Hansard Transcripts 1983-Feb-22 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all honourable members will join me today in commemorating the 100th anniversary of the election of the first French-Canadian to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Sunday, February 27, will mark the centennial of the election of Honoré Robillard as member of the provincial parliament for Russell county, now part of the great riding of Prescott-Russell, which I have the honour and privilege to represent.

Mr. Robillard was born in St-Eustache, Quebec, on January 13, 1835. He was a contractor and reeve of Gloucester township in 1873. He remained the only francophone member until the general election of 1886, when Albert Evanturel was elected in Prescott county and Gaspard Pacaud was elected to represent the great riding of Essex North.

M. le Président, je demanderais à tous les honorables députés de se joindre à moi pour commémorer le centième anniversaire de l'élection du premier francophone à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario. En effet, dimanche prochain, le 27 février, marquera le centenaire de l'élection de Honoré Robillard à titre de député provincial pour le comté de Russell, maintenant intégré à la constitution de Prescott-Russell que j'ai l'honneur et le privilège de représenter.

M. Robillard naquit à St-Eustache, Québec, le 13 janvier 1835. En 1873 il était entrepreneur et préfet du canton de Gloucester. Il demeura le seul député francophone jusqu'aux élections de 1886 alors que Albert fut élu dans le comté de Prescott et Gaspar Paquot dans le comté de Essex-Nord.

M. Rae: M. le Président, au nom de mes collègues dans le Nouveau parti démocratique, j'aimerais me joindre aux remarques qui viennent d'être faites par le député de Prescott-Russell. Nous honorons aujourd'hui non seulement l'anniversaire d'un homme qui a représenté la communauté francophone, le premier à être élu dans notre législature, mais nous célébrons aussi la contribution de la francophonie et de la communauté francophone dans la vie de notre province, et je dois dire que, naturellement, nous attendons le jour où cette contribution sera reconnue d'une façon officielle.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. Catharines.

Mr. Nixon: Gregory wants to speak in French. Wait a minute.

Mr. Bradley: Did he want to speak in French?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Who, me?

[Later]

M. Piché: M. le Président, sur un point de privilège, j'aimerais appuyer la remarque de mon collègue de Prescott-Russell et souligner le centième anniversaire de l'élection de Honoré Robillard, le premier francophone élu député du comté de Russell pour le Parti conservateur le 27 février en 1883. Je veux souligner cet anniversaire de ce côté-ci de la chambre.

Mr. Speaker, what I have just said is that it is a privilege for me to support the remarks made earlier by my colleague the member for Prescott-Russell when he mentioned we were celebrating the 100th anniversary of Honoré Robillard, the first francophone member of the provincial Legislature, elected on February 27, 1883, for le parti conservateur.

TELEGUIDE PICTURES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a very important point of privilege to bring to your attention and I know you will agree it is a point of privilege that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) would be particularly interested in, probably the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), perhaps even the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton), and certainly the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell).

In the Teleguide which is located in this building over which you have jurisdiction -- in fact, it is close to your office -- if one presses the secret code, six, seven, and go, a photograph of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) appears.

Mr. Nixon: Surely not.

Mr. Bradley: With five and seven, there is a picture of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller); with four and seven, a picture of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz); and with three and seven, a picture of himself, the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Interjections.

Mr. Bradley: I am trying to figure out what my point of privilege is and it is this: Since the Minister of Agriculture and Food has announced he is running for the leadership, I think someone over there, through your prompting, Mr. Speaker, should ensure that all cabinet ministers who are interested in pushing the present Premier out of office and running for his position should have equal time on the Teleguide.

Mr. Speaker: As the member said, that is hardly a point of privilege but it is interesting. I must confess I was not aware of that.

LICENCE PERIOD EXTENSION

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Since the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has changed its system for issuing licences, I wonder whether the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) will make a statement to the Legislature today with respect to extending the period for obtaining this year's licences. As you know, there are a lot of --

Mr. Speaker: Order. When the minister appears, I am sure the member can ask him that during oral questions.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as honourable members know, the monitoring and protection of water quality in the Niagara River has been and continues to be one of my ministry's major priorities.

We have established an action program to identify and deal with the key sources of pollution on both sides of the border, and ministry scientists are engaged in an extensive monitoring and analysis program of the water in that system. Our persistent testing has produced some preliminary data which I wish to bring to the attention of the members and the public.

