Journal des débats 1993-avril-28 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): As members may know, the electoral district of Renfrew North contains Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. I rise today to make a statement of support for the good work that the Canadian Armed Forces are providing in many of the world's hot spots in Africa, in Europe and in Asia.

I was in a business place the other day and I met a soldier's wife who said to me that she was increasingly concerned about the fact that more and more Canadians did not seem to appreciate the very difficult situation in which Canadian Armed Forces personnel were finding themselves in the Horn of Africa, in the former Yugoslavia and in Asia, and quite frankly, as a soldier's wife she said she was beginning to despair as to whether or not there was much support for the very difficult situations in which these soldiers found themselves, and equally, the very difficult and stressful times in which the soldiers' families were finding themselves.

I felt very moved by that constituent's observations and I just wanted today to stand here and say on my behalf, and I believe on behalf of all of my colleagues in the assembly, that we do appreciate the very important work that the Canadian armed services are doing in very difficult environments. Notwithstanding some of the troubles that may have arisen in the Horn of Africa, I want my constituents at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa to know that we very much appreciate and support the good work the Canadian military is doing and that we appreciate the stressful situation in which their families find themselves.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My statement is for the Premier. In 1923, seven central Ontario native bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that natives would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws, the same laws that apply to everyone else in this country. The bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million. That treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year.

Premier, in recent months your government has negotiated a secret backroom deal with seven central Ontario bands which seeks to ignore the Williams Treaty and give these natives the right to fish and hunt out of season. This will have a serious impact on an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment. The Premier is now asking the federal fisheries minister to sign regulations that would complete this secret backroom deal.

It is a deal that will result in an ecological disaster. It is a deal that will benefit no one, not even the natives it is supposed to help. The people of Ontario want their government to honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation. They want their government to respect our ancestors, native and non-native, and respect the Williams Treaty. They don't want a government that is prepared to sacrifice Ontario's fish and wildlife on the altar of political ideology.

OPPOSITION MEMBERS

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Mr Speaker, please bear with me; I have a bit of a cold today.

Much has been said by many members, especially the opposition, about integrity, whether it be the integrity of a government or the integrity of members.

In fact, on April 4, 1993, the Leader of the Opposition questioned the Premier about integrity.

When I went to the dictionary to look up the meaning of "integrity," I certainly didn't see her picture sitting in there, nor did I see a picture of the Conservatives, and it's not a Liberal, Conservative or New Democratic trait. The only comment there was, "Remember Patti Starr."

I'm wondering why the Leader of the Opposition doesn't really come clean about her integrity. Why doesn't she tell us all about how she sold out her integrity when she was approached by the member for Mississauga East at the Liberal convention, and why not tell about the deal she made with that member for votes promised if she didn't do any disciplinary action for this member, derogatory comments that were made?

At least the member for Bruce maintained his integrity, because he said no. He said no to the member for Mississauga East.

Why doesn't she come clean with the people of Ontario about how she's going to protect the rights of ethnic people and of ethnic groups when members of her own caucus are not going to be held responsible for their comments by a leader who sold out her integrity just for the chance of winning a leadership race?

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise today to bring to the attention of the Treasurer either an error or a complete mistake made by his officials in terms of phasing out the small business development corporation.

A company by the name of Panther Systems of Canada was planning on moving to my riding. It would be occupying some 30,000 square feet in an electronics manufacturing facility. It would be employing some 35 to 40 personnel by February 1994.

Unfortunately, because of the changes in the Small Business Development Corporations Act whereby these matters must be completed by July 1 of this year, whereas the original act had allowed a year for this to be done, the people who would have been investing in this project are not able to do so and they will be investing their money in other areas, such as US-based GICs.

I suggest to the Treasurer that if this is an oversight, please correct it. I'm sure that this is not just an instance in my riding, but there are probably jobs or job opportunities being lost all over this province as a result of triggering the end of SBD, small business development, by July 1. In the document that was filed by the Minister of Finance, he indicated that this was to be phased out over a five-year period. I suggest, Mr Treasurer, if I'm right, if there is a mistake in this regard, would you cure it and at least give them one year in order to avoid the loss of further jobs in other ridings throughout this province?

1340

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today to invite the members of this House to debate a private member's bill I am bringing forward tomorrow morning. I feel the privacy legislation should be amended to allow the Ontario public to see the deal cooked up by the Liberals and finished by the NDP for the birth of a corporation known as Teranet Land Information.

My private member's bill would allow the Ontario public to see the terms of the joint venture, who it is with and what it costs. We will then decide for ourselves if this government has made a good deal.

I'm anxiously awaiting the outcome of the May 15 deadline that will tell us if the private corporation that entered into the joint venture with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations can actually come up with the cold, hard cash to continue the project.

My private member's bill comes down to accountability, the right to know whom this government is doing business with and if the taxpayers of Ontario as well as the joint venture partners are benefiting from the deal. By not allowing anyone the right to see the terms of reference for the deal, let alone who the stakeholders of the private company are, we are led to believe that there is something wrong with the deal that forces the ministry to hide behind the freedom of information legislation.

If this government insists on entering into joint ventures with private companies, let's make sure the deal benefits everyone and that the people of Ontario are protected. The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is in the process of entering into another agreement to operate a gambling casino in Windsor. Will the ministry hide behind privacy legislation and not allow the Ontario taxpayer to know whom this joint venture is with as well?

JOB CREATION

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to focus on action we are taking to get Ontarians back to work.

On April 16, in the city of London, I made a very special announcement on behalf of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I was welcomed to the Westminster Children's Centre in Wilton Grove Public School, where I was pleased to announce the Ontario government is releasing 579 child care fee subsidies under the Jobs Ontario Training program to help people in the London area get back to work.

In addition to assisting Jobs Ontario Training participants, these subsidies now include social assistance recipients who, independently of the program, are finding jobs or training and education programs leading to employment. These expanded criteria include teen mothers who are finishing high school in order to enhance their job prospects. Lack of child care subsidies is a barrier to parents getting work to support their families.

The Westminster Children's Centre is operated by London Children's Connection. A school-age program, a pre-school centre and a toddlers' centre are offered under the program coordination of Linda Grainger and executive direction of Marion Dunleavy.

How we care for our young will leave an imprint on our future. On a lighter note, I show you a gift from the young of the toddlers' centre, a red tie, and on it the imprints of their thumbs. I see it as a symbolic "thumbs up" to action we are taking in Ontario to get back to work. They also gave me this colourful book explaining the kind of things they like to do.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Both the NDP and the Tories are practising a new math that just doesn't add up. Bob Rae keeps telling us that he reduced the size of his cabinet. He reduced it by adding two cabinet ministers. This is certainly new math to me: reduction by addition.

This confusion over a simple mathematical function may explain the NDP's problem in dealing with the deficit. Last year, Bob Rae told us and the people of Ontario that the deficit was under control. Now he tells us that he was 110% wrong in his projections and that we are facing a $17-billion deficit. I don't think I'm the only one questioning the Premier's math.

While we're at it, let's take a look at Mike Harris's math. In the Tories' last term of office, Mike Harris, the self-proclaimed Taxfighter, voted in more than $1 billion in new taxes. The Tories left us with a $30-billion debt and an annual deficit of $2.6 billion. The record shows the Conservatives produced 15 straight years of deficits. In contrast, the record clearly shows that the Liberal government consistently reduced the deficit year after year and produced the first surplus in 20 years.

Now Tory Health critic Jim Wilson has put a new twist on multiplication. He says the Tories left the debt at $30 billion and the Liberals doubled the debt to $40 billion. Only the Tories could double 30 and get 40, and only the NDP could double 30 and get 120.

Bob Rae and Mike Harris need a math lesson.

WOMEN OF DISTINCTION AWARD

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I want to take this opportunity today to congratulate a very special person in our caucus, who was honoured this past Monday evening in London, Ontario, with a 1993 Women of Distinction Award by the YM/YWCA.

Since 1984, this is only the fourth time that this distinction has been given in order to salute the achievements of women who "embody the tremendous human potential and excellence in both their personal and professional lives that create role models for all of us."

Dianne is certainly deserving, in my own mind, of this recognition and appreciation. Dianne was specifically honoured for her distinguished accomplishments in public service and all of us who know Dianne know that she is not only dedicated and committed to her family, to her London North constituents, but she also stands out as a leader on a number of important provincial and national issues.

On behalf of my caucus, I would like to join the people of London in congratulating Dianne on this outstanding tribute and recognition.

MEMBERS' HOCKEY GAME

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Last night the Leafs did it, last night the Leafs won; coming back from a 4 to 1 deficit, they did it in overtime. Tonight it's the Legiskaters' turn. Tonight we play the police department and we play the police department with a little bit of anxiety. We play at Downsview arena at 7:30; that's the Jane and Wilson area.

I know what you're going to say, Mr Speaker. You're going to tell me that the cops are too good, you're going to say the cops are tops on ice, you're going to say that they're great and there's no way that the Legiskaters can beat them.

Mr Speaker, the Legiskaters are politically correct. We've got players like Chris Stockwell on the team from the Conservatives, Bob Runciman, Bill Murdoch; Murray Elston is going to play tonight as well; Mike Cooper, Derek Fletcher and Anthony Perruzza from the New Democrats. We have a good team, we're going to give them a good show.

I know they're good, I know they're heavy and I know they're hard-hitting. But, Mr Speaker, we are going to give it our best and the Legiskaters might tomorrow come into this place and say, "We beat them."

DAY OF MOURNING

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I believe we have unanimous consent for a statement on the day of mourning.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Today let us observe the day of mourning for workers who have died because of workplace accidents or occupational illnesses. Across Ontario and across Canada groups of workers are joining together today in remembrance of the terrible human cost of workplace tragedies. Last year in Ontario 231 workers died and thousands more were injured on the job.

Today we share the sorrows of the families, for they live on with the memory of needless loss; needless because workplace fatalities can be prevented, needless because workplaces can be accident-free. Better prevention of workplace accidents is the symbolic wreath that I'm offering today. It is the best way to honour those who have been injured or killed at work.

To reduce the number of workplace deaths has been my major goal since I became Minister of Labour. Progress is being made. The amended Occupational Health and Safety Act, now in its third year, is fostering a new health and safety culture in the province's workplaces.

My experience has been that improvements in health and safety measures result from greater will and determination and greater cooperation among the workplace parties. That is how we produced new construction safety regulations more than a year ago, by consulting labour, management and health and safety groups.

The latest accomplishment of this government is to put in place new regulations designed especially to meet the health and safety needs of health care workers. These new regulations will come into effect on June 1. These regulations will provide protection to more than 300,000 health care workers in some 3,000 health facilities across Ontario, more workers than are employed in the construction and mining sectors combined.

The new regulations will apply to a wide range of institutions, including hospitals, psychiatric facilities, nursing homes, group homes for adults and facilities covered by the Developmental Services Act and the Child and Family Services Act. Again, thanks to tripartite cooperation, the new regulations will mean safer working in health facilities.

1350

This government is determined that the top priority in all workplaces across the province has to be worker health and safety. Employers and workers must know the hazards present in their working environments and they must guard against complacency and carelessness when confronting dangerous situations.

In spite of the signs of progress I have mentioned, I am still not convinced that all employers take workplace health and safety seriously. There are still some, I feel, who see nothing wrong with cutting corners or doing the absolute minimum. I hope that our efforts can change this mindset, because the cost of prevention and safety could never equal the value of human life.

In memories of the workers we mourn today, I want to emphasize that my ministry will continue to use all its resources to bring employers into compliance with the amended Occupational Health and Safety Act. All of this we owe to fallen workers, whom this Legislature has commemorated on the 28th day of April in recent years.

This date, I would remind the House, was selected years ago by the Ontario Federation of Labour and endorsed as a cross-Canada observance by the Canadian Labour Congress. It is the date on which the Workers' Compensation Act was passed by the Ontario Legislature in 1914, 79 years ago today.

A safe and healthy workplace is an objective to which we must all aspire. I hope that one day I can stand in this Legislature and report that workplace deaths in this province have been eradicated, but until that day we will focus our efforts and work even more diligently to reach that very goal.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Today, April 28, 1993, marks the 79th anniversary of the first workers' safety legislation passed in all of Canada. It is a day we remember and mourn workers killed and injured on the job.

Today, the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups called on the government to officially recognize this as a national day of mourning for workers killed and injured on the job. My colleagues and I support this motion for unanimous consent. I hope this will spur the government to take action on the improvement of health and safety standards in Ontario's workplaces.

In 1992, 250 workers were killed on the job in Ontario workplaces and 400,000 claims for personal injury were filed. These numbers are down from the previous year, partly because there were fewer workers in 1992.

The Workers' Compensation Board was formed to ensure that workers injured on the job received fair compensation for their injuries and that proper health and safety standards were in place in the workplace to prevent injuries and deaths. While great improvements have been made in the workplace since that first legislation was passed, the high number of injuries still occurring is evidence that there is more to be done in the area of prevention and the improvement of health and safety standards.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the groups and organizations participating in events to mark this sad day. As we observe a moment of silence for workers killed and injured in the workplace and for their families, let us pledge ourselves to attaining better health and safety standards to protect Ontario's workers. There isn't anyone who sits in this House today who has not been touched personally by someone in a family or a close friend or an acquaintance who has been injured in the workplace or perhaps even killed in the workplace.

There are times when the partisan differences in the House are quite pronounced, where there is confrontation. One occasion where there is not is when we talk as members about the need for workplace safety and eliminating all of the deaths that have taken place in the past, eliminating those circumstances at least, and doing everything we can as legislators together, as three parties represented in this House, as individual members of this House, to ensure that the kind of safety measures are put into place that will avoid the tragedies that have happened in the past for the families and the friends of those who are no longer with us.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I rise today on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus to join the members from the two other parties in expressing respect and concern for all workers in this province and to recognize the many workers who have lost their lives or have been seriously injured through accidents in the workplace.

On April 28, 1914, the Ontario Legislature led the way on the worker protection front with the passing of Canada's first worker safety legislation. Over the last 79 years, governments have achieved great strides in this area with the establishment of the workers' compensation system, the passage of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the establishment of programs to encourage equal participation of workers and employers in the improvement of workplace health and safety. However, there is still much work to be done as we face the challenge to safety and health presented by the hazards of ever-changing technology.

Today, workers throughout the province are participating in ceremonies to honour and remember those who have lost their lives or who have been injured in the performance of their jobs. According to figures from the Workers' Compensation Board for 1991, 309 people were killed in job-related accidents and, regrettably, over 403,000 people were injured. By taking the time to remember those senseless and tragic losses, we as legislators can renew our dedication to the task of eliminating future deaths and injuries. One death or injury is too many.

As we observe a moment's silence for the working men and women who have been killed or injured in the workplace, let us take the time to remember their families and renew our commitment to worker cooperation with business and labour to protect all men and women in the province from serious injury and death in the future. Indeed, our caucus has a member who was subject to a very serious work injury and so we're very cognizant of this.

The Speaker: I invite all members, and indeed our visitors in the galleries, to join me in standing for a moment of silent remembrance.

The House observed a moment's silence.

RESIGNATION

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): As the members of the House will know, I have been engaged in a public battle with my own government over the issue of expanding gambling in the province of Ontario. This is but one issue in a series of issues where I have fundamentally disagreed with the direction this government is taking.

Over the last two and a half years I have endeavoured to play my part in the parliamentary drama by conscientiously doing the tasks that were given to me and by committing myself to learning how to make the system work and how to improve the system. It is with profound regret that I have come to the conclusion that the system does not work. The role of the individual member is now so marginal to the legislative process that I have to wonder at all why we waste so much time in related legislative duties. Either we must begin to reform the Legislature or we must resign ourselves to rule by a very small political élite.

Although the New Democratic government did not begin this trend, I am sad to say it has not attempted to reverse it either. The public still largely believes that an individual member has influence within the system, but I have found that the caucus system, supposedly the place for debate and the place where the individual members' issues and concerns are taken seriously, has proven to be ineffective.

The issue of casino gambling is a perfect example of the problem. Introducing casinos was not part of our electoral mandate and, given the NDP's traditional stance against gambling, it was the last thing that many of those who voted NDP expected this government to do. There was no real consultation with either the public, the party or individual MPPs elected under the NDP banner before this major shift in direction occurred. In caucus we were allowed one 45-minute discussion on the issue and the next time it came up, two months later, it was already written into the budget. As government members, we were all expected to follow our marching orders and support casinos publicly and in the House. This was despite the lack of substantive consultation or any hint of democratic process.

1400

Last week, the House leader and the whip met with me in an effort to communicate concerns that they said members of the government caucus had regarding my actions and statements. This discussion achieved only one thing: I finally realized that there is no longer a place within this government caucus for my calls to reform the institution of Parliament or for the public position I have taken regarding casino gambling. It was made clear to me that the status quo was going to be maintained and that those who did not conform would be dealt with accordingly.

If there were any doubts remaining, they were erased yesterday when the former Chair of the standing committee on resources development was unceremoniously dumped from that position for his dissenting views.

It is ironic and indeed sad, Mr Speaker, that some government members look upon the actions and positions that I have taken as treasonous, since these actions and positions spring directly from the very traditions and policies that we have always advocated as New Democrats.

Mr Speaker, I have now come to the conclusion that the people of Victoria-Haliburton would be better served if I sat in the assembly as an independent member. I believe that by becoming an independent member, I will be much more able to represent their views while having the freedom to support whatever progressive initiatives are brought forth by the government.

It is not easy to take such a step, and I will miss the mutual support that I have shared with many members of caucus on various issues. I wish to publicly thank my colleagues within the government who over the past month have helped and advised me on difficult political choices that I have faced.

Thank you, Mr Speaker and all the members of the assembly, for allowing me these few minutes to explain my new status in the House. I will now leave the House, Mr Speaker, and I would ask that you attribute me a new place in the assembly.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It is now time for oral questions. The honourable member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It takes me somewhat by surprise, Mr Speaker.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): You're the only one.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Where have you been? You should show up more often.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I don't find all of this all that laughable a situation. I know that there are always tensions and other things, and I think it's for me a --

Hon Mr Cooke: He was a member of your party; he was a member of the Tory party; he was a member of our party. So let's --

Interjections.

The Speaker: In fairness --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just relax. Order.

