. We have to do more to stop the high drop-out rate in many of our school systems; it certainly is a problem in the city of York. We have to do more to address the fundamental problems of literacy, of numeracy and of giving every kid a chance to learn and a chance to know how important and how wonderful learning can be and the opportunities it can bring.
Education has made a difference to every one of us in this House; it has made a difference to all our families and to all of us. We have a very special obligation to deal with this issue in a way that shows the compassion and tolerance that by and large has been shown in this debate.
If I may say so, we have an obligation to move on from questions of language and religion to say: "Regardless of which school system you are being educated in, regardless of whether you are being educated in English or French or one of the heritage languages, we have an obligation to see that system is funded well, generously and effectively and that teachers are given the best possible chance and the best possible conditions in which to live, provide an education and do a much better job of ensuring there is a real connection between the world of learning and the world of work and employment."
I see the high drop-out rate in many of our high schools today and I worry for the future of this province. I know the Minister of Education does too. I see the way in which, in so many school systems, teachers who want a chance to do a better job cannot because of the overcrowding and the underfunding. These are problems we have to address. These are the issues of the 1980s and 1990s that should be preoccupying us and have to preoccupy us in the future.
It is the integrity of a system, public education broadly defined. The integrity and quality of that system have to be our preoccupation. In a sense, I start the debate by talking about the future because if we allow ourselves simply to get enmeshed in what may or may not have been the Tiny township decision in 1926, in what Mitch Hepburn may or many not have tried to do in 1937, or in fighting again the battles of 1971, we are not doing the job we have to do.
10 p.m.
We have to reflect and think more about the future as well as doing more about it. The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) said he did not hear very much about this issue during the election campaign. I am sorry he did not have a seat on my bus -- no, I am not sorry he did not have a seat on my bus -- I am sorry he was not at more meetings, because I can tell him there was not a day went by when I was not asked a question about separate school funding. All of us were asked that question every day.
I said at that time I believed it was important for us to fund both systems that have historically been publicly funded on an equal basis. The day has to end when one system takes a back seat, when one system is funded in a way that is not as good, fair or effective as the other.
My principal reason for feeling that is twofold. First, we have to right a wrong; we have to end the discrimination that has been built into the system. I am going to come back to that. Second, the only way we can ensure real co-operation between both school systems is if they are funded on the basis of equality.
When we talk about sharing facilities, joining together in joint ventures and looking at ways of working together to create new programs, which I hope will be very much a possibility in the future, that can only happen, and we all know it, if those two systems realize they are equal, that they are being funded on the basis of equality and that it is not a question of one going cap in hand to the other saying, "Can you give us a break?"
It is a question of two systems coming together and recognizing that we have a lot to learn from one another in this province. If we have a lot to learn from one another in this House -- and Lord knows that is true -- we certainly have a lot to learn from one another in the province. That is the kind of co-operation I want to see in the future.
I want to talk about the distant past and the recent past. One of the things that has disturbed me more than anything else about the debate that has gone on in this province since the former Premier made his announcement at the end of June 1984 is the way in which opposition which pretends to be opposition to extension is really opposition, root and branch, to the idea of a separate school system in the province. I think all of us have a tremendous job of public education to do.
I go back to my own riding and meet, as I do regularly, people on the street or people coming into my constituency office who say, "I want to express a view on this, Bob. I am opposed to a special deal for the Roman Catholics." I say, "Do you realize we have had two publicly funded educational systems in this province, not since Bill Davis stood up in this House, not since 1971, not since 1926, but since 1840?"
That is the reality of Ontario. That is the history of this province. and it is the history of this country. To pretend we can somehow create a school system in 1985 out of the air, out of some kind of rationalist abstraction, and not recognize we have a history of religious communities in this province, a history of linguistic tradition and communities, is nonsense.
I say this as the leader of a social democratic party. People say, "Mr. Rae, how can you as a democratic socialist support the idea of funding for a religious school system?" I say to that as clearly as I can, "As a social democratic leader of this party in this province, I accept the diversity of this province. I accept the reality of a multicultural province. I accept the reality of a Catholic school system and a Catholic tradition in this province."
We want that tradition and that part of this province to feel as much at home and as much a part of the life of this province as any other community. It is time we righted this system, put it right after 140 years and made sure it is funded on the basis of equality. It is time we did it.
