MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
On section 7:
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, when we recessed, I was saying why I opposed Bill 127, and in particular section 7, which we are discussing at present. Section 7 deals with the collective bargaining processes for teachers in the Metropolitan Toronto area. I said that section 7 should have had a subtitle which would have labelled it, The Collective Bargaining Straitjacket. My colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) introduced an amendment to section 7 which in effect would have changed one word, "shall" to "may," and that slight change would have restored the collective bargaining process in the Metro Toronto area to the present situation.
It is a very flexible situation, where the teachers' bargaining agents can deal with the board that employs them or they can join together and participate in joint collective bargaining. It is a completely flexible system and it allows for a choice of the collective bargaining route. It has worked well over the past few years. There have been fairly harmonious relations and no disruptions of employment in recent years. I was arguing that if we adopt the amendment of my colleague a large section of Bill 127 will not be objectionable. This is what we are dealing with at the moment.
My argument against the present form of section 7 is that it is an attack on freedom of association, which is guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights. It is an attack on collective bargaining. It provides for a shift in power from the local boards to the Metro Toronto board and thus destroys local autonomy. It is destructive of nonmonetary bargaining, because all the financial matters and the numbers of teachers are decided by the unified bargaining.
Section 7 would, in effect, stop what is known as affirmative action bargaining because if that were considered a nonmonetary issue there would be no incentive for the boards to sit down with the teachers' organizations to discuss ways of helping to overcome the inequality between men and women in the higher echelons of the profession, the principals, the assistant principals and the department heads.
There is still a disparity between the representation of men and women at those various levels, but this would be stopped by this straitjacket on collective bargaining under section 7. If it were considered a monetary item it would have to go to joint bargaining and would be one of many items on which the different boards might have different requirements or a different appreciation of the need for such affirmative action. In effect, the use of the collective bargaining procedure for improving the equality of women within the system would be stopped.
Section 7 would also destroy parent input because a nonelected board would be sitting on one side of the table. It would not be accountable to the electorate directly. The parents would not have a say in the staffing decisions or the allocation of teachers, as they now do in the Toronto area and probably in some of the other area boards as well.
In the Toronto area they have worked out a good system of involving parents in the staffing decisions, in the allocation of teachers, in the decisions as to whether they will have a physical education teacher, another music teacher, half an art teacher or the way they would allocate the teachers assigned to them by the Toronto board or the Metro board.
If we let section 7 go through in its present form all these things will weaken the opportunity for parents to have an input in the education system.
It would also increase intermunicipal tensions in the Metropolitan Toronto area. It provides for a negotiating committee made up of just one appointee from each of the seven boards, brought together under the unified bargaining section. This means the city of Toronto, which generates about 40 per cent of the education tax revenue and has a large percentage of the total teaching staff under its jurisdiction, will have one vote in seven on any decisions made by the negotiating committee.
This will leave most Toronto teachers feeling their wages and working conditions are determined by the other boards. They will have no power to change one iota of whatever decision is reached by the majority which, in the act, is defined as a majority of the boards with a majority of the teachers in those boards.
The teachers in the other boroughs will also begin to have the same feelings that their wants are being determined, not by themselves and their boards negotiating together, but by the wants and positions of the other boards since each borough again will have one vote in seven. I think my colleague's amendment will be a great improvement in allowing us to go back to the present situation.
There is one point I want to make. This legislation should be opposed because it is a shadow of the future. I see section 7 as a pilot project for centralization of collective bargaining across the province. I see it as a continuation of the Conservative attack on collective bargaining which we saw in such a naked form in Bill 179. If we wish to preserve collective bargaining in this province, my colleague's amendment is the way to do it.
On Friday, the minister said she wanted to encourage prudent spending by boards of education under Bill 127. Her secret is out. She admits restraint in spending is her motivation, not equality of educational opportunity, or she thinks she can balance those two off.
8:10 p.m.
But is it prudent to fail to meet local needs? Is it prudent to build up expectations for special education under Bill 82 and not provide adequate facilities and programs for it? Is it prudent to curtail programs for immigrant children that will help them to become Canadians more quickly? Is it prudent to limit inner-city programs that overcome educational handicaps if she wishes to give equality of educational opportunity?
Are nonelected boards with no direct contact with parents and no intimate knowledge of local needs likely to act as prudently as a local board accountable to the electorate? A local board is acutely aware of what mill rate the electorate will accept, and it will temper its programs and the staging of its programs to meet what the people are prepared to pay and what they want.
That is why I think we must reject section 7 in its present state and support my colleague's amendment to change "shall" to "may."
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could respond to some of the --
Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, we have a point of order.
Mr. Di Santo: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Before Madam Guillotine speaks, may I have 10 minutes to speak on the amendment if the minister is agreeable?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not mind. I simply wanted to respond.
Mr. Chairman: He was not going to do anything.
An hon. member: How do you know?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, some points have been made by certain of my colleagues during the debate on section 7 of the bill that I think should be clarified.
The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) suggested that there is no argument anywhere for support of the joint bargaining mechanism. All four speakers have suggested there is something amiss with introducing this amendment through the vehicle of the amendment to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. Also, concern was expressed about the fact that, as the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) suggested, the members of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board are not elected members and therefore cannot know what goes on in local communities in Metropolitan Toronto.
