Last week I had a great opportunity to be back in my community, as most of us were, starting on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, out communicating with people now that the weather is warmer, whether it was in an Earth Day celebration or whether it was pancake breakfasts in our rural communities. There was a lot of confusion about what this program is going to mean for everyday families, and I think that confusion warrants further discussion. It means, I think, that parents at home ought to be looking at what the fine print is with this piece of legislation, what this bill will mean to families.

I look forward to expanding on that over the course of the next, I guess, 30 minutes.

But I want to congratulate my colleague from Nickel Belt, who always, I must say, ensures that we in this chamber are fully apprised of what is going on in her community. I thank her for bringing forward her views on this contentious piece of legislation.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I'm pleased to be able to participate in today's debate on the impacts of full-day kindergarten on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus and, most of all, other moms and dads across the province.

At the outset, let me say that this bill is deeply personal to me, since I am one of the very few legislators in this place who will be impacted by this bill. So I'll take the opportunity not just to speak to the theoretical model of this bill, but to the personal impacts-

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Order. Order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: -that this will have on my family. That's why I'll begin my remarks on Bill 242, the kindergarten bill, with a personal story.

Amid the laughter by the Liberals who do not have children right now in the system, you may know that my daughter, Victoria, just turned five and is currently attending half-day junior kindergarten in one of Ontario's finest public schools. After speaking with my husband and our caregiver and taking other matters into consideration, our family felt it was best for our daughter to continue in half-day learning when she reaches senior kindergarten next year. That was our choice. We had expected the government of Ontario to respect that. And although the Pascal report called for parental choice-and I quote, "parental choice"-of either half- or full-day learning, I quickly found out the hard way, as the Ottawa Citizen so aptly pointed out today, that the Liberal plan will actually force parents like my husband, Joe, and I to take it, to leave it or to transfer their child out of their neighbourhood school if full-day learning is not the option.

In fact, I was told by my daughter's school to transfer out of our neighbourhood, and then I was told by the Minister of Education that if I didn't like that, I could keep my daughter at home until she was six, when, presumably, the Premier and the education minister would get their way and start teaching her sexual education. I asked, "What type of choice is that? Where in the formula are parents and families being factored in?" There really is no choice, and I know I speak for parents in saying that neither of those options are viable.

I can hardly imagine removing a child from a learning environment that they are comfortable in, one in which they have made new friends, in a neighbourhood that is familiar, in a daycare that is comfortable and safe. Nor can I imagine removing a child from a school altogether for the first grade. Why in the name of God would the education minister suggest to a parent who has had their child in school already for a year to remove them until they are six years old? That is a shame.

The Ottawa Citizen got it right today when it described the Liberals' identity crisis on full-day learning. They said:

"The province has suggested all along that parents will continue to have the choice to keep their children in half-day kindergarten if they wish. Being told to find another school is likely not what any parent had in mind.

"It gets more confusing. Ministry of Education officials are now saying that a third option is for parents to enrol their children in full-day kindergarten but pick them up halfway through the day. This, too, could be problematic. If the program is designed from the get-go to be full-day, will teachers be able properly to assess students who are in class only half as much as their peers? What will be the effect on students?"

This is probably the best line from that editorial in today's Ottawa Citizen, and I encourage the government members to look at it: "The option has the worrisome sound of an ad-hoc plan."

So despite Pascal's reference to choice on page 14 of his own report, the report that the Liberal government is touting, parents like me and my husband, Joe, are advised to read the fine print on early full-day learning. When Dr. Charles Pascal released his early learning report to the Premier in June 2009, the report, With Our Best Future in Mind, stated on page 14, "Children's participation would be by parental choice, with parents having the option of half, full (school hours), or fee-based extended day of programming." So I ask, what has changed, and what is next?

Indeed, it's increasingly clear that the Liberals have adopted an all-or-nothing approach to full-day kindergarten. It will be a real shock to parents right across the province, come September, particularly those parents who believed there would be choice: those parents who will find out there will be fees attached to before- and after-care programming; and those parents who will find themselves in a real spot on a PD day, a snow day, a March break day and during summer and Christmas vacations. They will have one choice in the matter: They will either have to pay for two child care spots-one at the school with the fee-based programming and another for these other days-or they're going to be stuck every single time there is no school. When school is closed, these parents are not going to be able to have an easy and available option.