I think, in fairness both to the member for Bruce and to others, what just transpired involving the member for Victoria-Haliburton was dramatic and caught members by surprise. In fairness, I would ask the table to reset the clock at 60 minutes, and perhaps the member for Bruce, uninterrupted, can place his questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. These are confusing days and times for a lot of us here in the Legislative Assembly; there's no question about that. But out on the concessions and main roads of Ontario, there is a lot more confusion out and about, and as I ask this question to the Treasurer -- I'm sorry; the Minister of Finance, I guess, is the new title -- I'd ask him to reflect on what he said a couple of years ago when he brought in the first of his record-setting deficit budgets.

He said then, in replying to the issue of flat-lining transfers:

"If we had done that, if we had flat-lined transfers to our partners out there, as we call them, enrollment in colleges and universities would have had to be cut, we think, by about 25,000 students. Almost 5,000 hospital beds would have had to be closed; 10% of the hospital beds in this province would have had to be closed in order to meet those numbers. We think that without any additional funds for municipalities and school boards, either property taxes would have had to be increased by 4.2% over 1990 levels, or 6,000 classrooms would have had to be closed and public health operations would have been slashed by 33%."

I'm asking the Finance minister today to identify the carnage in the municipal, school board and hospital sector for the people of this province so that they can have the real story of the effects of his Friday announcement.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Finally, we are getting a position from the official opposition that we should not be engaging in an exercise of expenditure control but rather should be spending more money. Finally, we at least have a position from the Liberal opposition that we should be spending more money, not less. It's taken a long time to extract that position from them, but finally, finally they have told us where they stand.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): That's today's position.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, that is today's position. The member from Bruce should know, and I think he does, that for the last two years this government has worked extremely hard with our transfer partners out there, whether it's in the educational sector, the health care sector or the municipal sector, in a process of restructuring the way in which we all deliver the services of government. That's gone some way to making the system work better. However, we're not all the way there yet, and it is obvious to those of us on this side at least, and I think to most citizens out there in the province, that simply increasing expenditures at the rate that the official opposition did when it was in power is no longer acceptable in this province.

Mr Elston: I want the Finance minister, and I ask him again, to identify the number of beds that are going to be cut under his scenario, the effect on property taxes in municipalities, the effect on school positions on classrooms in schools across this province and on the enrolment in colleges and universities so that the people can judge.

Hon Mr Laughren: One of the ways in which we engaged in the exercise of getting our expenditures under control was to do so in such a way -- that's why we spent so much time working it out -- as to minimize impacts on jobs and to minimize the impact of services at the community level. There is, at the present time, as I understand it, and I stand corrected by the Minister of Health, actually an excess of beds in the hospital system out there across the province now. So I think that the leader of -- the member from Bruce should -- I know, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to tease you about not being the leader.

Mr Elston: It's too late.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member should understand, and I don't mean to point fingers, because this is the 1990s, not the 1980s, but surely he would agree that we cannot continue increasing spending in the health care system at 11% a year, which his government allowed and the Tories allowed back in the 1980s. That is no longer affordable in this province. We have simply got to get that under control so that we can continue to deliver services in a more efficient way at the community level in such a way as to minimize the impact at the community level and to minimize the job losses as well.

Mr Elston: The Minister of Finance refuses to show us the true effect of his cuts. But, Mr Speaker, let me tell you that people out in the municipal sector and in the school boards have all been wrestling with budgets and now are substantially into their new budget years. The city of Trenton is trying to figure out what in the world it is going to do now at this stage in its budget deliberations.

I have received a letter from the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority, and I read a quote from this letter, which was addressed to Mr Howard Hampton. It says:

"We have been advised by your staff" -- that is the Ministry of Natural Resources -- "that our operating budgets have been reduced by 20% for 1993. Since our year is now one third gone, this cut would be closer to 30%. In addition, the elimination of the conservation land tax rebate program removes over $200,000 of financial assistance to us. Our calculations suggest therefore that in these two funding areas alone, our cutback is 46.8% as opposed to the 10% cited yesterday on the CBC. We feel that we have been unfairly targeted."

This letter, and the small quote that I have read from it, contradicts the Finance minister extremely well, because it means with a 46.8% reduction in its funding to carry on its services, this conservation authority is going to have a difficult time avoiding job loss, service reductions and others, as this minister has indicated.

I ask again, how can he stand in his place and assure the people that there will be no job loss or service reduction or that the municipalities won't have to raise property taxes?

1410

Hon Mr Laughren: I think what we have here is a conflict on the view of the world out there. The Liberal opposition seems to think that we can reduce expenditures in the public sector with absolutely no impact on anyone across the province. That, my friend, is looney tunes. You know that's not possible.

What I said to the member for Bruce, and I'll repeat it, because he didn't play it back in a very accurate way --

Mr Elston: What's your advertising budget?

Hon Mr Laughren: If you'll allow me to finish my response, the member for Bruce, what I said was that we undertook not to cut just across the board on all expenditures. We went at it very selectively, and I said to the member for Bruce, we tried to do it in such a way that would minimize the loss of services and loss of jobs at the community level. I never said to anyone that there would not be an impact on jobs, job losses, or that there would not be an impact at the community level.

Only the Liberals think you can wave a wand, reduce expenditures across the province and have no impact on anybody. That's what got you in trouble in the 1980s and that's why we inherited the mess from you in 1990.

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I'm trying to get a fairly clear fix on where we are on the deficit for 1993-94.

With your announcement on Friday, I think your estimate is that the deficit currently would be around $12.3 billion, the numbers I think you released. Our estimates are that the number is closer to about $9.5 billion, and I just want to take the Treasurer through the three areas that we think would bring it down to the $9.5 billion and let the Treasurer comment on them.

One is that you've assumed your interest costs will go up $2.2 billion. The increase in the debt is about $10 billion. Anyone I've talked to indicates that you've overestimated your interest by about $1.2 billion.

The second thing is that you will no doubt be claiming money from the federal government on fiscal stabilization. Based on the numbers in the reports, I think it's about $550 million.

The third area is asset sales. Right now you've, I think, assumed about $140 million, but we've heard from you and from your officials that there is, in addition to that, the sale of the GO trains, the sale of Suncor and about $500 million more.

Treasurer, as I look at all of those numbers, we believe the current deficit estimate for 1993-94, using your numbers, is closer to $9.5 billion and not the current $12.3 billion you used on Friday. Can you confirm the numbers I've given or indicate where my assumptions may be wrong?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I will take a look at the member's numbers very carefully, but I can assure him that the thought that we would be exaggerating the size of our deficit is really ludicrous. He's accused us in the past of understating the enormity of the problem. Why would I now suddenly do an about-face and say, "Oh, I'm no longer going to understate the size of the problem; I'm going to overstate it.'' What conceivable purpose would be served for me or officials in the Ministry of Finance to engage in that kind of manipulation of numbers? That's downright silly thinking.

Mr Phillips: Well, you don't do your cause much good by accusing us of silly thinking.

You've estimated interest costs going up $2.2 billion, debt going up $10 billion; that's a 22% interest on the debt. It makes no sense to anyone. I could not get an answer out of you, out of your officials, so I'd just like an answer on that. Why would you estimate interest costs going up $2.2 billion?

The second thing is, we spent all last year discussing the fiscal stabilization. Can you just give me an answer today: Will you be applying for that $550-million fiscal stabilization you've indicated in some of your documents or not? I don't care what the numbers are. I just want from you the most accurate estimates of where things are.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt knows that we had a claim in on the fiscal stabilization for $1.2 billion over a two-year period. We received one half of one year's allocation, this year that just ended, of $300 million. The fiscal stabilization claim is still there. I don't know whether we're going to get it in this year. At one point, I didn't think we'd get any of it in 1992-93. As it turned out, we did get $300 million. I don't think we can count on it, build it into our plan for 1993-94, which means that that $300 million was one-time-only revenue for 1992-93 and will not be built into 1993-94.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt and others were the ones who were telling me I shouldn't be building that into any of our fiscal plans, so if the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's got differing advice this year from last year, I'd be interested to hear it from him.

Mr Phillips: It's the exact same question I'm giving you now. Last year I said, "You will be lucky to get a fraction of it. That's exactly what happened. You got a fraction of it. It came true, exactly as I said.

All I want from you, Treasurer, is a straight answer. I want a straight answer on the interest costs. Why would you show a $2.2-billion increase in interest costs on the debt, are you going to apply for the fiscal stabilization and why are you only reporting $140 million worth of asset sales? I am just asking for a straight answer from you.

I said exactly what came true last year, and I would like today, Treasurer -- and if you don't have the information today, I would like an undertaking from you that tomorrow you will give us an answer to these three simple but important questions.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I do not recall saying that for asset sales in 1993-94 there would only be $140 million. That's not --

Mr Phillips: It's right here.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm telling you, that's not what I'm telling you. We are going to be getting asset sales in excess of $140 million in 1993-94.

Interjection: It's your number.

Hon Mr Laughren: There were some asset sales that we thought we would get in 1992-93 which we didn't get which we've now moved into 1993-94, so I don't see anything illogical about that. If at one point we thought we were getting them in 1992-93, they were shown in that fiscal year. Now that that fiscal year is behind us -- and I'll be very specific to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. The refinancing of the GO Transit rolling stock was originally going to be in 1992-93. Because of complexities of law and taxation, that didn't happen in 1992-93. We think it will happen in 1993-94, so we believe that will roll into a revenue number in 1993-94 as an asset sale. We thought we'd sell the SkyDome in 1992-93. We now believe we'll sell it in 1993-94. So those will become asset sales in 1993-94.

I'm sorry if those numbers have confused the member for Scarborough-Agincourt -- or have misled him, is perhaps the better term to use -- but we now think we'll achieve those asset sales in 1993-94, and I will get back to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt in more detail on the specifics around the public debt interest.

I would just remind him, though, that when your deficit is going up substantially over what was built into the original plan, that means that the interest on the public debt goes up accordingly. There's nothing mysterious about that, that's just the way it is, but I'll get back to the member with specifics.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. Minister, given the public service unions' tough stand yesterday, it appears that while the Premier is wont to say that the train is leaving the station, neither you nor the Premier is driving the train. In fact, you are in the caboose of this train. The union leaders are clearly driving the process. They are setting the agenda, they are setting the timetable, and it could go on, if they have their way, for ever.

Minister, your government is already over two years too late in tackling Ontario's spending problem. We are now into fiscal 1993-94 that the social contract period covers. Every day of delay means that to meet the Treasurer's targets you have to cut even deeper, every day that goes by.

1420

Minister, clearly Ontario can't afford for you to run up this public service bill any longer. You must set, number one, a firm deadline for a negotiated settlement with the public service, and I would ask you, have you set that deadline? If you have, could you tell us what it is? And if you have not, why have you not set a deadline for the taxpayers and the public of this province to bring this process to a conclusion?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Mr Speaker, I'll refer the question to the Deputy Premier.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): The leader of the third party raises an important question. However, if I could cut through his preamble in his comment about who's setting the agenda and the timetable, I think if he were to ask the leaders of the public sector unions, they would not feel that they were setting the agenda or the timetable in these negotiations.

We have laid before our public sector partners a set of proposals which we want to negotiate. What they have told us, plain and simple, is that they need some time to take a look at those proposals and come back with some alternative proposals or comments on those. That seems to me to be perfectly fair. I think they understand that our interest in the long run is protecting jobs and services all across this province by negotiating a social contract. That is the goal of this exercise, and for the leader of the third party to cast it in a way that would simply say to them, "By this Friday, you'd better have a deal or all talks are off," implying that, I think is not a very positive approach to negotiations.

Mr Harris: I thought the goal was to cut the cost of government, cut the need for taxes and deficits. I thought that was it. I didn't know it was to try to hang on to every job that we have. I mean, I think even the unions understand there is a downsizing that has to take place, and the talks are to talk about, how deep will the downsizing be and in what areas and how will we do it?

Minister, this is the third time that you and the Premier have waffled and that you have acquiesced to the union leaders. The unions have served notice, they've served notice very clearly, that they will negotiate with you when they're good and ready to negotiate with you, not when you, not when the Premier is ready, not when the taxpayers and the public of Ontario need cutbacks in the cost of government to take place. Not only that, the union leadership, by the way, also said that they'll strike if necessary. If they don't get their way, they'll strike. They've told you that as well.

The Premier clearly has not shown the leadership that is needed to level the playing field. We need these negotiations on behalf of taxpayers and the public on a level playing field. So I would ask you this, Treasurer, by way of my solution, which I always offer when I criticize you, have you instructed your staff to prepare wage control legislation to be tabled in this House on the day after the deadline that should be set so that we can level the playing field with the union leaders who are going to drag this out and cost us every day, the taxpayers, even more money? Have you prepared the legislation? Are you prepared to table it? Are you prepared to pass it and are you prepared to set a deadline for these negotiations to stop?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member of the third party obviously doesn't believe in the negotiating process at all or he wouldn't make such a suggestion. I would say, however, to the leader of the third party, that he's right in one respect, that the goal isn't just to preserve jobs and services; it is to reduce the cost of the public sector in the province, to streamline it, to make it more efficient and to reduce the cost of doing so and subsequently the deficit of the province. He's quite right there.

But while we're doing that, we would like very much to work out an arrangement, which is the purpose of the social contract, whereby we do minimize job losses. We don't take any satisfaction out of causing layoffs in the province of Ontario. What we're saying is that what we want to do is reduce the cost of government in the province of Ontario, and we've asked our public sector partners out there to help us achieve that while minimizing job losses and services at the community level.

Mr Harris: Mr Minister, the union leaders understand the negotiating process very well. Sid Ryan, who is here from CUPE watching you today, understands what the threat of strike means. He understand delaying tactics, that if you can delay it for ever, then you postpone it; you can perhaps get it put off, because it would be too late in the year.

Both you and the Premier know that you have the support of the public. You know that we must make these tough decisions. It took you a long time to come to that, but you know that. Unlike the Liberals, I've told you I will support you in this. I will support you to go even further; you know that as well. I want to state clearly today that I will support legislation -- bang, bang, bang, first, second, third reading -- one day past a realistic deadline. We must provide to the taxpayers, we must provide to the people of Ontario, clear leadership and direction that we're going to get this deficit problem under control. We must do that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader place a question, please.

Mr Harris: I would ask you to level the playing field, to set a firm deadline, to welcome the negotiations and the process but to clearly say: "If by that deadline they're not met, we are going to legislate. We are going to legislate the cutbacks that have to be made to get this fiscal mess under control."

Hon Mr Laughren: I wasn't aware that Mr Ryan was here, but I certainly am glad he is here to see this performance by the leader of the third party.

I think everyone in the province understands, number one, that we have a serious problem with the deficit, and secondly, that we are tackling this problem with three approaches: first, to get our expenditures under control, and we've engaged in a very serious effort to reduce our expenditures. We've done that, we've laid before the province about $4 billion in expenditure reductions for this fiscal year. Secondly, we want to work out a social contract with our partners in the public sector. We believe we have an obligation to work extremely hard to accomplish that through the negotiations process rather than the way the leader of the third party would do it. I appreciate that's a very fundamental, ideological difference between his party and this government. I respect that difference, and it's very real, but I think that he should give us the opportunity to try and negotiate this, rather than coming with a ham-fisted way and say, "It's this way or the highway."

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, also to the Treasurer: Clearly the unions understand. They've said, "It's strike; our way or the highway," and they want to negotiate. Your alternative is, roll over and play dead.

Hon Mr Laughren: No.

Mr Harris: Well, if it's not, then do you have the legislation ready? If not, who's going to seriously negotiate, if they don't think you have the courage or the will or the leadership to do what has to be done? That's the problem.

I also want to ask the Treasurer this: You talked about the mix, the mix you've talked about. You confirm that in addition to the spending cuts --

The Speaker: Order. I was under the impression that the honourable leader of the third party had begun his question, and I would ask that he try to stay on that line. He had started into a question, as far as I was aware.

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Let me by way of a new question to the minister respond to his earlier call about this "creative mix," as he calls it. Part of it is $2 billion, in what you call a creative mix. New revenue is part of the creative mix -- that's taxes, and you know what I think of that -- and the other is this sale of assets. There is a $2-billion package there, I think the Treasure will agree with me. You know how I feel about taxes. I don't think I have to dwell on that very much longer -- but I probably will.

Let's deal right now with the sale of assets. Selling assets, Treasurer, is not a solution. Selling off, for example, GO trains only takes the assets off the books by whatever amount of cash you get. It's a paper transaction. It does not increase or decrease your balance sheet one iota, particularly when you then have to go back in the ensuing years and buy the trains back or lease them back or lease-purchase them back. Why do you continue to pursue selling assets like GO Transit and the trains that have already been paid for as a way to get money short-term, one year, at the same time as you're going to lose those assets off the book and in ensuing years you're going to have to pay them back over the next 10 or 15 years? Would you not agree that this is not good common sense?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'll try and avoid the temptation to talk about selling off non-strategic assets which the two opposition parties got us into, such as the SkyDome and Suncor investments. But I will not dwell on that. Surely to goodness, the leader of the third party, who's big on privatization, as I understand it, bigger than I am, understands that there are non-strategic assets that can be sold without undermining the long-term economic health of this province and make good economic sense.

The refinancing of the GO Transit rolling stock, for example, saves the taxpayers money, and if the member thinks we should not sell the SkyDome -- I understand his historic attachment to it, but I don't think he really is serious if he says that we should be holding on to SkyDome as an asset for the Ontario government. I think that's simply wrong.

Mr Harris: No, I didn't say that.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, make up your mind whether you want to sell them or you don't want to sell them. All I would assure the leader of the third party is that we have no intentions of selling off the strategic assets of the province, but there are some non-strategic assets and land that I think make common sense to sell at this time rather than increasing taxes or reducing essential services in the province. I think that's what I would designate or call a creative mix of getting our revenues and getting the deficit down at the same time.

1430

Mr Harris: The public understands that selling assets is a one-year fix creating a longer-term problem. If they sell their home for $100,000, they get $100,000 in cash and they've got no place to live unless they then have to take that $100,000 and go buy another home. Go buy more trains. Go buy more computers. These are the things you want to sell to get cash for one year, and the public understands very clearly that's a short-term, one-year solution and the problem doesn't go away.

Yes, sell the SkyDome. Even that one: I don't think you want to go and buy another SkyDome, I don't think you're as silly as that, but even that is a one-year solution of an asset. It's not revenue. It's not ongoing. It delays facing up to the fundamental spending problem.

I would ask you this, minister, rather than selling assets, which is a one-year fix, in many cases a book entry, and rather than hiking taxes which will stifle the recovery in the private sector and cost us jobs that we desperately need to hire Sid Ryan's people, who, some of them, are going to lose jobs, why will you not look for another $2 billion in real spending cuts, many of which we've offered you proposals to do? Why won't you put your time and energy into that?