We argued that. Our party went through the agony and ecstasy of an internal debate in the 1960s, as did other parties. We came to the conclusion in 1971 at our convention at that time that it was important for us to come together as a province and recognize these traditions. We all know what happened in the 1971 election. I certainly do not intend to fight that election over again. I do not think that will help matters at all.
On reflection, looking back over the last year, all of us would wish -- I certainly wish -- that things had taken place a little bit differently. It would be silly to pretend that the process has been 100 per cent wonderful and great. It has not. It has been, if I may say so, a process that is imperfect. In my judgement, it is regrettable that this debate did not take place earlier in this House. I think we all would have been better off if it had. The sense of due process would have been better served if it had.
Having said that, let me make it very clear, as far as I am concerned, this is not a partisan issue. On the whole, the route the government has chosen to go under the circumstances is the fairest route in which to proceed. I am going to deal with that in a moment. Mr. Davis made the historic decision in June 1984. I think it is only right that we proceed in September and move to implementation, as all parties felt it was right for us to do back in June 1984.
I have heard the members of the Conservative Party, in particular the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) tonight, say there is something improper in a reference to the courts while the matter is being dealt with in the Legislature. I do not agree with him. Given the situation we are in, I really do not know what the problem is.
When one considers what we all know, that the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and a number of other school boards were going to take the matter to court anyway, there is no way we can avoid the courts. Surely we would be more likely to avoid a court decision if this Legislature said: "Here is the reference. Let us deal with it. Let us get it on quickly rather than force it to go through trial, then to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court of Canada."
We all know the courts are going to be involved. The Conservative Party knows it, we know it and the Liberal Party knows it. Surely it is better for us now to refer the matter and have the court speak and for us then to reflect on whatever that court decision is.
Having said we recognize the reality that the courts are going to speak, it seems to me to be a very important principle for us as legislators to express our opinion, to have the matter proceed and then have the decision of the courts as soon as that is constitutionally and practically feasible.
Of course, we have concerns about the legislation, such as have been expressed by the member for Algoma and many of my colleagues from northern Ontario, which I visited many times in the last year. I have been in many of these communities. I would advise the minister to go to Kirkland Lake some day if he wants to have a very interesting discussion in two languages in one school on the problems that are associated with this legislation.
There are very real problems that the committee is going to have to address. I know the planning and implementation commission has been dealing with them and is going to have to deal with them. I am glad it is a committee of this House which will be chaired, I might add, by the member for Scarborough West from our party. We are very proud in our party that he is going to be chairman of the committee.
I am glad this matter is being dealt with and listened to and that the committee itself is going to be considering amendments in a minority parliament. I think that is the best possible assurance that the people of this province have, given the flaws in the process up until now, that we can deal with this issue, which many of us feel is far too important simply to be treated on a partisan basis, as a group in this House as fairly as we possible can. We can deal with it in a way of give and take and try to come up with the best solution.
I want to say just a word very briefly on the legislation. I know the government House leader is having a fit when he looks at the clock, but I have just a few more things to say. I have been waiting for about a year and a half to give this speech. I want to say some things about the comments that have been made about access.
All of us want to ensure that there is as much access as possible to both systems. My own judgement is that this is essential if the change is to have the kind of support from the public that it needs to have. When I talk about access, I mean access for students, teachers and other staff.
10:10 p.m.
Some statements have been made about access. I was not in the House then but I read the speech. I gather a scenario was presented by one member who said it would be possible under this legislation for somebody not to be able to go either to a public school or to a separate school. I say to those who have projected that kind of scenario that this is an impossibility. It is simply not on and it is not in the laws. It goes counter not only to our sense of what is right, but also to the sense of what is legal and what is the law in Ontario today.
It is not possible, even within the public school system, for an individual student to demand a place in a particular high school unless he or she is living in a particular catchment area or district. There are some practical considerations that, even within the public school system, affect the admission of students to particular high schools. Let us not forget that. Let us put that in some perspective. Let us also recognize that we and the committee are going to have to look very hard at this question of access and of ensuring access for students. It is fundamentally important.