Ministry results previously announced to the House indicated the presence of dioxin in some species of fish in the Niagara area waters, but to this date our scientists had been unable to confirm the chemical's presence in raw or treated water. As members probably know, there is a broad range of relative toxicity in this chemical family, of which 2,3,7,8,-TCDD is the most toxic and notorious member.

To date we have completed 154 analyses of both raw surface water and treated drinking water from the Niagara area. My staff have consistently stretched their skills and equipment to the limit to detect even the slightest trace levels. In three samples of untreated water, they found indications that a member of the dioxin family of chemicals might be present in levels too low for our existing equipment to detect precisely. These three samples were sent to the federal Department of Health and Welfare, which has testing equipment capable of reliable analysis to a detection limit of 0.005 parts per trillion. While we have similar equipment on order, it will not be in operation until later this year. Our current detection limit is 0.250 parts per trillion for dioxin.

The federal laboratory in Ottawa confirmed our scientists' suspicions and reported traces of dioxin compounds at levels of 0.017 parts per trillion from the upper Niagara River, 0.010 from the lower river and 0.028 parts per trillion from the channel off the Welland Canal near St. Catharines. They also confirmed our own test results, which showed no traces of the dioxin family in treated drinking water samples from Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and St. Catharines.

The tests show such low levels, in only three of the total number of samples taken, that we cannot be absolutely certain that the samples were not contaminated in some way and that one of these dioxins was actually present in the river and canal.

2:10 p.m.

Since we have only preliminary data, which indicate the possible presence of dioxins at extremely low levels, we need further testing before any medical advisers can determine whether or not there is any significance. Our tests did not find any trace of dioxins in any treated drinking water. Our best advice now is that health concerns are unjustified.

My staff is advising the Niagara area municipalities of our test results to date and we are issuing an announcement to the public. We are continuing sampling in the area, at these and other locations, to determine if any dioxins are present and, if so, how they are transported in the water. We are taking larger samples, and if we find any further indication of dioxin presence, we will concentrate these larger samples to determine if the toxic 2,3,7,8,-TCDD compound is there.

There is no established guideline or objective for dioxins in water in Ontario or Canada. I have directed ministry staff to begin work immediately with the best medical advice to review research information and recommend criteria.

While we do not normally report scientific data at such an early stage with limited confirmation and interpretation of its significance, I felt that members should be advised of this development as a result of my ministry's diligent testing programs. I will keep members informed as new information comes to light and as we develop a more complete and accurate picture of the situation.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As the winter session is now well advanced, for the second time in the past three weeks I want to draw your attention and that of the government House leader to standing order 81, the rules that govern the response to written questions standing in the name of members of my party. There are several questions, some of which are at least five months old, that have not yet been answered. Once again we want to draw to the attention of the government House leader our great concern that so many of these questions remain unanswered in what we consider a fairly sharp violation of the spirit and intent of standing order 81.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the government House leader (Mr. Wells) will take note of your remarks and reply as quickly as he can.

CASE OF ADY GANDOUR

Mr. Breithaupt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) was to make a statement with respect to the case of Ady Gandour, the man charged with assault in a certain event in the Brampton area. Do we know whether the Attorney General will be present today?

Mr. Speaker: I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Mr. Martel: Is this all out of the question period?

ORAL QUESTIONS

STATUS OF GREYMAC AND SEAWAY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), I have a question for the Premier.

I am sure the Premier is very well aware that up to this time no report has been filed in this House or very little public information given with respect to Seaway Trust or Greymac Trust. Given the fact his government had interim reports on January 15 and, we understand, received the report on Seaway Trust on February 10, some 12 days ago, and by every press account the Greymac Trust report may have been received or is at least imminent, can he indicate why the government has not filed these reports with the same dispatch that it filed the Woods Gordon report with respect to Crown Trust? What is the status of those reports? Why is the government not sharing that information with members of this House and the public, particularly when the government was under such pressure to pass legislation with Crown Trust?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recall the time frame for Crown Trust which, initially, we thought the Leader of the Opposition supported, but in his rather contradictory fashion did not. I think the minister has made it clear that the situation with Seaway and Greymac may be somewhat different from Crown Trust. I have heard him say on a number of occasions that they were all being dealt with.