Hon Mr Laughren: We put an enormous amount of time and energy into finding $4 billion in expenditure reductions this year. That was a very, very large effort. I guess we differ in that we have the Liberals on one side saying, "You're cutting too much; let the deficit go up." You're saying, "You're not cutting enough; get the deficit down more."

The leader of the third party is saying, "We don't want any tax increases." Surely to goodness, the leader of the third party should understand that in the 1990s any kind of solution on getting the deficit under control must include some tax increases. People don't believe you any more when you say that you can get the deficit down without increasing some taxes. That's simply not believable in the 1990s.

Mr Harris: No, you've got it wrong. They didn't believe me three years ago. Today they do, because it's the same message that I gave three years ago and two years and one year ago, and now even your Premier says, "Harris was right and we were wrong." So we understand that. Let's be very clear about that. We have identified for you, we're prepared to go on the -- the Liberals want to play it both ways. "Tell us what you're going to cut so we can criticize."

We've gone on the hook. We have identified for you another $2 billion that we've asked you to take. Even your union leaders, social partners, yesterday said, "Hey, we're going to find more that you can cut." Why will you not work with the social partners, with the union leaders, to find another $2 billion to cut instead of hiking taxes and fire-saling our assets and destroying the long-term hope for opportunity and prosperity and jobs in this province? Why won't you find that other $2 billion --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader conclude his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- that even the unions say is there to be found?

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I may need your help here. One question, the leader of the third party says that we should stop negotiating, bring in legislation and solve the problem entirely.

Mr Harris: No, I didn't say that.

Hon Mr Laughren: The next question, he's on his feet saying, "Why don't you negotiate with your social partners?" I want to tell you, Mr Speaker --

Mr Harris: No, don't mislead the House. If you want to restate facts, fine. Don't stand up and lie.

The Speaker: Order. The leader of the third party.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It is not helpful to suggest that a member is misleading the House. I would ask the leader to withdraw that.

Mr Harris: Fine, if you'd like me, Mr Speaker, to stand up and correct the record. Usually it's the minister, when he lies, who has to correct the record. I will withdraw the "lying" comment.

The Speaker: I ask the leader of the third party to simply say, "I withdraw," and not make an additional accusation.

Mr Harris: I will withdraw in my way, not your way. I withdraw the comments.

Will you now correct the record?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Let's level the playing field. Get him out of here. Toss him.

The Speaker: Order, Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Pouliot: He's provoking the Deputy Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon Mr Laughren: We are trying to deal with a very serious problem here, and shouting and name-calling will not get anybody to the solution, nobody. What the leader of the third party is engaging in is nothing more than theatrics. I think he should put that behind him and let's get on with dealing with the problem. The leader of the third party usually is very good about coming forth with alternatives rather than simply standing up and posturing, so I would encourage him to do that.

I would say to the leader of the third party, we believe very much that the process we're engaged in is one of negotiations. We have said to our partners out there in the public sector, "These are proposals we are putting before you, and we are open to suggestions on other ways to achieve the target of $2 billion in savings." We've said that very clearly to them, so there's nothing misleading about it. We laid before them all the expenditure reductions that had already been taken so that there was no bad faith in that regard, and said to them, "Now help us get there."

To me, that is true negotiation. We are open to suggestions and to alternatives from them. We are very serious about that, and we look forward to hearing back from them on what those alternatives are.

1440

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, I was very interested last Friday to read the details of the government's expenditure control plan, particularly as it relates to expenditure controls that have been decided for the fiscal year in which we now find ourselves.

In the treasury document tabled by the Minister of Finance last Friday, it states very clearly that in this fiscal year, 1993-94, your government intends to save $195 million in the area of the Ontario drug benefit plan, specifically by including reforms of pharmacy services, prescribing guidelines, drug pricing and cost sharing. Would the minister be so helpful as to tell the House and the people of Ontario, most especially the senior citizens of Ontario, how this $195-million saving in this fiscal year in this drug benefit program will be achieved?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm delighted to have an opportunity to say something on this particular measure to the House, and for the member's information, I will be meeting later this afternoon with representatives of the seniors' alliance to discuss with them some of the mechanisms by which in fact this kind of saving can be achieved.

Let me say to the member that as a result of changes in the Ontario drug benefit program that have been initiated over last year there will be included in this amount some annualized savings as a result of changes that have been made in the past, as well as consideration of the items that he enumerated: prescribing guidelines, better management of the system and some discussion, as has been going on through the Ontario drug programs reform secretariat and the advisory committee to that, as to how we can in fact reform our Ontario drug benefits program to ensure that what happens first is that we can assure people that the quality of the prescriptions and the drugs they get are appropriate for their needs, and that there is greater equity throughout the system with respect to those people who need assistance in order to obtain the drugs that have been prescribed for them.

Mr Conway: I draw to the minister's attention that the Treasurer's document of last week is very specific. It states that the Rae government has decided policy changes which will, in this fiscal year, a year that is now 10% over -- this fiscal year began 28 days ago and you have presumably made important decisions that you know will save, in this year, $195 million. The devil is in the details.

No one could dispute the bromides you offered in your first answer, but I think the people of Ontario are entitled to know the specifics of your expenditure control plan in so far as the drug benefit plan is concerned. Specifically, Minister, will you tell the House whether or not you intend, in this particular expenditure control in this fiscal year, which you say will achieve nearly $200 million worth of savings, to end the universality of access to drugs for senior citizens in this province? That is a recommendation that has been apparently made by the drug reform task force. It's been widely commented upon.

Could you perhaps tell me and the seniors today whether or not that particular recommendation and policy decision has been accepted and agreed to and forms part of the $195 million you have already decided you will save in a fiscal year that began 20 days ago?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm happy to be very clear on that subject. As the member has said, the drug reform secretariat has been working for over a year, has made recommendations to me with respect to some of the mechanisms and some of the details as to how both a more effective drug benefit plan can be put in place as well as contain the costs. Don't forget that the savings that have been identified here represent not so much a reduction in expenditures as a flat line from previous years in our overall budget as opposed to the kinds of increases that have occurred in the overall Ministry of Health budget. There has been no acceptance of any of those recommendations at this point and there will certainly be discussions with the people affected.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Attorney General and the minister responsible for women's issues. Madam Minister, you're obviously aware of the new federal legislation introduced yesterday to deal more strictly with sex offenders, family violence and the harassment of women. While there's some criticism of specific aspects, I believe that the federal opposition parties appear to be supportive and suggest that the legislation can be made stronger.

Will you commit to work with the federal Justice ministry and with your own federal party to ensure that this legislation receives the full attention it deserves in order to pass by the end of this session?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I'm pleased to confirm to the member my very deep cooperation in working with the federal ministry. Our ministry already has been working, as have the other attorneys general across the country, in all the provinces, around these issues, and there has been considerable discussion.

The actual wording of the provisions that have been tabled by the minister has not received wide community consultation and that's of real concern to a lot of women's groups. What we plan to do in Ontario is to call together women's groups, victims' groups and others who are interested in these reforms to have a thorough consultation here so that we can give the benefit of that information to the federal minister.

Mrs Cunningham: The minister obviously knows that the package does contain positive measures and we're happy to hear that she's not only going to lend her support but to be part of the whole communications process.

But, Madam Minister, like yourself, I'm from the London area, and we have some specific reasons for wanting this legislation to proceed quickly. Next Monday, you know that the London detachment of the OPP plans to go into court to seek permission to stop providing 24-hour protection to an area woman from her ex-husband.

It's our understanding that the courts gave this person only one day in jail after he assaulted and threatened her, and 30 days after he violated his probation and he is now out of jail and she lives in constant fear.

Given that your own staff has been advising the OPP on ending its protection of this woman, have you looked at yesterday's legislation to determine that if any way some of the ideas in that could be used to provide the protection to this woman which is currently unavailable except from the OPP?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I'm sure the member is aware that I'm not going to comment at great length on the particular case, except to say that in these instances one of the difficulties that we have around public safety is the inability of police to ever guarantee the safety of anyone under these circumstances. Any mechanism, such as the new law, that gives the police better tools with which to try to protect those who are being harassed and intimidated will be very welcome.

Our concern obviously as a ministry will be to ensure that in fact greater protection is there in any new amendments to the Criminal Code. There are some concerns that, for example, the language around intent in the new amendment may have the same drawbacks that the current language has in the watch and beset section of the code, which the police have found very difficult to apply in terms of protection.

I would say to the member that certainly in all cases where women are being stalked, are being intimidated, are being pursued, the common goal, I think, of all law enforcement agencies and certainly of attorneys general across the country is to find effective mechanisms that are not going to run counter to the charter, that are in fact going to offer better protection to women.

JOBS ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Education and Training has a response to a question asked earlier.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I'd like to respond to a question that was asked yesterday by the member for Eglinton with regard to buttons produced for the Jobs Ontario Training program and her accusation that the buttons were produced in Taiwan.

I want to inform the member, and I believe she knows -- and I'm quite frankly surprised that she already hasn't risen on a point of order to correct the record -- that the ministry checked with the suppliers of all the buttons, and she knows that we have been able to confirm that all of the material, including the buttons, were entirely produced in Canada.

The Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Eglinton.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Actually, I find the member's statement quite surprising, because it runs contrary to information supplied to our caucus on the morning of April 20, 1993, by a salesman from Instant Promotions, Mr Larry Silverman, who indicated that in fact the buttons were produced in Taiwan.

But, Mr Minister, the other thing I find very interesting is your utter silence on the matter that almost $700,000 has been spent on promotions to produce these wonderful glossy kits, almost $700,000 at a time when this government is purporting to be exercising restraint.

1450

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Ms Poole: Yes, Mr Speaker, I do have a question. My question: Does the minister find it acceptable that his ministry and the Jobs Ontario program are spending almost $700,000 on promotions, on bumper stickers, on buttons and the like, at a time when thousands and thousands of Ontario people are out of work?

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I'm going to read two very short letters into the record from Royal Associates, one of the companies responsible for producing the material, to the Jobs Ontario Training program, written this morning.

"This letter is to confirm that all promotional buttons are made in Canada, the parts are also stamped and assembled in Canada. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call Rose Blois, account executive."

"Instant Promotions: Regarding your inquiry of the origin of buttons manufactured for Jobs Ontario, we have confirmed with our manufacturer that all buttons Instant Promotions sold to Jobs Ontario, including all parts, assembly and printing are manufactured in Canada."

Why don't you admit when you're wrong?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order.

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to say that I will be filing the appropriate forms for a late show because the minister did not answer my question.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Chairman of the Management Board, the employer of the government and the minister responsible for our human resources. I would say to the minister surely you understand, as I do, why people are reluctant to come to the table to negotiate with your government. How can the so-called social contract, public sector partners involved in your contract negotiations trust you, given your record of bargaining in bad faith and broken promises?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I will refer the question to the Deputy Premier.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I don't think it's appropriate to accuse this government of bargaining in bad faith. If the member is referring specifically to the sectoral bargaining -- sorry, the social contract table that's been set up -- we were trying very hard to bargain in good faith. We went to them with all of the information we could provide. We've opened the books for them in a much more open way than any government in the history of the civilized world has ever undertaken, I suspect.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Civilized?

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I didn't want to confine my remarks to Ontario.

I think we have really tried to be as open as possible so that the bargaining was real bargaining, not bargaining in a token way only.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary. Is this to the Chair of the Management Board again?

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, actually to the Treasurer and Minister of Finance who answered the question. I don't think your words give confidence to anyone. Your partners in these so-called social contract negotiations have witnessed the arbitrary gutting of an agreement that Mr Decter entered into, that was enshrined in legislation in this House. This contract was negotiated supposedly in good faith by Mr Decter, and I would say to you that, given that record and that history of bargaining in bad faith, why is it any wonder that they don't want to come to the table and negotiate with you? Bill 135 has been effectively gutted. Why should they trust you again?

Hon Mr Laughren: I can only assume that the member is being unusually convoluted in her question, which is not her normal style. I assume that she's talking about the Ontario Medical Association agreement that was negotiated. She says we've gutted it. What we've done is to go to the social contract table with a set of proposals and said to them, "Let's negotiate." How is that gutting anything? It's a set of proposals in which we're offering to negotiate what's on the table.

I think the member is being unfair in categorizing this as the gutting of a contract. That simply is inappropriate.

Mrs Caplan: You arbitrarily gutted your own contract. Decter negotiated it.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, we've gone with a set of proposals, nothing more, so I don't know why the member for Oriole insists on categorizing this as gutting an existing contract.

TOBACCO TAXES

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Treasurer and Minister of Finance also: Ontario's tobacco growers, manufacturers and retailers are very worried about the very significant increase in criminal activity, right down to the farm level, because of high tobacco taxes here in Ontario.

That's why they've joined with the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, the Ontario Convenience Stores Association, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, the Bakery, Confectionary and Tobacco Workers International Union and the tobacco industry to say that something must be done about tobacco smuggling.

With the losses in taxes totalling close to the annual budget of your colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food, do you not think, as Minister of Finance, that something must be done to correct that?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Yes, Mr Speaker, I do think that something must be done. The level of smuggling is an unacceptable level. I had a meeting with my counterpart in Quebec, for example, where they're experiencing, I suspect, even greater losses through smuggling than we are in the province of Ontario. But I take no comfort in that, because any level of smuggling is unacceptable.

Our hope is that by working with the law enforcement officers, we can put in place more stringent enforcement methods, because I agree with the member that something must be done.

Mr Villeneuve: It's obvious that tobacco taxes have not been a major factor in preventing people from smoking, and they have indeed encouraged smuggling and illegal activities: crime, in other words. What is the province ready to do on this issue to protect all those, from the farmer on through the processor, manufacturer and retailer, from criminal activities going from smuggling to break-in? What do you intend doing?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think that the member is half right: I do believe that relatively high taxes on cigarettes do lead to more smuggling. I agree with him there. But I also think that they lead to discouraging people from smoking, so I think that it cuts both ways, if I can use that expression.

But I think that to send a signal to the people in this province, at a time when we're trying to discourage smoking all over, that lowering taxes is the answer, I'm afraid that the member and I would part company, and probably even the member opposite and the member for Carleton as well.

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a question for the Attorney General. The Family Support Plan Act is an act which I had some connection with and very much interest in. I know it's been in effect now for almost a year, and I know that when it was brought in I made many statements saying how it was going to improve the collection process for support payments.

I wonder if the Attorney General might tell me to what extent the collection process has improved. How much more are we collecting? I know it's a difficult time financially now, etc, but I'd like to know what improvements we've seen in that area.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm really pleased to be able to inform the member that the act did make quite a bit of difference in terms of the number of dollars that were coming in.

Prior to its coming into effect in March 1992, the plan was collecting about $14 million per month. During this last year, the average per month amount collected was $19 million, and that has increased each month. During the month of March, we had a record intake of $23 million. Sixty-nine per cent of the cases that have automatic wage deduction are remitting support payments and, prior to March 1992, the average was about 40%. So there is some improvement, but there's still a long way to go, and that's why we're encouraging people to really support the plan.

Mr Wessenger: One of the areas that's been of great concern, I know, in my constituency office is the more difficult cases, the self-employed payors. I'm wondering, has this automatic system resulted in more effective collection in those areas particularly?

1500

Hon Mrs Boyd: It has improved it in some areas where, even though people are self-employed, the source of their income is available through provincial payments. That would include OHIP payments, legal aid payments, that sort of thing. But there is no question that the issue of self-employment and the issue of people who leave one place of employment and go to another place without reporting that change of employment, as they are required to do by law, is still the biggest gap we have. We are making efforts to try and find additional ways of tracing those people through the various data banks that the Ontario government has access to at this point in time.

AGRICULTURE INSPECTION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question should be of concern to every resident in Ontario, and it's directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Milk and milk product consumers in Ontario will be interested to know that the government is cutting the dairy inspection branch, but details are still sketchy. It appears that the whole milk-testing system is going to be overhauled.

I would like the minister to comment on how many dairy inspectors will lose their jobs, what the time frame for implementation will be and, most importantly, what the impact will be on milk testing in this province.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I want to assure the member for Cornwall and assure all the residents of Ontario that the restraints we're looking at in terms of milk inspection are not going to affect the food quality and safety of milk in this province.

There was some duplication in the system of inspection, which we're addressing through our restraint package, and there will be some reductions in the number of inspectors we have. The member should know that there will be certainly a reduction in the number of routine farm visits that have been conducted in the past.

We will be living up to all of our commitments under the act in terms of inspections at milk processing plants. We will continue to respond to any problems that are perceived or requests for inspection at the farm site to ensure that we maintain food quality and safety of milk. There will be some job losses but we will maintain the high quality of milk standards we've maintained in this province for a good number of years.

Mr Cleary: If OMAF plans to redirect resources to the new food laboratory, I ask the minister again what measures are being undertaken now to ensure that milk gets to the market, has been adequately inspected under the revised system, and can he give the dairy producers of Ontario assurance that the increased emphasis on self-regulation will not mean that they themselves will be forced to pay additional costs?

Hon Mr Buchanan: This is not intended to introduce any additional costs into the system. There are already inspectors in place. The Ontario Dairy Herd Improvement Corp system provides inspectors as well. We are not going to do anything that's going to destroy the high quality of milk we have in this province and we're not looking at passing on any additional costs.

We're cutting back on the number of inspectors. In fact, we're reducing from 35 down to 23 the number of inspectors we have in that area. There are other inspectors, as the member knows, who are accountable to the milk marketing board and others. They will be maintained. We are trying to maintain a system with fewer inspectors, and I think that's something we all need to work towards in these times of restraint.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I move that Mr Grandmaître exchange places with Mr Callahan and Mr Ramsay exchange places with Mr Daigeler in the order of precedence for private members' public business; and notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 5 and 6.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

PENSION FUNDS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from firefighters in the city of St Catharines, who are members of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters, and this petition is one which opposes the use of their pension funds by the proposed Ontario investment fund. It reads as follows:

"We are extremely concerned with the proposed Ontario investment fund and the implied tampering with our pension funds. The excellent financial stability of the current OMERS pension fund is the result of a pragmatic investment strategy currently employed by the board and should be maintained. This pension plan has not achieved financial success by meddling governments."

They respectfully request that the Ontario Legislature ensure that their pension contributions, retirement benefits and pension assets remain unfettered by attempted government speculation and they thank us for our assistance in these matters.

This is a petition which contains well over 100 names and addresses and I'm pleased to affix my name to this petition in agreement with its contents.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas in 1923, seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws, like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment;

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation; to respect our native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

That's 70 signatures and I've signed it myself.