I would remind all honourable members that, first, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board is made up of trustees elected within their areas who are then elected or chosen by their colleagues to represent their areas on the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. They are indeed elected individuals, just as the member for Beaches-Woodbine is, and they do represent, as does a member of the executive council of any provincial jurisdiction, not only their own areas but also the concerns of all of those whom they must represent as a result of that additional position.
I think those individuals who, at the insistence of their colleagues, attempt to serve Metropolitan Toronto through their service on the Metropolitan Toronto School Board are as responsible and as concerned about education as anyone else is, just as concerned as any member of this House, as a matter of fact.
In addition, there has been a history of strong suggestion that there should indeed be joint bargaining among the teachers of Metropolitan Toronto and the boards represented at Metropolitan Toronto. I think the position was first stated in the arguments probably put forward by the father of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) in this Legislature when Metropolitan Toronto and the two-tiered system of governance were first established. It was suggested even then that there be arrangements that would ensure that the teachers in Metropolitan Toronto would all be dealt with in the same way.
Of course, we did not have Bill 100 at that point. Of course, we did not have the vigorous kind of organizations which we have related to collective bargaining.
In 1965, Senator Carl Goldenberg, in his examination of the two-tiered system of government in Metropolitan Toronto's school system, suggested very strongly that all bargaining related to teachers' salaries, fringe benefits and all matters having to do with the terms and conditions of contracts should be bargained jointly among all the teachers in Metropolitan Toronto and the boards responsible. In addition, I would remind honourable members that Barry Lowes made that very strong suggestion in his report as well.
Mr. Nixon: He is very impartial.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not know, because I do not know Barry Lowes, but he was appointed by my predecessor to examine the two-tiered system of governance. One of his strong recommendations was that the two-tiered system remain and that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board be responsible for bargaining for teachers in Metropolitan Toronto, specifically in relation to salaries and fringe benefits.
The member for Oakwood strongly suggested that the Matthews commission denied there should ever be joint bargaining in Metropolitan Toronto. I would like to read into the record from page 52 of this report the statement from the chairman of the commission and the commissioners: "In our view, Metro-wide negotiations are desirable only if provisions can be made for special problems within the scope of negotiations." That has been done.
I quote a little further: "Although the special situation in Metropolitan Toronto has brought the matter of joint bargaining by different school boards to the fore, it may become a more general problem in the future. This could easily happen if neighbouring school boards begin to press for joint bargaining in order to avoid being whipsawed by the federations. It is not uncommon for the federations to build upon each settlement in turn, thereby engaging in a process commonly known as leapfrogging or whipsawing."
The recommendation made by the Matthews commission was this: "The commission recommends that Bill 100 be amended to provide that the Education Relations Commission have the authority to adjudicate disputes pertaining to the appropriateness of bargaining units and joint bargaining."
In other words, the Matthews commission was recommending that the ERC be given the authority to legislate joint bargaining. Ladies and gentlemen and members of this honourable House, I do not believe an appointed body should have that authority. I think this House should have that authority rather than an appointed Education Relations Commission.
In addition to that, the Matthews commission stated, "Similarly, joint bargaining should not be legislated as entirely voluntary without provision for joint bargaining to be imposed if circumstances warrant such action." Obviously, the commission was suggesting that the ERC would see circumstances that would warrant the action, would make that recommendation and impose joint bargaining. Rather than having that appointed body do it, it seems much more rational that this Legislature should debate, as we are doing, the joint bargaining mechanism within Metropolitan Toronto.
I would remind honourable members that this joint bargaining mechanism is not all inclusive. When it was first suggested to us that this mechanism should be introduced, the strong suggestion was that all matters related to the teaching profession in Metropolitan Toronto should be bargained jointly. It appeared to be inappropriate to do that because there are matters of which local boards have much more knowledge. That is the way in which teachers are spread throughout the system, the scope and range of programs to be offered, the way in which those programs will be offered and the structure and function of the school mechanism within each board's jurisdiction.
We felt very strongly that local autonomy should be preserved. Therefore, we have developed a structure that is available under Bill 100. I would remind members that both aspects come under the aegis of Bill 100, so the rules of that bill apply both to the joint bargaining mechanism for salaries and employee benefits and for the mechanism for determining the formula whereby the allocation of teachers is established.
8:20 p.m.
The honourable members in this House, particularly in that party, stand here and try to perpetuate the myth that under this bill the Metropolitan Toronto School Board will unilaterally and autocratically determine that formula. That will not happen. This is a matter now to be determined by bargaining. There is every opportunity for the teaching federations and teacher groups to have strong input into that allocation mechanism.
Indeed, they probably will have greater opportunity to play an important part in that determination as a result of Bill 127 than they have ever had before. I think it will provide the teachers with the appropriate forum to express the concerns they have had as a result of their function within the school system.
The member for Beaches-Woodbine suggested that the mechanism established in Toronto in each school, which I think is called the parent-teacher or the teacher-parent staffing committee, is going to be denied as a result of this bill. That is an unadulterated prevarication, because that local structure will be a part of the local bargaining. The local bargaining may not only continue, it can take place simultaneously with the bargaining which is established at the joint levels.
Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I am curious as to whether or not you intend to regard that as a parliamentary remark?
Mr. Chairman: Which part?
Mr. Bradley: He is looking it up in the dictionary.
Mr. Chairman: I am looking it up. You are right.