I cannot tell the honourable member whether the report on Greymac has been received. I can only assure him and the members of the House that the government will deal with those reports in the way we think is in the public interest as we did with Crown Trust.

Mr. Peterson: How is the government going to answer the many depositors who have a very high degree of anxiety at the present time about the state of their assets? Let me give the Premier an example. A gentleman phoned me this morning, a Mr. Chris Christoff. On December 3 he made a deposit of more than $60,000 in Greymac Trust and on January 12 he withdrew $20,000. It took three weeks to clear that cheque. He has no other source of income. He is unemployed at the present time. He is now contemplating selling his house because his assets are dwindling and he has absolutely no idea whether there is going to be any recovery.

Does the Premier really feel it is fair to put the thousands of depositors of those two trust companies through this kind of anxiety when he has the information, when it is within his power to come forward and tell people the exact state of the assets of those companies and what the recovery will be?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations had conveyed to the House certain factual information. I am not familiar with this particular person's concern. The Leader of the Opposition says that he deposited in early December. Was that the date he gave me?

Mr. Peterson: December 3.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On December 3 he deposited something in excess of $60,000 into Greymac. I am only going by memory, but that was after, I guess, there had been some indication of certain difficulties, and I am not in any way quarrelling with the decision of this individual to deposit in Greymac.

As I recall the minister's information to the House and to the public, those who have invested in Seaway and Greymac, the depositors, the hundreds the member refers to, who are not that large in numbers in terms of those with more than $60,000, was that those who have deposited only $60,000 will be paid.

Mr. Di Santo: Certainly the Premier cannot be familiar with all the details, but I would like to ask him if he is aware that Zen Contracting, which was remodelling the headquarters of Greymac, was frozen on January 17 and 40 workers have been out of work since then. In view of the fact that a report has been delayed until now, may I ask the Premier if he can give us a commitment that a report will come out soon and the matter will be clarified? If he cannot do that today, can he tell us whether the government has anything in the works that it can tell these people? Do they have to stay idle or will the situation be resolved pretty soon?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Downsview that, obviously, I am not familiar with that particular situation. I assume from what he has said in his question that some construction or remodelling work was going on at one of the offices of Greymac --

Mr. Di Santo: The headquarters.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- at the headquarters of Greymac, and that the subcontractors or the general contractor have not been paid either in part or in full. I am not sure whether they have been paid partly or not. I would only say to the honourable member I am sure they have sought legal advice about whether the filing of a mechanic's lien would have any legal base. It probably would have a legal base. Whether it would lead to a recovery on that particular facility, I would not wish to comment. I assure the honourable member that as soon as the information relevant to Greymac is available and it is in the public interest to make it public, the government, of course, will do so.

Mr. Peterson: Do I understand the Premier's opinion now to be that people should not have invested because they should have been aware of these certain difficulties after the press reports? Is that what he is telling me? He told the city of Brampton they should not have invested in Greymac Trust because they should have been aware. He is telling them they are not very bright and now he is not going to protect them. Is that what he is saying? Is that his government's position?

Is he saying because there are not many investors with more than $60,000 he does not feel obliged to recompense them? Is that what he is telling us? I want to know why there is such a shortage of information, particularly since he has had the Seaway Trust report since February 10, 12 days ago. He is not doing anything to allay that anxiety.

I am going to ask him the second part of my supplementary. Will he stand up in this House and guarantee those depositors, such as this gentleman who phoned me today with a very real personal concern, that regardless of what happens his interests will be protected? Is that not surely the responsible route, given the negligence of the government's regulatory system.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Once again the Leader of the Opposition is factually incorrect. Roughly three weeks ago I made some observations relating to the Peel Board of Education, not to the city of Brampton. I did it in a way that was not critical.

In the answer to the first part of the question today, I did not question the judgement of the person who had deposited money in Greymac. I think I am correct in recalling some criticism from the Leader of the Opposition that in certain printed publications that were available in the press, but distributed as well, Greymac was included on that list of trust companies. So he himself had been critical of something he said I have been critical of when I have not been.

Mr. Peterson: I never understand what the Premier says.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just pointing out how totally wrong the Leader of the Opposition is in making those assumptions. The government has indicated that it is dealing with Seaway and with Greymac. I think it is premature to come to a conclusion. The part that concerned me about the Leader of the Opposition's rhetoric was that many hundreds of Seaway and Greymac depositors would be in real jeopardy.