GAMBLING

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition signed by 39 individuals requesting "that the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I note with some interest, Mr Speaker, that the first name on the petition is that of Kenneth Bolton, a former NDP member of this House.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition here from St John's Anglican Church in Mississauga and it's on the same topic. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas credible academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

It's signed by 27 names and I will sign it as well.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Taxpayers from all across Ontario have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, in order to achieve school board accountability, to provide the Provincial Auditor with the right to do value-for-money audits on school boards; and allow the school board auditors to open the books to the scrutiny of the general public."

1510

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here signed by some 1,000 people from across northeastern Ontario from communities, from Swastika, Kirkland Lake, Iroquois Falls, Cochrane, Timmins and I could go on for a number of communities, who have signed their names to this petition in support of a project that is being proposed to be built in Iroquois Falls known as Northland Power.

I would like to be able to table this petition with the Clerk of the House. I do note, however, that the petition wasn't properly filled out, but I wanted to table it none the less because I think these 1,000 people did take the time to show that support, and I would affix my name to that petition in order to see this fine project go ahead in Iroquois Falls.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, you may have heard me speak in the House a couple of days ago about the 15,564-plus names that have been put on a petition. I'd like to present a couple of those petitions that came to me early. A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province.

"In addition to the undersigned, this petition is further endorsed by the following municipal, business and labour groups:

"Councils: Bruce township, Huron township, Kincardine, Kincardine township, Owen Sound city, Port Elgin, Ripley, Saugeen, Tiverton;

"Chambers of commerce: Kincardine, Port Elgin and Southampton;

"Business associations: Kincardine, Port Elgin, Bruce County Realtors Association;

"Labour groups: CUPE 1000, the Society; Grey/Bruce Labour Council; Ontario Nurses' Association, Kincardine and Southampton; Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Association, District 44; Service Employees' International Union, Kincardine and Southampton; Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 527; Electricians Local 1788; Sheet Metal Workers Local 473; Ironworkers Local 736; Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 1120; Hotel and Restaurant Workers Local 75; Bricklayers Local 12; Allied Trades Council, representing Carpenters Local 2222; Cement Masons Local 598; Labourers Local 1059; Insulators Local 95; Millwrights Local 1592; Operating Engineers Local 793; Painters Local 1590; Teamsters Local 230;

"Riding associations: Bruce Provincial Liberal, Bruce Provincial Progressive Conservative and the Bruce NDP;

"Bruce County School Board and Grey/Bruce Community Industrial Training Advisory Committee also support this."

This is the first instalment of more than 15,500 names and groups that have signed in support of this. I affix my signature.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas post-polio is a new phenomenon to attack survivors of polio; and

"Whereas the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association has been formed to help survivors of polio;

"Whereas most family practitioners do not have the specialized knowledge to treat post-polio symptoms effectively; and

"Whereas we the members and friends of the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association wish to emphasize to the Ontario government the need to fund a post-polio clinic in Ottawa; and

"Whereas a formal request was presented by the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council in May 1988 and received a top priority at that time;

"Whereas the Rehabilitation Centre of Ottawa-Carleton has presented a proposal to the Ministry of Health for funds to establish a post-polio clinic; and

"Whereas there are at least 1,000 known polio survivors in the catchment area of the Rehabilitation Centre who need the immediate services of a clinic; and

"Whereas there are at least 5,000 polio survivors in Ontario; and

'Whereas there is only one formally constituted post-polio clinic, which is in Toronto and which has a lengthy waiting list; and

"Whereas the cost and difficulties of several trips to the Toronto clinic and staying overnight each time are often insurmountable for a disabled person; and

"Whereas polio survivors who have no paralysis from the initial attack of polio are not immune from developing post-polio symptoms of various severity;

"Whereas research indicates that 80% of polio survivors may develop post-polio symptoms anywhere from 7 to 71 years after the initial attack; and

"Whereas post-polio symptoms are not related to the aging process; and

"Whereas, because of immigration, the post-polio population will not diminish;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the rehabilitation centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome.''

I attach my signature to that petition.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Mr Speaker, I have a petition here, and you know last week there was a rally out on the front steps. There were a lot of my constituents here on Earth Day.

"Whereas the town of Georgina has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural, residential and vacation land; and

"Whereas these areas would drastically be affected by a megadump;

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has identified sites in the town that would consume large tracts of number 1 and 2 farm land, the areas identified by the IWA would disrupt the vibrant agricultural community and the farm families that live in these areas, that continue to invest large sums of money into their family farms. These communities would be destroyed by the Interim Waste Authority's putting in a megadump;

"Whereas most of the people of the town of Georgina depend on groundwater for their drinking water supply, and a dump would threaten their clean water supply; and

"Whereas Lake Simcoe is the ice-fishing capital of the world; and

"Whereas Lake Simcoe provides a strong draw for tourists each year-round to fish; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump would destroy the local economies of the community;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land and turn it into Metro-York's megadump.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew efforts to seek alternatives like waste reprocessing to landfill and implementation of progressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs.''

Mr Speaker, there were students there last week from Sutton District High School as well, and I affix my name.

ST LAWRENCE PARKS COMMISSION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly, and it's signed by over 2,000 signatures:

"Whereas the economy of eastern Ontario is desperately dependent upon the operation of tourist attractions such as Upper Canada Village and programs operated by the St Lawrence Parks Commission; and

Whereas recent news media reports indicate that management of the St Lawrence Parks Commission is considering eliminating certain programs, services and staff positions;

"Therefore, be it resolved that the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation take steps to fully fund the operation of the St Lawrence Parks Commission for the budget 1993-94 to ensure that there will be no cutbacks in programs, services and staff.''

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I also have a petition signed by 1,869 residents of Glengarry county. It's addressed to the Legislature of the province of Ontario and to the Honourable Minister of Community and Social Services:

"We, the undersigned, call on the government of Ontario to reverse its decision to cut funding to community services for people who have development disabilities. The effects of such cuts will result in unacceptable hardships for vulnerable people and their families. In Glengarry county hundreds of citizens depend on these services and rely on the government to ensure their continuation through committed annualized budgets that reflect the realities of escalating costs of living.''

I fully agree and have signed the petition.

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have another petition here with some 1,500 signatures, again from Timmins, from South Porcupine, from Cochrane, Iroquois Falls, Matheson, Kirkland Lake, a number of communities around northeastern Ontario. The petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of the cogeneration plant that is proposed to be built in the community of Iroquois Falls.

People who affixed their names to this petition are saying that this particular plant will bring some $200 million of investment in a community of some 4,000 people in Iroquois Falls, that this particular plant will help to ensure the employment of people employed at Abitibi-Price as the host for the steam, and they wish this project to go ahead. I affix my signature to this petition.

1520

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to let you know that I have slightly under 15,560 names to present by way of petition in support of the Bruce A nuclear power development in succeeding days.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I'm sure that the member for Bruce is very much aware that this is not a point of order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

Mr Malkowski, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 4, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'éducation.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just before the member for York East begins his remarks, we've had some discussions with the opposition. The third party critic would like to switch order with the official opposition critic in terms of the speaking rotation, so we just wanted to inform you that we had no objection to that happening and that a normal rotation would follow after those two exchanges.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I wish to advise members today that I am introducing for second reading Bill 4, a bill to amend the Education Act and related legislation. This bill is an omnibus bill which contains all the provisions previously included in Bill 37 which dealt with special education issues and all but one of the provisions contained in Bill 88. Many of the items in this bill are of a housekeeping nature, but I would like to take a few moments to bring to the members' attention some of the significant measures contained in this bill.

Amendments in this bill continue to make provision of half-day junior kindergarten mandatory for school boards by September 1994. However, the bill allows for a phase-in period of three years, according to conditions to be set out in regulation.

This initiative was first communicated to the school boards in 1989, and since that time the ministry has contributed special capital grants to boards when it's necessary to help them establish junior kindergarten programs.

The operating costs will continue to be supported through the ministry's general legislative grants.

I believe it is important to continue with this initiative so that all children can benefit from early learning experiences. In a complementary measure, the bill will amend the Education Act to allow school boards to be the operator of a child care program under the Day Nurseries Act.

Currently, child care centres are located in schools, but they may not be operated by school boards. This voluntary measure would provide for closer education-child care partnerships in keeping with the government's child care reform directions. It removes a barrier to active participation on the part of school boards. In the case of new child care programs, this new rule would respond to communities where no agency is able to provide the service.

We believe this is an important step in ensuring the necessary services are better coordinated for the children, especially before- and after-school care for school-aged children.

Other amendments in this bill concern special education. We propose changing the Education Act and related legislation to allow school boards, the French-language section of school boards and provincial schools to use American sign language, or ASL, and la langue des signes québécois, LSQ, as languages of instructions for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. ASL and LSQ are languages of the deaf anglophone and francophone communities in North America. It was recommended in the Report on Deaf Education that the use of ASL and LSQ would make education more accessible to some students. These languages are very much a part of deaf culture, and this move is supported as an option by many parents.

The bill also amends the Education Act to allow Ontario to make payments towards the education costs of elementary and secondary students who have received prior approval from OHIP for out-of-country medical treatment. These are children and youth with severe psychiatric or conduct disorders who need the kind of specialized help that is not available in Ontario. This measure provides the legal framework for the Ontario government to make payments towards their education in treatment facilities out of the country. This is an important amendment to ensure that the repeal of the "hard to serve" provision, also contained in this bill, will not adversely affect these students.

Another important measure in the bill is the repeal of the provisions respecting trainable retarded children. This change is appropriate because the term "trainable retarded" is no longer an acceptable term to the education or parent communities. All exceptional pupils will now have access to the same procedure for identification and placement, thereby removing a perceived barrier to the integration of pupils with developmental disabilities.

In addition, the bill amends the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act to permit area school boards in Metropolitan Toronto to take over the responsibility from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board for the education of children previously identified as trainable retarded. This will improve the opportunities for these children to be integrated into regular schools and classes.

The bill contains amendments regarding school board boundaries. These amendments are designed to remove any unintended discrepancies between municipal and school board boundaries which may have arisen in the past out of changes to the boundaries of counties, regional municipalities or the defined cities of London, Windsor or Hamilton. This amendment does not affect the current negotiations between the boards of education in London and in Middlesex county.

Another amendment deals with an issue on which we believe it is necessary to have some uniformity, and that is the maximum length of time a student may be suspended from school. This bill would set 20 school days as the maximum, although boards would be permitted to establish lower maximums.

Finally, another amendment will require school boards to notify the Minister of Education and Training if a teacher is convicted of a Criminal Code offence involving sexual conduct involving a minor, or of any other offence that, in the opinion of the board, indicates pupils may be at risk.

These are some of the key changes contained in Bill 4 and I strongly urge the members to vote for this bill.

1530

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for London North.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I guess I'd like to begin by saying that we were somewhat surprised to have this legislation placed before us so quickly since the beginning of this new session. This is a bill that we have seen in various forms since June 13, 1991.

It's had a number of different names. We first remember it as Bill 125. We had the first reading on June 13, 1991. We then remember it as Bill 20, which had its first reading on May 26, 1992. We then remember it as Bill 88, which had its first reading on October 22, 1992. We then recall Bill 114, which had its first reading on May 30, 1991; it was special legislation, proposed, and then as Bill 37 more recently, its first reading on June 2, 1992, again as special education legislation.

It deals with some 28 separate and unrelated changes to the Education Act, and I talked about the sections as they were introduced in the past. I can only say that although we call this an omnibus bill, I wouldn't exactly agree with the parliamentary assistant when he stated that it was a housekeeping piece of legislation. Clearly, parts of it are, but there are other parts that have, I think, long-standing idealistic reasons for the government to put forward its legislation in this regard, and I'll talk about some of the things I'm going to say with special focus on junior kindergarten and, furthermore, on the child care part of the legislation, which we've seen for the first time.

I'd also like to say that these new additional parts have only been made public in the last few days -- this week. I certainly was made aware of them at the end of last week, but as we phoned out to our constituents, whom we rely on here for not only their good advice but because we feel it's important that we represent them -- I'm now talking about our organized educational community, our parent community and our school boards. We're anxiously awaiting some of their input.

I'm just giving the government some warning that we would expect this bill to be referred to committee so that any of the questions I may raise can be answered, and so that any of the concerns we've heard so far from the members of the public we represent here in this House can be addressed.

I'd like to begin by talking about the aspect of the bill that I think we're particularly interested in having some further discussions with. We were aware, as I said, that the government would be moving with regard to Bill 37, special education legislation, in the direction the bill proposes, but we haven't had an opportunity to really communicate. This morning our office spoke with the Ontario Association for Community Living, which wasn't even aware of Bill 4 and any of the contents that pertain to the integration of exceptional students. I suggest that in the future we certainly have more lead time, even before we read our comments into this Legislative Assembly's record, so that others can at least relate to what we're talking about this afternoon.

On Friday, April 23, the Treasurer announced that $635.6 million would be cut from the Ministry of Education and Training's budget, including a $130-million deferment of operating grants and the cancellation of $69.6 million in transition funding for school boards.

At the same time, this government has introduced Bill 4, which will download costs on to local school boards. Programs are discussed in this legislation that will result in additional costs for school boards, such as junior kindergarten, enhanced special education programs and services and the beginning of what we believe will be -- but we're certainly willing to discuss this further with the minister to get clarification -- a universal child care system for three- to five-year-olds, even perhaps within our school buildings. There's a lot of questions around that and I'm not about to raise anybody's concerns here. I just want to put our questions on the record.

I'd like to start with junior kindergarten. It seems to us that school boards will be required to operate junior kindergarten after August 31, 1994. We appreciate the fact that the minister did in fact listen to us with regard to the policy of this government, and that was that this would be the deadline, given some special, I suppose, understanding or agreement with the minister himself. That was the understanding in the past. Now we find in legislation that the Lieutenant Governor in Council will have the power to allow a board to phase in junior kindergarten by September 1, 1997.

I think this delay in a program that this government is requiring to be universal is responsible at this time and I also feel that it is really the only way that he could practically expect any participation, given the tough times.

The school boards are telling us that they don't have the additional funds for junior kindergarten programs. I think the minister must understand that, and the Premier more than anyone, as they entered into some negotiations a week ago with members of the public service on a social contract. As we look at further cuts in budgets, I would say this is not the time to be demanding new programs without the dollars that would have to go with them.

I must also say that one of the reasons for the school boards not beginning these junior kindergarten programs, besides the fact that they don't want them in their jurisdiction or besides the fact that they don't have the dollars for the operating costs, is that they don't have the physical space. My understanding is that in the Premier's own riding he has some difficulties in making this policy stick because of the lack of space for a junior kindergarten program.

We do know, though, that all boards will still be required to start offering some junior kindergarten programming by August 31, 1994, and it's our understanding that the minister indeed recognizes that if junior kindergarten programs are in place now, they will not be able to take those programs from their board's operating budget at this time. That is his intent.

There are currently 19 boards that do not offer junior kindergarten programs. Many are growth boards that do not have the space I've referred to and all of them have limited resources. We should say that Bill 4 making this mandatory for school boards is an initiative that this government should be thinking very seriously about, in spite of the delay in implementation.

I should say that the funding changes we've been experiencing in the last year have been changes that school boards have had to face on a monthly basis. We're always hearing about new incentives in education. It's not new to this government, but it is more frequent with this government.

Last January, for instance, the boards were promised 1%, 2%, and 2% transfer payments over the next three years, and in November that same year the Treasurer had to go back on this plan, on his word. Then we found that he decreased the funding to the education sector even further last Friday with his announcements.

Many boards have already set their mill rates. Budgets have been ongoing, public discussions that have been received by communities with sometimes anger and sometimes total misunderstanding. As a matter of fact, just today I was in the press gallery, only to see that we had yet another education group tell us that school board budgets are not easily understood. Some school boards are not making the information available to the public and indeed there probably needs to be some kind of a program audit of school boards, as long as finance audits -- in fact, there was a request that the minister make this mandatory.

1540

I think that at this time it's too early for us to respond in that regard, although it has been certainly a suggestion put to us in our New Directions, Volume Two, by the public, that we look at value-for-money audits of school boards, colleges, universities and training institutions that are publicly funded. But we're looking for input from the public in that regard, and I think the idea or the consequence of these questions being asked at this time only indicates the total confusion around funding education in the province of Ontario.

Now we know that the government is going to have to carefully justify, during any committee hearings, moving in this direction in spite of the, I think, stand that he has taken in this new version of the bill, where he has in fact taken a look at the implementation date as far forward as 1997.

I should also remind this government that if indeed this is something it is not going to back with funding -- it being its program, as opposed to the certainly 19 school boards that don't offer the junior kindergarten program -- by 1997 it's going to have a hard time implementing legislation that isn't supported across the province of Ontario.

My projection is that if they don't start listening, if they don't respond to parents, if they don't demand that school boards be more accountable, if they don't introduce a core curriculum, if they don't look at careful testing of what's been taught, if they don't take a look at training in our secondary schools along the line of apprenticeship programs and major changes in the delivery of programs to our secondary school students who are leaving school, I would suggest that if those kinds of initiatives are not in place before the end of their term in 1995, they won't have to worry about what happens in 1997.

I say that very clearly, because those are the kinds of concerns that the public is advising us of, no matter where we speak. I'll be out tonight in Mississauga, tomorrow night in Parry Sound, and these are the kinds of questions I get asked. I hope I can, at the same time, bring back the concerns of the communities that we are asked to speak to, to the minister, so that he can consider their tremendous concerns around not only the quality and cost of education but the lack of governments in the last 10 years to respond.

I'd like to move on just for a moment with regard to this junior kindergarten program to take a look at what the minister has talked about with regard to child care in the schools. It's a brand-new section, something that we haven't really had time to look at, but it should be, I think, discussed in the context of the junior kindergarten programs because we're talking about the same age group of child.

This amendment to the bill or the act authorizes school boards to establish, operate and maintain child care centres. It's very interesting that this should be brought forward at this time. This is a first step, I believe, towards implementing the government's plan to provide a seamless day for the care of children.

I certainly think that the care of children is very important in our society, and where they are cared for when they're not with their families, and at what age they are cared for and by whom they are cared for are questions that we should have been able to answer in a very public way in the last five years. In my opinion, I don't think the public has had opportunities to discuss this issue of child care or early childhood education in the manner in which they ought to have.