I think the question of the rights of non-Catholic students within the Catholic system, in terms of religious education and so on, is a very difficult issue that the committee is going to have to look hard at and consider. There is going to have to be give and take on that issue as well.
With respect to teachers, I suggest that not only do we need the statutory protections laid out in the legislation, but in my judgement, this is a chance for the government to do more in the field for which I have been arguing and carrying a torch on for some time. That is the field of early retirement.
If ever there was a time when this government could send a clear message to the teaching profession and to public schools, saying, "We are prepared to look at your pension plan and we are prepared to make some arrangements with respect to early retirement in order to ensure that no older teacher will suffer job loss and no one will suffer the difficulties of having to change from one school system to another," this is the time to do it.
This is the time to make it happen and to make it work, not only with respect to teachers but also with respect to a lot of older people who are working in the school system -- custodians perhaps in their late 50s. We ought to be able to work out a generous plan from the government of Ontario that will say to people who are working in maintenance in the public school system, "We will allow you to retire earlier and we will ensure an enrichment of your pension plan to make sure that happens." I think it is a model for the rest of society and it is certainly something we should be considering.
Our party supports the legislation in principle. We will have suggestions to make in the committee, but basically the task of the committee is going to be to listen to those people who have felt somewhat frustrated by the process so far, who have felt they have not had as much of a place at the table as they would like to have. They want to have their say, not only with respect to the principle -- no doubt there will be those expressing themselves from that point of view -- but also to deal with some of the intricacies and some of the details of the legislation. They want a chance to be heard.
I want to give those people the assurance of this party that they will be heard, that their voices will make a difference, that we are open to amendments and that we are going to ensure in a minority parliament there will be amendments and improvements to this legislation. That is our commitment as a party that is involved in this committee and has been involved right the way through. This legislation can be changed, amended and improved, and we intend to do that. We intend to ensure that it happens in a responsible and positive way because that is the way we have approached the issue.
If I may close --
[Applause]
Mr. Rae: I knew that would appeal to members. I was wondering what it would take to get applause from the Conservative Party. I think I have now discovered what that is. I would have welcomed hearing from the other members of the Conservative front bench on this issue. I am sorry they chose not to participate in the debate.
I will close by saying this. It is high time a historic wrong was righted in this province. It is high time the Catholic community received the historic justice it has been seeking since the 1860s and certainly since the 1920s. It is high time we, as a Legislature, moved in a responsible and tolerant way to ensure a funding system that is fair and equal and that is based on a sense of justice and fairness to all communities in this province.
If I may say in closing, it is also high time we looked as much to the future as to the past, that we recognized there are problems that kids are having -- Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim or whatever -- and that it is the job of the publicly funded school system to deal with those problems and to give all children of this province the kind of education that will give them a real chance in life.
Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to thank all members for their contributions to this debate. I have had the pleasure of hearing almost all of them. I must say I have found those contributions constructive, varied and interesting.
I have listened over the last three days to a wide range of opinions. I must say, since I have known so many of the contributors over the past number of years, that I have found in the past three days most of the interventions in this debate have been among the most interesting and memorable of my 10 years here in the assembly.
I want to pay particular tributes to my critics, the members for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) and Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), who opened the debate on Tuesday with their observations. I would like to touch upon some of their more salient criticisms in a very few moments.
I was listening to, among others, to my friend the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, who I thought in his intervention the other night pointed out a number of concerns that ring very true with me personally. The member for Welland-Thorold, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and so many others intervened in a particularly positive way.
I must mention my friend the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), whose opinions on this subject I know well. I consider the member for Carleton-Grenville a friend. I know the depth of his feeling on this subject. While I do not agree with his views, I certainly appreciate the courage with which he articulated his opinion in this debate.
Speaking of this debate, I think it is useful for me to indicate on behalf of the new government that we consider this debate a very important part of government policy. As a new government, we will move forward now to fulfil our historic commitment to complete the Roman Catholic separate school system, a system which, as has been pointed out, has been in existence in this province for more than 140 years. We will do so, however, within the context of a full and meaningful debate. I want to say most sincerely to all members that they and their representations will be listened to.
As the member for Cochrane South indicated earlier tonight, it is the policy of this government that this matter will be referred to the Ontario Court of Appeal, notwithstanding our strongly held view on the basis of some very good constitutional opinion that the government's policy and initiative in this connection are appropriate and valid.
