Hansard Transcripts 1983-Feb-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, later today I will be tabling a paper for discussion that would lead to legislation to revise and update the Grain Elevator Storage Act. The thrust of this measure is to safeguard the property rights of producers who deliver grain to an elevator for storage.

Protecting the rights and position of the producer is a priority item at my ministry. This emphasis shows itself in many of the financial programs we have initiated. I refer, of course, to the beef cattle financial protection program; the farm adjustment assistance program, extended through 1983; crop insurance, and the revised farm tax reduction program. These programs are among the front-line elements of our policy to strengthen the producer's, and ultimately all of agriculture's, position in the provincial economy.

I am now asking the members to turn their attention specifically to the position of the producer in his dealings with elevator operators. The proposal makes it clear that farm produce held in an elevator for storage remains the property of the producer.

In past years, once grain was in the elevators and a contract for sale had been signed, confusion sometimes arose as to who owned the farm produce in question, the producer or the elevator operator. This confusion was aided and abetted by the tickets and forms used in the actual transactions between the parties. When elevator operations fell into financial difficulties, banks would seize all the contents in the elevators, including stored farm produce. Legal battles ensued as the rightful owners tried to regain or be compensated for their property.

The paper before the members would guarantee all grain delivered to an elevator would be deemed intended for storage, unless the contrary is established in writing or before a court. Further, the forms used in the transactions would be separated and clarified under the revised legislation. it would further protect the producer in sales transactions by declaring that the owner retains title to the grain until he receives his money.

The chief inspector would have appropriate powers to implement these provisions, including the authority to seal bins and seize, remove and sell stored grain. Such powers are deemed necessary to protect the interests of the owners of farm produce. These powers are also necessary because of the perishable nature of the produce and could be invoked, for example, if the elevator operator becomes insolvent or abandons the facility.

This proposal responds to representations by the producer marketing boards involved and by the chief inspector, Mr. Bill Taylor, who is a highly respected figure in the grain industry. The contents have also been discussed with the Ontario Grain and Feed Dealers Association. Everyone concerned appears to be supportive of these measures in their present form.

I, therefore, am tabling this paper for discussion by the members and further examination by the industry. Suggestions for refinements will be welcome.

ARK EDEN NURSING HOME

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, during the review --

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, we do not have the statement yet.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Pardon me?

Mr. Speaker: They do not have their statements.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Here it comes. I am sorry. It is on its way.

Mr. Speaker: Has everybody received his copy?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, during the review of my ministry's estimates, members of the standing committee on social development discussed with me some quite disturbing evidence which my ministry was reviewing concerning conditions under which residents were living in the Ark Eden Nursing Home at Stroud.

At that time, I told the committee I was appalled by some of the allegations made at the inquest into the death of Yves Soumelidis, a 21-year-old retarded man who was living at Ark Eden which is a nursing home licensed by my ministry. I promised to have the home inspected once again and share the results of the inspection with members of the committee. I will now table that report with the House. It indicates conditions we simply will not tolerate.

I have advised the operators of the home I do not intend to renew their licence to operate a nursing home when that licence expires on March 31. it is our intention to begin immediately to relocate all the residents of the home. This will be done in a humane way on the basis of medical assessments being carried out today by Dr. Donald Zarfas, professor of mental retardation at the University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Peter Rastogi, a paediatrician at Surrey Place Centre here in Toronto.

If, by March 31, all the remaining residents cannot be relocated to proper facilities, the Ministry of Health will assume control and operation of the home to protect the health and safety of the residents until it is vacated.

We have never taken action of this sort before but it is clear from a review of the inspection reports that the owners have not fulfilled the commitments they made to this ministry when they acquired the licence for the home three years ago. They have consistently failed to correct identified shortcomings which could affect the health, safety and welfare of residents.

As I indicated to the social development committee, we have reorganized our inspection service and we simply will not permit conditions in any health care facility in this province which could jeopardize the wellbeing of those it serves.

It may well be that further authority will be needed to ensure the success of this policy, but I hope I can count on the support of all members for any effort to ensure that adequate standards of care and safety are enforced here and elsewhere.

10:10 a.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

REGULATION OF TRUST COMPANIES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, which comes out of some of the material filed in court on Tuesday in support of the application for receivership of Kilderkin investments with the affidavit in the name of Mr. Brown, vice-president of Touche Ross.

In that affidavit he states: "The investigation procedures with respect to Seaway included title searches, review of documentation relating to the underlying security and or the financial capacity of the borrower such as cash flow statements, balance sheets, etc., and appraisals where available. Independent appraisals have either been obtained or have been ordered by Touche Ross Ltd. for a majority of the properties on which these mortgages are secured."

These findings of Touche Ross are extremely critical of the Seaway Trust method of operating over the past couple of years. I would like to ask the minister, are these not precisely the same sort of investigative procedures his ministry officials should have been employing when they conducted their annual inspections of trust companies? Do they not, in the normal course of events, look at the cash flow statement, the balance sheet and appraisals available, and review the relevant documentation in order to file their annual report?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the material referred to is material that is filed for the purpose of activities and actions before the courts. But, in a general way -- and we have discussed this on many occasions in this House -- the issue of the regulatory activities carried out with respect to trust companies is an issue which is being reviewed at this time. There is also the Morrison examination being carried out into the business conduct of three trust companies.

I have said very clearly that this report will be tabled as long as there is no legal reason prohibiting it from being tabled. I have also said that when all the information is available, surely the Leader of the Opposition and members of this House would want to discuss this issue in the light of all the information, and not selectively on a case by case basis as the Leader of the Opposition has tried to do in the past.

The whole issue of regulation in the trust company industry will also be discussed in the white paper and will be the subject of consideration in this House. There is no problem about the regulatory activities of this ministry being a subject for discussion. Let us put an end to that suspicion right now.

Mr. Peterson: I refer the minister to a transcript of a meeting held in Clarkson Co. offices, Friday, January 14, at which a number of people were present, including Mr. Player. Mr. Player said the following at the time, and I think it is important:

"I am not sure of the date, but on the Tuesday or the Wednesday after the Cadillac Fairview deal closed, Roger Wilson" -- of Fasken and Calvin -- "and I spent three hours with Don Crosbie and Murray Thompson in the minister's office. I explained fully the deal to the minister. I explained fully how the down payment was made, where the money -- that the money was not in Canada for a down payment, how it worked."

This is the important part: "I explained and went through the deals, how Don Crosbie and Murray Thompson were both aware of my MURB deals" -- obviously, the multiple-unit residential building deal is prior to the Cadillac Fairview sale -- "and my cash flow deals from inspections of the trust companies and mortgages, were well aware of who it was."

What he is saying is that the minister's regulators were aware of the conduct in which he was engaging. Presumably they gave approval, because they have never publicly registered any displeasure with what was going on between Kilderkin and Seaway over the past couple of years. Now the minister says that he is going to have an internal review of the regulators to see why they missed everything that was going on.

Does the minister not feel because of the tremendous conflict of interest that, as in other situations like this when certain people's conduct is being investigated, these people should be put on suspension and new people whom we can have faith in to analyse the trust companies should be put in that job now, pending a review of their conduct? Why were Mr. Thompson, Mr. Crosbie and all their staff so incompetent, knowing what they did know and not bringing it to the minister's attention before this deal?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, I do not intend to comment on the veracity of statements made in documents that are before the courts.

Mr. Peterson: You mean your own affidavit?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Just hang on. They are documents that are before the courts where the very issue before the courts relates to the material filed, and I think the honourable member can understand that.

I have no intention of replacing anybody in that ministry. Certainly I have confidence in them.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I noticed in reading the affidavit of Mr. Brown, filed in the application for the appointment of the interim receiver for Kilderkin, that there is this express statement of something like $300 million owing as a liability to the investors and depositors in Seaway, but in the identical outline with respect to Greymac there is no such statement. Can the minister tell the House the extent of the liability to depositors and/or guaranteed investment certificate holders of Greymac?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that I have not received a report with respect to Greymac and I cannot provide that information.

Mr. Peterson: I want to point out to the minister that the affidavit shows it was common practice for Seaway and Kilderkin transactions that properties were flipped several times with substantial increases in sale prices and subsequent mortgage financing. I will point out to the minister again that two of the three examples used in support of the affidavit were examples we brought to the minister's attention in this House some time ago, and that cries out, does it not, for someone independent to look at this entire matter.

Why will the minister not, in the interests of the depositors and of all people involved in the trust industry, subject what his ministry did to an independent review to make sure this will never happen again? Obviously, the conduct of his staff and of the registrar is a very serious area for investigation.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I have said before, it is my view and the view of the government that the actions that are under way -- namely, first, the possession of the three trust companies by the registrar under section 158(a); second, the special examination being carried out by Mr. Morrison under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act with powers under part II of the Public Inquiries Act: third, the internal review that is being carried on with respect to the ministry's practices and procedures in its regulatory activities, and fourth, a white paper dealing with a broad range of issues, issues that do have to be addressed and considered by this House -- will produce more, in our view, than any other type of public inquiry.

That, in conjunction with the civil actions that have been taken, I submit will produce more quickly and more effectively than any other route the kind of results that depositors and the public want and that this House should want.

Mr. Kerrio: You made the same promise 10 years ago.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Trust me.

Mr. Peterson: You know that if it happens it will be so embarrassing you will have to resign over it.

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. There are press reports in the Toronto Star today saying the impact study on the huge tax increases under the new assessment system may never be made public. I refer the minister to Hansard of February 10, when he said, "That will become abundantly clear when the impact study is made available, I hope within the next week or so."

Can the minister clear up for us the ongoing confusion in his ministry, indeed in his entire government?

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion going on. When the impact study is ready to be released, it will be.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to know when that will be released. Is the minister's previous statement accurate? He said it would be in a week or so and that statement was made over a week ago, so perhaps he can be more specific.

I also want to know what assurances the minister is going to give those people whose assessments have been haphazard, the 7,000 last year and presumably 10,000 this year? What assurances is he going to give those people that they are not going to be unfairly discriminated against under his system?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The assessment study will be released in due course. When it is, the member will be one of the first ones to know.

As far as the people who were reassessed last year and those who will be reassessed this year are concerned, I can assure the member that the process and procedure last year was fair and equitable. This year we will make the system even fairer and more equitable. As far as the numbers involved are concerned, that is pure speculation on the part of the writer.