Now we see the government talking about child care centres in schools, and I think that their thrust and intent here is probably admirable. But I think that because it appears in this legislation, the Education Act, it's going to be very confusing to the public of Ontario and especially to school boards.

The document forwarded to cabinet by the Ministry of Community and Social Services recommended the creation of an early childhood authority to coordinate child care services and education policies. This paper, which some of us saw, seeks cabinet approval for an analysis of base funding for school-based day child care centres that would combine schooling from 9 am to 3:30 pm and child care before and after. The cost of such a school-based program for children aged three to five was described in this advisory document to the cabinet as "very substantial."

Now this leaked cabinet submission -- we seem to be picking up from time to time many of these documents -- envisions a non-profit child care system operated as a public service and recommends withdrawal of government operating grants for private child care operations. Mr Speaker, you can imagine what we've been living with in the last couple of years in this province as we try to phase out the private child care operations and phase in non-profit child care systems, to the chagrin of the small business person who has provided the service to communities in the past quite successfully.

In any regard, as an immediate measure, the ministry recommended amending the Education Act to allow school boards to hold the licence to operate regulated non-profit child care centres.

Following cabinet direction regarding system design and funding, the Ministry of Community and Social Services is supposed to return, or was supposed to return, to the cabinet in the fall of 1993 with detailed policy options and implications regarding enhancing access to the child care system, though I'm sure that this move is coming a little bit sooner than what the government itself expected.

Cabinet, after the fall of 1993, was to determine the most appropriate time to introduce new child care legislation, some time between October 1993 and January 1995, to correspond with the next provincial election. The big question remains: Why are we proceeding with these amendments to the Education Act at this time, because it is confusing to the public who will have jurisdiction over early childhood education and/or child care for three-year-olds?

How in fact will the government of Ontario pay for any additional services at this time? How in fact should it be paid for in the future? Is this in fact a trend towards universal, publicly-paid-for child care? I really don't think so, but none of these questions have been answered. So when the minister does in fact ask why we would like to have this in committee, you can imagine that we will be putting these questions on the record, certainly, for his staff's perusal.

A variation of this scheme exists in Grey county. We've had the opportunity to talk to the Grey County Board of Education representatives and that county board of education has requested that the minister allow the board to develop a plan, in collaboration with local child welfare, health and social service agencies, for a variety of programs and services for preschool children and their families as alternatives to the traditional junior kindergarten program. So the direction that the ministry is moving in we would applaud, because we think the child care programs are more appropriate for young children than formal education programs.

The Grey county board has set up an agreement that will place kindergarten teachers in existing child care centres for the first part of the day. I thought this was the kind of thing that we would be looking at sort of as a pilot: take an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons, the successes and the failures and definitely the costs, the appropriateness of teachers as opposed to early childhood education specialists from our community colleges, and have an opportunity then perhaps to look at other pilots and move in that direction as well.

1550

It is designed, I know, in this program to reduce the cost of adding junior kindergarten to the school system and to save jobs in local child care centres. This pilot, we know, after we have a chance to look at it, will of course be one model of service integration and collaboration in a rural setting that should be seriously considered.

Right now we have approximately 1,125 child care centres located in schools, serving 41,742 children, and approximately one third of the licensed child care system right now exists in school centres. I think child care is something that we want to promote as a matter of choice for families. I also believe, as we take a look at this program being included under the auspices of the Ministry of Education and Training, I can only say that perhaps we're sending the wrong message to the public.

I would also like to report to you that, in the fourth report of the select committee on education in June 1990, there was an appendix to that report. That appendix was in fact the dissenting opinion of Mr Cooke, the Minister of Education and the member for Windsor-Riverside, and his colleague, a well-known education expert and member of the New Democratic Party of the day, Mr Richard Johnston, the member at the time for Scarborough West. Their dissenting viewpoint at the time to this select committee on education's fourth report, if I may quote from it, should be considered by everyone when we're looking at finding solutions to this whole challenge of providing care for young children, not only responsible programs but being able to fund them accordingly in a manner that we can afford.

They go on to say:

"Although there is much in the majority report which we support and for which we can take credit, as for example, proposed class sizes for junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten" -- I believe that they should be just that, by the way, proposed class sizes; they never should be mandated by the province, given the responsibilities of local school boards right now -- "the New Democratic Party members of the select committee on education feel obliged to issue a dissenting report for two reasons. The first revolves around the committee's failure to systematically attack the lack of planning by the government in the area of early childhood education. The second concerns the need to place existing child care facilities in schools under the direction of the Ministry of Education."

It really makes me very nervous to think that in Bill 4 we're beginning to do just that, because I don't believe that we should have child care facilities in schools under the direction of the Ministry of Education. Surely the minister doesn't really mean that the education dollar is now going to have to pay for child care and, if he does, that is definitely worthy of public consultation.

Secondly, I'd like to say that, if indeed the two members of the time were attacking the government of the day with regard to planning, this government is very much at fault in that regard. I can say that, I think, with some authority as a critic because it was just now brought to my attention, towards the end of last week, that this would happen. I don't remember any public discussion on whether or not child care should be the prerogative or the responsibility of the Minister of Education or the Minister of Community and Social Services. I think that would have been a very worthy debate. I'm encouraging, through my comments today, that we refer this to the standing committee on social development of this Legislative Assembly so that we can have proper debate.

I'm going to read on in this report, in this dissenting opinion:

"The greatest demand for child care spaces comes from large urban areas which already pay the greatest percentage of their educational costs." They were talking at the time with regard to Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Ottawa.

"If the province were to expand traditional, community-based child care options in those centres it would have to pay about half of the costs, whereas with the junior kindergarten expansion approval, it pays virtually nothing."

Very clearly at least two members of the NDP, at that time in opposition, really felt that this burden ought to be passed on, by virtue of the Ministry of Education's jurisdiction, to the local taxpayers. I would suggest that isn't a direction we ought to be moving in at this time, certainly given the promise of the government that it would restore the funding of education to 60% of the cost to be borne by the province of Ontario.

I personally have never given a number at any time that I've been a member of this House or even before, because I never really did understand the best way to pay for education, nor all of the implications of the different commissions that have looked at it. It's something our party is looking seriously at right now, and I can tell you that it's not an easy question. But I know one thing and that is that local taxpayers should not be paying a larger burden of the cost.

It would be so refreshing if we had a government that looked firstly at young children, at their needs, at the program, and then decided who ought to fund it. Clearly we're getting mixed messages from this government, if this is a stopgap solution to the challenge of providing early childhood education and/or child care, obviously beginning in the Education Act as it is now, certainly supports the minister's position in his previous positions as a member of the select committee on education.

They go on, these two members, to say that, "The select committee, at our insistence, has recommended student-teacher ratios of 16 to 1 and 18 to 1 for junior and senior kindergarten respectively."

All I can say to that is, if indeed this government is going to be looking at changes to the Day Nurseries Act, I should remind it that in that act 3- and 4-year-olds are cared for in our child care centres across the province of Ontario with ratios mandated at 8 to 1. So either the two members at the time didn't have that information or they thought that more children, 3- and 4-year-old children, could be in fact cared for with ratios of 16 to 1.

It was always fun when I was in opposition to the Minister of Community and Social Services of the Liberal government as I would remind Mr Sweeney that I would like to have seen larger ratios for school-age children because in fact that ratio was not defined in the act and at the time it wasn't clarified in any way, so certainly the regional and area offices of the Ministry of Community and Social Services were still looking at 8 to 1 ratios for children under the age of 12, which, of course, for people who are caring for children in their homes wasn't a very sensible number.

Most of us know all about 10- and 12-year-olds and I think there are 10- and 11-year-olds and we are able to care for more than that in our homes. That one hasn't been dealt with yet. I've been down here for five years and we haven't looked at changes to the Day Nurseries Act, certainly since I've been here.

Moving back on to this whole area, which is particularly confusing, given that we read the leaked document to the cabinet, now we see this in the legislation in Bill 4, we're not particularly clear on what the minister really wants to do.

I'd also like to spend some time on the special education programs that are mentioned and with some discussion on the former Bill 37. It's unfortunate that the government decided to include the special education amendments in with the other items in this omnibus bill. We had clear consultation before Christmas with groups that were concerned about Bill 37, and they indicated that there were a variety of concerns with regard to that particular piece of legislation. We haven't heard from the interest groups, but we now know these amendments will no longer get the attention they deserve unless we are able to refer this bill to committee.

1600

We believe that all children who would benefit from integration should be provided with the opportunity of being integrated. Certainly, it would be my position and that of my caucus. However, we feel that a number of concerns need to be addressed to make the integration option successful.

First, I'd like to say that the government must commit to maintaining a range of special education options, including segregation in provincial schools, so that parents can choose the optimal place for their children. As children gain in knowledge, as they gain in life experiences and certainly as they become older, they ought to have an opportunity, they and their families, to make choices around their placement. I now am talking about not only children of the early years, ages 3 to 10 or 12 in our elementary schools, but children in their secondary years and beyond. Especially young people who even go beyond the legal age for secondary school in our province ought to be considered for placements that are either segregated or integrated into institutions in our society today, especially as those institutions become part of our communities.

We of course need a lot of help in this regard, both from the private sector and from volunteers, because members of our society ought to have the same opportunities as everybody else.

But if we're going to provide all these opportunities and we are going to provide parents with a choice, then governments must provide the provincial resources to support programs, and this is extremely important. I would like to underline this to the minister. The worst thing that people can do, especially governments, is to raise the expectations of families, to get programs in place for a very short period of time and then to withdraw them when families have come to rely on them. So if the ministry is making it mandatory for boards to offer these programs with this bill, these special programs which of course we do support, then they also must provide the dollars. The local taxpayer, I will underline again, cannot afford to pick up the cost.

An interesting quote which I think the minister may enjoy and I'm going to quote right now: "The NDP opposes the Liberals passing the buck to the municipal level. A New Democratic government would provide 100% provincial funding for appropriate specialist staff. This would ensure that hard-to-serve students have an equal opportunity to reach their potential regardless of the strength of the local municipal taxation base."

I think most of us would recognize that that quote took place probably just before the last election. I think the government should be reminded of its intent at that time and be asked to explain why it's making mandatory legislation here and it's not also, at the same time, showing where the money will come from to support the programs, because to this date the government has not committed any additional resources to keep its promise.

I think now, just two and a half years after their election, we are experiencing unprecedented budgetary restraints at school board levels, and they have resulted in cuts to the very programs that we have worked very hard to build in the province of Ontario, especially subsequent to the passage of the old Bill 82 under the Conservative government, where in fact we're looking at school boards that have been able to plan carefully and to program carefully for our very special students. We now see cuts in the numbers of teachers' aides, in speech pathologists and other specialists that are needed to support an integrated program.

So if we are looking at Bill 4 and we are looking at all of the issues in there and we are looking at new programs, I should say we should also be looking at the minister's plan to support these programs with the kind of funding that they not only need but deserve.

There was a document -- it was called a Consultation Paper on the Integration of Exceptional Pupils -- worthy of everyone's perusal -- published by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. It proposed to review a long list of educational issues.

At the same time that the public consultation process is supposed to be taking place, the Minister of Education is stating that he needs to proceed with full integration of physically and mentally challenged students into all schools, a process which would not only require substantial alterations and improvements to many schools just to be physically possible but would also require time for teacher retraining, curriculum revision and materials to be developed that have to be properly done, all at this time when boards of education capital budgets are already stretched to the limit simply to provide for the regular maintenance of existing facilities and when no progress has been established to prepare teachers for major changes in the teaching environment.

This is just one message, I think, by our secondary school teachers where we're talking about integration and exceptional pupils, and I think their concerns are worthy of very serious consideration by the government.

At the same time, I should add myself that as this government has promised that it would go out on a major consultation around education, I think perhaps it might be very responsible of the minister to include some of these issues for public consultation.

The Ontario Public School Boards Association is asking a number of questions, and before any decisions are made it's suggesting that these questions be answered with regard to full implementation of the integration option by school boards. How should "integration" be defined? These are their questions. To some, integration means full inclusion of exceptional pupils in regular classrooms and neighbourhood schools. For some, integration also means that the exceptional child would participate in the regular school curriculum. For others, they expect that integration will provide opportunities for students with special needs to interact with other children their own age but that these children will have an individualized program planned for instruction.

These are the options that the public are wondering about. They all have to be addressed. It's not easy, I understand, to plan for special education with regard to our system, but I do know that these are the kind of questions that are going to be asked when we discuss the removal of references to "trainable retarded child" and "trainable retarded pupil," which are sections 8, 11(2), 13, 17, 19, 20, 26, 31, 33 and 49. These are the kinds of questions that will have to be answered.

What is meant by "local community school or classroom"? Is it anticipated that all schools will be equipped to offer the integration option or only certain schools within the jurisdiction of the school board? Are there conditions placed on both the school board and the pupil with regard to the integration option or is this option to be available to any exceptional pupil where the parents request it? Whose needs are to be given primacy: the needs of the pupil, the needs of the parent or the needs of the community?

Finally, on this whole issue there must be a recognition on the part of both school boards and the government that additional resources, both financial and personnel, time and resources for in-service training for teachers, must be provided before any programs can be implemented.

1610

So when on May 28, 1991, the minister stated that the integration of exceptional pupils into local community classrooms should be the norm in Ontario wherever possible when such a placement meets the pupil's needs and when it is according to parental choice, we were also made aware that the minister confirmed that the provincial schools -- schools for the deaf in Belleville, London and Milton and a school for the blind in Brantford -- will continue to be an option for special education, and we applaud that. It should also be noted that the ministry is considering rationalizing services for the deaf and may close the Sir James Whitney School in Belleville. Therefore, a discussion paper was released in January 1992 with a response deadline of June 15, 1992.

The observations I've just read into the record were with regard to the September 1993 deadline. Originally it had been announced for September 1992. So we still have some time for the minister to consider the questions raised in that instance by the Ontario Public School Boards Association, and further, questions by the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association, where they said that they applauded the statement of May 28, 1991, by the Honourable Marion Boyd on the inclusion of exceptional pupils at the local level, and they said, "Transition funding would ease the financial burden of schools who are moved from segregated programs to inclusion." This is the transition funding we're talking about. "The Ministry of Education must provide sufficient funds for school boards to completely educate special-needs children." So that statement by my colleague and member for London Centre was obviously well received by the OSSTA and others.

I told you, Mr Speaker, that there are many issues in this legislation, and I would like to just underline the issues that we will be addressing during the committee hearings. There are a number of them.

The definition section with regard to "commercial assessment" and "residential and farm assessment" in the Education Act will apply to the County of Oxford Act, the District Municipality of Muskoka Act, the Municipal Act and the Regional Municipalities Act. We'll be looking for the minister to make remarks on that first issue and the definition.

Similarly, we'll look at the second issue and expect him to give us his opinion on that, and that's with regard to -- this is the Bill 165 corollary amendment -- telephone and telegraph levies, another section of the Municipal Act.

The other issue, of course, that hasn't been addressed yet but we expect the minister to clarify is with regard to the assessment update in the District Municipality of Muskoka Act and the fact that it will be delayed for one year. It's our intent that we don't want to spend a lot of time on this, because in fact we support it.

With regard to what we would consider a fourth issue, the removal of the terms "trainable retarded children" and "trainable retarded pupils," we would support as changes to the Education Act, and I've talked a little bit about integration and the responses with regard to the trustee associations and the teachers' federation.

With regard to the school boundaries, we would like the opportunity to ask the minister more questions with regard to section 9. I think the parliamentary assistant addressed that in his comments today.

The sixth issue in the act that we would like the opportunity to talk to the minister about is with regard to testing, where this bill would authorize the minister to require school boards and inspected private schools to participate in provincial reviews. I find that extraordinary, but I applaud it. Some school boards and private schools have resisted participation in the OAC visual arts examination review. Voluntary compliance has resulted in a participation rate of approximately 80%, but the minister lacks specific authority to require full participation. Therefore, it's our understanding that the bill will expand and give the minister the kind of authority that he or she needs.

OPSBA, on Bill 125, because this was the old Bill 125, supported the amendment "on condition that there is a clearly defined process developed in consultation with all education stakeholders for the designing and conducting of these reviews. Clarification of the intent of this amendment in relation to the recently announced" -- at the time they made their comments -- "provincial Benchmarks project is required. The program is to begin in the fall of 1995 and will test grades 3, 6 and 9 students' performance against a provincial standard." We would like the opportunity to discuss that, and the committee would be the appropriate place.

"Clarification of the role of the various members of the education community in providing advice to the project is also required in light of the recent disbandment of the Provincial Advisory Committee on Evaluation Policies and Practices (PACEPP), which provided advice to the minister on matters of evaluation and assessment," and we would like to have the minister comment on those concerns as put forward by the Ontario Public School Boards Association.

With regard to what we would consider the seventh issue, the authority to pay out-of-country education costs, section 10, which is new and, yes, supposedly a response to our questions of the past: This is related to the removal of the hard-to-serve provisions, special education. In order to deal with pupils identified as hard-to-serve before the section is repealed, Ontario will pay the costs of a placement for a school year in which legislation comes into force for a pupil who by June 2, 1992, was found to be hard to serve.

We also understand that the bill authorizes the minister to pay towards out-of-country education costs associated with pupils who require medical care and treatment outside of Ontario, when approved by the Ontario health insurance plan. I would like the opportunity to speak more fully to that some time and perhaps ask questions and give the minister more information during the committee hearings, because I personally have had some experience in that regard.

We know that currently the minister only has the authority to allocate money to school boards, and I believe that the former Minister of Health was probably extremely -- what should I say? -- aggressive in trying to get this issue dealt with. Perhaps this is where the government felt it best could be dealt with. I'm curious to see, again, why that should be under the Ministry of Education's jurisdiction, but it's only a matter of further clarification so that we, of course, can support the intent of that part of the legislation.

The eighth issue was the use of American sign language, a number of sections of this bill. Of course, it was our privilege today to have a bill introduced by a parliamentary assistant using American sign language, which I think has been the privilege and pleasure of this Legislative Assembly. We're all amazed at his energy and his dedication and his role modelling on behalf of so many young people. Certainly I can say personally that the member has given many people hope, and that's a wonderful example. If in fact we're looking at role modelling in government, the member for York East is a very positive one, and I appreciated the comments he made today. I'll be interested in reading them later on in the Hansards.

Of course, we're looking at approximately 2,300 deaf and hard-of-hearing students in Ontario's schools, and we know that we want them to have every opportunity. I would be really interested in having answers to questions that we have received with regard to this section. If we can't get it in committee, which I expect we will, perhaps we'll have to deal with it in a different way.