Mr. Peterson: Tell us how many are in jeopardy then.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think he knows enough of the situation to know that in numbers terms, while there are some depositors who have substantial deposits, such as the Peel board, when he says they are in the hundreds, he is grossly exaggerating.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister without Portfolio and chief government whip. I ask this with the greatest respect for the Legislative Assembly and the way it conducts the business of this province.

In view of the great interest and preoccupation of the minister's federal colleagues with matters of conflict of interest, would the minister not agree that his direct participation in the decision of a committee of the Ontario cabinet to nullify the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board -- a decision, by the way, supported by area residents, the city of Mississauga, the region of Peel and the Credit Valley Conservation Authority -- constitutes a conflict of interest on the minister's part, particularly in view of the fact that, according to newspaper reports, he has received $1,480 in campaign contributions from the developer, William Sorokolit, and he has his constituency office in the Central Parkway Mall owned by the same developer?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's first question is no. The answer to his second question is also no.

Mr. Riddell: As a member of the cabinet, which has produced new and very stringent conflict of interest rules for those who serve at the municipal level, would the minister not agree that he should subject himself to the same kinds of rules to set an example for others, and does he not feel that this whole affair merits the submission of his resignation from cabinet?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I think the members on this side of the House have answered the member's question for me.

Mr. Riddell: Could the minister tell me whether the cabinet has sets of guidelines pertaining to conflict of interest?

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions about calendars that I will gladly give to the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell).

I would like to turn to the statement that was made yesterday by the Attorney General with respect to the investigations at Sick Kids hospital. I would like to ask the Attorney General to turn to page 3 of that statement, if he could --

Mr. Speaker: Just place your question, please.

Mr. Rae: -- just to simply consider this question. He quotes selectively from the recommendations of the report from the disease control centre and he refers to the fact that they say an "increased occurrence of deaths resulted from purposeful overdoses of digoxin." He then switches and refers to the fact that of 36 ward-associated deaths that occurred during what he describes as the epidemic period, "there are 28 deaths for which the findings regarding the cause of death are not inconsistent with digoxin overdose."

He then continues with the statement, in which he says there is significant scientific evidence that seven of these deaths were caused by what is described as a deliberate overdose of digoxin, which, I would submit, is quite different from a purposeful overdose. Then he says, "Three were the subject of the charges which were found to be murders by the preliminary hearing judge," which is not the case. As the minister knows, the preliminary hearing judge found simply that there was sufficient evidence to go to a jury with respect to those three deaths.

Given the fact that even if it is granted that seven of the deaths were murders, this still means that, according to the figures and the information the Attorney General himself is admitting to, there are 21 cases that he describes as not inconsistent with digoxin overdose for which there is apparently no explanation, or at least no explanation that either the Attorney General or the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) has been able or willing to provide to this assembly or to the people of Ontario or to the parents of these children, does the Attorney General not think that, regardless of whether he decides to lay criminal charges for whatever reason, the public of Ontario is entitled to a full royal commission to determine who is responsible for the fact that during a nine-month period a number of deaths occurred for which there is as yet absolutely no satisfactory explanation of the degree of responsibility or culpability for any of these events?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I see nothing in the leader of the New Democratic Party's question that has not been asked before or has not been in statements that have been made before. But just for the sake of this discussion, obviously there is going to be a great deal of ongoing concern in relation to at least 28 deaths, the seven we properly described as deliberate overdoses of digoxin and the 21 that according to the scientific findings are not inconsistent with digoxin poisoning.

Assuming criminal charges are laid in any of these deaths, the criminal trial would have to take precedence over any public inquiry. In other words, I am sure the leader of the New Democratic Party appreciates that if, for example, murder charges were laid with respect to several of the deaths, one cannot have a murder trial proceeding at the same time as a public inquiry into the other deaths because the evidence related to all of the deaths is quite relevant. Under our system of justice, any inquest or other judicial inquiry related to matters out of which criminal charges have arisen has always awaited the outcome of the criminal trials for very good reasons.