Mr. Peterson: There is a giant conspiracy against the minister by the press, by the Globe and Mail and now the Toronto Star. Is it now his intention to send a letter to the Toronto Star to clear up this ongoing confusion?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No, it is not. The speculation is exactly that. I think that is contrary to particular quotes that were attributed to me in the earlier story.

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMPENSATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. I am sure the minister is acquainted with the case of a young man named Terry Ryan who was blinded at age 26 in an industrial accident which happened three years ago at Westinghouse. This case resulted in a $5,000 fine against Westinghouse.

Is the minister aware there were seven charges originally laid and not proceeded with, and that one amended charge was proceeded with for improper storage of a flammable liquid under clause 14(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act?

Is the minister not more than a little concerned as a result of charges being dropped and proceedings carrying on with one or very few charges as we have seen in this case and which we saw last time with the Longstaff case? Does he not feel the inevitable result of that is going to be very low fines and inadequate enforcement of the law with respect to serious industrial accidents which are having a major effect on these young men?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the honourable member that it was a tragic accident and extremely unfortunate.

This parallels the matter the member brought up a week or so ago on which I am preparing a detailed response, the same situation of several charges being laid and then all but one being dropped. I just have a preliminary response to that. I would like to have the opportunity to rephrase this at a later date, but whether it is seven charges or one charge, it is my understanding that the charges are concurrent and therefore the laying of one charge does not mean that there has been any reduction of prosecution. I will have an exact legal opinion on that for the honourable member within the next day or so. I had hoped to bring it with me today, but it will probably now be Monday.

Mr. Rae: The minister is surely aware that the court has the jurisdiction to levy a fine with respect to each charge laid. The withdrawal of a charge means the court no longer has jurisdiction to make an award respecting a fine for a particular charge. I am sure he is aware that this matter is now before the courts with respect to whatever private remedies Mr. Ryan may or may not have, which is the question now being litigated.

In regard to the reform of the Workers' Compensation Act, does the minister not feel a pension of $1,080 per month is an inadequate protection and an inadequate recognition of the serious fact that this young man has been permanently disabled?

Does he not feel it is high time we reformed the Workers' Compensation Act to allow payments for pain and suffering which would recognize the real degree of loss and the real degree of suffering which is being felt by these young people who are being disabled for life in these terrible industrial accidents?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: As the members opposite are aware, the Weiler report was being studied by the standing committee on resources development last September. At that time, the deliberations were interrupted by the recall of the Legislature for the study of Bill 179. The committee study of the Weiler report was not completed at that time. When we got back here in January, we were faced with finishing up the estimates of the various ministries so the study of that report was again put off.

I have now had the assurance of the committee that the Weiler report will go to the resources development committee as soon as we return in April and there will be all the time necessary. If additional time is required to that already allocated, which I believe is two and a half weeks remaining, we will be given that additional time. I hope to be able to address some of the concerns of the member once I have the findings of the resources development committee.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, in considering the restructuring, I wonder if the minister is going to consider some kind of bond or security by these companies that have been fined when they have been shown to have been negligent. If they are asked to pay extra assessment and at some juncture either close down or leave Canada, I wonder why there is not some kind of bonding or security to make certain those payments continue and the burden is not left here when those companies either stop manufacturing, stop working here or leave the country.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that is one of the points being considered.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister said the resources development committee decided to hold this when the House reconvenes, does he not understand that what happened yesterday was to push further away the reform of the Workers' Compensation Board in spite of all the rhetoric this government is using?

In fact, yesterday the committee voted against having hearings during the next recess, as the minister made a commitment it would before this House last December when we were discussing the Workers' Compensation Act amendment.

Does the minister not think that by acting in that uncaring way, the government is not only delaying reform of the Workers' Compensation Board, but is allowing episodes like the one denounced by the leader of my party to be repeated time and again?

Does the minister not think it is time to talk to his House leader so he can call the members of the Conservative caucus to their senses and ask them to hold hearings now because the injured workers are waiting, and have been waiting for years for reform of the Workers' Compensation Act?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the exact opposite is true as far as the allegations being made by the honourable member are concerned. I have no wish whatsoever to delay the deliberations on the Weiler report. The opposite is true.

Mr. McClellan: They are not meeting during the recess.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not going anywhere. I will be here during the recess. I would have been prepared to sit last week, this week or in January. Let me make another point. If the opposition had not filibustered on Bill 179, we would have had the regulations --

Mr. Martel: Get off it. On a point of order --

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: We would have had the deliberations, the findings of the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Sudbury East please take his seat. This has nothing to do with the question, and I have called the minister to order because his response had nothing to do with the question that was asked. We will get on to a new question.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. Martel: Point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order.

Mr. Martel: Yes, there is. You are not even going to listen -- again.

Mr. Speaker: No. Now just a minute. Order. Will the honourable member just resume his seat, please.

I do not know what point the minister was going to develop, because it had nothing to do with the question that was asked. I do not know how you can raise a point of order on what the minister did not say.

Mr. Martel: I am raising it on what he did say.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. Martel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister said we could not proceed with the Workers' Compensation Board study because this party filibustered during Bill 179. That is not factual.

The committee had organized its time, which would have concluded with a report by October 6. This government called the House back, for some strange reason -- because the polls looked good for controls -- and the study was prevented from being completed by this government. It was interfered with because the Premier (Mr. Davis) wanted to appear to do something.

Mr. Rae: It interfered with the hearings. That is a fact.

Mr. Martel: It interfered with the hearings, and no report could be concluded. So do not come around here when --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please resume your seat. Interesting as this may be, it is totally out of order.

ARK EDEN NURSING HOME

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health arising out of his statement with respect to the Ark Eden Nursing Home.

As the member who raised the concern in the social development committee, I want to compliment the minister on taking the wisest course of action, which is to close the home and arrange for adequate accommodation for the remaining residents. But there really are a number of questions that do have to be pursued.

First, I do not see an explanation for the terrible fact that some of the fundamental violations of the Nursing Homes Act and regulations were known to the Ministry of Health as early as May 1980. It did not take an inquest into the death of Yves Soumelidis in January 1983 to acquaint the Ministry of Health with the facts of the Ark Eden Nursing Home. They knew those facts as early as the spring of 1980. The violations were not just ignored; they were in fact suppressed. The knowledge of violations was suppressed and withheld, and I need to know how this possibly could have happened.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who the honourable member is suggesting suppressed and withheld information. All I can indicate to the member is that I am conducting an analysis and review of the circumstances surrounding the last several years with regard to Ark Eden Nursing Home, and I want to satisfy myself with regard to how things have reached this stage.

In fairness, the kinds of problems that were discovered in this nursing home over the past couple of years were essentially in three categories: first, structural problems, some of which are referred to in the inspection report I have made available; and those, as is the case in many nursing homes, are grandfathered in the sense that while they are structurally not in accordance with the way we would like, they are not deemed to be dangerous situations for residents of the nursing homes. So, in ordinary circumstances, they are grandfathered.

In the second category are those which were turned up or were known about at the time the licence was purchased, at which time the owner entered into an agreement with the ministry whereby those deficiencies would be remedied within three years. On March 31, it will be three years since the home was purchased and the owner has done little or nothing to remedy the defects, which I think numbered eight.

For the first period of years, at least with regard to some of the defects, there was an understanding that there would be a schedule for compliance. It is quite clear now that the operator does not intend to comply with the due date.

In the third category are operational deficiencies, which are also referred to in that inspection report. When those have been turned up from time to time, the owner has been ordered to rectify them as soon as possible. It is quite clear, too, that over a period of time the kind of immediate action we expected and demanded when operational deficiencies were pointed out was not always complied with and there was not the kind of immediate action that ought to have been taken.

Mr. McClellan: Let me try to be more specific, since the minister does not understand what I meant by the phrase "withheld and suppressed." Does the minister not remember from the standing committee on social development that Mr. John Soumelidis, the father of Yves Soumelidis, wrote to Mr. Les Horne in the Ministry of Community and Social Services on August 7, 1981, complaining about the conditions at the nursing home, and that Mr. Horne contacted Paul Klamer, the chief of the nursing home inspection service, and relayed those concerns in the summer of 1981?

Mr. Klamer wrote back to Les Horne, who communicated hack to Mr. Soumelidis that there was nothing wrong at the Ark Eden Nursing Home despite the fact that Mr. Klamer knew in August 1981 -- I am reading from page 5 of the February 1983 inspection -- "There were residents occupying beds which were deficient in size." He knew that in August 1981. On page 6 of the report it says, "There was no nursing station provided on the second floor." That was the precise complaint made by Mr. Soumelidis to Mr. Les Horne and relayed to Mr. Paul Klamer.

The question, again, is why was this information suppressed? Is it going to continue to be the policy of the Ministry of Health to consistently refuse to reveal the results of nursing home inspection reports? Or is the minister going to change the policy and tell the public, openly and honestly, which homes are in violation of the Nursing Homes Act and regulations and which homes have a history of violation of the act and regulations, so that parents, family and relatives of people in nursing homes can take steps to protect them?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have previously, and just a moment ago, indicated to the member that we are reviewing all of the circumstances surrounding the history of this nursing home and the information which the nursing home branch had about it.

Second, I have reorganized the inspection branch. That has not yet been completed but there has already been substantial reorganization of that branch, as the member knows.

Third, I would point out that from this day forward we have to move quickly and firmly to make sure these incidents, whether of suppression, misadventure, misfeasance or nonfeasance, do not occur again. Therefore, we have closed Ark Eden.

As the member may recall, two weeks ago, after some five or six years during which St. Raphael's Nursing Home kept us in the courts on a variety of manoeuvres, finally we were able to find a way to resolve that and St. Raphael's Nursing Home is now closed.

Clearly the message is now out that these sorts of circumstances will not be tolerated. The operators are quite aware of that situation. They know that recommendations and requirements my reorganized nursing home branch puts on those nursing homes must be dealt with and dealt with immediately. They also know we are looking at new alternatives to move more quickly in these circumstances so we cannot be held up in the courts, as we have been previously when we have tried to move in those problem areas.

10:40 a.m.

Finally, the member knows I have already agreed to release nursing home inspection reports. He has the Ark Eden one, which two or three weeks ago he would not have expected to get in accordance with the traditional policy. We are now moving to release them. That will be an important new initiative in forcing operators to comply and in informing parents and relatives of the circumstances in the nursing homes. I think that ought to be done and it will begin to be done in the next few months.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the new ministry initiatives but I think it is unfortunate that when we see these kinds of initiatives in the Legislature, it is usually following the death of somebody like Yves Soumelidis.