Mr. Stokes: That means a lie.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: If the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) misunderstands or objects to that word, I shall most certainly withdraw it and suggest strongly that it is --
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I do not misunderstand the word at all. It means unadulterated lie. That is what it means.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it is a prevarication.
Mr. McClellan: If that is what the minister is trying to say, why does she not have the guts to say it?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is a distortion, Mr. Chairman. If the honourable member objects to it, then I shall most certainly suggest that it is still unadulterated, but it certainly is not factual.
I do not think there can be any doubt that whatever local arrangements are necessary in order to ensure effective family-community-school relationships are not only still going to be possible under Bill 127, they could indeed be enhanced under Bill 127 as a result of the increased participation of parents and the increased understanding of what is necessary in terms of the development of program within a local area board's jurisdiction.
Mr. Grande: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I would not want the minister to mislead. Therefore, let me point out to the minister, if she has not read the report from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board which talks about whipsawing and what the teachers are doing in Metropolitan Toronto, in that one example it says, "Toronto board in separate negotiations agreed to central staffing" --
Mr. Chairman: That is not a point of order.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order --
Interjection.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Oakwood has had his say.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: If I may respond to the member, I was not stating that. I was quoting from the Matthews commission report. I was not making a statement. I quoted from page 52 of the Matthews commission report. All I was doing was quoting.
The member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) suggested, as I think did the member for St. Catharines, that there was some new introduction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board into these arrangements. I am positive the member knew that the Ontario Labour Relations Board is already involved in the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.
Interjection.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: He did not? In section 67, the OLRB determines whether or not a strike is unlawful. The OLRB also decides, if a strike is unlawful, what action is to be taken. That direction is filed in the office of the registrar of the Supreme Court. Both those bodies are already within the ambit of Bill 100 or the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. This is not a new introduction. It is simply an additional mechanism which may be used to determine whether there is a variance.
I would remind the member the variances are only those which relate to the two items which are to be bargained jointly. If there is a variance which is agreed to, and the boards all agree it is perfectly fine, I am sure it will be allowed to happen.
The member pointed out there was disparity in the assessment of the way in which that would be determined. We agreed with the member there was a disparity and, therefore, removed the section because we did not want that disparity to exist.
If there are variances which may prove to be beneficial, they can be introduced into the joint bargaining mechanism, because if they are good for one board they are now obviously going to be equally good for other boards in Metropolitan Toronto, as a result of the fact the boards in Metropolitan Toronto now have many more similarities than they have differences in the range of programs and services they must offer.
I believe 20 years ago there were great variations in the school populations of the various boards. I know and every member in this House knows those variations have been almost totally removed. There may be a matter of degree, that is, the numbers of variations in the requirements of students may not be entirely equal throughout all the boards, but it is a matter of degree rather than a matter of total difference in the makeup of the school population.
The school boards in Metropolitan Toronto have similar problems. They all have inner-city problems now. They all have special education problems they must face. They have problems related to English as a second language. There are needs of children which each board is attempting to meet.
Surely the mechanism that permits all the boards together, plus the representatives of all the teachers' federations together, to sit down and discuss the ways in which they can best meet those needs through allocation formulae is the way in which we should be attempting to solve the problems for all the children in Metropolitan Toronto.
As I said, it is not to be an autocratic or unilateral action on the part of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. It is a joint action taken between the teachers and the representatives of all the boards to ensure that all the needs of all the children will be met.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I would like the minister, if she would, to assure us the allocation formulae would be a little fairer than the allocation used in the London system I experienced when I was there as a superintendent, because it was surely --
Mr. Chairman: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Van Horne: It is a good point, though, because those people in her ministry rig and jig formulae like one would not believe. One simply knows the minister cannot understand it --
Mr. Chairman: Order. You have had your try.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think the honourable member is probably relating to the general legislative grant rather than to any kind of formula. The general legislative grant regulations are published every year in such exquisite clarity that all sorts of people have difficulty understanding them. I agree with the member that should be simplified so it is more understandable, but that formula has nothing to do with this formula.
This is a formula which was developed in the past for the purpose of ensuring that the children of Metropolitan Toronto were provided through the allocation mechanism with a sufficient number of teachers to meet the needs which had been defined by the local area boards. There are weighting factors applied for the allocation of teachers to meet those needs.
This has been done in the past as a result of joint action within the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. It has not been a mechanism that has been subjected to the collective bargaining process. What we are introducing in this section of the bill is that subjection of the allocation formula to the collective bargaining process in order to regularize and to formalize the input of teachers into the determination of that formula, which I think is fair and reasonable in the light of the specific kinds of educational needs that exist within Metropolitan Toronto. They are not specific only to one board.
8:30 p.m.
The bodies-for-bucks example has been raised several times by the two front-benchers over on the official opposition side. It is interesting that the bodies-for-bucks example is raised only in the instance of one year. Everyone forgets to mention that for the next year it was demanded that those teachers who were hired for lesser rates of remuneration be paid at exactly the same rate as the other teachers, so that not only did they not gain any additional bodies, it cost extra money. If this mechanism is good for one part of Metropolitan Toronto, then obviously it should be good for all of Metropolitan Toronto and it should be bargained jointly among the teachers and the boards to ensure that it does occur.
The member for Oakwood has made some absolutely outlandish statements regarding the aims and objectives of Bill 127. One he made related to school closures. He stated unequivocally that Bill 127 would automatically ensure that schools were going to be closed.