But I can only say that this Legislative Assembly has been criticized today with regard to the way in which it operates, and there are certain members who don't feel we're particularly responsive to being open and consultative in the eyes of the public we serve. This bill will provide a wonderful opportunity, as we have all been looking forward to, to get some of these serious questions answered.

Perhaps over a period of time we could devise an agenda so that people's time will be treated with respect, and perhaps we could make the best use of a short period of time to get some good information for all members of the Legislative Assembly who would take the opportunity to be there.

Special education programs in Metropolitan Toronto: We understand that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board did establish a task force in 1987 and that the task force recommended in June 1988 that area boards assume the responsibility from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board for program delivery and that the area boards have already taken over this role. It is expected that the divestment will be complete by January 1, 1995. The divestment of these programs and services involves a transfer of both teaching and non-teaching employees from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board to Toronto area boards of education, and the bill addresses the issues arising from the transfer of these employees.

1620

I know we're speaking at some length this afternoon, but it may save some of us some questions in the future, because when a bill such as this is published, it's not always clear as to the intent of the sections.

With regard to suspensions, we call this issue number 10 within the legislation. I can tell you that the amendments place a limit on the length of suspensions and provide clarification of suspension appeals, and the members should know that there is no maximum fixed period for the suspension of a pupil from school. The amendment would state that "a principal may suspend a pupil not in excess of 20 days."

Currently, there is uncertainty whether the appeal of a suspension to the board stays the suspension. The amendment will clarify that an appeal of the suspension does not stay the suspension, and the right of appeal in cases where the suspension has expired prior to the appeal being heard is for expunging the record only. A school board will be able to establish a committee to deal with suspensions and expulsions.

Don't we wish that some of these things were unnecessary. If everybody was well behaved, we wouldn't have to worry about these kinds of things. If we ourselves could set better examples in this Legislative Assembly, maybe we would worry about less of them, but some days we just don't set the kind of example for our young people.

But because of the demands on society today, we see a government that is having to come forward with this kind of legislation. I can tell you, there are more processes and more pieces of legislation that school boards have to take look at in these times. One just wonders why the cost of education is so exorbitant; you just have to see what we're asking our school boards to be responsible for.

There was a time when you could phone a parent and say, "Your child will stay home from school today," and the parent would say, "You're absolutely right," and work with the school system to solve the problem of the behaviour of the student. Now, more than ever before, we have young people with a lack of the kind of support that is necessary from their families, for a variety of reasons. Some families ought to be spending more time with their children. Others are not able to, for reasons of work, reasons of sickness or health.

For people watching the Legislative Assembly for debate around this bill right now, I looked at suspensions and looked at yet another rule around the Education Act to meet today's society, and all I can say is that if you do one thing today, sit down and talk to your children and spend some time asking them what they want with their lives. For you children who don't know where your parents are -- there used to be ads on TV that said, "Do you know where your children are?" You should perhaps take a look at an ad that says, "Do you know where your parents are?" In today's world, the only way we're going to get ahead in Ontario is to have parents and children working together to support their school systems.

We're going to rely more than ever before on teachers who are dedicated. This bill talks a lot about the necessary training for teachers to deal with special students. I would say that teachers are looking for the support and training to deal with young people who, in many instances, are not getting the support they need at home, the guidance and the restrictions on behaviour that simply should not be allowed. Many of us have witnessed it.

I thought I'd put those comments on the record, as I take a look at the Education Act, which has to be changed once again.

Suspensions: The Ontario Public School Boards Association, when it had the opportunity with regard to Bill 125, commented that it supported "the amendment that an appeal of a suspension does not stay a suspension, but does not support the amendment limiting the maximum amount of time for the suspension to 20 school days, regardless of the reason for suspension. In certain circumstances, and given the seriousness of the offence, a suspension of 20 days is not long enough. Length of suspension should be at the discretion of the local board."

They go on to say that they "do not support the amendment which enables a committee of the board to expel a student without approval of the whole board." These in fact are our elected school board trustees, and the minister is going to have to give them opportunity to speak to this legislation in committee.

The Metropolitan Separate School Board commented. They suggested, "The recommendation to cure the problem is inconsistent with the basic sense of justice that underlies the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. If the appeal does not operate as a stay, it is predictable that with the new 20-day limit to the suspension and the length of time it takes most boards to schedule an appeal, virtually no appeal will ever be able to affect the time of the suspension. The Metropolitan Separate School Board therefore does not support the proposed amendment."

I think I have spoken at length with regard to what we would consider the 11th issue, and that was kindergarten and junior kindergarten. I can only say right now that the costs, of course, at this point in time are to be considered seriously by school boards, and we should know that after spending some $30 million to implement junior kindergarten, the Peel Board of Education decided to cancel the program in April 1992 to save $3.9 million.

You should also know that Brant county has estimated that implementing junior kindergarten will cost $5.8 million in capital and $5 million in annual operating grants and that the province has offered $4.15 in capital grants. The Durham board estimates that junior kindergarten will cost $12.2 million in capital and $7.2 million in annual operating grants. Three thousand students would be added to the system, and the board already has 13,000 students in portable classrooms. Waterloo estimates the cost at $7.4 million over five years, and Wellington estimates that the annual operating cost will be $3 million, with an additional $5 million for capital if the province does not provide capital funding.

I think the issue here is not only the fact that school boards have not asked for these programs, but that the ministry is demanding them and legislating them in spite of the fact that the minister has listened to our first and initial question, and that was, "Please, Mr Minister, would you consider delaying the implementation of the junior kindergarten programs?"

We have always said we should be looking at the appropriate programs for young people, for three-to-five-year-olds. Should they be programs supported by the Education dollar, or should they be programs supported by the Ministry of Community and Social Services dollar? Should they be supported totally by the public dollar, or should they be supported in part by parents? Are programs in schools, operated by school boards, appropriate education programs for an all-day program for three-year-olds? In my view, they're not. Are child care programs for young children for the purpose of socialization or for the purpose of support to a family while parents work appropriately administered by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and appropriately paid for in part, where possible, or in full, where possible, by parents responsible?

My answer would be yes, but no one's asking the public. Now we see, yes, a delay in the implementation date for a program that's being mandated by this government at a time when I've just given you some of the costs that the boards have relayed to us as being a real problem.

I have to say that this new program directive was originally included in the 1989 Liberal throne speech. So this whole child care initiative was started by the Liberals, and in 1989, Bob Nixon allocated $194 million over five years for operating grants and $100 million for related capital projects. However, the cost will not cover the full cost of implementation for the 19 boards without the program, and those were the boards in September 1992. I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, this is a very controversial subject across the province of Ontario.

1630

In March 1992, a little over a year ago, the minister told education stakeholders -- and this was Mr Silipo -- that he was willing to consider alternative proposals. He said that, I believe, in my presence, and he said that the government had set a stipulation that the program must be serviced, I believe, by a certified teacher.

I'm raising that question now for the minister to take a look at because if it has to be a certified teacher and we're looking at early childhood education programs, we're looking at programs that are going to be administered by the Ministry of Education but funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I have to tell you that we have to watch that terminology "certified teacher," because that's one of the issues, who should be teaching or caring for our children. I think it's very important that be discussed in committee.

Again, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association recommended "that in recognition of both space and resource limitations of many boards, the government acknowledge the need for flexibility in both implementation dates and strategies for kindergarten programs. Regardless, until the government is in a position to reinstate the funds allocated for these programs, the deadline for mandatory kindergarten in all school boards should be extended."

The ministry, in its own way, has done just that. However, I would suggest that even since that statement was made by the school boards a year ago, times have changed in the past few weeks and the minister is going to have to really seriously consider listening to these boards, given the new changes and atmosphere in the province.

Our 12th issue was the hard-to-serve pupils. A hard-to-serve pupil is one who is unable to profit from instruction offered by a school board because of a mental handicap or mental and other handicaps. The current provisions of the act outline the procedure for having a pupil declared hard to serve and authorize the placement of these pupils within or outside Ontario at government expense.

The hard-to-serve section was included in the 1980 special education amendments to the Education Act in order to accommodate school boards that did not initially have the capacity to address the needs of severely disabled students, and the Ministry of Education believes that at this time appropriate special education programs are available through schools in Ontario or the provincial schools.

I was a school board trustee for a long time leading up to the passage of that and we knew in the province of Ontario, certainly in at least the 13 years that I was involved, that we had to go a long way to provide our hard-to-serve pupils an education that they deserved.

I will only tell you that the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario said that it is "opposed to eliminating section 35 of the Education Act, 'hard to serve,' without first putting in place a mechanism to protect learning-disabled pupils for whom school boards are unable to provide, or to purchase from other boards, appropriate special education services." They go on to say, "The reality of special education in Ontario these days is that boards across the province have drastically reduced or even eliminated special education classes and support services for those students with learning disabilities that need them."

I'm going to take the opportunity to advise the minister and this government that the implementation of their de-streaming program in the secondary schools -- or if any is even being considered for the elementary schools, they ought to carefully take a look at the intent of the special education amendments to the Education Act of 1980. They ought to carefully consider the research of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and others that support teaching methodologies where young people are expected to be not part of a regular class for at least part of the school day.

Sometimes they should be in contained classes, especially in the early years, for the kinds of educational programs that they deserve and that this province has decided, through very serious research, are good for them, are appropriate. So we should never be looking at total destreaming in our elementary and secondary schools. There are a lot of parents who will use this opportunity, as we look at Bill 4, to come forward and ask questions of the government with regard to not only the hard-to-serve pupil amendments in this act, but their own special education programs as they relate to integration of special students and as they relate to, of course, contained classrooms and special programs that have been proven to be successful, as we deal with not only generally disabled young people but specifically disabled young people.

Continuing education, our 13th issue, makes the admission requirements for regular day school and credit continuing education courses similar. Again, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association comments that it does support the amendment, but it stresses that schools must have some discretion about the appropriate placement of adults.

I'm not going to put specific comments with regard to what we would consider the 14th issue, auditors, on the record. I'll save that opportunity for when we take a look at the clause-by-clause section of the bill.

The entitlement to vote is with regard to the declaration of Canadian citizenship.

The Municipal Statue Law Amendment Act: I won't talk in detail about that.

The other issue with regard to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs: We'll leave that for the moment.

Open access: I think I can only say here that clause 143(1)(a) of the Education Act duplicates the right of open access that is available under section 144(2) of the act, and this redundant provision is removed.

If we want to get into some of those sections, I can say it is housekeeping, and for the pupils to whom section 143 will continue to apply, the system of payment transfers from Roman Catholic school boards to public school boards will be replaced by individual fee payments by the Roman Catholic boards, and the Ontario Public School Boards' Association supports this amendment.

This is an example of what the parliamentary assistant referred to as housekeeping and we would agree with him. But I have to say that even he, I think, would agree with the statements that we've made today with regard to some of the other issues around special education, junior kindergarten, child care in school and others.

The sexual assault subsection requires school boards to notify the minister when teachers are convicted (a) of criminal offences involving sexual misconduct with children; or (b) of other criminal offences which would on reasonable and probable grounds appear to place pupils at risk. It's common sense; unfortunately, we have to put it in a piece of legislation. That's not unlike the requirement that teachers report sexual and physical abuse, and so we're just being consistent with former legislation with regard to responsibility around criminal offences, sexual misconduct, with regard to teachers.

Isn't it a shame that we even have to consider such a clause, given the times and the information and the public education we have with regard to our responsibility in our schools to protect our young people and to educate them and provide them with the knowledge and training they'll need to be contributing citizens to our society.

I've talked about the child care centres. We have a section here on textbook deposits. I should, on that one, say that the authority for school boards to require a nominal deposit for textbooks provided to pupils enrolled in a continuing education course in which a credit towards a secondary school diploma may be earned -- school boards may be concerned about providing textbooks to students enrolled in continuing education programs because they may reside in another jurisdiction of the school board and may constitute a less stable population than day school pupils.

The Ontario Public School Boards' Association once again commented that they do not support this amendment, which provides boards with the authority to require a deposit for textbooks provided to pupils enrolled in a continuing education credit course.

1640

They say that if adult education is to be recognized as a legitimate component of the education system, "then adequate and equitable funding must be guaranteed by the provincial government to provide for textbooks for these programs." Interesting comment, one that the minister may be looking at.

Issue 22 with regard to sick leave credits: I will leave the minister with some questions and I believe that there are a number of problems with the proposed revision. My questions would be as follows.

The province is passing legislation that will increase costs for local school boards. Therefore, what is the rationale for the change? Will it improve the quality of education? Will it be retroactive for employees currently on staff who were not able to transfer credits in the past? The legislation will dissuade boards from hiring experienced personnel. Teachers or custodians with 200 accumulated sick days will carry a liability with them that a board may not want to assume. The legislation creates a hiring bias, in many people's opinions, and since age goes hand in hand with the liability, it is only one short step removed from age discrimination.

The Ontario public school boards' comment under the old Bill 125: "OPSBA does not support the removal of 'intervening employment' from section 158(2), (4) and (6) from the Education Act. This revision would automatically increase school board liability under section 158(1) where a retirement gratuity exists." Those are their comments. They must be considered.

There are comments with regard to disqualification of trustees, with regard to the requirement to appoint a supervisory officer with school boards that have fewer than 2,000 pupils, and the Ontario public school boards in its final comment that I'm going to be quoting from today say this:

"In 1990 OPSBA expressed its concern to the Ministry of Education, on behalf of its northern members, regarding the withdrawal in 1989 of Ministry of Education supervisory services for small northern school boards. Since then, many of these small boards have attempted to negotiate the sharing of supervisory services, but arrangements have not been developed due to financial restrictions and the distances between boards.

"OPSBA urges the government to assist these small boards by providing funding, including travel costs and resource support, to enable the successful implementation of a network of shared supervisory officer positions."

The municipal affairs legislation, also the special education advisory committees: "The provisions of the Education Act respecting special education advisory committees will apply to each section of the Ottawa-Carleton French-language school board." We believe that both these issues are being dealt with under the title of housekeeping.

In conclusion, Bill 4, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education, in my view has far-reaching concerns for the education community. I've only been able to put a few of them on record today. In the interest of the opportunity for us to have questions to the minister, I think we're going to ask, I know we're going to ask that this bill be referred to committee.

I know that the new minister is very busy getting himself acquainted with his new responsibilities. I think he's one of those people we are particularly happy to see in this position because I know he's particularly interested in education and training in Ontario, and so far he has certainly let us believe that he's looking for solutions to the challenges in education today.

He knows that I'm very much looking forward to working with him. This is his first piece of legislation. There are a number of issues we would like the opportunity to discuss. There are a couple that he inherited from the former government, and we didn't have the same kinds of opportunities to look at the issues surrounding early childhood education, child care and certainly special education that we would have liked.

Mr Speaker, I'd like to thank you and certainly the parliamentary assistant for his remarks this afternoon. We look forward to working with the government and working with school boards, teacher groups, parents and students to come to some conclusions around the issues I've had the privilege of speaking to this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I should thank the honourable member for her participation. Questions and/or comments, the honourable member for York East.

Mr Malkowski: I appreciate the comments made by the member for London North. Her comments are useful for us to consider here in standing committee on social development. However, I would like to respond to two things: one, child care, and also the definition of "integration."

Firstly, under child care: Of course child care in schools will not be under the direction of the Ministry of Education. Schools will hold the licences under the Day Nurseries Act, which is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, because during the child care consultation conducted by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, some school boards did request that the Education Act be amended to permit them to hold licences to operate child care centres.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the definition of "integration." I'd like to clarify that integration of course includes school boards, provincial schools, demonstration schools, self-contained classes that are provided by -- it's appropriate education to students to assist them to have access to a learning environment and also to allow students to participate fully and effectively as society becomes more integrated.

I look forward to the considerations of the comments by the member for London North. We will certainly take those into consideration.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for London North has two minutes in response.

Mrs Cunningham: Just to thank the parliamentary assistant and the member for York East for his clarification. He probably found it quite interesting that the school boards were asking that they be able to hold the licences, and I think it's a practical application of everyday life when the Liberal government moved to include in new school buildings child care facilities. It certainly was, I know, their intent at the time that those facilities be administered by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Practically speaking, and surprisingly, I think, to the government of the day and now to communities, in many of those facilities there didn't seem to be either non-profit operators that would come forward in fact to get those school programs, those early childhood programs, those day care programs going, which really surprised us across the province.

Secondly, in many instances, even where they did, especially in our adult day schools, it really did become a great deal of work for the Ministry of Education people. I'm now talking about vice-principals and administrators in schools. So I think this is a very interesting request on behalf of school boards.

In the end, I'm very happy that in fact if it is the Ministry of Community and Social Services who will be responsible not only for the administration but the funding, I'm certain that would be the kind of information school boards would be relieved to hear. Thank you for the clarification.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? We now revert back to the official opposition, the second reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It's a pleasure for me to rise and join in the debate on Bill 4. I too would like to start off by commending our colleague the honourable member for York East for his introduction of the bill. As my colleague the member for London North noted, it's fitting that, as one of the amendments in the bill relates to American sign language, he would introduce the amendments in American sign language.

As we look at some of the changes we've brought to the education system over the last number of years in terms of dealing with languages, it is quite correct and fitting -- and I know from my own personal experience members in my broader family for whom American sign language is their way of communicating. I think, as with so many things that happen in this Legislature, there is not only reality to the fact that the member for York East is here with us and used ASL in introducing the bill, but there's also a symbolism to it and, again, as the member for London North mentioned, the element of role model. I think that is very important and that adds something that is a little different to our normal debates and procedures here in the House.

1650

I also would want to commend our colleague from London North for her presentation, which as always was extremely thorough and covered all of the various aspects of the bill. I think she has placed a number of questions that I have as well, and while I don't want to reiterate all of those, there are a number of areas that I'm going to return to and to raise some issues and questions that I think are important for us in dealing with this particular bill.

While I understand the reason why the government took two of the old bills and moved them together into Bill 4, I share with the member for London North the recognition that while parts of Bill 4 are housekeeping, parts of the bill are really dealing with some fairly fundamental issues, and for that reason I think it is important that the bill go to committee; I think we want to deal with it in good fashion, but there are a number of questions that I think would be better asked and shared within the committee context, and we would be supportive of that.

I want to make a couple of general comments at the beginning about what we're doing. It's been mentioned that this is the first bill brought forward by the new minister. I would also want to note that we're pleased to see him and hope he enjoys his tenure as Minister of Education and Training, but not only is it his first bill; it's also the first bill that we're dealing with in the education area since last Friday.