I am sure the minister has read the brief presented to him by the Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities. I think it is their concern and it certainly is ours, relating to the issue of Jimmy Black, that the problems facing Ark Eden Nursing Home have far wider implications than simply a ministry directive to deal with one nursing home.

In the minister's new policy change of publishing inspection summaries, will he pass regulations to make sure each nursing home is required to post the inspection summary that is done by the Ministry of Health, and also that the information is made available to the assessment and placement services that may be available in communities so that parents and families who are placed in the unfortunate situation of having to put a relative in a nursing home will first have access to inspection summaries of all nursing homes in their communities?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that recommendation seems to be a fairly reasonable one. We may well do it when we have completed our review of the entire area, which will not be too long from now. I have not only read the brief the concerned friends group prepared, but I also met with them for about two hours as we reviewed all their concerns in the broader area.

I also had an opportunity to meet for several hours with the nursing home association and reviewed with it the brief, my personal concerns and the concerns expressed by my opposition critics with regard to the whole area. We have consulted with all the major people in this area who shared our concerns. We have flagged the stepped-up nature of our activities and they can look forward to some fairly important changes, beginning with the inspection reports and perhaps including the initiative the member has suggested. There are a variety of others I hope to have ready when the Legislature reconvenes.

Mr. McClellan: We actually seem to be making some progress. I think the minister will agree with me that if Mr. John Soumelidis, the father of Yves Soumelidis, had been given honest and accurate information about the conditions that were known to the Ministry of Health in August 1961, he would have taken the necessary steps which might have meant his son would be alive today.

I want to be absolutely sure of the nature of the commitment the minister is making today. Is he saying he will establish on a routine basis an inquiry service in his ministry so any citizen can inquire about any nursing home or home for special care in Ontario and be told honestly and completely whether that nursing home is currently in violation of the Nursing Homes Act or regulations, or if it has any history of violation of that act, and the precise nature of either those current or past violations so parents and friends can take whatever action they need to arrange adequate, decent and humane care for their loved ones?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All I can assure the member of is that we will attempt to meet the goals he, the Health critic of the Liberal Party and I have talked about in terms of releasing the inspection reports. I am satisfied they will be met.

Whatever the exact form and circulation will he, and whatever things have to be deleted to protect confidentiality, this will have to be done. We are working to achieve that goal and we will share our plans in that area with the member. If they are not satisfactory, we can discuss it further. I believe the member will find them to be satisfactory.

May I take this opportunity to clarify the fact that the inquest was quite thorough. As we discussed at estimates, it is not clear that conclusions such as some people want to draw are entirely fair. There was some contradictory evidence at the inquest. Indeed, the inquest did not find that the death was directly attributable to conditions at the nursing home, to be fair to the operator.

I need not say, after the statement I made this morning on our decision to close down the nursing home, that I have no sympathy for the operator. He had lots of time to rectify the situation. Indeed, I have no sympathy for any operator who allows and condones conditions such as this in his or her nursing home for an hour, let alone for almost three years.

Although I have no sympathy for him, it is important to clarify that the inquest did not find that those conditions contributed directly to the unfortunate death in this tragic case. None the less, the conditions were, as I had indicated, intolerable and I do believe the form of release of nursing home inspection reports we are proposing will avert any suspicion or appearance to the contrary.

Mr. McClellan: The answer seems to be no.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer is yes.

MISSISSAUGA LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, being on top of all cabinet decisions, can no doubt field this question in the absence of the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague).

The Premier may be aware of the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board around December 24, 1981, that opposed the development of certain lands along the Credit River in Mississauga and supported the area residents, the city of Mississauga, the region of Peel and the Credit Valley Conservation Authority. The 0MB stated quite emphatically in its decision: "There is no reason why the subdivision should be permitted, save and except the desire of the proposed developer to develop the property for economic reasons."

Can the Premier explain, not only to this House but also to the people of Mississauga, why the cabinet has now rejected the decision of an impartial body, the 0MB, and ordered another costly board hearing into this matter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised the honourable member himself is raising this question. I would not have been surprised if it were agricultural land, but I guess he has become the artist on this topic for his party.

I would only say to the member that cabinet makes these decisions. It makes them on the best advice and judgement it brings to bear. I have heard the member on other occasions arguing with us that we should alter a decision of the board if it coincides with his own point of view on an issue. I will not go through chapter and verse. These matters are always difficult for cabinet. I have never been comfortable with the process in terms of appeals, but we have not found a better method of dealing with these issues.

I should also point out that we did not overturn the board in this instance, as the member is well aware. The best judgement we brought to bear as a cabinet was to have the matter reheard.

Mr. Riddell: Considering all the people I have mentioned who do not feel that development should take place, it is rather surprising that cabinet would overturn the decision of an inquiry on the part of the 0MB.

Does the Premier agree with the comments of his cabinet colleague the famous member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) -- he is not very famous back there, according to an article in the Toronto Star headed, "MPP Skips Meeting, Residents Angry" who stated to the press that the 0MB responded to mob rule and reacted to that? Does the Premier agree with this statement?

Does he also believe the 0MB bases decisions on the number of individuals who attend a hearing? By any chance, did the member for Mississauga East flex his muscles in cabinet when the 0MB decision was being considered? If so, all things considered, would the Premier not feel there was a conflict of interest on the part of the member?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I regret the last part of the honourable member's question. It is unfortunate, but if that is his approach and state of mind I can do nothing about it. The answer to the last part is, of course, no. If the member checks the press carefully he will find that the member for Mississauga East withdrew those remarks as he read them into the record of this House. He will find that, if he looks carefully, which I know he always does, before asking questions of this nature.

I should point out that the cabinet did not overturn the municipal board of this province. It ordered a rehearing of the issue.

Mr. Riddell: In other words, they appealed it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wish the member would remember that. I wish he would think back to other issues of a similar nature where these matters have been raised before and where he has taken positions that are somewhat contrary to the point of view he is expressing to the House this morning.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the member will always try to preserve food land. I understand that and I respect it. The member may not always be right, but I respect that point of view. I point out, because this matter has been raised by the member in his own inimitable fashion, that the cabinet of this province made a decision as a group. They are difficult decisions for us. They are made on the best judgement we can bring to bear to maintain the integrity in terms of the function of the board and to maintain equity in terms of property rights of both large groups and of individuals, which the member always mentions on occasion.

In our wisdom -- and the member may quarrel with it -- we have asked the 0MB to rehear this issue; a decision, incidentally, that is not unique. History will record it has worked rather well.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, is it not true this is part of a conscious policy on the part of the government to back off on the preservation of green belt and prime farm land, as is shown in Niagara where they break the urban boundaries and 65 acres are included without even a hearing, and back off on the preservation of a natural and unique environment like the escarpment, where we see the hearing officers backing down on that?

Is this not part of a conscious policy of the government to back off on all of these things?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that is a supplementary, but the Premier may answer it if he wishes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to answer that question, Mr. Speaker, in that the supplementary is not related to the main question, but he has asked it and it gives me an opportunity to trace some of the history of the policies of this government with respect to the preservation of recreational land.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps the member has been more consistent in his support; I question it. He has certainly been contradictory, even his party has; certainly the Liberal Party has been, in terms of the escarpment.

Show me another jurisdiction which has had the foresight and the courage to move ahead with plans such as the escarpment and the parkway belt. We have done more in terms of preservation of recreational land here in Ontario than anyone else.

Mr. Martel: The Premier always gets louder when he is in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Welland-Thorold gives me nearly as many great opportunities as the member for Sudbury East does. I appreciate it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member does not know how much trouble his party is in. He does not know how much trouble he is in. The only sad part is they are in more trouble.

I am somewhat interested in the member's views on that parcel in the peninsula. He knows full well the official plan of the region of Niagara has been a matter of intensive discussion and hearings before the board. He knows people have had an opportunity to comment.

The member does not care that much about the property rights of some individuals as long as it conforms to his theology. His theology always is ahead of the rights of property owners. I understand that.

Mr. Martel: You are just trying to think of things to say.

Hon. Mr. Davis: When the member asks me questions in such a loud voice I reply in kind because I assume he is hard of hearing and I do not want him to miss it.

Mr. Riddell: The supplementary should have been whether you have a set of guidelines on conflict of interest.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Huron- Middlesex has already asked his question. I call on the member for York South with a new question.

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General about the confusion with respect to the deaths at the Hospital for Sick Children. I am sure he will agree the confusion exists, unfortunately, as a result of so many different statements coming from different people involved in the police investigation.

We have a statement from Chief Ackroyd saying: "We do not have sufficient evidence to lay additional charges." That is a quote from the Toronto Star. There was a statement yesterday from Superintendent Bamlett, upon his early retirement, that the investigation was completed. There was an indication from the Attorney General yesterday that the investigation is still continuing and has not yet been completed.

I would like to ask the Attorney General two things. First, can he explain why Superintendent Bamlett appears to have left the investigation before it was completed? Alternatively, can he explain why Chief Ackroyd seems to feel the investigation has, in some sense, been completed but there is not sufficient evidence to lay charges? Can he clear the air on that? I am sure he will agree the number of conflicting statements that have been made is adding to the confusion in this area.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken directly with Chief Ackroyd about this matter within the past few days so I am unable to comment today on the statements that are attributed to him in one of Toronto's newspapers. But I can assure the member that what I stated yesterday was accurate in that the investigation has not been completed.

I believe the crown law officer from the local crown attorney's office who is most directly involved in the investigation, Mr. Jerry Wiley, was quoted in the press today as stating most emphatically the investigation had not been concluded.

I have reason to believe, as I suggested yesterday, that the investigation will be concluded in the relatively near future. I think it should be completed within the next couple of weeks, barring unexpected developments. I regret the confusion that does appear to exist but I can assure the leader of the New Democratic Party on the best possible information I have that the investigation has not been concluded.

I will be making a statement on the report from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta on Monday. I had hoped it might have been ready for today but unfortunately it was not. However, I will be making a statement in the House on Monday.

Mr. Rae: I would like to get a clear commitment from the Attorney General, if I may, in this regard. Can he assure the House that if there are no criminal charges laid as a result of the very lengthy police investigation and if there are no criminal charges laid as a result of the Atlanta inquiry, he will call a public inquiry in order to clear the air? Will he do this in order to restore full public confidence in this most important institution in our province?