The Metropolitan Toronto School Board and Bill 127 have nothing to do with that policy. That policy is determined by the local area boards totally. They must file, and all of them have filed, with the Ministry of Education a school closure policy, which determines that a certain number of schools, where the enrolment has fallen below 200, will be reviewed, but the policy must contain the reality of community involvement in that discussion. It does not necessarily mean that each of those schools will be closed. They will be closed if the boards determine that they cannot provide the appropriate educational program for children within these schools.
The Toronto board is not nearly so well populated with the smallest schools in Metro at the moment. Of the 50 smallest schools in Metro, North York has 15, Toronto has only nine, East York has three, Etobicoke 10, Scarborough 10 and York three. So this is not a matter that will automatically ensure that small schools will close, nor does it ensure automatically that there will be a decrease in the number of teachers hired. Every year, for at least the past six or seven years, there has been a significant increase in the number of teachers related to the number of pupils within Metropolitan Toronto. Since 1974 there has been a 26 per cent decrease in the number of pupils and the numbers of teachers has not declined nearly to that percentage, as the member knows.
In Metropolitan Toronto the pupil-teacher ratio is probably at the lowest level we have in the province, and there is no evidence that this is going to change dramatically with Bill 127. In fact, there is nothing in Bill 127 to ensure that it would change in any way that would be damaging or deleterious to educational programs for children.
When we were debating clause by clause of Bill 127 in committee, there was a very vigorous request on the part of the opposition parties that we request further sitting days in order to complete clause by clause within committee. After a good deal of debate, it was agreed that we would ask for additional sitting days.
The arguments put forward at that time were put forward by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). He said: If there is to be a detailed debate, you are better off doing it here than to try to do it in the House where it is going to take longer. It makes abundantly more sense to take one day here to cut down the time that it will take in the House. It seems to me that if we can do more here, it will lessen the time in the House."
Mr. Chairman, we have had considerable debate on clause by clause and I would suggest strongly that, in compliance with standing order 36 of the rules of this House, this question be now put.
Mr. Chairman: The minister has moved standing order 36, the previous question section. The motion is not debatable. However, I want to point out to all members of the House that the chair has discretion to take into consideration whether the rights of the minority have been affected with the motion.
I want to say that in regard to discussion of section 6, the previous section, we had more than 10 hours of debate. I felt very comfortable about the fact that the rights of the minority were not affected. In regard to section 7, we had over three hours of debate. I want the record to show that I would not want any lesser number of hours. With that in mind, I will put the minister's question.
9:15 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 56; nays 36.
The committee divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion that section 7 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 56; nays 36.
On section 8:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that section 130j of the act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be amended as follows:
(a) in clause (2)(b), by striking out "1982" in the fifth line and in the ninth line and substituting therefor in each instance "1983";
(b) in subsection (4), by striking out "1982" in the fifth line and substituting therefor "1983"; and
(c) in subsection (5), by striking out "1982" in the fifth line and substituting therefor "1983."
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I suggested, I believe on Thursday, that I would be happy to do this since we had listened carefully to the concerns expressed by parents and because of the fact that this bill was now being debated in 1983.
I would like the honourable members to know that I intend to appoint an individual as a committee of inquiry in relation to this bill to examine the principle of the discretionary levy, and I will ask that individual to report within six months, so that if there is to be a change to this section, it can be accomplished before the 1984 year.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, the amendment and the announcement do not, of course, satisfy what we wanted in committee and have sought in the bill. It is a slight improvement, which no doubt with the majority they have over there will carry.
Mr. Barlow: Vote against it.
Mr. Bradley: Vote against it? We might well do that.
Interjections.
Mr. Bradley: This may take longer than I thought.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. Honourable members, the member for St. Catharines has the floor. I would ask you to give him your attention.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Bradley: Our preference would have been that there be no year stipulated in there. As I indicated in committee, our preference would have been a discretionary levy of two mills rather than 1.5 mills. To a certain extent, we see some small merit in the commission or individual the minister has appointed looking into this, but certainly it does not meet the requirements of those of us in opposition.
I would not want to put our party's stamp of approval on this amendment, even though it is a very slight improvement for one year. We certainly would not put our stamp of approval on it because ultimately the problem is going to exist one year hence. While you solve it slightly for one year, in the future you do not.
The minister will recall that when she made this announcement in committee, when she backed down from one mill and went to 1.5 mills, there were those of us who greeted it with some favour. Indeed, I think I was in the middle of a speech praising the minister for this change, when I looked at the rest of the change and saw that she had stipulated a freeze on the 1982 assessment level, which did not really improve things very substantially in terms of dollars.
What the minister is attempting to do tonight may solve the problems of the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) or the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) or the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) or the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry). They may be able to go back to their people and wave this amendment as some kind of victory that they can claim they extracted from the minister in cabinet in one case and in caucus in the other case. That kind of amendment will not buy off the opposition in our opposition to this draconian measure which has been implemented.
I want to clearly indicate that we will be opposing this amendment which I know will carry with the government's overwhelming majority.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) talked about the other night instead of talking to the guillotine motion, which was totally out of order. The chairman will recall that the minister was supposed to stand in this Legislature and open up debate on the guillotine motion and the minister decided to talk about the bill instead. That is the only time she brought forward this idea of changing 1982 to 1983.