Again, parents are going to need to read the fine print. And since the Liberals are forcing this through in such a short period of time and without a lengthy implementation process, I only hope, through me and through my caucus colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party, that by speaking out, parents will check the fine print sooner rather than later. As Andrea Mrozek wrote of my predicament in last week's Citizen, "Province-wide, taxpayer-funded early learning programs spell the end of choice in child care."

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Member for Toronto Centre: In your chair.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: This presents another very serious concern with this bill: It will put daycare providers out of business. There will be absolutely no consideration given to the consequences of eliminating the not-for-profit sector from providing before- and after-school programming for four- and five-year-old children.

There was also no consideration given to the small independent daycare providers who offer care, subsidized or otherwise, in their homes. Without access to four- and five-year-old students, home daycares and not-for-profits will suffer, and that's just not fair.

As Mrozek said in her Citizen op-ed on Friday last week, "By introducing a monolithic taxpayer-funded plan, legitimate and regulated child care providers can't compete." I repeat: They cannot compete. "When ... government subsidizes" a business, "it means others are put out of business."

She's right, and in this chamber, I'm going to defend people like Sue Ayyad, the YMCAs and the Karen Fromms of this world, because if I don't and the PC caucus doesn't, who will? The big-box government across the way, where one size fits all? I don't think so. Hardly.

First they remove parental choice. Secondly, they're putting regulated, licensed and essential community organizations and small businesses out of business.

Equally as concerning, however, is the third flaw in this plan; that is, the Liberals are mortgaging the very futures of those they are forcing into full-day, every-day school.

Let me explain. To implement this program, it will cost $1.5 billion in operational costs next year alone, and likely another $300 million in capital renovation costs to retrofit rooms, add space and bring in equipment. This is a very real concern I heard from my own school board, the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, concerned about space. If you can just imagine my own little daughter's school, where right now there is a half-day junior kindergarten and a half-day senior kindergarten class. They are going to four kindergarten classes next year. That's going to create a significant burden on the budget of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board to retrofit those rooms. That brings you up to $1.8 billion in new-I repeat, new-spending at a time when our province has a $21-billion deficit.

Even then, with an estimated $1.8 billion in new spending, it's likely not enough. As trustee Michael Barrett of the Durham District School Board said, "The funding is not adequate to roll out the program as prescribed by the province." This is troubling, given that the Premier told the CBC in June that he didn't know the cost of the program. Can you imagine? He still doesn't know what the cost of this program is going to be, and we have a $21-billion deficit.

That is where we, in the official opposition, are concerned by the lack of planning by this Premier-and just last week we saw where that gets him. But it's of deep concern to us.

So that begs the question: How much more are we expected to shell out for a program that is not tested? As the National Post wrote on October 29, 2009, in their editorial, "Given Ontario's massive deficit, why is Premier Dalton McGuinty focused on imposing an expensive, full-day kindergarten program on the province?" And as parent Tanya Allen of Parental Choice says, "I don't want to be forced into using all-day kindergarten.... This program is not only a waste of money, but it also obliterates parents' choice in child care."

This type of spending right now, at this moment in our province's history, is unsustainable. The PC party believes that the government simply cannot afford this potentially multi-billion-dollar program right now.

With the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada estimating that it will cost close to $9,000 per year, it's no wonder parents like Kate Tennier of kindergartencredit.ca offer a alternative for the spend-happy Liberals to consider: ensure that early education funds follow the child by giving the funding to moms and dads instead. That's what she suggests.

Above all, the fundamental flaw in this legislation is that it is, as Irene Atkinson of the Toronto District School Board says, "one of the most ill-conceived and badly thought-through programs that the province has ever announced."

It is very clear that this government lacks preparedness, given the issues my own family has confronted due to the uncertainties. The Ottawa Citizen acknowledged this in citing that the province has created unrealistic expectations about its ability to accommodate.

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It's clear that I've excited the Liberals today. I'm not quite sure how they can be so excited by actually explaining in this chamber my own personal experience with this system. I guess this is where the disconnect comes in: when you're actually confronted with an issue as a parent. I feel fortunate that I'm able to raise in this chamber the issues that we face, to a number of people in this chamber who will probably not ever have to experience this issue.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Toronto Centre will have a chance to respond, as will others from the government side.