Most important perhaps, I, as Minister of Education, and my colleagues in the new government are not prepared to see thousands of young people and their education jeopardized in September 1985. It was on that basis we decided to move on an interim basis to provide funding for those approved programs in September 1985.
Separate schools and the politics and history of Ontario, of course, are a subject about which much has been said. I see in the gallery tonight Father Carl Matthews, who, if he were on the floor of this assembly, I am sure could perhaps give us a historical overview that would be most interesting.
It is a journey that began a long time ago. It began in 1841. It has had, as members have indicated very colourfully sometimes during the debate, a most interesting development. My colleague the Attorney General pointed out the other day that it was his great-grandfather who introduced some 122 years ago the very famous Scott Act of 1863 which became the basis for section 93 in the British North America Act.
10:20 p.m.
It has been a long and controversial journey, and we as members of this assembly have a historic opportunity to end that journey in this parliament in a very positive way, as I believe we shall. My colleagues and I view the completion of the Roman Catholic separate school system as a matter of right and as a matter of justice.
I listened with great interest to my friend the member for Carleton-Grenville the other night, but I must say to him that the historical reality of our province, as in other provinces, is that we have had a dual public school system for a long time. We have in Ontario today, as we have had for many years, a Roman Catholic separate school system that has enjoyed public support over many grades. At the present time that system enjoys public support for 12 grades: junior kindergarten through to the end of grade 10. What we now contemplate is completing the last two or three grades in that system.
I know, because I am from eastern Ontario, that not far from me, in west Quebec, there is a high school that was developed as a result of the application of section 93 in that province, and it enjoys public support through to the end of the secondary panel.
What we are talking about in this province at this time is not something unique. As honourable members have pointed out, separate schools were an important and integral part of the deal that put this country together in the 1860s.
I would like to remind honourable members of comments made some 13 months ago by the former Premier William Davis who said: "If we are to serve the spirit and the realities of 1867, we should acknowledge that basic education was what was recognized then and that today basic education requires a secondary, as well as an elementary education. As the nondenominational system has evolved to meet society's needs, so too has the Roman Catholic system."
In my view, that is what this completion exercise is all about.
I want in these concluding remarks to touch upon some specific issues which a number of members have addressed in their comments. First and foremost, I think it is incumbent upon me to address the question of student access, because there is clearly a lot of concern about the provisions in Bill 30 with respect to student access.
I must say to my friend the member for Don Mills that I was very concerned about the construction on this question that he raised some three days ago. What we are intending in Bill 30 with respect to student access is simply that there shall be a guarantee of access to the secondary panel and it will be the guarantee that will attach to one's tax designation. We have a situation today in our elementary system where there is duality, where there is an absolute, unfettered guarantee of access for the children of the ratepayers where the taxes are dedicated. Surely this is what Mr. Davis was referring to last June when he said, "While the essence of this new policy is to enrich the education resources available to Roman Catholic families in Ontario, it is my hope that the new Roman Catholic school boards will consider granting to all students and their families in the most positive way, universal access to publicly supported Roman Catholic schools, should such access be desired, limited only by the availability of space and the designation of assessment support."
I just want to make it as clear as I possibly can that what our legislation contemplates is simply that there will be a dual public school system, in the sense that there will be two publicly supported systems. People in the province will have the opportunity to declare themselves either public or separate school ratepayers and there will be a guarantee of access to that system to which the taxes are directed. That, I think, is quite a reasonable and defensible course of action.
It is, as the member for York South (Mr. Rae) quite rightly pointed out, quite impossible under these arrangements for any student not to be provided for. I would like to take this opportunity to make that as clear as possible.
Moreover, on the student access question, we are saying in this legislation that a non-Catholic student who is in a Roman Catholic secondary school, for purposes of program, distance or exceptionality, must be exempted from religious education. In fact, our legislation goes further than that. It states that if a non-Catholic seeks admission to a Catholic secondary school, for purposes of program, distance or exceptionality, that individual must be provided for.
We are very anxious to submit this legislation to constructive cross-examination in the committee. It represents the best efforts of this government in the first eight days of office and I sincerely hope and pray it will be improved upon, as I expect it will. I think we have struck a reasonable and sensible balance and I look forward to discussing those questions in the coming days, weeks and perhaps months of committee discussion.