However, a freeze is a freeze is a freeze. If one lifts the freeze for 1982 and institutes it in 1983, what one has done is perhaps saved eight teachers' jobs in the city of Toronto for one more year. But if the minister realizes that normally the Toronto board has to fire the teachers that it would fire under this freeze the year after, then it would have to fire those teachers that they are protecting this year. Therefore, basically those teachers whose numbers have come up are being allowed to exist for another year in the teaching profession.
The reason 1983 pops up is that the Premier (Mr. Davis) had to burst a lead balloon --
The Deputy Chairman: There is too much background noise. It should be reduced. The member for Oakwood can't be heard easily. He will continue but other members will reduce their conversations so that we can all hear the member.
Mr. Grande: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Havrot: Just trying to help them along.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, the tribe is restless, I see. They are not used to having too many of them in this Legislature. When there are too many, they just have to chat to one another.
Interjections.
Mr. Grande: That is all right. While we are debating this amendment, members can leave and come back when the bells ring.
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The members will control their interruptions and bring them down to nil or zero. The member for Oakwood can continue or I will be required --
Hon. Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I wish the government members would keep quiet.
The Deputy Chairman: The member for Oakwood has had some help.
Interjections.
Mr. Grande: The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gregory) has decided to flex his muscles on his caucus.
As I was saying, the reason the Minister of Education has brought in this amendment is simply that the Premier, under pressure, has had to burst the lead balloon which the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) decided to float regarding market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto. In effect, since that balloon was burst there is no point in freezing the 1982 rates. Therefore, we are faced with this amendment.
May I say to the minister that this party is not going to be supporting this amendment because we realize it is simply an amendment for the government to gain some very short-term political mileage in terms of the parents out there and other people who are concerned about educational programs. It is short term and will only last a year. As a matter of fact, the minister said it might last only four months and no more.
Basically, what the minister and the government wants is to totally eliminate the local levy from education. The minister and the government listen to their bosses. The bosses come from the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto which said, in effect, in their submission to the standing committee on general government that there should be no local levy. The minister is saying: "We will let this go. We will change the 1982 to the 1983 so we get the short-term political gains and in four months we will totally eliminate the local levy." Therefore, this party is not going to support this amendment.
Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I have a strong suspicion that a majority, if not all, of the government members will support the minister in this particular change. I want to be very sure they know what they are supporting. Let us go back. The first proposal of the minister was that the 1.5 mill levy for elementary school purposes be reduced to one. That was the first proposal, as the minister knows as well as I do.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The first proposal was that the 1.5 mills would remain, but one mill could be used for the hiring of additional teachers.
The Deputy Chairman: That is a point of clarification.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Sweeney: I think the minister would agree that the major thrust of this entire section deals with the ability of a local board to hire extra teachers above and beyond the general or the Metro-wide agreement. The thrust is essentially the same. I still maintain that we started out with one mill that was going to be made available for the hiring of extra teachers and then we went back to 1.5 mills, as my colleague pointed out a few minutes ago.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It takes 11 years.
Mr. Sweeney: Okay, but the thing to keep very clearly in mind is that by putting on a limitation, whether it is 1982 or 1983, from that point on we begin to acquire a cumulative effect. In 1984 it is not worth 1.5 mills any more because the assessment value is going to change, particularly if the proposal of the Minister of Revenue is ever accepted. I will not be surprised if a few years down the road it is accepted in some form. We know very well the government is thinking along these lines.
How and when the government is going to apply it, we are not sure, but we do know the assessment bases of the various parts of Metro Toronto are going to change. Therefore, by freezing either at the 1982 or the 1983 level -- it is a very minor change -- as each year passes, that 1.5 mills is no longer worth 1.5 mills in real terms. For the first year, it might be worth 1.3; for the next year, 1.2; and for the next, 1.1. Eventually, it has a cumulative effect.
That is the point the members in the government benches have to understand clearly. They are not voting for 1.5 mills as a local levy discretion for the local boards; they are voting for something that over the years is going to be worth less and less. If I may rephrase that classic statement, they are buying short-term gain for long-term pain. That is the impact. If they are going to support this, let there be no doubt they know what they are supporting. It is a sham.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, it is not a sham. It is a commitment that 1.5 mills of the 1983 assessment level can be used, for the first time specifically stated in legislation, by all the boards for the purposes of hiring additional teachers. The debate that has surrounded this area is one which at one polarized end says there should be no limit on the discretionary levy, as the member for St. Catharines would really like to see, while at the other end a clear statement has been made by a number of very concerned people that there should be no discretionary levy at all.
Because of this polarization, I felt it was most appropriate that we ask someone with great knowledge of the government system and the structure in Metropolitan Toronto to look carefully and critically at the principle of the discretionary levy, specifically at that item, and to report. I do not know what the outcome of that will be, but I shall attempt to abide by whatever the recommendation is.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, one can only assume that the government will listen to that expert the same way it has listened to all those people through the 1970s who said that local autonomy was being eroded by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and that there was a crisis in education as a result. It is nonsense for the minister to suggest this -- and this is what she wants us to believe. She wants to have the best of both worlds. She wants to attack the principle of the local levy and then turn around and say that will not have any effect on the quality of education.
She cannot have it both ways. She cannot limit the ability of a school board to raise money through the discretionary levy, or at least establish it on a principle of fairness that allows for programs such as English as a second language, French immersion and limiting of class size, and then turn around and say, "We are taking this away, but it is not going to have any effect on those programs." Of course, it is going to have an effect on those programs. It is exactly the attitude she has taken towards the local levy, which is the problem.