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: All I can do is repeat what I said yesterday: that should the investigation be concluded without any additional criminal charges being laid then of course the option of a public inquiry would have to be very seriously considered by this government. I am not in a position to bind the government in this respect. This is a decision that would have to be made by the cabinet.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not think the confusion of the last 24 hours surrounding this issue has been important enough for him to have been in touch personally with the Metropolitan Toronto police department?

Yesterday he said in the House "if criminal charges are laid" -- not "when criminal charges are laid or criminal charges are pending." Would he not agree his comments seem to indicate a backpedalling in his position? Would they not indicate perhaps there may be no criminal charges laid in the future, a position slightly different from that which he has taken in this House on previous occasions? Would the minister confirm that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There is absolutely nothing contradictory or inconsistent with any of the statements I have made in this matter. I simply do not have anything further to say about it at this time.

HAWKER SIDDELEY

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Has the minister any additional information regarding the bid by Hawker Siddeley of Thunder Bay to build 130 subway cars for Houston? And is the minister prepared to look further into this matter, where the second-lowest bidder, who was $29 million higher, received a $139 million contract for subway cars for Houston?

I think it is a little bit out of line. If you are lowest you are supposed to get the contract. In the meantime they come up with some excuse that there was no contract available for reasons I do not know. I would like the minister to be kind enough to look into this matter and perhaps answer some of the questions the people in Thunder Bay want to know about.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am fairly familiar with the situation in Houston, and I am sure we are all very disappointed that Hawker Siddeley was not the successful bidder for that contract. The firm was without a doubt the low bidder. I was delighted a month or so ago when I got the news that Hawker was the low bidder at about $110 million US, which is roughly $130 million or $135 million Canadian for 135 cars -- about $1 million per subway car. That obviously would have meant a great deal of employment and work for the Hawker Siddeley plant.

I understand Metropolitan Toronto wanted to order a smaller number of subway cars, and it was to be hoped these could have been built at the same time -- which also would have been helpful to Thunder Bay. I was very disappointed to hear that the bid had been rejected. The bid is dead now, to my knowledge; I do not think anything can be done to revive it. The bid was rejected because it was not in accordance with the specifications. I really am very surprised that Hawker Siddeley would submit a bid that did not meet the specifications of the customer.

It is the same as when you want to buy a new car and you say you want a red car with blue carpet: that is what you want; you do not want what the dealer decides you should have. There were a number of different parts of the specifications, I understand, where they did not bid on what was requested and in accordance with tendering procedures. Perhaps the Houston people felt they had no alternative but to reject the bid.

Certainly it was not rejected in any way on the basis of the ability of Hawker Siddeley to build cars or the quality of the product. Hawker Siddeley has an excellent reputation in that field. They just did not bid in accordance with the specifications.

Mr. Van Horne: I understand the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) indicated a week ago he would be talking to officials in Houston on this same situation. Now I understand something a little bit different from the Minister of Transportation and Communications who has indicated the situation is closed. Could the minister tell us if the efforts of the Minister of Industry and Trade fell on deaf ears, or if any further negotiation is possible?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I understand from the minister he agreed to something like that three days ago. I also know the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the federal Minister of International Trade and the Canadian ambassador to the United States have been contacted on this matter to see if they can be of some assistance. I understand they have all stated there is nothing further they can do. The bid has been denied and the contract is being awarded to the Japanese firm of Hitachi.

Mr. Foulds: Could the minister tell us on what evidence or information he is basing his answer when he indicates Hawker Siddeley did not hid to the specifications asked for by the transit authority? Is it not usual to have some negotiations on those specifications? Can the minister also tell us whether, in his opinion, the loss of this contract now jeopardizes Hawker Siddeley's chances for the Toronto transit contract, as would appear from his first answer? If so, will he make every effort to make sure that is not the case?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have not reviewed personally the bid documents. In a contract such as this, if the documents and specifications were piled one on top of the other, they would be some 15 inches in height. It is my understanding it was strictly a tender job. Sometimes then a purchaser calls for a proposal on a project there is some room for negotiation on the specifications. However, when one calls for a specific tender, as in my own ministry when we call for tenders on a new bridge or a new highway, if a bidder puts in a tender with conditions in it that do not meet the specifications, our own tender office rejects the tender on that basis.

The member asked for a specific instance. I believe there was more than one, but the one I have been told about was in regard to the air conditioning of the cars. I believe the tender called for the cars to have an air-conditioning system capable of handling the temperature that could be expected in Houston, which would only be normal. It is my understanding that temperature often reaches 105 or 110 degrees there during the summer months. I am told the bid put in by Hawker Siddeley said its cars were air-conditioned to a temperature of 90 to 95 degrees, considerably less than what was called for. So the air-conditioning system did not meet the specifications. That is an example.

With regard to the Toronto subway cars, I hope some arrangement can be made for that work to be placed with Hawker Siddeley, but I cannot give the member a guaranteed assurance of that.

TOXIC CHEMICAL RESEARCH

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware of the new development in research for neutralizing low-level toxic chemicals by environmental scientists at Occidental Chemical Corp.? They have developed a process for rearranging bacterial molecular structure. This rearranging process has developed a superior strain of chemical-eating bacteria which they call superbugs. This has taken place at the Hyde Park landfill Site in Niagara Falls, New York. Occidental considers the superbug a more efficient way of eliminating toxic chemicals.

11:10 a.m.

Has the Ministry of the Environment or the Ontario Waste Management Corp. done any research in this area or considered joint research with American scientists to improve safe, reliable measures to dispose of toxic chemicals?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the work that is apparently under way in the United States flowing from the experience with the bacteria at the Hyde Park landfill site.

I thank the honourable member for forwarding some information to me on this subject. I certainly will discuss it with staff. I cannot say with any degree of certainty at this point whether the staff of the ministry are aware of this ongoing research or not, but I will certainly follow up on it with them and provide the member with information on whatever they might have.

PETITION

REGULATION OF KICKBOXING

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in response to the statement to ban the events of kickboxing and full contact karate made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) on February 15.

While there was some expectation of gathering up to 2,000 names over some time, in just one day the petition gathered 4,838 names, the first of which is that of Mayor Al Gleason of London.

The petition prays three items for relief and requests: first, to remove the three-month ban on both professional and amateur kickboxing and full contact karate; second, to review the aforesaid sports over the course of the next three months, or such greater length of time as may be necessary, with a committee of professionals composed of the individuals appointed as well as someone who knows about kickboxing; and third, to mandate the committee to suggest regulation of the aforesaid sports with a view towards safety measures, training, medical standards, equipment, financing, rules and records.

LITHUANIAN AND ESTONIAN FREEDOM CELEBRATION

Mr. Shymko: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wish to bring to the attention of honourable members that throughout this week and next week Canadians of Lithuanian and Estonian origin are celebrating the 65th anniversary of the proclamation of the independence of their respective peoples.

I know that many members have been invited to their festivities. I would like to highlight this today by saying that in 1915, after the dissolution of the czarist empire, these proclamations were made on February 16 and 24, respectively. As members know, after a brief two decades the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1940 crushed their liberties through Soviet occupation followed by Nazi occupation. Therefore the symbol of freedom, justice and peace these proclamations symbolize is being marked this week and next. Members would certainly be welcome to attend these festivities.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I would like to join with the member for High Park-Swansea in his remarks about the Lithuanian freedom celebrations that are taking place this weekend.

Each one of us is invited to the flag-raising ceremonies that will take place at Toronto city hall on Saturday at 12:30 p.m. and I think all of us can add to these very important festivities. They honour the fact that 65 years ago the Lithuanian people and all the Baltic states, including Estonia and Latvia, were moving towards the freedom and dignity of their peoples. Our party wants to associate itself with the remarks just made.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I want to share in the remarks that were made by the member for High Park-Swansea with respect to the 65th anniversary of the freedom and independence of the peoples of Lithuania and Estonia. I also would like to indicate to the House Just how strong a value we in our party place on the values of freedom and liberty. Perhaps we should remember too that it was social democrats who suffered along with those nationalists who still suffer in the Soviet Union from the impact of Soviet totalitarianism and dictatorship.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: It is a very sad day in this Legislature when in a sense we have to commemorate that in the way we do, with all the freedom, with all the ripostes and back-and-forth we associate with a free assembly here in Ontario. We know full well there are people in those countries who would dearly love to have the freedom, the liberty and the ability to speak up and speak out that we have so proudly in this province and in this country. In that sense, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the member for High Park-Swansea.

POWER SHUTDOWN IN LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform you and other members of the House and the other users of this building that tomorrow there will be a full power shutdown in this building from 8 a.m. till 4:30 p.m. In case any of the members or their staff want to work in here there will be no hydro.

This shutdown will give us a chance to test our standby diesel generators, which were damaged during the explosion. I ask members to please inform their staff. I have asked our people to let all the caucuses know there will be no hydro from 8 till 4:30 tomorrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned consideration of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

On section 6:

The Deputy Chairman: Continuing the debate on the amendment that has been moved by the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) to subsection 6(4). Are we ready for the vote on this? Is there a reason for more debate? I see the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) wishes to speak.

An hon. member: The member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) adjourned the debate.

The Deputy Chairman: It does not matter. We are in committee. I did not see the member. Would the member for Downsview allow the member for Parkdale to continue?

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that I agree with --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, in actual fact I had the floor when the House adjourned.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: If the minister had the floor and if all members will allow the minister to go first, we will have a new rotation. We are in committee. I can recognize whomever. If you will allow the minister to respond it would be very appropriate. Thank you. With your permission, the minister will respond. I do not need to ask her to speak to the bill.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No sir, I shall speak to the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: The amendment. Thank you.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I shall make every attempt to speak only to the amendment, unlike my colleagues who, last night, indulged in second reading debate of the bill rather than addressing the amendment. We have already had, I think, more than 10 hours of second reading debate. We have had nine hours of so-called debate on this amendment. Surely, it is time we all recognized that arguments being put are merely multiple repetitions of what has been said before.

11:20 a.m.

Yesterday afternoon and last night some things were said which I think should be clarified. It is apparent -- and I find it somewhat appalling -- that the mind-set of members within this chamber is such that the concept of quality of educational program and efficiency, economy and, indeed, prudence in spending are mutually exclusive.