In the honourable member's hypothetical situation, in the event that criminal charges were laid only with respect to several deaths, and assuming the disposition of those criminal charges -- and they are obviously going to be disposed of at some time -- the appropriate manner of assuring the public that everything reasonable had been done to discover the cause of the other deaths might well mean a form of public inquiry. That is something that could well happen. But I just want the member to appreciate that such a process would have to await the outcome of any criminal trial. This is fundamental to the proper administration of justice in this province.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I appreciate what the Attorney General has said, but I would like to ask him to consider another, not entirely contradictory point of view with regard to this problem.

Regardless of what criminal charges he may or may not lay, there is a separate question with respect to the administration of the hospital as to what information was known and when, how it was known and what was done about that information, as well as the question of the civil obligations of the hospital and of the hospital board and of the hospital administration.

Surely the Attorney General will appreciate that if people are going to have full confidence in that hospital and its administration, it has to be seen that it is not simply a matter of one or two people being singled out with respect to anything that may or may not have occurred during that nine-month period. For full confidence to be restored, there has to be the kind of inquiry and recommendations that will get at the question of exactly what happened, who was responsible and why certain things were not done much sooner. This was a nine-month period; charges were not laid until March and then only with respect to deaths that occurred in March and one that occurred in January, which leaves out a whole period.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Does the Attorney General not see that even if a criminal charge is proceeded with, there is a separate question that has to be dealt with? It was not dealt with by Mr. Justice Dubin, with great respect, because he was not asked to deal with that question. It was not dealt with by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, by the police investigation or by the internal review by the hospital. There has to be a determination of who was responsible, who was in charge of the situation and whether other things should have been done to prevent the tragic occurrences that took place during those nine months.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As all members appreciate, one of the major concerns of the Minister of Health in respect to the ongoing criminal investigation and any trials that might result therefrom was that the public be assured that the whole issue at the Hospital for Sick Children was being dealt with properly in so far as the public interest was concerned. This was the reason for the very comprehensive and important investigation conducted by Mr. Justice Charles Dubin.

We have his very comprehensive report. I think the public can be assured that at present everything reasonable is being done to ensure the highest possible level of safety for the youngsters in that hospital.

I readily concede the leader of the New Democratic Party's proposition that even if there are criminal charges, even if they are disposed of and even if there are convictions, there may well still be some unanswered questions. I would say that might very well be so. Even if there are criminal charges and these trials proceed to a satisfactory conclusion, it may well be necessary to have yet a further public hearing to deal with any of these unanswered questions.

I am not suggesting for a moment that everything is going to be resolved if there is a criminal prosecution. I readily concede that the public interest may require an additional airing quite apart from any criminal charges. The only point I am trying to make is that a public inquiry would have to await the outcome of criminal charges. I am not suggesting for a moment that the issues the honourable member has raised are not legitimate and relevant.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, surely this matter has to be understood in context. If this matter had happened in any other city in the world, we would have read about it in our press. This is a world-class series of events. This is unique in human history, at least to the best of our knowledge. It has to be treated with that kind of seriousness.

Rather than the kind of pious speeches the Attorney General made yesterday in defence of the police force, or his upholding the criminal justice system, does he not agree that in addition to looking at those matters raised by the leader of the New Democratic Party, he is obliged to have an independent review into the behaviour of the police in this matter -- why those charges were laid when they were, why they did not have sufficient evidence, the behaviour of the crown attorney at that time and the police conduct subsequent to that -- to make sure we have the capability at least to examine this kind of situation in the future? Surely that deserves an independent scrutiny.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything that I can add to the response I gave to the leader of the New Democratic Party. I just point out that the recommendations of the Atlanta study do refer to the fact that situations of this sort "have occurred before and may well occur again." But, having said that, I do not deny for a moment the seriousness and the relative uniqueness of this incredible tragedy.

The fact of the matter is, for the leader of the official opposition to suggest for one moment that every possible, reasonable human effort has not been made to resolve these issues is to cast an unfair and irresponsible cloud about a number of very dedicated people who have committed a good deal of time, talent and energy to resolving this issue. I regret that the leader of the official opposition is so preoccupied with trivializing every issue that comes along and so interested in creating smokescreens that it is very difficult to have a rational debate as far as he is concerned.

Ms. Copps: That is absurd, absolutely absurd, and you know it. You owe an explanation to those parents.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The Attorney General, in the semifinal sentence of his statement yesterday, the second to the last paragraph, said that --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Semifinal? What about the second final one?

Mr. Rae: The Premier (Mr. Davis) is an expert. I am taking my lessons in the English language from the Premier; so if it sounds obscure, that is the reason.