I would just say to the minister that we on this side would much prefer it if she would at least be straight with her own colleagues, with herself and with us as to what the impact of this is going to be in the long term. She is putting individual school boards into a straitjacket. She is going to force the closure of schools and cutbacks in programs. That is the implication of cutting back on the local levy and the minister knows it.
9:47 p.m.
The committee divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 61; nays 36.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that section 8 be amended by striking out "1.5 mills" in line 2 of clause 130j(2)(b) and substituting therefor "two mills."
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to increase the discretionary mill possibility from 1.5 mills to two mills to provide a greater opportunity and greater flexibility for those boards of education that wish to exercise it.
When dealing with this bill in the standing committee on general government, we spent a good deal of time talking about the possibility of increasing the discretionary mill rate that would be permitted. A lot of the discussion that took place, and the subject of the minister's amendment, revolved around the fact that initially she started out allowing for only one mill to be used for the purpose of hiring teachers if a board of education so wished.
9:50 p.m.
As indicated by my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, subsequently the minister announced she would permit the full mill and a half to be used for the purpose of hiring necessary additional staff. She put a freeze on the 1982 level, but this is now lifted by her amendment to the 1983 level.
What we are suggesting through this amendment is that a discretionary rate of two mills be permitted to meet the special needs a board of education within Metropolitan Toronto may feel it has. On many occasions before the committee, parent groups, teacher groups and some members of boards of education, including the Toronto Board of Education, indicated their desire to have this additional discretionary mill.
Within her own caucus, probably the minister has characterized the opposition to Bill 127 as a group of wild-eyed, left-wing radicals on the Toronto Board of Education. This is not true. For instance, Dooney Gibson, who was featured in the Toronto Star article of February 17 and who normally votes Progressive Conservative, indicated she was opposed to the minister's bill.
I indicated to the minister in committee that if there was one way she could alleviate some of the problems she had in terms of opposition and ease the fears of parents in Metropolitan Toronto about the possibility of staff being cut back and, therefore, the quality of education available to their children being reduced, it would be to permit the discretionary levy to rise to two mills.
As I recall, in committee the minister's party members were not prepared to entertain this favourably. As usual, when a progressive and enlightened amendment of this kind was put forward, we found a situation where six hands went up automatically.
On one vote the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) voted the wrong way. I voted a certain way to suggest that he should vote the way he did. He was tricked into it, but it was an indication of how they had their marching orders. He felt he could not possibly vote for anything the opposition voted for and that is how the circumstance arose.
If we have a two-mill discretionary levy available to those boards of education that wish to exercise their right to use it, the programs that many of the parents have talked about, such as English as a second language, special help for those who need it, for the inner-city children -- all these programs would not be endangered as they will be even with the amendment permitted by the minister tonight at the level fixed for 1983.
Even at this point and as disappointed as are the opponents of the bill, who have come here night after night, day after day and who marched on the Legislature last fall, some 5,000 or 10,000 strong, on a very cold and wet day, the minister will recall --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I thought you were a school teacher. You can't count.
Mr. Bradley: The minister was not there, so she wouldn't know.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I was not invited.
The Deputy Chairman: Speaking to the amendment. You are off the topic of the amendment.
Mr. Bradley: I am trying to relate this to the clear support this kind of amendment would have in the general public and among those who are opposed to the bill in particular.
Even at this point, after having passed many of the sections of the bill which we feel are unwise and discriminatory, if the minister were to permit and agree to this amendment, which would allow for the two-mill discretionary levy, she would find that some of the people who were so vociferous in their opposition to this bill, while still being disappointed with it, would at least have the feeling that their board of education, the board of education they elected democratically at the local level, would have the opportunity to hire more individuals to teach within their jurisdiction if they saw that to be a desirable end.
Of course, the public could pass judgement on them. If the public felt the additional discretionary levy was too much of a burden on them as individual taxpayers, they would pass judgement at the time of the next municipal election in the second week of November 1985. So they would have that opportunity and they would understand the issues and would want to understand the issues even more as they saw the effect that such an amendment would have on the education system.
The minister has taken away a lot of local autonomy, but if anything can recover at least a portion of the local autonomy that could be left with the individual boards of education, it is the passage of this amendment. Even if the minister had said, "I will agree to 1.5 mills and I will not put any freeze on; I will not talk about 1982 or 1983; I will not put any freeze on as an assessment level," it would have abated a little bit the vociferous opposition to the bill. If she had agreed to the two mills, I think we would have found an outpouring of support, at least for this section of the bill.
I do not know whether I am going to persuade the minister of this. I could not persuade her in committee. I suspect there are some in her caucus, particularly those who represent Toronto ridings, who look favourably upon this change in the legislation. I think the minister could then go out to the parent groups that have been demonstrating their concern by coming to the Legislature each day, writing letters to the minister, sending telegrams, making telephone calls, visiting individual members and attending public meetings and at long last she could say to them:
"I know I have passed several portions of this bill to which you object, but I am trying to listen to your concerns and for that reason I am prepared to accept the two-mill discretionary levy to show my good faith, to show I understand that you want programs retained if your local board of education deems them suitable to be retained and wants to hire the staff to retain those programs, which are so very important to various boards of education."
I implore the minister to rise in the House and say in a magnanimous gesture: "I agree with your amendment. I am going to show my good faith with those people, and we and our caucus are prepared to support a two-mill discretionary levy in this section of the bill."