A number of people, and my friend the member for Hamilton West was principal among these, drew our attention to the whole question of teacher and employee protection. The principle that has motivated this government in this key area is that no public school teacher or employee should be disadvantaged as a result of completing the funding of the Roman Catholic system. Therefore, in this legislation, we have provided very strong and clear mechanisms that will provide for and ensure that protection.
Honourable members have talked about the way in which the designated list will be prepared and how people moving from that list to the Catholic secondary school system must be guaranteed their salary, seniority and benefits.
I might say, because there has been some confusion on this subject, once those public school teachers and staff employees transfer into the Catholic system, those protections will be enjoyed for as long as those individuals remain in that system. They do not lapse in 10 years.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the minister. Do you have many more comments?
Hon. Mr. Conway: No, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do not and I would beg the indulgence of the House for a few extra moments just to conclude these remarks.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed.
Hon. Mr. Conway: There has been some concern expressed by members about lifestyle. I have taken advice from the Attorney General on those particular questions and I am assured there cannot be discrimination on the basis of lifestyle for any transferring public school teacher or employee as this legislation is written. However, if that language has to be tightened and clarified in committee, I am quite prepared to entertain constructive suggestions in that connection.
It is very important for this Legislature and the great province beyond it to look and see what has been happening in the first year of this completion. The planning and implementation commission has indicated to me as recently as this week that there is a lot of good news, that there has been a very good attitude adopted by Roman Catholic school boards right across the province and they have accepted all the conditions set in this legislation. That is the practical reality of our province, a province of generosity and sensitivity.
10:30 p.m.
I know the way ahead may be fraught with difficulties, but I look to the practical reality of 1985 and take a very considerable encouragement about the capacity of this province and the people in it to adjust responsibly to the reform we are now contemplating.
The viability of the public school system is a subject about which there has been a lot of interest and concern. In the sense that I now speak as the member for Renfrew North, I know only too well what it is that the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel identifies when he expresses concern about single-school communities, because that is the reality of my constituency.
I want to make it very clear that it is the view of this government that, while we will go forward and discharge our historic commitment to complete the public funding of the Roman Catholic separate school system, we will do so within the context of a very strong, positive and modern public education system in this province. I think that is a very important benchmark to establish early in this debate.
In that connection, I would indicate that there will be no plan for completion approved without the planning and implementation commission and, perhaps more important, the minister satisfying themselves that what is being done in completion will not create difficulty for the public school system.
I think the generous accessibility posture the bill adopts will help the public education system in this connection. The legislation speaks to fee-back arrangements that are going to allow for a considerable transfer between systems. We expect there will be, and the planning and implementation commission has made it clear that there is great interest in, a purchase-of-service arrangement in many communities and many school boards. Those are the kinds of creative resolutions I expect to see adopted in the coming years.
I want to reiterate that this government is prepared to allocate special funding for public boards to help those boards buffer the nontransferable costs.
The member for Don Mills quite rightly pointed out the other night that there must be a keen appreciation on the part of this Legislature and this government to ensure that those funds are adequate. I will give him my personal undertaking that we will not see public education put in a difficult or compromised situation as a result of this completion.
The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) indicated in his remarks tonight why the legislation did not contemplate more co-operative and consolidated mechanisms, about which there is quite an interest in the official opposition for reasons I appreciate. I say to my friends in the loyal opposition, as a government, we expect there will be a high degree of co-operation.
The other night I thought the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) very aptly pointed out the high degree of co-operation that exists in his great part of the province, and that is what we expect to see in a variety of other situations right across Ontario.
Miss Stephenson: Why do you not put it in the act?
Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my friends in the official opposition, come to the committee and let us talk about ways and means to ensure that takes place. This is a government that is interested in listening and is prepared to listen to all positive and constructive suggestions. I reiterate the position taken by the previous government that we expect there will be a maximized use of current school facilities and capital plant. I think that is going to be important in the coming weeks and months.
Finally, I would like to turn to the question of the role of the minister and the government. The member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) indicated earlier this evening that he was concerned about the role of the planning and implementation commission and why there was not more ministerial involvement. I think that deserves an answer.