Continue.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks, Madam Speaker. Again, I think it just speaks to the hostility in this debate: If you do not agree with them, that's too bad. Well, I don't agree with them on this and I should have a choice. Dr. Pascal told me I should. So when it was our opportunity to find out our own way for our own child in my family, to decide what was best for her, and we were told we didn't really have that option-that's where we are placed in a real conundrum in this chamber.

Again, it's a great idea to try and put this forward. In fact, there are many models that have been expressed or explored throughout the province. I've heard of several. For example, there could be alternating full days. But again, it should be the parents' choice at that age.

I'm fortunate that my daughter is in a great school. I'm fortunate that she has a great caregiver. And I'm fortunate that, as parents, we are able to take her to school and know her teacher, know the students in her classroom and participate in our community. But taking our choice away until my daughter is six years old is really not an option. I really resent the fact that the minister told me that I should remove my child from school, after she was there for a year. She said, "You don't have to have your child in school until the age of six." Well, my daughter is already there, and there are several other parents in my own predicament.

In any event, I'm not going to go on much longer, because I am really interested to hear what the member from Toronto Centre has to say to me, given the hostilities that I experienced while I was speaking-because actually some of the hostilities didn't have anything to do with my remarks. So I am looking forward to hearing from them and to concluding this debate at said time.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rick Johnson: I'm pleased to comment on some of the comments made by the member from Nepean-Carleton.

You know what? I'm jealous. I'm jealous of you because your child is fortunate to be going to school in this time, when we have these programs available-optional programs for parents who can attend. They can use these programs if they want. Having half-day programs-what a great luxury.

1650

When my daughter started kindergarten in the 1990s, the school board had already switched to full-day programs every other day. They couldn't afford to run the buses because of the massive cuts that were inflicted by Harris and the government. Through cuts and downsizes, boards were given the option: They could run JK if they wanted to. If they wanted to run JK, they could do that, but the funding disappeared for running smaller class sizes in primary grades. Our board made a decision when I was on that board to re-introduce junior kindergarten and keep smaller class sizes, but the result was that we had to bump the class sizes in the larger grades. What happened? Strikes. How many days did my children miss because of strikes?

They got to high school, and didn't miss a day. Funny-the government changed, and everything worked out.

As for materials for home help: Earlier today there was mention made about the fact that boards will provide materials to take home. We all know that when parents contribute to their children's education and help out with it, their children do great. The fact that boards are going to provide materials to go home to help out parents with their children's reading and getting a good start at a younger age is wonderful. Whether it's a mom and dad, or a mom and a mom, or a dad and a dad, or grandparents, or single parents-all those don't seem to be in your orbit right now-I think it's extremely important that everybody has an option to get into a system that is going to be open.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I'm pleased to comment on Bill 242 and the address of my colleague, the member for Nepean-Carleton.

I think that this bill is just an indication of the lack of planning by this particular government. We've got the most massive deficit ever seen in this province, and unfortunately it's as a direct result not of a recession-it's easy to blame the recession-but of the malfeasance of this government, the corruption of this government-

Mr. Glen R. Murray: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't think you can accuse the government of corruption.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I would ask the member to withdraw that word.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I certainly will withdraw that I said that this government is corrupt. But malfeasance of this government-

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I would ask the member from Cambridge to withdraw the comment and not use it again.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I withdraw the word-do you want me to say the word?

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): No.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: No? Okay. I just want to make sure of that.

In any event, we have this massive deficit that this government has no intention of paying off. Their plan is that if you put it off far enough, we're all going to be dead in the long run and we'll still have a deficit. As a matter of fact, they're going to double this deficit, but that's just the start.

There's no doubt they're going to attempt to raise taxes. You are going to see the new HST radically increased right after an election if this government wins. You can bet on it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Glen R. Murray: The reason I was upset before is because I think on two levels. One, day-long learning for low-income people and families that are struggling creates not just the possibility for children-who in many homes that I represent don't have access to magazines and there's limited access to the English language, which is important for their ability to transition into full productive citizens. But there were also some comments made that some people live in a world-and the member for Ottawa West-not Ottawa West, Nepean-Carleton. I apologize. I want to make sure I get that right. I put a child through school. I'm a grandparent-high-needs kids with disabilities who came home to a single dad.