I think it's important that we all recognize what last Friday means or ought to mean as we look at legislation of any kind or indeed any government directive that is going to have an impact on school boards or, for that matter, municipalities, hospitals and the like; but here we're talking about school boards.

There were two documents released last week by the government, one on expenditure controls and one on jobs and services -- the social contract, as it's called. We have to recognize that the impact, if those two documents in fact are implemented, will remove from the school sector some $290 million of expenditure control and some $520 million in terms of salaries.

The point is simply that in the education sector, which already feels itself under a great deal of pressure, this is going to add other pressures. I think if ever we were to ask ourselves the question of how is it that at this level, the provincial level, we can be sending on programs to school boards without appropriate funding, and all governments have been guilty of this. But we have to examine very carefully and very closely any initiative that we take from now on because that reality is a very real one and it's not that school boards or municipalities or hospitals, any more than any individual, want to argue against the government's attempts to bring greater restraint to public sector expenditure, but we have to look very carefully at what those constraints are in terms of what they do for, in this case, school board budgets and all of the various programs that they are mandated to implement. How do they do that with this new reality and how do we help them, here at Queen's Park, to make sure that the most important programs are in fact implemented and brought to fruition?

So, clearly, the first thing then is that we all recognize, as members of this Legislature, as those active in the education field, that we are going to be in for a period of some years where there will not be a great deal of new money, if any new money. I think we have to recognize that the $14 billion in the elementary and secondary systems ought to be enough to meet our needs, but we're going to have to be very careful in looking at a number of things that indeed are in this bill, whether we can afford them, if we want them, how we can go about ensuring that the funding is there.

So I think that is the first point that we have to make, that there is a new fiscal, financial reality out there and we, as legislators, must take that into account when we look at a lot of things that we would like to see implemented at the local level but where we're going to have to be very strict in terms of the priorities and the importance to make sure that the money flows with any mandate to carry out those programs and that those, by and large, are programs that the public has said it wants to see implemented.

With that being said then, and in looking at the bill itself, it seems to me that while there are many issues -- as the member for London North enumerated, over 20 that are dealt with -- there are some that in terms of public policy are particularly important, where we need to have, I think, some good discussion and debate.

The first point that I want to turn to is the question of kindergarten and junior kindergarten. We know that there are some 18 or 19 school boards that are currently not offering a junior kindergarten, and when one looks at the list, most of those boards are in the fast-growth areas, ones that are experiencing tremendous pressures and, therefore, boards that are experiencing a great deal of financial pressure.

I think that it is important, in terms of the government's amendment, to note, as it has noted, that it will be bringing in regulations so that boards would have to begin implementing junior kindergarten programs August 31, 1994, but not have to have those implemented until 1997. That being said, we have to look very carefully at how that is going to be done, and I think we are going to have to be very cognizant of continuing financial pressure in terms of whether even the 1997 date is a realistic one.

Now all of this, I think, needs to be said within the context that as a member of the government of the day that brought in junior kindergarten, I believe the literature that is out there, the experience that we've had with kindergarten and with junior kindergarten demonstrates clearly that it is very, very valuable in creating a more even playing field for young children; that as we look today, knowing that increasingly there are kids coming into the education system who, through no fault of their own, are simply not at the same level as so many kids from other families, we've got to try to find ways of ensuring that they're open to learning, that they're going to be able to learn and to learn at an early age.

Junior kindergarten is not the only answer to that, and I want to make some comments with respect to child care, but clearly junior kindergarten can play a very important role in doing that. I, in travelling around the province, have had the opportunity to visit a number of junior kindergarten programs where I have seen clear evidence of how young people have been helped by the fact that they are able to participate in those programs and to receive -- I guess really what it is is the stimulation that those programs have offered to those young people in terms of their ability to learn. So I think that's something that, as a party, we have always felt is extremely important, and we continue to support that principle.

What we've got to do now, I think, working with our partners from the boards, both the separate and the public boards, is in particular with those who have not begun to implement or are not in a position to implement, and even some who've started but who have experienced very severe financial problems, we have to be able to sit down with them to find a way of ensuring that junior kindergarten programs can be offered. I think the real test here is to be looking at priorities: What are the kinds of things we're doing that perhaps don't need to be done, that we can perhaps put to the side so that junior kindergarten programs can become a reality? But we can only do that if we make sure, in terms of the various grants and so on, that we are able to fund those programs, to ensure that the space is available, whatever capital costs are required, and then the ongoing operating costs.

Certainly, in looking at the experiences of a number of school boards today in trying to develop junior kindergarten programs, those elements of space and cost are producing tremendous problems, and I think we have to recognize, whether it's as a member of the former government or this, that we have the responsibility here, where we believe that this is an important provincial initiative, to make sure those programs are adequately funded. I think the only way we do that is to really sit down in meaningful discussion with both the public school boards and the separate school boards and recognize those costs and make sure that they happen.

1700

If, for example, one looks at the expenditure control package the government put out last Friday, there was one that related to cash flow to school boards. I want to read it into the record, because it is one of those parts of their program which is really going to cause problems, particularly to poorer and smaller boards. What the government is saying is, "Beginning in 1994, payments to school boards in the first three months of the calendar year will be reduced from 17% to 14.5% of their annual entitlement." It goes on to say, "This will not reduce the boards' total annual entitlement," but the way in which money will flow to boards in the first three months of their fiscal year, beginning in January 1994, is going to put constraints on those boards in providing all of the programs they want to provide. The only way they're going to be able to make up that money is either by raising taxes, which is for any school board not an approach it wants to take, or by borrowing money, by going into debt, which technically they're not allowed to do but which is a situation many of them find themselves in.

So these have implications. The expenditure constraints have implications for programs which we from the provincial level have said to school boards, "We want you to provide," and I think we have to be very much aware of that. This is a new period of time in terms of the way we're going to be providing those programs, in this case at junior kindergarten level.

We know as well that within this area of junior kindergarten the government is also proposing that under the Day Nurseries Act school boards be allowed to in effect act as operators. I was interested to hear the member for York East commenting that of course that act falls under the Ministry of Community and Social Services and that therefore it is not the Ministry of Education that will be running those programs but that they would be done under the authority of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

We know from the document, the so-called leaked document, that there are proposals whereby the government is looking at that three-to-five age group, and we also know that we haven't had a full debate about early childhood education and about just how we see the links between our child care program and our educational programs.

This leads me to the whole issue of the role of schools and what it is that we see them doing. We know from so many reports -- Children First, which came out in the fall of 1990, the Ontario Child Health Study, programs such as Better Beginnings, Better Futures -- that whatever we can do with young children, both preschool and in the early years of school, that can have a decided impact on their ability to learn.

I think it would have been wise for the government of the day to have taken the Children First document and sent it out to committee for broader discussion. It, in my view, was a very interesting document that raised all kinds of questions around: How do we link together the school, the various ministries of government, not just Education but Health, Community and Social Services, Recreation? How do we bring to play municipal recreation programs and the community at large into the operation of those schools? The question, then, of what role schools should play in the provision of child care, how the community should be involved in that, I think becomes very critical.

The example has been used of the Grey County Board of Education and the proposal it has made, essentially a rural school board area, in looking at how it could combine child care and kindergarten programs in a way that was going to be of benefit to young children. Again, our focus here is on young children.

I think we have to be much more flexible in looking at those kinds of programs, and I would reiterate again what we have been saying for some time, that in the provision of child care, we really do focus on those programs being community-based and allowing for the greatest amount of parental choice. I think that means that some of those programs are going to be run by private day care operators, some are going to be run by municipalities and some are going to be run by non-profit, and that this choice is healthy within our system.

I think within that context there is a role whereby a school may hold the licence for a day care centre, but it must not be a kind of back door through which we move whereby the Ministry of Education ultimately becomes responsible for child care. At least we mustn't do that without a very full public debate, because I don't think there's a consensus out there at all within the public as to how we see education proceeding for that younger group, the three-to-five-year-olds. We must be very, very careful, I think, to ensure parental choice and to ensure flexibility.

So I think we want to ask questions of the minister and of the ministry around how they see the development of junior kindergarten, kindergarten and child care in general, because that is not an area where, to this date, the government has really set out, in a public sense, where it is that it wants to go, at least in an official sense. We've seen the document that went to cabinet, we've read other documents in which former members of the opposition who are now in cabinet or in the government have expressed different views about how they want to see it being done, but we haven't had that debate with any degree of certainty that this is where the government wants to go.

That is why in this bill, while I think the minister was sensible in saying, "Look, we've got to build in more flexibility around the implementation of junior kindergarten," I think we need a much clearer sense from a policy point of view of just where we're going with regard to junior kindergarten and with respect to child care. Those are certainly areas that we would want to explore in the discussions in committee.

I want to move on to the area of special education. In approximately a year that I spent as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, I don't think there was an issue that brought about more emotion or feeling than when one sat down to discuss with parental groups, with individual parents, about the kind of education they wanted their youngsters to receive. In many cases, these were young people with severe disabilities. Clearly, for them the question was not, "Well, look, can we sit down and work this out and maybe in five years we'll come up with a good program?" because for them, within five years, that would be too late. There were several individuals in York region during the period that we were in government who were going through the courts around the kind of education they wanted to receive.

When we look at what we are trying to do with respect to special education, as we do with child care, again I think we want to provide flexibility and we want to provide parental choice. I was here on staff at the time of the debate on what was called Bill 82, I think, which was the original special education bill, and there was a lot of discussion among members on all sides of the House around what would be the ideal situation. Clearly, the ideal is to integrate each child as fully as possible into the classroom, but that will still mean there will be a need for some flexibility and for some special programming and special supports.

1710

Again, this bill touches on certain elements of special education, but it doesn't get into a whole series of areas that those out in the public who are involved with -- whether it's the association for bright children, the association for children with Down syndrome or the association for learning disabilities, just to provide a range of the groups and the concerns that are out there, there is a tremendous amount of frustration that those people have felt in not being able to come before a properly constituted legislative body and talk about special education and what they would like to see.

It had been my understanding that the government -- what was originally Bill 37, and the elements of that bill have been wrapped up and placed within Bill 4, but in addition, later this year, we would be looking at another piece of legislation making more fundamental change to the special education area, in particular dealing with the whole question around how the IPRC, the individual placement of students, would work.

As many members know, because we often get these concerns expressed in our communities, there's a committee that determines, if there is a child with special needs, what kind of program he or she is going to get, and parents have been concerned that the process has been weighted on the side of the board or on the side of bureaucracy. Even with the best will in the world, and there are some marvellous people within school boards who work in this area, there has been difficulty faced by many parents in getting what they believe to be the appropriate program.

One of the recommendations that's been made is that the three-person committee that would be constituted to determine the program for a young person, in future would be made up of someone selected by the parents, someone by the board and then they would choose a third party. I think that would be a very welcome change and one that people want to see.

I understand that what the government is looking at is not specifically another piece of legislation, but it is in the process of developing a policy memorandum or directive. Mr Speaker, I think, will remember that there was a consultation on integration launched in, I believe, 1991. A report was brought in. It was a pretty thorough review. I think there were something like 1,600 individuals and groups that participated in answering questions around special education.

It's interesting: That report has never been made public. I gather it has been used internally within the ministry, but it's never been made public and the government's own advisory council on special education has said, "Look, we think it is important that the document be made public, because it would show us the opinions of people from across the province who are dealing with the special education needs on a daily basis." I would frankly urge the government to make it public.

One of the conclusions I understand is in that document is that some 90% of parents responding said they wanted to see a continuum of choice based on parental decision. I think we have to really remember that our goal and our objective is to integrate each child as fully as is possible, but within that there remains a continuum of choice so there can be specialized programs for young people who may need, in different settings and in different ways, those specialized programs. But we need to know and the people who participated in the consultation need to know what was said and what the range of opinion was.

In wanting to explore this question around exactly where the government is going and what this policy memorandum might contain, the concern, I think, as one can recognize, is that if you have a policy memorandum, that doesn't come before the Legislature.

One of the sort of strange things about a lot of what we do here is that there are some areas where there's a lot of legislation, and so there's a lot of debate in this House. The education field is not necessarily one of those where there is a lot of legislation, so it is not always easy to engage in a real and meaningful debate about where it is we want to go. For example, this year, in this session, this is the only bill that we're going to be dealing with on education, and some of these issues and points really have to be brought up within this context or they're not going to be set out as fully, as we would like, because both question period and statements really don't allow for that kind of exchange.

I think what I want to know and what different groups within the special education field have talked to me about is, in more specific terms: How does the government plan to move forward with its proposals around integration? What kind of flexibility will be there? Will parents be fully consulted?

One of the concerns has been that every second year, under one of the regulations of the ministry, there's supposed to be a detailed review in each board of the special education programs that it has. The government's own advisory council has said that it's not happy with the way that process has been working, that in many cases the reviews are not adequate and don't really meet the needs of the parents within that area.

When, for example, the association for learning disabilities was talking with me and with others about Bill 37 -- again, the components of which are now in Bill 4 -- they were saying, "We don't want you to deal with the hard-to-serve issue until we've had a chance to deal with some of these other issues," that they see as linked, and in particular, they argue that the placement, the IPRC, that issue, is linked.

I think we need to review that with the minister in committee so that the people who are going to be most affected by any of these changes will be able to have their say. That's why things like under the Metro Toronto act where they're changing the way in which those programs are being provided -- they're going to be divested from the Metropolitan public board to the individual boards in Scarborough, Etobicoke and so on.

Those are things which, in the main, have been worked out and where we have no quarrel, but I think where we're at right now is that we really have not had a good, solid public debate around the place of special education programs within our school system. What does that mean? What are going to be the rights that parents have to ensure that wherever they live in the province, there's a certain level of education that they know they will be able to get for those young people?

We have to continue to remind ourselves of what happened last Friday. Whatever it is we then evolve, we've got to make sure that we can pay for it and that the resources that are going to be necessary to have those programs are in fact in hand.

I think every member who has ever visited a school and gone into a classroom and seen young children with a variety of disabilities within that regular classroom, recognizes immediately the benefits that flow both ways, not simply the benefit for the child with the disability but for the whole class, because that's part of life, that's part of the reality, and I think especially at the elementary level provides a tremendous lesson for young people about differences and about how no matter what those differences are, each one of us has a potential that we want to reach.

I think our role, as we look at this legislation, is saying, what will the impact be of this legislation, not just on the school boards, as important as that is, but more particularly, what will its impact be in the classroom where the young children, where the students are, and how do we make sure that works as effectively as it possibly can.

1720

Now, continuing with the whole area of special education, there are a couple of further points that I want to make. In a letter to the former Minister of Education, the Honourable Tony Silipo, in November of last year the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law sent a letter to the minister regarding the hard-to-serve provisions which are part of Bill 4 and part of the special education provision. It's a short letter but one which I'd like to read into the record because I think, again, it expresses a view that we need to hear in this Legislature and that needs to be part of the debate. It begins:

"Dear Mr Minister:

"Further to our letter of June 9, 1992, we are writing to reiterate our concerns about your proposed retroactive repeal of the 'hard to serve' provisions of the Education Act."

This was in the then Bill 37 but reappears in Bill 4, which we have today.

"We feel that this matter should be sent to committee and not slipped through the Legislature without discussion."

As an aside, I think we will see this before a committee. Certainly both the opposition parties are requesting that.

"The substantive rights of students are affected and the retroactive nature of the legislation appears to be directed specifically at our clients and other individuals who are attempting to utilize the 'hard to serve' process, yet we understand from other interested organizations that one of the reasons given for repealing the 'hard to serve' provisions continues to be the fact that they are 'rarely used.' We wish to point out that the legislation was designed for the exceptional case and that the fact that it is 'rarely used' is therefore an appropriate consequence.

"We wish to remind the minister of the undertaking of his predecessor" -- we're now into the third minister, so here we are talking about Minister Silipo -- "Marion Boyd that she would not repeal the legislation without putting a mechanism in its place.

"We have suggested alternatives to the 'hard to serve' process and we are and have been open to consult with you at any time. Unfortunately, you have not seen fit to respond to our correspondence of this summer or previous correspondence.

"We would appreciate your immediate response and attention to this matter and would ask that when the proposed repeal of the 'hard to serve' provisions comes before the House, you insist that it go to committee for fair and proper consultation."

That's signed by the group Justice for Children and Youth.

I read that into the record because there are a number of groups out that which have concerns, which feel that if the hard-to-serve provision is removed without other changes coming into place, like the change to the placement committee, children are going to suffer. I think we need to explore that and we need to get a clearer sense of where the government is going.

The next point that I want to make in terms of special education relates to the government's own Advisory Council on Special Education. You know, in government we create different councils at different times, and I think we have to recognize that there are some which, after a certain period of time, perhaps no longer have a usefulness and we decide to make some changes.

It was always my feeling, in the year that I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, that one of the most important councils that we had was indeed the special education advisory council, because what it did was bring together in one body representatives of a very broad number of groups, parents and others, who came together to look at the education provisions that were currently at play in the province and what were the changes that were needed to be made.

Whether you were a person with a hearing problem perhaps or a visual impairment or you were a bright child, whatever your exceptionality, they would be looking at legislation and a program to make sure that in the various schools around the province we could offer full programs to those young people with disabilities.

My sense is that the government has not been listening to this council in the way that it could. When one looks at its interim report in December 1992, just a few short months ago, and its recommendations -- I'd like to note and enter some into the record -- again, I think it's a reason why we need to take Bill 4 into committee so that we can explore some of these questions, not only in the context of Bill 4 itself, but also where's that going to lead us, where's the vision, what is the plan down the road.

The first point I would make in their report is that the council was convened in September 1992, and I'm quoting, "after a hiatus of almost two years." So for the first two years of the mandate of the present government, the council was not functioning, and I think that really is too bad, as I've mentioned.

When they get into their recommendations, a number of them really speak to trying to make sure that the minister, the parliamentary assistant, senior officials of the ministry participate with them in a very active way, look at their recommendations, and they even note that some of the reports that they prepared, they had not received official responses.

Again, I think these are people who are all doing other things, they have full lives to lead, and if we are asking them to serve in a voluntary capacity on a number of these councils, it's important that we listen to them and that we hear the arguments they make with respect to special education.

One of their recommendations, for example, is that future legislative initiatives such as this one be discussed with council, so that they can assist in terms of how those legislative documents would go forward. They note that they're pleased with a number of things that have been happening, but they want to make sure in terms of special education legislation, in particular the view that there be a continuum of choices, that there be flexibility, that that be maintained, that from their discussions with all the different groups who are part of their group, one of the biggest problems is making sure that that element of parental choice is there.