I have been very impressed by the work that has been accomplished on our behalf by the planning and implementation commission that was so wisely struck by my predecessor the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) some 12 months ago. She struck early and she struck well when she established that group of people. I have been very impressed by the efforts they have expended and the success they have achieved. The reason this legislation contemplates the continuation of the planning and implementation commission is that they have been sensitive and successful and able to work out good local solutions. I am anxious to see that continue.
There is a role for the minister and the government from which we are not prepared to retreat. No plan for extension is going to be approved without the minister. As the legislation makes very clear, the minister and the cabinet will be the court of final appeal for a series of issues that are up for negotiation between the two boards.
In conclusion, I have enjoyed the debate; I have profited from it. As a new government, we are committed to proceed in a sensible and sensitive fashion. I want to associate myself entirely with the remarks of the leader of the New Democratic Party that as we go forward to right an ancient wrong, to set to rest one of the oldest and most divisive public policy questions in the political history and culture of this province, we must now begin to look to the future and how we can develop an educational system that speaks to today and tomorrow. That is the expectation of our electors and our community.
I look forward to the coming weeks and to a debate that will help improve this legislation. I look forward to a creative dialogue that will see this reform accomplished in a way that makes for a stronger and better public education system, and I look forward for this debate to be accomplished with a minimum of rancour and a maximum of the generosity of greatness for which this province is so well renowned.
10:40 p.m.
The House divided on Hon. Mr. Conway's motion for second reading of Bill 30, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Allen, Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Bossy, Bradley, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Caplan, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Cousens, Cureatz, Curling, Davis, Dean, Eakins, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Eves;
Ferraro, Fish, Fontaine, Foulds, Fulton, Gigantes, Gillies, Gordon, Grande, Grandmaître, Gregory, Grier, Grossman, Guindon, Haggerty, Harris, Hayes, Henderson, Hennessy, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnson, R. F., Kerrio, Keyes, Knight, Kwinter, Lane;
Laughren, Leluk, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McCaffrey, McCague, McClellan, McFadden, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Miller, G. I., Mitchell, Morin, Morin-Strom, Munro, Newman, Nixon, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil;
Partington, Peterson, Poirier, Polsinelli, Pope, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Reville, Reycraft, Ridden, Rowe, Runciman, Ruprecht, Scott, Sheppard, Shymko, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara;
South, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Swart, Sweeney, Taylor, Timbrell, Turner, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Ward, Warner, Wildman, Wiseman, Wrye, Yakabuski.
Nays
Sterling.
Ayes 117; nays 1.
Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, before you deem a motion to adjourn to be put, I want to indicate the business of the House for tomorrow.
We will consider Bill 15, the Creditors' Relief Amendment Act, second reading and committee of the whole; resolution 8 in the name of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the leader of the third party; other legislation as time permits, and third readings. At that stage, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor will be asked to attend the House to bestow royal assent.
Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.
PARTY ON LEGISLATIVE LAWN
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Attorney General. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister may reply for up to five minutes.
Mr. Gordon: What I am going to say this evening to the Attorney General is that his answer this afternoon was vague and less than informative. Perhaps I can refresh his memory as to the facts as other people relate them.
First, let us take a look at the Attorney General's remarks this afternoon. He said: "On that day, the St. David Liberal Association, which is unaccustomed to celebrating anything, decided to hold a celebration and arrangements were made with the Speaker's office to hold it on the lawn. The event was catered and the punch was served."
In the second part of his answer, he said: "I was the guest of honour. I made the arrangements by asking the Speaker's office for permission to have a short party between five and seven o'clock on the lawn, and that permission was granted. The food and other arrangements were made by others. I was not aware of what was arranged."
Let us take a look at that. Essentially, the Attorney General claims he did not know what had been arranged and that his association was responsible. From his remarks, it sounds like he asked the Speaker's people about having the party. I am sure they would have informed him that members do not normally hold parties on the front lawn of the Legislature. As for the serving of alcohol, I am sure they also told him that something like that would be frowned upon.
I put it to the Attorney General that he decided a party would be held and that it would not just be a tea party, but a party with real booze on the front lawn of the Legislature. Quite frankly, if a liquor licence had been sought, we would not be here tonight. Regrettably, perhaps as a result of excessive pride, a lack of good judgement and displaced common sense, the party went ahead as scheduled.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
10:50 p.m.