There were references made to the curriculum, and part of the reason for this early childhood education and this curriculum, which I'm still a great believer in, is so it takes the onus off six- and eight-year-olds-if anyone has actually read the curriculum and read the day-long learning act-to not have to explain to their peers why they come from a different family than just a mum-and-dad family. If you have ever seen how heartbreaking it is for a child with a disability-

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: On a point of order, Speaker: I ask the Minister of Education to withdraw what she just said.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I didn't hear what she said. I'll have to pass on that. Thank you.

Mr. Glen R. Murray: What it has unfortunately done is enabled some of the people who are advocates of hate-the McVetys and others out there who are too quick to drive the differences. At one point, obviously if it's not this year, it is our responsibility as adults to make sure that children don't have to explain the differences, that every child should be free of bullying. Some members in that member's party talked about ending bullying. Well, getting facts about kids' body parts in grade 1 and getting facts about the diversity of families in grade 3-and that's all the curriculum said. It's a good curriculum, getting kids educated at four and five.

Kids have rights beyond their parents. I worked with a lot of children who died at 18 and 19 because they didn't get information about gay sexuality-

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I think it really is important to just clarify what the member from Nepean-Carleton actually said. I think we're getting off on a tangent with respect to another matter, and certain thoughts and motives are being impugned here. I think it's really important that we focus on what we're talking about, which is Bill 242, and the very important points that the member from Nepean-Carleton was making with respect to young children, their ability to function in full-day class and the choices that parents are being asked to make when they're considering placing a very young child in an all-day learning environment.

It is important to note that parents should have the choice, whether they choose to put their child in full-day learning or half-day learning. The member was simply raising some of the concerns that she has for those parents, perhaps including herself, who don't choose to put their child in full-day learning, and what's going to happen then. Where else will they go? It's fine for the government to say, "Well, don't bother. Just keep them out of school until they're six." The practical matter is that she has a child who wants to go to school, may not be ready for full-day learning, as many children in the province of Ontario are not. But then what happens? The government simply has not provided us with the answers. Do they go to another school in another area? Are you going to provide busing? What's going to happen with their classmates-a lot of practical considerations that the government is all too anxious to say, "Oh, don't worry about that," but parents are worried about them.

Here we are at the end of April, we've got another month or so to work out these very important, practical considerations that have to be dealt with, and there are no answers. The answer we get is, "Don't worry about it. We'll deal with it." September is coming, and I think parents have a right to know these things. I commend the member for Nepean-Carleton for raising these issues. They're practical considerations, they need to be dealt with, and this government is certainly not very forthcoming with any kind of answer.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Nepean-Carleton has up to two minutes to respond.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I just want to say thank you to my colleagues from Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock and Toronto Centre. It's clear we don't agree on the practical approach here. However, we should be engaged in a respectful debate on this matter. This actually does impact me. In a way, I didn't think so, because I thought there would be choice. But I appreciated you bringing your own personal experiences to the chamber, so I thank you for that.

I'd like to thank both my colleagues in the Conservative caucus: from Cambridge, who talked about the financial implications of this bill, as well as my colleague from Whitby-Oshawa, who I think expressed some of the practical concerns we have with this legislation.

I'd been very clear at the outset that I had concerns, and I still do, with the financial implications of this bill. Only when I became a parent did I understand the practicality issues with respect to this. Unfortunately, this place has become so polarized that no resolutions or amendments put forward by the opposition almost any time ever pass. Very infrequently do we see stakeholders come to debate or give deputations and any of their ideas ever accepted.

This is, I guess, a problem with a government that has been in office for a long time. It happens in every political party. But unfortunately, with this piece of legislation, if they cannot admit that it's not all going to be an unbumpy ride, then we're going to have a real problem come September. I can just tell you from my own experience that it has not been easy. All weekend, I spoke about this issue to parents who have the same concerns. I encourage the government to heed those warnings when they're implementing this. It's going to be an awfully expensive price tag, so we have to get it right.