So what we would be seeking here in terms of the special education provisions is to get a sense from the minister, in addition to the changes around the Metropolitan Toronto act and the changes to the hard-to-serve, and the fact that those young people who are going to need programs outside of Ontario, outside of Canada, that they're going to be able to get those programs.

What are we doing to make sure that we're continuing to develop programs to meet the needs of all the young people who have special needs in our schools? I think that we need a clearer sense of the direction that we're going to go, and it's another reason why I think it will be important that this issue go before the committee.

Maintenant, je veux aborder pendant quelques minutes certaines questions qui touchent la communauté francophone. Comme vous le savez fort bien, il y a quelques changements qui touchent le secteur francophone, dont le projet de loi 4 sur la création des comités spéciaux de l'éducation spéciale. Il est très important, surtout parce que dans ce domaine, on parle d'Ottawa-Carleton.

J'ai avec moi aujourd'hui quelques lettres de parents de jeunes francophones de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton. Je pense qu'il est très important que le Ministre comprenne très bien et très clairement qu'il y a une situation à Ottawa-Carleton avec ce qu'on appelle la tutelle, qui dirige le secteur public, qui empêche vraiment le plein développement de l'éducation en langue française dans la région d'Ottawa-Carleton.

Pour ne blâmer personne, je comprends fort bien qu'il y a deux ans, il y avait un problème. Le gouvernement a décidé de prendre une certaine approche. Nous avons discuté de cette approche mais, peu importe les arguments pour ou contre à ce moment-là, je pense qu'il faut dire qu'aujourd'hui, la réponse du gouvernement n'a pas marché, n'a pas fonctionné.

Ce qu'on voit maintenant avec les lettres qu'on reçoit des parents, c'est qu'il y a une frustration que les parents ne peuvent pas vraiment consulter leurs conseillers parce que leurs conseillers n'ont pas vraiment de pouvoir. Donc, on a le tuteur à Ottawa-Carleton qui, en effet, prend les décisions. Lui, il essaie de faire son possible, mais ça ne marche pas parce qu'il y a la frustration des parents, des étudiants et, en effet, de la collectivité francophone. Donc, je pense que ce qui est important pour le Ministre, c'est de parler avec la communauté francophone, avec les conseillers, et de développer un plan qui va enlever le système du tuteur et qui va mettre de côté la tutelle.

1730

Si on peut faire ça, je pense que les recommandations qu'on fait dans le projet de loi 4 sur l'établissement des comités, ça a du bon sens ; il n'y a personne qui sera contre. Mais je veux dire, en discutant de ces changements, que c'est très important que le Ministre accepte de parler avec les représentants francophones de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton pour assurer que ce conseil peut fonctionner de façon beaucoup plus claire et ouverte et, en effet, prendre en main la direction de l'avenir des jeunes francophones de cette région.

Je pense qu'avec le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, le Ministre, en effet, peut le faire, et que ça va répondre à un besoin réel de la communauté francophone.

There are several other important issues that are in this bill, and I want to address them in the time remaining.

Much has been said on the whole issue of testing. It's probably the one subject that, as one goes around the province and talks to parents, brings forth a tremendous range of discussion, and it's one of the areas where parents feel that they don't have a good understanding of what is happening to their kids in the school system.

One of the proposals that is in the act is going to provide the minister with the authority to conduct reviews of classroom practices and the effectiveness of educational programs and to require school boards to participate. I know that that change has been brought forward for a number of reasons; in part, to ensure that it's clear that the minister has that authority. But I think what is there and what is important about it is that it enables us to better and more effectively respond to parental concern: What are the standards that we have out there? What are the expectations that we have? How are we going to evaluate and assess how well our students are doing, how well our children are doing, in meeting those various standards?

The government has released a document called The Common Curriculum, Grades 1-9, a document which is still in need of a tremendous amount of work. We need to know where that is going, and it's quite likely that if the minister finally names the members of the Commission on Learning and sets out the mandate of that commission, we may see that certain elements of this are going to be part of that commission. But we can't necessarily wait for a year and a half or two years while the commission does its work, and so we need to see some changes.

I think one of the things that was disappointing to a lot of people in the document The Common Curriculum was the fairly short amount of space that was given to this whole area of testing and assessment and how that would work. We know that we have now the provincial Benchmarks and we're looking at programs at the grade 3, grade 6 and 9 levels. The minister has said, in the speech from the throne, that there will also be testing next year in grade 9. I think all of those are steps in the right direction, but we've got to see what they form part of. Again, one of the problems here is that these are individual initiatives here and there, but not yet linked to a coherent vision of how we see our system of education: What is it that we really want to have and how do we see that going forward?

So I think, in looking at this particular amendment that is in the act, that we'd like to get from the minister a clearer sense of where he sees this whole issue of testing going because parents, I think, relate that very clearly to the whole issue of accountability, whether it's the accountability that parents have vis-à-vis school boards and the accountability they want from their trustees or accountability from their teachers, and I think -- let's be frank and honest -- there is a reciprocal requirement that parents be accountable.

One of the things that we've seen over the last decade or so is that it at times is more difficult to get parents to participate more directly in schools; not all, and there are many who are very involved. But if you speak to teachers these days, they will say that so often when there is an evening to meet with the teacher the parents who most often come are ones who are involved on a regular basis, and how do we get to those other parents who aren't there?

That takes me back again to the comment I made earlier around child care and junior kindergarten and the report on Children First which said we've got to find ways to develop better outreach so that schools are reaching out to parents and finding ways of helping them to give education and give learning a real sense of importance in their households. So I think while this amendment does not deal specifically, obviously, with the broader question of testing, it is important that the minister have this, if you like, in his back pocket, but again important that he work with the school boards in ensuring that it is used carefully and wisely as we go forward.

Another important provision that is in this act refers to the whole question of suspensions. It's an issue which we don't talk about a lot publicly, but again if you go to a school, if you sit down with principals, with teachers, one of the real concerns that increasingly they have is around violence, inappropriate behaviour, however you want to put it, not simply at the secondary level but also at the elementary level.

There are some really excellent programs that different school boards have developed around discipline and for those of you who have an opportunity to visit particularly your local elementary school to look at some of what are called "conflict resolution programs" that schools have developed so that even at the earliest stage young people are taught and are worked with by teachers around how they can avoid getting into fights using certain kinds of language and trying to resolve problems.

I often use my wife as an example anecdotally of the kinds of things that she as a teacher is seeing in the elementary classroom, and one of the things that she has commented on to me is that over the last five or six years you see much more violence at the elementary level in the playground. That has to be something of concern to us. It's certainly not something that the school by itself can solve, but it's something that the school has to deal with.

In the amendments that have been made here, we see that they're going to require that there be a suspension of a pupil, that suspension cannot exceed 20 school days, that the appeal of a suspension for 20 or however many days, if that is taken to appeal, the suspension remains in force and a school board is going to be asked to establish a committee to deal with suspensions and expulsions. We know that the major school board associations have some difficulty with that in terms of how it is going to work and also in some cases with some of the principles around it and their own freedom of action to deal with it.

I don't think anybody has a simple answer in terms of how we go forward, but I think we have to recognize that principals and school boards and classroom teachers need some greater guidance in terms of how they deal with inappropriate behaviour, because if you talk to teachers, that is of greater concern than ever before and there are more problems of that nature within the system, and something has to be done. But while it may be that this is the appropriate amendment at this time, we'd like to explore this, provide an opportunity for the school board associations to raise some questions and see if this is the best way to go, if there are perhaps some suggestions we can make to the government in dealing with that.

1740

In terms of the other issues that have been enumerated by my colleague in some detail, I don't want to go back through all of those. They're there, they're in Hansard, and we're going to be able to look at them and to ask questions when we get into committee.

But I think the key thing we want to note with this bill is that two major communities are being affected: those who want to see the development of junior kindergarten programs, those who have real concerns around those programs and the whole issue of how we fund them; and those who have concerns around special education programs. This bill will be the only opportunity we have, in a broader sense, to be able to discuss those not only with the minister but to provide an opportunity to groups out in the province to participate in that discussion.

This will be happening, it would appear, against the backdrop of the Commission on Learning, and if we look at the Commission on Learning and also put it within the context of the financial problems, I think it is very important that if the minister is determined to go ahead with the commission and to give it some major issues to deal with, that time frame be as short as possible. He has said he may ask them to look at certain questions and to report back within a month or within two months -- I think that's very important -- and that they should always be looking at their work and their recommendations in the context of, what are the dollars that are going to be available for school board to provide those programs?

That's the context within which this particular bill now sits. I think if we can review those questions with the minister, that will be very helpful to the public at large and we can try to put something together that will be helpful.

But the final comment I would make today is that there is a new financial reality out there and that in everything we do as legislators, whether it is with Bill 4 or with any other, where we are talking about programs that are going to carry costs, we have to make sure that school boards have the capacity and the ability to deliver those programs. That's our responsibility.

One wants to be very fair: I think, when we go back over the course of the last 10 years, that all three parties as governments have, if you like, sinned in that regard, where at times programs have been passed on to school boards without appropriate funding. We shouldn't have done it in those days in principle, but today it's an even more serious issue, and we've got to make sure we don't do it. That's why, in looking at the provisions around junior kindergarten and looking at the provisions around special education, we need to explore very thoroughly what the cost implications are and how we're going to go forward to ensure that, in this new reality, boards are going to be able to do what we want them to do.

With that, Mr Speaker, I'll close my remarks. I look forward to committee hearings on this and to working with the minister and with the members of the committee in trying to make sure that what we do with this act is going to be a real benefit to the young people who are in our schools.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Questions and/or comments? Seeing none, further debate; the honourable member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It certainly is a pleasure for me to get up today and participate in this debate, given the tone of the first two speakers today. I appreciated their positive approach, some of the questions they asked, some of the issues they raised, certainly, I would have to say, a long sight different from what went on in this House yesterday, where we had orchestrated shenanigans by the opposition to make the government look somewhat foolish or whatever -- not what I thought I would be coming to do in this place when I got elected two and a half years ago.

As I said, it is indeed a great pleasure to participate in this debate, because we are in the process of exchanging ideas, talking about some important issues that face our province and the education system and the way we deal with our children. It is in that context that I want to make just a few comments today and to assure the members opposite that all of the things they have said, both the positive and the negative, will be taken into consideration.

In fact, this piece of legislation is slated to go to committee, where we can have a fuller debate and fuller discussion about the issues they raised on behalf of some of the constituencies that have come to them and to us over the period of time that this piece of legislation has been on the books.

Both members have referred to the fact that this is not new. This compilation of various and sundry pieces of legislation that belong to the omnibus bill that is now known as Bill 4 has been around for awhile. Some of it actually dates back to the previous Liberal government, which was looking at doing some innovative and progressive things for the education system so that it might be in better shape as we move into the next century.

I also want to put this legislation into the context of what we, as a government, are about these days. The Premier not so long ago introduced a plan to put Ontario back to work, and indeed there isn't a thing in this package that in any way goes against that or is in conflict with those proposals. As a matter of fact, each piece of this bill, if one were to go through it and spend some time looking at it and thinking about it, fits most clearly into a number of the 10 points that were laid out as our plan to put Ontario back to work.

Probably the most obvious and most relevant piece of that plan is our effort to emphasize education and training and how important they will be to all of us as we move into the future, but particularly those who are starting out now in the elementary and secondary grades, and the two pieces I'm going to speak about today, the children who are newly coming into the system.

So this piece of legislation clearly fits within the context of our attempt to invest in our infrastructure. It fits into the context of our wanting to emphasize education and training as an important part of this initiative to put Ontario back to work. It is very clearly part of our agenda to strengthen social justice for those who are having a difficult time right now participating fully in the communities they live in, and certainly it speaks to supporting families getting back to work.

I want to today speak briefly about those, but about two pieces of the legislation. I don't have time to go into all of the important components we're putting forth today, but junior kindergarten and child care are certainly important things to move forward, to make our intentions clear on, as are the initiatives we're considering here to recognize the deepest aspirations and desires of the deaf community in Ontario to be included as well and to have their culture and language recognized, as they should be, so that they can participate more fully in the mainstream of the communities in which they live.

Certainly, both of those speak to investing in our infrastructure. The junior kindergarten and child care proposals that we're bringing forward, or a context that we're developing so that those things can happen more clearly in education, will call on us to have to invest more in the buildings and resources that we have in communities, particularly new buildings. The older buildings will have to be brought up to date in terms of some of the facilities that will be needed there, and any new buildings that we will build will speak to a need for us to be recognizing that in this day and age, in many instances both parents in a family work and will want to be bringing their children to places where they will be learning something so that in the end the early learning will help them in their later learning.

1750

Also, emphasizing education and training, certainly nobody would argue, I think, any more with all of the study and work that's been done on how important it is to get to our children early, to offer them opportunity early on in life to learn and to be stimulated and challenged in ways that will prepare them to participate more fully in the later years. For us to expand on junior kindergarten, provide an opportunity, particularly in smaller and rural communities, for more child care to be offered where there are no other alternatives, I think, is important. Indeed in some communities where there is the space in schools to offer more accessible child care, particularly to single parents who want to get back into the system, who do not want to be on social assistance for the rest of their lives, to have someplace to bring their children where they're going to be looked after and challenged in the ways that only schools can, we will be encouraging that to happen.

Certainly I think it behooves us as well, as we look at so many groups out there in society today who for one reason or another find themselves marginalized, not able to participate more fully in the everyday life of a community, this piece of legislation opens up a tremendous door -- which actually has been rapped on for a number of years -- to the deaf community, as we recognize more fully the importance of their language and their culture and want to bring it in as a full part of what we do for that community in all of the cities and towns across this province.

I think in looking at that it's important as well to realize that in coming to this decision it wasn't just something that perhaps Gary Malkowski and I talked about one day and decided would be a good idea to do but that there's been a lot of activity over the last few years, both while the previous Liberal government was in power and certainly in the last two and a half years while I've been around this Legislature, looking at the question of how we introduce ASL to the various programs across the country.

There was initially the review of deaf education that made some strong suggestions around this question. One of the previous ministers of Education, Marion Boyd, appointed a committee, which I chair, to look at how we might introduce ASL and QSL to the curriculum of the various school boards and to the curriculum indeed of course of the provincial schools in the province, and to do that in a way that is sensitive to the fact that parents out there want some choices and that we have a history of some things that have been done that have been in many cases very good over the years. But as in everything else that we do, we want to make sure that we are continually bringing to the fore the best that is possible, the greatest opportunity that is possible for everybody, and indeed at this particular point in time the introduction of ASL or QSL to the curriculum of education institutions across the province is really important.

As a matter of fact, it's a social justice issue. Again, as I've said before, that's one of the 10 points we have put forth recently as being part of our attempt to put Ontario back to work. We feel very strongly that there are many, many excellent men and women out there who happen to be either hard of hearing or deaf who are just chomping at the bit to participate more fully, to offer the gifts that they have in ways that they've never been able to do before, and certainly it's just and right that we do all that we can to make sure that they are able to participate. It reflects, I think, our approach to a number of other groups out there that at the moment are feeling somewhat ostracized and marginalized, that we will do all that we can to help them too.

Supporting families getting back to work: I don't think I have to go into that too much and relate junior kindergarten and child care too much to that. I think most people will see that as an obvious connection.

If we're going to support families getting back to work, if we're going to, under the heading of justice, allow particularly single parents to get off of the system, to be able to contribute more fully to the economy in the ways that they can, many of them quite well educated, who unfortunately found themselves in circumstances where they were left alone with one, two or three children, who can't get back into the workforce because of concerns about child care or other issues, certainly this will go a way to providing opportunity and to encouraging them to participate more fully in the community within which they live.

I think that this very clearly not only helps those people who find themselves in the situation where they're in need of this service but will help the larger economy in many significant ways, as these people, rather than taking, by way of social assistance, which they have a right to do, but are now beginning to contribute to the pot from which others will be able to share and indeed will be part of this government's very sincere effort and agenda to put Ontario back to work.

There are some specific issues that people have raised around the question of junior kindergarten that I would like to speak to for just a few minutes just so it is on the record and people understand. Some people ask, "Why is the government continuing to make junior kindergarten mandatory?" We say very clearly that this government is committed to permitting children everywhere in the province to receive better educational opportunities through early learning, which has been shown to help in their later learning years.

How many school boards do not yet have junior kindergarten? I'm happy to report that most school boards in the province already have implemented junior kindergarten because they've recognized the value in it and that there are only 18 left, including three isolated school boards, that do not have junior kindergarten as an option.

How will these school boards manage to implement JK in the current economic climate? The ministry is contributing special capital grants for any renovations or new building that needs to happen. Operating costs will be eligible for general legislative grants. The bill permits boards to phase in the program between September 1994 and August 1997, where cost and classroom space factors make full implementation by 1994 impossible. I think, again, this piece of legislation that has been changed reflects our listening, our wanting to listen and our wanting to be responsive to the very real concerns of boards out there in these difficult financial times. The 18 that are left obviously have some very legitimate reasons, I'm sure, for not going ahead, and we're trying to be sensitive.

Why will all children have to attend junior kindergarten, or will all children have to attend junior kindergarten, an issue that's often brought up in my community and was floating around at one point. The mandatory junior kindergarten proposal was taken to mean that it would be mandatory that kids go to junior kindergarten. Well, that's not true. Junior kindergarten is still a voluntary program.

I know in my own instance, my two children, the first one didn't go. She felt that she wasn't ready, it wasn't a comfortable thing for her to do, and so she didn't go. My second child was chomping at the bit to get there and so he went and enjoyed it and benefited tremendously from it. Junior kindergarten is not mandatory. Families who decide that they want their kids to go there will now have the opportunity to make that choice.

What about school boards currently offering junior kindergarten and deciding to phase it out between now and June 1, 1994? These boards will have to phase it back in, starting in September 1994, and have it completed by 1997.

The issue of child care and why school boards are being allowed to operate day nurseries: This voluntary measure promotes and strengthens school and child care partnerships. During the child care and early years of school consultations, some school boards asked for this licence since it will enable them to link the two programs for effective use of space and resources. I think it's important to recognize how important and valuable this opportunity will be to schools, particularly in small centres in Ontario, and I think it just behooves this government to do all that we can to set the framework, to set the context within which this can happen.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts on this very important piece of legislation. As I said, I've enjoyed the input so far by my own colleague Mr Malkowski and the two opposition members, and I look forward to debating these issues further as this legislation goes to committee.

The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1802.

28 avril 1993