Mr. Gordon: I cannot believe the Attorney General would not have passed on the views of the Speaker's office to his association. Given that he was breaking entirely new ground on the front lawn of this Legislature, I cannot believe no one in his association would have informed him, well before the party took place, that there was no licence. I cannot believe they would want to bring dishonour to the guest of honour, who was reputed in the papers to be the next Attorney General of Ontario.
I also want to provide to the House a conversation that was held with En Ville Catering Service, wherein it said it was informed the member did not have a liquor licence to serve champagne on the front grounds of the Legislature.
When En Ville asked about the liquor licence prior to the evening of May 29, it was informed by the member's office that they would take care of all that. En Ville was therefore shocked to hear the member informing the people gathered on the front lawn that evening that he was unable to obtain a liquor licence because he did not have the permission of the owner of the place at which it was being held.
The member referred to the problems he had in trying to obtain a liquor licence and said something to the effect that his government would change all that. Does that not suggest we may be going to have beer in automobiles now or perhaps out on the streets? Nevertheless, we will not get into that.
En Ville was very upset, as it was put in a disconcerting position. It told us that by law, when liquor is served the area has to be cordoned off so it is not only not accessible to the public but also not visible to the public.
Obviously the member has not been a bit player in this drama, as he stated this afternoon. In conclusion, while the law governing the special occasion permits is not what some people would call a major law, it is a law with fines and even the threat of imprisonment attached to it. He is a lawyer, an MPP and at the time it was speculated he was to be the Attorney General.
I say again, how can we expect the people of this province to obey the laws of Ontario when they know the chief law officer of the crown arrogantly, knowingly and deliberately flouted the law?
Hon. Mr. Scott: Let me begin by saying that, as a new member here in the past couple of weeks, I have been received and treated by members of all parties, without distinction, with respect, friendship and co-operation. I have learned much from honourable members on all sides about conduct in the House and about the process, and I am grateful for that.
I am troubled that the question this honourable member raised -- I would have expected it from none other -- was raised without any notice to me, but I think I owe it to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, to answer as fully as I can.
I must tell the House that following the election, the executives of the St. David Liberal Association and the campaign committee that had supported me sought to hold a party to celebrate its efforts. The optional locations were Riverdale Park in the constituency in the city of Toronto, Centre Island and, it was suggested, the Legislature. The ultimate plan selected, and I had no part to play in this, was that it would be held in a room in the Legislative Building and that campaign workers and friends would be invited. I am sure other members have had similar experiences on happy occasions.
I was invited to be the guest of honour. I understand no banquet permit was obtained. No fees or charges were made for entry or for anything that was served. The party took place from 6 p.m to 8 p.m. As good weather was approaching, a few days before it was thought it would be nice to hold the party at the bandshell on the lawn, and a request was made by the committee to the Speaker's office, to which I had spoken earlier, to see if that could be arranged. It had never been done before, but the Speaker's office kindly consented.
Following that, the St. David Liberal Association hired a commercial caterer to provide refreshments. We have received and paid a bill for sandwiches and a nonalcoholic punch. That was provided. It was laid out on three tables that were manned in each case by representatives of the catering service. The punch was in large jugs. I have been told, and I have this afternoon confirmed, that some members or guests independently ordered a quantity of white wine, which they poured into two of the jugs on one of the tables and thereby mixed it with the grapefruit punch. That was undoubtedly consumed.
The party proceeded amiably from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. We presented Canadian flags to those members of my association who had distinguished themselves in the campaign. I was delighted that other members of the Legislature, of all parties, who were in the neighbourhood, came to attend as they were passing by.
Since this allegation was made this afternoon, I have obtained advice. The best advice I can obtain was that no offence, under the liquor or any other regulations, was committed by the association, by the caterer or by me.
If any member on this side of the House or the other is offended, or if the privileges of the House are offended, by what has been said against me in this entirely innocent social event, I am sorry for it. Any suggestion that what may have happened exhibits contempt on my part for the law or legal institutions is clearly wrong and unwarranted, and I reject it without any hesitation.
The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.