I do not believe that is so. It becomes a little distressing to hear honourable members in this chamber suggest that elected members of boards of education are not to be trusted to carry out their primary responsibility -- which is, of course, the delivery of educational program to children.

It is our joint responsibility, the responsibility of all of those involved in the school system, to ensure the maintenance of the appropriate range and scope of educational program; but all the support for that educational program and all the funds that provide the vehicle which allows it to flow are provided by the taxpayers of Ontario.

I think it appropriate that boards of education, as well as others involved in education, recognize there is a joint responsibility to deliver the best quality and the widest range of educational opportunity for all children. They also have a responsibility to recognize there is not an unlimited amount of money available in any jurisdiction for the provision of those programs.

I believe most members of boards of education and most school trustees recognize and are sensitive to that joint responsibility. Their primary concern is always with the quality and range of educational program, and I believe firmly that will remain uppermost in their minds. I believe it will, despite the fact that, for the very first time in the structure of Metropolitan Toronto, this amendment suggests it is reasonable to consider carefully the possibility of prudent spending.

I really believe prudent spending is an appropriate mind-set for those who are involved in any expenditure of public funds. I do not believe thrift is a dirty, five-letter Anglo-Saxon word, as it would seem to be expressed by certain members of this House.

The amendment which is here is very much in line with what was in the bill originally. I would like the members to know --

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not count. It is a six-letter word.

Mr. Van Horne: I was about to point out to the minister that her arithmetic and spelling were both a little shaky.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member was slow.

I would like them to know the definition in this amendment of the way in which surplus may be distributed is akin to the concept embodied in the bill as it was originally placed before the Legislature. It is interesting to note a vote was taken by all the representatives of the boards to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board on June 15. All the representatives, including the seven trustees representing the Toronto board, supported this surplus statement and the intent and concept of this --

Mr. Grande: Why did you change your mind?

Mr. Bradley: Why did you change your mind in committee?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was simply the fact the member was being terribly obstructive and was attempting to say we could not do this.

After obtaining this information and determining -- I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I have not intentionally misled the House but I have not included one important item. One representative of the Toronto Board of Education voted against it; all the other members, including the other six members from Toronto, voted for it. The one member who voted against it was, of course, Mr. Robert Spencer.

In addition, all those trustees voted for the deficit provision, which is the next clause within this section. What has happened is that, in examining the content of the deficit clause, it became apparent it would be much more appropriate to have this same kind of responsibility and balancing related to surplus as was included and passed within the deficit clause.

Therefore we introduced the amendment that it be modified to ensure that the boards receive at least as much but not more than what they had established as a surplus. It also would ensure that all the boards together, in their capacity as members of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, would develop guidelines to help them make the appropriate decisions about the distribution beyond that amount engendered as a result of the levy within that local jurisdiction. Those principles do obtain for the deficit provision as well.

Since September there have been a number of meetings; stimulated, I suppose, by Ministry of Education staff but certainly carried out totally and jointly among all the boards of education and the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. Those guidelines have been laid out and have been agreed to by the members represented on the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, including the representatives of the borough of York.

We have a letter from the chairman of the York Board of Education declaiming clearly that it is now in full support of the concept of the bill, that its reservations regarding the surplus deficit provisions have been almost totally removed. The board wants to see it in action before the reservations are all gone, but it approves of the guidelines and participated in the process.

Therefore, with the full support of all those boards, and with the support of those trustees who are going to be charged with the responsibility and affected by it, I think it behooves the members of this House to approve the amendment that has been introduced. It will ensure there are reasonable guidelines provided for the division of the amount that is between the level collected at the local area jurisdiction and the total amount of the surplus.

The current state of the member's amendment would ensure that if the Toronto Board of Education were to develop a surplus of, say, $1 million, it would receive 39.5 per cent of that. If the borough of York managed to engender a surplus it would receive something in the order of 13 per cent of that surplus, and in the borough of East York seven per cent. Surely that can be construed as less than reasonably encouraging to them to practise the whole concept of prudent spending and I believe --

Mr. Grande: It is called cutbacks.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for Oakwood continually uses the word "cutbacks." I remind him that the amount of money that has been delivered by the province in support of education has increased by more than 226 per cent in the last 10 years. If that is a cutback, then show me what an increase is.

The words used by the members have been very misleading --

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I said "the words have been misleading" and that, I believe, is parliamentary.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They certainly have been less than factually correct. The statements made by the member for Parkdale were in such flights of paroxysmal, psychotic hyperbole that I really wondered what on earth he was doing.

11:30 a.m.

I was also fascinated by the peripheral pontification of the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney). He was more enthusiastic last night than he was during the leadership race. What was it he was trying to sell -- the fact the Christian schools are not funded? Is that what his main message was? That is what I heard. It had nothing to do with this amendment, absolutely nothing; but it was fascinating to watch.

I have been delighted by the thespian activities of the member for York South (Mr. Rae), and I must admit I was enchanted from time to time, but only rarely, by the acrobatic and articulate stage presence of the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) who also did not speak to the amendment; but then, he was not supposed to.

There is good rationale for this amendment. It is indeed the amendment which is perceived to be appropriate by all the boards involved, including the city of Toronto, in this area of management of surplus and deficit. I believe we owe it to those local members to understand that they perceive this as appropriate, and to recognize that they have not only some honour and purpose, they also have integrity. I do not believe we should be denying that. Therefore, after nine and a half hours of debate on this amendment, anything more will be total repetition. Could I suggest strongly that the honourable members consider voting on the amendment at this point?

Mr. Di Santo: Is the minister calling the question?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I am not.

The Deputy Chairman: Do members wish to take the vote on this? I recognize --

Mr. Breaugh: No.

The Deputy Chairman: Do I see other members who want to speak to the motion? The chair is eager to move forward to the other parts of the bill, knowing the desire of all members to proceed.

Mr. Ruprecht: As soon as they put the light on.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Parkdale, although it will be very difficult to be heard.

Mr. Breaugh: Yeah, there is somebody yelling "Order" in here all the time, so we can hardly hear.

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes, I know, Mr. Chairman, but I must go on record, as probably other members will, about the remarks just made by the minister. Even though I found her remarks quite funny, the record must be set straight.

First, she said the reason she had changed her mind in committee was that the other parties were obstructionist and nothing would move. There is nothing --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not what I said. The member does not listen.

Mr. Ruprecht: That is precisely what she said. She said they were obstructionist. That is the word she used. I heard it; everyone else heard it. She said that is the reason she changed her mind. The point was that --

Mr. Bradley: That is right.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Bradley: Don't interject; let him talk.

Mr. Ruprecht: Maybe she does not know what she is saying.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, yes, I do.

Mr. Ruprecht: The point is, I have never seen a more co-operative meeting on that specific subject. She had agreed with it. Perhaps now she will say that because we are obstructionist at this point she may even withdraw the whole bill. If that is what we have to do, then that would be a most welcome situation. We could show some backbone and tell her to withdraw, and she might.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Don't hold your breath, Tony.

Mr. Ruprecht: Let me get back to the second point she made. I have heard the words efficiency, streamlining, prudent spending and thrift before. What they indicate is a mind-set and a clash between two philosophies in this section of surpluses and deficits.

On one hand, there is the philosophy of thrift, prudent spending, efficiency and streamlining, which she has indicated. But that is really regressive saving. It is the King Midas mentality. It is an idea --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What? The member's mythology is off.

Mr. Ruprecht: No, it is not; it is that very mentality. It means that the trustees were entrusted -- in fact, the minister is entrusted with the responsibility to look towards the future. But no; in this instance the opposite is taking place. She is not looking towards the future. She is regressing. She is cutting off. She is cutting out certain funds. I would even say, to permit me another flight of fancy, she is strangling --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are not cutting off anything.

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes, she is.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are not cutting anything. Nothing.

Mr. Ruprecht: We agree. You are accusing the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) of always talking about cutbacks --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman --

The Deputy Chairman: Can the minister respond to your point? Then you can continue.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, the member is incorrect. There is nothing in this bill that cuts off anything; nothing. The provisions of this bill assign responsibility, but they do not cut funding. Therefore, it is quite inaccurate to say that is the direction of the bill.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, I think that is terrific but, in the very specific point, it really goes to the very historical relationship in Metropolitan Toronto. Namely, in the past we have had sharing; we shared when North York and Scarborough were building schools. Obviously, some of the money came from Toronto and in the future --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It also came from the rest of the province.

Mr. Ruprecht: Of course. In the future, that will no longer be a possibility. The reverse might be true. But now, because of the very special needs, which we have indicated again and again, the reverse will now no longer be true. If the minister examines the figures --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: this bill has nothing to do with the construction of schools. That is an entirely different matter and is not addressed, in any way, in Bill 127. The honourable member is quite out of order in even suggesting that.

Mr. Ruprecht: How can she say this? The point surely is, and the minister would agree, that in the past when Scarborough and other places were building schools, there was a certain sharing taking place. Is that not true? There was sharing within Metropolitan Toronto.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is in the capital area. That is not in this area.

Mr. Ruprecht: Of course, that is in the past. I am saying now this sharing can no longer take place, because the minister is saying, under this specific --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: May I correct the honourable member?

The Deputy Chairman: He has asked a question.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He has asked a question, therefore I shall answer it.

There are two budgetary items related to the provision of educational programs. One is the capital area and that is not a part of Bill 127 for Metropolitan Toronto. It is apart and separate from this which relates to the operating funds for school boards. Therefore the whole matter of construction of schools has no relationship at all to this bill or to the matters about which we are having discussion.

Mr. Ruprecht: With respect, Mr. Chairman, of course the honourable minister did not want to point out that the sharing which has taken place in the past, in terms of surpluses and deficits, will no longer take place. She has to understand that. That is the very function of this specific section 6(4).

Hon. Miss Stephenson: This is what the Toronto trustees want.

Mr. Ruprecht: She surely understands that once this bill is passed and is implemented, this can no longer take place. The surpluses cannot be shared and deficits cannot be shared. This means that she is cutting off any sharing that can take place such as did in the past. She understands that, so I do not know why she keeps objecting to it. This is a fact.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Because we are not talking about a capital budget.

Mr. Ruprecht: The point here really is the recognition that, just as new schools were needed in the past, there are special needs now in the city of Toronto. Those needs can no longer be shared among the school boards. I am saying that what took place in terms of building schools and capital projects, that money came from Toronto as well as from other places in Ontario, but now the needs are shifting and she knows they are shifting. When the new needs are being established in the city of Toronto, what the minister wants to do is to really cut off funding. That is what the member for Oakwood is continually saying and that is what we are continually saying.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He is wrong too and so are you.