10 p.m.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, it will come as no surprise to the Minister of Education that this party will support the amendment put forward by the Liberal Party. I have an amendment that talks exactly about the same thing, except I would go a step further. The step would be that if the board of education were to raise the two mills and after the board deemed that it required more funding to meet the educational needs of students, I would say the provincial government should be responsible for that funding to that particular board.
I do this because basically, as we all know in this Legislature and as people outside this Legislature are aware, in Metropolitan Toronto this government has continuously underfunded education for the past five to six years. About six or seven years ago, this government was giving at least 33 to 37 cents per dollar to be spent for education in Metropolitan Toronto. Last year it provided only 15 cents per dollar in Metropolitan Toronto. This year it is going to provide less than the 15 cents, as I understand it from the projections the Metro Toronto board has done, that board which supposedly supports Bill 127. The projection that board has done indicates that the general legislative grants that will come down from the government will perhaps be somewhere between 12.5 to 13.5 cents per dollar.
I submit that a board raising money through the local levy should be absolutely no skin off the Minister of Education's nose. If a local board makes the determination to raise moneys through the only vehicle it has, increases in the mill rate, let that board do so, because obviously it has to explain to its electorate why that mill rate was raised.
The Minister of Education basically should have no business whatsoever putting a cap on the local levy but, if she desires to put a cap on, I and the Liberal Party are suggesting she put the cap at two mills. If any moneys are spent on top of the two mills to provide needed programs for kids, the government should put up the money. That makes sense.
I think it was the member for Kitchener Wilmot who said there is no bottomless pit in terms of the amounts of money that are available.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No. I said that.
Mr. Grande: The minister or the member for Kitchener-Wilmot; the Minister of Education has certainly heard me say this before.
Mr. Brandt: Yes, she has.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Five thousand times.
Mr. Grande: Of course she has. I will keep standing in this place as long as necessary until she understands or gets out of there.
As I have been saying to the Minister of Education, the business of the Minister of Education and the ministry is to guarantee that educational services are delivered to the children who are in need of them. If the Minister of Education does not do that, the ministry, the minister and the government are not being responsible. The job of the Minister of Education and the ministry is to make sure they get the money in terms of legislative grants and the portion from the local levy necessary to run an education system in this province.
If there are children in this province, in Metropolitan Toronto in this case, who require services that are not being provided, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Education to state to that board: "Provide the service. If you do not have the money, we will provide the money. That is the business we are in." At least that is the business the Minister of Education should be in: to ensure access to and equality of educational opportunities in this province. It is not her job to say to boards of education, "Put a cap on the amounts of money you can spend."
If those trustees, through the democratic process and not putting any kind of blindfold on the electorate, have said, "This is the kind of money we require for the services," obviously the electorate in the city of Toronto in particular -- because, as I am sure members know, Toronto is the only board of education that uses the local levy -- can kick them out at the next election.
Other boards in Metropolitan Toronto decided not to make use of that local levy, but that is their business. They decided not to have it. Therefore, democratically they made that decision and that commitment and they should not be forced to use the local levy. Let their electorate push them if the electorate feels their children are being short-changed.
Let us concern ourselves with quality education. Let us concern ourselves with the programs we feel our kids and our children in our system require and need. Let us not have a Minister of Education putting a cap on the local levy.
If the electorate wants to kick those trustees out at the next election, it is the right of that electorate to do so, but in the meantime, that trustee or that group of trustees of that board makes commitments and makes priorities regarding the direction of education. This government should have no qualms whatsoever, none whatsoever, in preventing local ratepayers and the electorate from taxing themselves so they have quality education in their schools. I do not think that is the business of government. It is the business of the local level.
Through this bill, the minister is tampering with local responsibilities. We have said to the minister over and over again that those are local decisions that have to be made, and she has no business infringing upon the rights of the local level and smashing the local level and centralizing all power to the Minister of Education and to this government.
Centralists they are, but that is not the historical context in Ontario in terms of education. The minister is changing the way education has been funded in this province. She is centralizing powers in her ministry with every piece of legislation and everything she does.
If the Minister of Education nods her head --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not nod it, I shook it. I do not agree with a word you have said, not one.
Mr. Martel: Now you have provoked him.
Mr. Foulds: You were on a roll, Bette.
Mr. Martel: You should have quit when you were ahead.
Mr. Grande: If the Minister of Education shakes her head --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: At least I have enough cells inside to shake.
Mr. Foulds: A few of them are burned out.
The Deputy Chairman: Do not let these interruptions cause you to be diverted from the motion.
Mr. Grande: Not at all.
I have been trying for the past several years to say certain things to the Minister of Education, to get the Minister of Education to understand certain realities about the educational process in this province; and the Minister of Education refuses to understand. She shakes her head and says, "That is not the way it works."
10:10 p.m.
Let me say to the Minister of Education that her head will not be allowed to remain in the sand for too long in terms of education in this province. The shaking of the minister's head is perhaps because of the fact that the Premier the other day, last week -- or was it a little over a week ago? -- met with the Workgroup of Metro Parents for two hours.
Where is the Premier? I thought he was here; then he could shake his head either no or yes, at least.
The Workgroup of Metro Parents went to the Premier and said to him not once, not twice, but thrice, "We want to meet with you; we want to talk about these education concerns that we have about our kids." The Premier knew the guillotine was going to be used in this Legislature, and he had to appear to have talked to the parents.