Mr. Ruprecht: It is clear to us that what the minister is doing by this surgery is she is saying that no longer can we, in the city of Toronto, share with the rest of the boroughs. That is what she is doing with this bill and that is why we strenuously object.

What she further does not want to admit are the special needs in the city of Toronto. She should admit that. There are special needs. That is why special funding is required. That is why sharing should continue and that is precisely what she wants to cut off. If she gets up and says that is not the case, then I do not know to whom I am speaking.

I was just addressing myself really to the clash between two -- in this specific section, for that matter -- major philosophies in our educational system. The minister's philosophy, obviously backed by some members of her party, comes under what she said about efficiency, prudent spending and thrift. I said earlier that was regressive.

Let us look at the other basic philosophy of surpluses and deficits which must be opposed to this specific section. It must be opposed because it would cut out the basic leveller of equality of education.

11:40 a.m.

The Deputy Chairman: I am concerned the honourable member is going off the motion as it is now. As the motion is put, it deals with surpluses. In a certain sense, I have also given you latitude and there is repetition creeping into your presentation. With all due respect, I ask the honourable member to direct his --

Mr. Ruprecht: I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Chairman, but the point must be made as to what would happen if this section is passed. That is the connection. Something significant will happen.

A big shift is taking place here in education policy. We have to admit that. The big shift is the clash between those two kinds of attitudes. When this takes place, the basic equality of education which ties in with the needs of the city of Toronto will be destroyed.

There are many people in the city of Toronto, more than in the boroughs, who have special needs and in future they will no longer be competitive. If we cut off this leveller of equality of education and these special programs, how in the world are those students in Toronto who need special programs such as English as a second language, reading difficulties and so on, going to be able to compete in the real world with those students who do not have those needs and come from other parts of Metropolitan Toronto? How will they be able to compete?

Could the minister tell me how they are going to be able to compete when they come here with special needs? They cannot really speak or write English and they need special programs. What the minister is doing is cutting out the basic leveller of equality. How are they going to compete? That is what we are asking for. We are asking for equality and quality of education and with this bill some of these programs will be cut.

The minister knows this is true. The result will be that the kids who are here will not be able to be in a competitive position in future to compete with other people from other school boards. She knows that is true.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member is now truly repeating himself.

Mr. Ruprecht: No, I am not.

The Deputy Chairman: The chair has been patient but the chair is losing its sense of patience; speak to the motion.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, what has to take place here is the minister is empowered --

The Deputy Chairman: I am going to recognize another member shortly if the honourable member continues on that point. He has made a point and there are other people who want to speak. The member for Downsview was gracious in allowing him to have the floor and he is ready to speak.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The member for Downsview was not gracious in giving me the floor. You have mistaken that. I was speaking last night and therefore, I should have the right to continue speaking.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I do not know what you are reading in my mind, but I am more than glad to listen to my friend the member for Parkdale.

The Deputy Chairman: That is fine but I will make sure the honourable members who participate in this debate speak to the motion or they will be cut off.

Mr. Foulds: That was extremely gracious and courteous of my colleague.

The Deputy Chairman: There is courtesy all over the place at times.

Mr. Ruprecht: I would expect the same courtesy from the chair so I could continue from last night.

The minister is empowered with the responsibility to do all she can in terms of equality of education, especially across the metropolitan area. She is not expanding educational needs. She has to admit that. She is contracting education in the city of Toronto with this bill. This specific section of surpluses is contracting educational possibilities --

The Deputy Chairman: I am now cutting off the member for Parkdale. You will resume your seat. I have given you several opportunities to speak to the motion without being repetitious. I have now taken it as far as I can. You will resume your seat, and I will recognize another honourable member. Because this is in committee, you will be allowed an opportunity to rise again and speak, but I am saying that at the present time you are not adding to the debate.

The member for Downsview.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I regret that you --

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

The Deputy Chairman: Is this a point of order? The member for Parkdale.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, I know you have not given me any choice here but to challenge the chair. I wish to continue with my remarks.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member cannot challenge the chair; you challenge the House, and there is a procedure for that.

I had recognized the member for Downsview. I will give you an opportunity to speak again, but as you were proceeding I was not prepared to allow you to continue with the repetition and being off the subject. You may speak again; and if you want to challenge the House, you may.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I regret that you cut off the member for Parkdale, because even though you had some questions about the clarity of his argument, I certainly agree with the thrust of what he said last night and what he has been saying today.

Let me set the record straight. The amendment we are discussing is to subsection 6(4) of the act, which read originally:

"Where the estimates for public elementary or for secondary school purposes of a board of education in the Metropolitan area that are approved in whole or in part by the school board have been reduced in accordance with clause 133(1)(b) by the application of a surplus, the school board shall, except where it considers that the surplus is attributable to the provision of moneys pursuant to clause 133(9)(b), reduce the apportionment for public elementary or secondary school purposes, as the case may be, to the area municipality in which the board of education has jurisdiction by an amount that, in the opinion of the school board" -- note this, Mr. Chairman -- "is equal to the portion of the surplus that was raised by local taxation in the area municipality."

The amendment introduced by the minister reads as follows:

"I move that subsection 127(4) of the act, as set out in subsection 6(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out 'an amount that, in the opinion of the school board, is equal to the portion of the surplus that was raised by local taxation in the area municipality' in the 10th, 11th and 12th lines, and inserting in lieu thereof 'an amount that does not exceed the amount of the surplus, and in determining the amount of the reduction in the apportionment the school board shall give consideration to the circumstances that, in the opinion of the school board, contributed to the size of the surplus.'"

We all understand the amendment we are discussing. In fact, when the minister, who has left the chamber, rose at the beginning of today's session, she said in her unmistakably clear language that what the government is substituting is "surplus" instead of "deficit." I hope the member for Parkdale listens carefully so that when he rises again he will address the amendment more effectively.

My colleague the member for Oakwood has maintained since the beginning, when Bill 127 was introduced, during the hearings in committee and during the debate on this amendment, that the higher the surplus the lower the service.

I am also sorry that the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) is not present, because he is so querulous and interjects continuously, even though he does not understand the subject matter we are discussing.

Mr. Jones: Oh, yes he does.

Mr. Di Santo: Who said "Yes"?

Mr. Jones: I say he does.

Mr. Di Santo: The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones) is rarely present, and even when he is present physically he rarely contributes to the debate on this bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Di Santo: By the way, it is also important for the implication it has for Mississauga. Last week one of the trustees of the Peel Board of Education said on television that in Mississauga Bill 127 is already in place. He said he was making decisions related to the city of Orangeville on issues he was completely unaware of. I would bring to the attention of the member for Mississauga North that if he listens carefully to the arguments we are making he could learn something for the riding he represents.

Mr. Jones: Most of our trustees have the capacity to deal with those issues. We know all about our system. We know all about our trustees, and they do not have a problem.

An hon. member: Is he on the amendment?

Mr. Chairman: I was wondering if the member for Downsview was on the amendment. The member for Port Arthur -- as much as I value his judgement --

Mr. Foulds: Yes, he is. He is speaking directly to the amendment.

Mr. Di Santo: I am certainly speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jones: He is taking a few cheap shots.

Mr. Breaugh: It struck me he was straight on.

Mr. Chairman: You I will not even acknowledge.

Mr. Di Santo: At the outset I explained quite clearly --

Mr. Chairman: I listened closely on my speaker in the office, I appreciate that.

Mr. Di Santo: You were listening to the interjections that were quite uncalled for; that is why you probably missed my original remarks.

The reason we are so concerned with this amendment is that the minister, by references to the use of surplus, is in effect reducing the ability of the board to provide those services. In many instances the boards are subjected to external pressures. If the minister tells us that thrift is a virtue, I wonder why thrift should be a virtue only when applied to education and when it is applied to those sectors of the population I represent in the west end of Toronto and which the minister does not. Perhaps that is one of the reasons she is so unfamiliar with it. By introducing the concept of surplus, the minister is applying a pressure on those boards to base their programs on a reduction of allotment of money rather than expanding the money according to the needs of the students in our school system.

I am talking to the amendment; you realize that, Mr. Chairman. I am glad you understand what we are saying.

I want to mention just one example. This is a brief that was presented to the standing committee on general government on Bill 127 last summer by Intercomm Parents of North York. Intercomm Parents, while conveying to the committee their opposition to Bill 127, made some important considerations. They said:

"After considering the bill, we were left with little assurance that the staffing of schools in North York would be maintained at a level equal to the program needs of the children in North York.

"Our specific concerns are centred on: staffing for our special needs program," -- the amendment we are discussing on surplus deals exactly with this type of program -- "a program designed to bring about effective educational service delivery in our city's 13 inner-city schools -- five of these schools are located in the Jane and Finch area where Intercomm is based." I think the minister knows that area only by name, because I have seen her in that part of the city only once since I was elected to this Legislature in 1975. I have never seen the minister west of Yonge Street except once in 1977 when we were together at a reception in the Finch and Islington area.

The second point the group made concerned "staffing for the implementation of the procedures developed in North York to meet the requirements of Bill 82" -- on special education -- "staffing of regular classroom programs in our community." This point is directly related to the amendment we are discussing, the surplus and the thrift the minister wants to introduce in the schools, which will affect the poor section of North York.

Quoting from the brief: "When the board adopted the special needs program in 1981, we took this as evidence that the system, at last, was prepared to respond positively to its local communities and to maintain the kind of productive relationship which would foster development of sincere community schools. It was with considerable alarm that we listened while the same board of trustees in 1982 voted not to implement the second phase of the program, as they had originally agreed, their explanation being that under the pressure of external formulae and conditions imposed by Metro and the province, they had been left without the funds to run a program which, even then, they maintain was of fundamental importance."

This is the crux of what we are discussing. It is not a matter of being thrifty. The problem is, if the government is inducing the board to save money, if it is not allowing the board to expand its deficit, this type of program is directly affected.

The brief goes on to say: "On the matter of Bill 82 implementation, it was again with alarm that lntercomm discovered, as we worked with the board, that 7,000" -- I want you to note this figure, Mr. Chairman -- "children in the city of North York considered exceptional and in need of special education programs were not being serviced."