At that meeting I understand when the parents asked about the industrial-commercial assessment pooling, the Premier --
The Deputy Chairman: The member is not speaking to the motion.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I certainly am; I am talking to funding. The Minister of Education, through this legislation, is putting a cap on the amounts of money the boards of education could raise to provide educational services and meet the educational needs of kids. That is what I am talking to. I was referring to the Workgroup of Metro Parents, which met with the Premier about a week and a half ago.
The parents asked the Premier about the industrial-commercial assessment pooling, that tax grab of the local levy that the province wants to pool in its own coffers; in Metropolitan Toronto it will mean $90 million that will come to the provincial coffers from the educational sector alone -- and let us leave the Minister of Revenue out of this, because the Minister of Education wants to bring market value assessment for educational purposes long before he will be able to do it in terms of municipal services.
I ask the Minister of Education, on that day when the parents asked, did the Premier say to the parents: "What are you talking about, industrial-commercial assessment? This is not the policy of the government. This will never be the policy of this government." There was the Premier shooting down the Minister of Education in front of the Workgroup of Metro Parents.
What the minister clearly wanted was to pull out of Metropolitan Toronto, over a five-year period, $90 million of educational services to kids. At the same time, the minister wants to put a cap on the amount of money the boards of education can raise through the local levy. It is amazing, the double cutback, the double whammy, kids will really suffer at the hands of this government and in the hands of this minister.
I think those ministers who are here should be concerned about what the Minister of Education is doing and the plans she has. If they are not concerned, let that be on their heads.
I understand the Metropolitan Toronto School Board is opposed to pooling. I understand the Etobicoke Board of Education is opposed to pooling. I understand the North York Board of Education is opposed to pooling; and Scarborough and everyone else in Metropolitan Toronto are opposed to this pooling concept of the ministry.
The Martin proposal supposedly is dead. Of course it is not dead. It will come to haunt kids and educational services to kids under another name. Martin was dropped, true, but somebody else will come forward with the same proposal.
Basically what I am saying is that the Minister of Education and the government ought not to make it their business to put a cap on the amount of educational dollars that the local elected trustees wish to raise.
My friend tells me to wind down. I do not know why. I am winding up.
Mr. Nixon: Who would ever tell you to do that?
Mr. Grande: Certainly the member has not yet.
The Toronto Star in an editorial on January 4 said: "The other worrisome part of Bill 127 freezes at 1.5 mills the amount of extra money each board may raise through taxes to hire more teachers. Stephenson originally intended to slash this amount by one third, but she relented in October after parent delegations expressed concerns about firing teachers.
"Nevertheless, if the taxpayers are willing to pay, it seems inherently unfair to restrict the school board's ability to raise any amount of its own funds to meet the needs of children, particularly when the provincial government itself has been so niggardly with the education funding."
So do not force local boards of education to raise money at the local level, while at the same time the ministry is starving boards of education with lack of funding to provide services to kids. If the minister does not give them money then the money has to come from some other place. I would suggest the money should not be coming from elsewhere; it should be coming from the ministry. I guess we will keep debating this aspect.
As I mentioned during the debate on the minister's amendment, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto came before the standing committee on general government. Their contribution to the local levy was really something to behold. In essence, they said that to have a local levy is unfair because that would put a board and children in that board at an advantage over the other area boards in Metropolitan Toronto.
We see where the levelling down of educational services comes from. It comes from the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. Basically they say: "Get rid of the local levy. If you don't get rid of the local levy, you don't achieve equality of educational opportunity." As I said before, these are the minister's masters. It is these masters that the government obeys.
My masters are the children in Metropolitan Toronto and the province who need educational services. Therefore, I am here day in and day out, whether it be for six months, one year or two years; as long as I have breath, to use the minister's words, I will stand up in my place and fight on behalf of those kids who need special education or English as a second language programs, on behalf of those kids whose parents want them to learn French, on behalf of those kids in the inner city of Metropolitan Toronto or the city of Toronto who need services at schools, and on behalf of the children of immigrant parents who require the services in order for them to improve, in her own words, their lot in life.
Do not prevent it by this bill. Accept the amendment that my friend the member for St. Catharines put forward and begin to fund education. The minister and Premier have stated on many occasions that education is a priority in this province. Prove it.
Within the next week or so, the minister is going to come out with general legislative grants. Let me find out -- and prove me wrong -- that the amounts of money she will provide for school boards is not going to be five per cent but in the 10 to 12 per cent range which, in effect, means the minister is seriously committing this government to quality education in this province and in Metropolitan Toronto. I do not think she will do it. Until she does it, this party will be standing up on behalf of children.
10:20 p.m.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, in the light of the fact that I have announced there will be an individual appointed as a committee of inquiry to inquire into the entire principle of discretionary levy, and since the discretionary levy has been at the same level, with increasing returns, as I am sure the honourable member knows, because Metropolitan Toronto has had an assessment increase of something over 500 per cent in the past decade, I believe it would be inappropriate to support this amendment. It would be wiser to wait until the individual appointed as the committee of inquiry has an opportunity to report before such a change is made. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask, under rule 36, that this question now be put, as amended.
10:33 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 57; nays 37.
The committee divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion that section 8, as amended, should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 57; nays 37.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported progress.
The House adjourned at 10:36 p.m.