The minister says our position is appalling, that we are obstructing the due course of a piece of legislation that is only opposed by us. During the last few days, and they will be here next week as well, we have seen hundreds of people in the galleries, not only teachers who may be considered to have a vested interest in opposing this bill, but also parents. The other night I saw 20 parents of Greek origin who were in this Legislature for the first time. They came to express their disapproval of Bill 127.

Mr. Chairman: Speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Di Santo: Of course, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Breaugh: I think they wanted to express disfavour with the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Oshawa will have an opportunity to speak in this debate in the fullness of time.

Mr. Di Santo: I am responding directly to the remarks made by the minister, Mr. Chairman, when, unfortunately, you were not in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Keep your remarks to the amendment. Never mind what the minister has to say.

Mr. Di Santo: It is really fundamental. If we want to understand the amendment to section 6, we have to put it in the framework of Bill 127, because in my opinion this is one of the most crucial sections of the bill. If the amendment passes as the minister says, then the whole concept of autonomy and self-determination crumbles. This is the reason I was responding to the minister.

12 noon

The minister says she finds it appalling that we are obstructing this bill when we should be helping the enlightened Minister of Education, who sanctimoniously considers herself to be always right in whatever she says. She said the concept of efficiency and quality of education are not mutually incompatible.

Mr. Chairman, I want your co-operation because we have been trying to debate this concept for the last nine hours and the minister does not want to understand. In my opinion, we make a compelling case that the quality of education cannot be developed enough in the absence of adequate funding. We know what the tendencies of the school boards in Metropolitan Toronto are and we know what happened in North York last year. This has nothing to do with Bill 127 --

Mr. Chairman: You admit that, do you?

Mr. Di Santo: Yes, but under this amendment we are talking about external pressures that can be exerted on the boards so that they can have no flexibility in adopting the concept of surpluses that the government has introduced with this amendment.

Last year the North York Board of Education, because of the political mixture in that board -- a Conservative majority before the last election, with some strange Liberals who did not even listen to their colleagues in Queen's Park and voted in favour of the bill even as recently as January when the new board, under pressure from the parents, teachers and interested groups in North York, was called to reconsider the previous position it took. It was very interesting that only nine trustees voted in favour of maintaining the position they had taken last year and eight trustees voted to reverse the position, including Mrs. Elizabeth Smith, a ward 3 trustee. She is a card-carrying Conservative and is seeking the nomination for the riding of York Centre. She sent a letter to the committee --

Mr. Chairman: On this amendment?

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you that the Intercomm parents group spoke directly of Bill 82, the special needs education and the fact that the board -- if I may have your attention, Mr. Chairman, it is a logical concatenation and you will understand why I am talking about Mrs. Elizabeth Smith.

The Intercomm group presented the brief on children with special needs and said the board had discontinued the second phase of the program because of external formulas and the conditions imposed by Metro and the province. If this amendment is passed, this will become the pattern and all those programs that are mostly needed in areas like the one I represent will be totally jeopardized because all the boards will be induced to save money instead of looking at the needs of the children.

Elizabeth Smith, the trustee for ward 3 in North York, which represents the area of Jane and Finch which I was discussing before -- and I am saying this in the context of the amendment -- wrote a letter saying: "This will serve to acknowledge that after extensive consultation with my constituents"-- constituents, not only teachers -- "and after learning of their strong opposition to Bill 127, I am prepared to withdraw my support for the said bill which I had registered when the matter came up for vote before the board of education for the city of North York."

Mr. Grande: One of the many Tory trustees.

Mr. Di Santo: This is a Tory trustee on the North York Board of Education. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, if we pass the amendment to section 6 introduced by the minister? This trustee was here sitting on this side of the House every night, testifying her opposition to the bill and to section 6 of the bill.

Last night she was sitting right here, and I personally gave her a pass. Despite the attempts of the member for Wilson Heights, who tried to persuade her to sit on the side of the government benches, Mrs. Smith said, "No, I want to oppose section 6 of the bill, and I want my opposition to be seen by the teachers and the parents who are sitting in the galleries."

The minister can say as long as she wants that with the amendment to section 6 she is promoting efficiency while not jeopardizing the quality of education. That is not true. We know this is the result of a philosophy that is disappearing in the world. It started with Margaret Thatcher, who has so many qualities in common with the present Minister of Education, including inflexibility and metaphysical righteousness. Even President Reagan, who was the major promoter of this approach, is now changing his tune because times are changing. We are now in such an economic depression because of this approach.

The Minister of Education, despite the negative experience we have been going through, wants to introduce belatedly with section 6 a concept that will not work. She knows very well that if we want to develop a society in which all citizens can produce and give their best, we have to give them an opportunity to get a level of education that will prepare them to work in a society that is quickly evolving.

By cutting funds, by inducing them to be thrifty, as the minister put it before, we go back to a situation where only those who have the means can afford to have education and those who do not have the means, those who have emotional problems, those who have learning disabilities, will be slowly streamed out of the system.

I remember 10 years ago -- and this is the real thrust of this section of the bill and of the amendment the minister is introducing -- and the Minister of Education was at that time playing other games; she was not probably --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: And so were you.

12:10 p.m.

Mr. Di Santo: I was not playing other games 10 years ago. In fact, there is evidence. I contributed to a book called Must Education Fail? in which we were addressing this very problem. I was as much interested in education 10 years ago as I am now.

Ten years ago, we were faced in Metropolitan Toronto with a different type of problem, the problem of vocational schools. Unfortunately, we have been under this government for 40 years and at that time we had the same response and the same approach, that it is not the fault of the school system. "Thrift" was not the word then; "big" was beautiful. The Premier (Mr. Davis) was building bigger schools all over the province because "big" was the password.

We were faced with an increasing number of children, mostly of working class and immigrant families, who were being channelled into vocational schools. We had to fight a very hard battle. I remember a beautiful brief presented by the Parkview Secondary School Community Council in November 1971, "Downtown kids are not dumb, they need a better program." Then, as now, we were faced with the same problem.

The government was trying to discriminate. With this amendment, the government is trying to tell the boards of education not to spend money on those children who are not bright enough or who come from families that are not adaptable to the system. Money is to be saved on them.

On this side of the House, we are saying we have to look at the needs. The financing of the needs must be the result of ascertaining what kinds of needs we are dealing with. The minister wants to institute the opposite process. With this amendment the minister is saying: "We will set the rules and a ceiling. Beyond that ceiling, whoever cannot be served is damned, no matter what the needs are."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: On at least three or four occasions in this House I have heard that it is improper to impute motives. Not only is it improper to impute motives, but it is certainly improper to impute motives that have no basis anywhere in either fact or history.

Mr. Chairman: So there.

Mr. Di Santo: What was the point of order?

Mr. Chairman: That you were imputing motives.

Mr. Di Santo: That was a delightful outburst from the minister, but it was not a point of order. I am not imputing motives.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes you are, and you have been.

Mr. Di Santo: I am outrightly accusing the minister of trying to change the system by inducing the boards to save money instead of serving the needs of our students in the school system.

I said before, because of some chemical combination or metaphysical or theological virtue, the minister is always right, but she never explains why she is right. When she tried to explain the amendment at the beginning, she said she thinks efficiency and quality of education are not mutually incompatible. I am telling her that is exactly the case. I want to give another example --

Interjection.

Mr. Di Santo: I am ready to yield the floor to the minister if she wants to clarify what she said before.

I want to give the minister an example of how local needs cannot be served properly if we pass this amendment. We have an organization in my riding and in Yorkview that is located in the Downsview school. It has been in operation for a while now. The objective of this organization, which is a very small group, is:

"To provide a remedial treatment environment for children aged four to seven years who are suffering from emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emphasis will be placed on children from immigrant families.

"To keep children within the educational system in regular classes and help them overcome their emotional and behavioural difficulties through the interaction of the child with the family, the school system and the staff consultant working together for the benefit of the child.

"To provide a healthy emotional environment for children to encourage development of their fullest potential; to provide opportunities for creative play and self-expression; to support families in their difficulties with child-rearing; to provide a liaison between the home and the school."

This organization,which has been in existence since 1965, is now in a situation where it cannot continue to operate because the North York Board of Education, which has been contributing somehow with a grant,has come to the determination that because of the cutbacks and restraints it cannot fund this organization any longer.

If this amendment is implemented, this type of organization will be in even more difficulty, because the word that is coming from the minister through the Metropolitan board to the school boards, where we know there is not always a majority of trustees who are perceptive, open-minded and progressive, is that these are the very programs that will be cut without appeal. These are the programs that are directed to marginal groups, which usually have very little clout. Therefore, if this trend prevails, we know it will bring about a deterioration in the quality of education in the school system of Metropolitan Toronto.

That is quite the opposite of what the government wants to do. This is why I was saying at the beginning, and I want to repeat now, it is not possible for the minister to say we can have efficiency and quality of education at the same time, which means that we can cut the funds and have the same level of education. That is nonsense.

The minister said we have to do that because this amendment, in her words, is a suggestion to consider prudent spending because -- and this is the line always used by this government -- "this is money provided by the taxpayers."

12:20 p.m.

She also said the government has increased its contribution to education in the province by 226 per cent in the last 10 years. Probably the minister does not remember that from 1975, when she and I were elected -- I think the chairman was elected too that year -- until 1982, the portion of the grants the province has contributed towards the school system has decreased from 61 per cent of the financing to 50.08 per cent.

What are the results of this decrease in the financial contribution from the government? The local school boards, struggling to keep the same level of education, have been forced to increase property taxes by an incredible amount. We know in Metropolitan Toronto it is not only the matter of the assessment but also the percentage of increase of the property taxes that has gone up so much in the last years that it has become totally intolerable.

That says nothing about the inequity of the property tax system in Metropolitan Toronto. We know very well that in North York,for instance, the portion of property tax that goes towards education is now in the range of 55 to 57 per cent of the total bill. We consider that property taxes are totally unrelated to the incomes of the citizens who contribute their taxes. We know this is totally inequitable. For the minister to come to us today and tell us the amendment to section 6 of the bill tries to protect the taxpayers is preposterous.

If there is anybody in this province who is hitting the taxpayers through property taxes year after year it is this government. As my friend the member for Oakwood has repeated time and again, in the seven years from 1975 to 1982 it has decreased its contribution from 61 to 50.08 per cent. The minister cannot come to us and tell us we are obstructing the bill and that by debating the amendment to section 6 of the act we are committing some kind of an incredible crime. She is forgetting completely what has actually happened in Metropolitan Toronto.

When the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) -- and I would like to call for his attention -- was talking on the amendment to section 6 of the act, he mentioned that this bill had to do with construction of schools. The minister immediately jumped to her feet, saying, "This bill has nothing to do with construction of schools." That is true. That is probably the only right thing she has said today. But what she failed to say was that if this amendment is passed we will see more school closures. That is the real problem.

In North York, 34 schools are on the critical list of schools with 100 or fewer students. I want to read all of their names into the record. They are: Ancaster school, with 132 students; Anthony school, 96 students; Appian school, 133 students; Baycrest --

Mr. Chairman: I do not think it is necessary to read all the schools.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: No. I am not going to listen to that. You have given an indication of a number of schools which may be closing. I do not think you have to read all those schools that you think are going to be closed.

Mr. Di Santo: I respect your opinion,Mr. Chairman, but I do not think you can prevent me from mentioning the schools which are in my riding, because they are --

Mr. Chairman: Sure I can. The member has to be speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Di Santo: -- affecting my constituents. I want to tell the assembly --

Mr. Chairman: You have to be speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Di Santo: -- what will happen to those schools if the amendment to section 6 is passed. Ancaster, with 132 students; Anthony, with 96 students --

Mr. Chairman: How many schools have you got there?

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I want to mention the --

Mr. Chairman: I am getting a little nervous that you are just trying to drag this out. You are being repetitive.

Mr. Di Santo: I am not repetitive.

Mr. Gillies: They are different schools, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Breaugh: That is right. Even the government back-benchers agree they are all different schools.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) has indicated they are different schools.

Mr. Di Santo: With all due respect, this is the first time I have raised the point of school closures. I think you should allow me to speak briefly about the school closures under this amendment to the bill. I want to relate to you an episode that happened, which was extremely painful. Last week, there were several meetings in North York with the trustees of the North York Board of Education concerning what now seems to be the fashion there, the consolidation of schools.

I will not read the list of the schools. I just want to say there are two schools right now, Spenvalley school, which is north of Sheppard and Jane, and Calico school. Both schools, right now, are shared by the separate school board and by the North York Board of Education.

Because of the financial system and the restraints imposed on the North York board, there is now a process of consolidation. I want you to understand what this means, Mr. Chairman, because it is very important and it relates very much to removing the deficit concept and replacing it with a surplus -- the idea of thrift the minister was talking about, which is the hub of the amendment.

The consolidation of the schools means they want to keep the separate school students in one school, Spenvalley, and send the public school students to Calico school, which in effect means that some students -- and this is an elementary school -- in winter will be forced to walk more than a mile and a half.

This is a total subversion of the concept of wider education the minister is so proudly talking about. The educational system, as we understand it, is a service to cater to citizen's needs. In this case, because of the policies of the government and especially if the amendment to section 6 is passed, the citizens will be forced to adapt themselves to an abstract surplus formula the minister wants to introduce.

Students between the ages of six and seven will be forced to walk a mile because the schools will no longer be in the community. The school system will no longer be responding to the needs of the population; rather the population will be forced to adapt itself to the needs of a school system that is imposed by this government. It will be imposed by the Metro school board and other school boards that will be induced to save money.

12:30 p.m.

This is very much the thrust of what we have been saying. We are not saying it to be obstructive, as the minister keeps repeating. She does not have a monopoly on truth or on righteousness. We vehemently oppose this amendment and we will speak at length against it. We want the Minister of Education and the Minister of Environment (Mr. Norton), who quite improperly interjects -- last night he interjected continuously -- to understand that this bill and this amendment are wrong.

Mr. Chairman: At this time I would like to bring to members' attention that we have had more than 20 speakers on this one amendment alone and more than 10 hours of debate. As chairman of the committee of the whole House I am seriously considering putting the question to this amendment. I would entertain some points of order to that consideration.

Mr. McClellan: I have an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: I would like to bring to the honourable member's attention that he has already spoken. He had the opportunity. Notwithstanding, he can still bring forward the amendment at another time.

I would like to entertain points of order.

Mr. McClellan: Sorry. I will speak to a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: Speaking to the point of order.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I gather you are talking about calling the question on the amendment to subsection 6(4) of the bill -- that is, the amendment of the Minister of Education. I have a subamendment to the minister's amendment.

Mr. Chairman: I am not recognizing the subamendment.

Mr. Breaugh: How do you not recognize a subamendment?

Mr. McClellan: On what basis, sir, do you refuse to accept the subamendment?

Mr. Chairman: On the basis that you cannot amend the amendment. I have indicated very clearly that I am in the position of calling the question on this amendment and I would ask clearly for points of order in consideration of myself calling the question.

Mr. McClellan: I am curious about how you deviate from our traditional practices. Are you saying it is out of order to move a subamendment to an amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: If I understand what is being proposed here, it is absolutely unprecedented in terms of my experience in this House, which goes back to 1971. There is a procedure within the rules by which any member of the House can move the previous question. That has been done by members from more than one party over the course of the last 11 or 12 years.

It has not been the practice in this House for the chair to decide on its own initiative actually to call the question when members indicate they wish to continue to speak. The termination of debate has occurred either by agreement between the parties or when there were no further speakers or under certain circumstances where the minister has the last word, as in the second reading or third reading debate on a bill or on concurrence. It seems to me that to call the question, as you have done, is not within the normal practice of this House. I would strongly suggest this be left to the normal practices of the House and not done in the way you seem to be trying to proceed.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, may I have an answer to the question I put to you as to whether you are ruling a subamendment --

Mr. Chairman: I called you out of order in terms of your amendment to the amendment.

Mr. McClellan: On what basis?

Mr. Chairman: On the basis that the committee of the whole House was considering the amendment; I clearly indicated I was about to call the question on the amendment.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Before I recognize the member for Oshawa, which I will do, I would like to recognize the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order: I have to agree with the comments made by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). While I admire the aggressiveness and, perhaps, the intuitiveness with which you perform your duties in the chair, I think you are perhaps stepping a bit beyond your responsibilities when you decide the debate has been completed.

It would certainly be your responsibility to bring a member to order if he were being needlessly repetitive or was straying from the subject of the amendment. From time to time, you have done that with some success, and sometimes not with success. For example, if my colleague the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) is standing in his place and wants to debate the bill further, that is an indication the debate has not been completed.

I would further suggest there is a procedure in our rules to let you end the debate, but that is an initiative taken by a member of the assembly itself.

Once again, I admire your initiative in this connection but I feel it is not appropriate, and not according to our customs and usage. On that basis I would suggest to you, sir, the initiative to end the debate lies with the members of the House when no other member rises in order, or a member does rise and places a motion which would, if successful, terminate the debate.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused as to what you have just done. I am even more confused as to what basis you used for doing so. It is my understanding, and you may correct me if I am wrong, that we are in committee of the whole House and that there are speakers who are waiting to speak on a particular amendment. I find no precedent, certainly nothing in the standing orders, which would allow the chair to intervene. There are places in the standing orders where a member may move to do that under standing order 36.

I want you to try to deal with the question put to you by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). It seems to me we are debating an amendment in committee. A member rose to put an amendment to the amendment. According to our standing orders it seems clear to me that is perfectly in order. While the chair may feel a little tired with the debate on the previous amendment, there is absolutely nothing in anyone's precedent, Erskine May notwithstanding, or in the standing orders which would prevent any member in committee of the whole House from moving an amendment to an amendment.

I noted, too, that you did not hear the motion the member wanted to put. Perhaps we might find a bit of a precedent here if you had the courtesy to listen to the motion and then, for some great technical reason or otherwise, decide the motion was out of order. I would concede that might happen, but I cannot conceive how you could do that without even listening to what he has to say.

I would argue that as the first order of business now you have an obligation to provide to the member for Bellwoods the reason you are refusing to hear his motion. According to everything I have read in the standing orders, Erskine May, Beauchesne and everywhere else, it is perfectly in order. You ruled him out of order before he even had a chance to put the motion. That is discourteous, to be polite about it, and quite wrong in parliamentary terms.

I am interested in the basis of this ruling. Why cannot the member for Bellwoods get a ruling? It seems to me you owe him that much. He has a right to put forward his motion and, subsequent to that, you can decide whether it is in order, out of order or whatever. I do think you owe this House an explanation for what I take it has not yet become an ironclad ruling. I would like to hear a little about what precedents you are quoting, what standing orders you are operating under or what particular rule of gang law we are functioning under these days. Would you do that?

Mr. Chairman: In the normal course of rotation, I was thinking in terms of recognizing the official opposition prior --

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Wait a minute: I am responding to the member for Oshawa. I was thinking of recognizing the official opposition before recognizing the member for Bellwoods on putting the amendment. He had jumped up and put his amendment, as it were.

12:40 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: I regard that as an acceptable ruling. I understand the order of rotation will be going this way next -- not that way.

Speaking to your basic question though which was whether or not --

Mr. Chairman: I am wondering if we might indicate, in rotation, any member of the government who wishes to speak to the point of order? No there is no? Then the member for Bellwoods.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, this will only take 30 seconds -- on the question you have put to us as to whether the question on 6(4) should be called now. I think the answer is self-evidently no. The minister has not had an opportunity to speak in this debate. I am aware that at least two of my colleagues --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, yes I have.

Mr. Breaugh: She did speak.

Mr. McClellan: I hear her being very vehement about wanting to put her own views on the record -- perhaps I am wrong. I know there are colleagues in my own caucus who have indicated a desire to speak.

The point the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk made is the correct one. If you feel any individual member is going on in a way you do not approve of there are ways and means in the standing orders for you to deal with that individual member. However it is much beyond your powers to decide the debate is over. If somebody wants to decide the debate is over there are other remedies that should be taken and the initiative should be taken by people other than yourself.

Mr. Chairman: I have considered the input from all honourable members, which I appreciate very much. Speaking to the amendment, the Minister of Education.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, we have heard points of view which have been lengthy and we have heard the same point of view presented on several occasions. One also has to consider there must be some finality to this whole debate. Under section 36 of the rules of this House, I move that the previous question be now put.

1:02 p.m.

The committee divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion that the question be now put, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 58; nays 32.

The committee divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion that section 6 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 58; nays 32.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee reported progress.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last night, we are announcing the business day by day. The order that will be called for Monday afternoon and evening will be a continuation of committee of the whole House discussion of Bill 127.

The House adjourned at 1:06 p.m.

February 18, 1983