The Attorney General says the public hearing could either go through an inquest, a judicial inquiry or a royal commission. In that regard, does he not believe that a coroner's inquest is not the appropriate vehicle for the kind of investigation that deals with the broader questions of the responsibilities of the hospital, the police and the Attorney General's office and that it would be inappropriate to take the coroner's inquest route?

Will he not consider eliminating that possibility and simply look at the question of the need for a broadly based royal commission whose terms of inquiry would clearly establish the degree of responsibility of all those people in the hospital on the hospital board and in terms of the administration of justice in this regard? To go the route of a coroner's inquest would so narrow the inquiry as to make it impossible for us to deal with the broader questions of responsibility and culpability in this matter.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would agree that the traditional coroner's inquest would probably not be the appropriate route to go. The terms of reference, as the leader of the New Democratic Party properly suggests, would have to be broader than that. I am simply not eliminating that consideration, because this will be a decision of cabinet as a whole. But I would agree that any such inquiry would be broader than the terms of reference that are normally part of a coroner's inquest.

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Minister of Health and it concerns the question of the inspection of nursing homes and the administration of the Nursing Homes Act and the regulations thereunder.

I ask the minister to take into account the fact that a Ministry of Health employee has stated to the Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities that the reason there are no random inspections is not only that they do not have enough inspectors but also that "the owners take offence at such visits and it makes it more difficult to get their co-operation in the future."

We have the evidence of the Ark Eden inquiry, where one of the recommendations was that all visits must be unannounced. We also have the statements that were made to members of my staff by Miss M. E. Butteriss, the administrative assistant to the manager of nursing home services, who said the reason there was no random inspections of nursing homes, apart from a response to complaints and the annual review inspections, was that there was "no staff time left."

Given that for the 340 homes in the whole of the province, there are three environmental health inspectors, three fire inspectors, 14 nursing inspectors and three regional supervisors, is the minister telling this House he feels he has the adequate staff to do the kind of random and spot inspections which he has said to this House he feels are necessary? If so, can he please explain to the House how he thinks that is so when one looks at the record of what has happened?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, might I remind the honourable member that we still have 340 nursing homes in this province providing good and adequate service. They have been effectively scrutinized for a number of years by what I consider to be an excellent inspection team. That is one of the reasons I feel comfortable in saying we have adequate staff. The system is good.

I understand the member's inclination to be opposed to the private nursing home system as a matter of principle and philosophy. We do not happen to believe that on this side of the House. The member's proclivity to believe it must be bad if it is done by the private sector leads him to believe the whole thing does not work well.

It works well and it works because of the dedication of most of the private operators and the effectiveness of the inspection team. Because there are problems from time to time does not mean the whole thing does not work.

The member indicated yesterday in almost the same question that it was his information random inspections did not occur, yet a moment ago when he quoted my staff person as the source for that information --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He had better read Hansard. A moment ago --

Mr. Rae: The statement I just made is exactly the same as the one I made yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member can dig himself out later.

A moment ago the member indicated his information came from a certain person in my branch. He said, and I wrote the words down as he said them, that no random inspections were done apart from the annual inspections and apart from responses to complaints. That is quite different from what he said yesterday. He asked, "Why is it you do not do random inspections?"

Mr. Rae: No, it is not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would like the member to stand up and read what he said yesterday because today --

Mr. Rae: I will read it right now.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He should do that and let us hear it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I will read it right now for the minister since he is misquoting me and misstating what I said.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the minister has twice misstated. He got away with it once, but he is not going to get away with it twice.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is deteriorating into a personal debate. I will hear the supplementary of the member for York South.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I think I am entitled to correct the record. The minister has twice made an accusation with respect to what I said.

Mr. Speaker: I am not going to pass any judgement on that.

Mr. Martel: He has Hansard from yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: All right. That is fine. He can sort that out with the minister at the appropriate time.

Mr. Rae: The supplementary is what I asked yesterday, quoting from Instant Hansard:

"Can the minister confirm that there are no random spot checks conducted by the ministry but simply a response to individual complaints plus the routine review done at the time of renewal?" That is precisely the same phrasing I used today. It is exactly the same point. Apart from responses to complaints and licence renewals, there are no random spot checks. That is the evidence of his ministry and the evidence of the Ark Eden inquiry.

I am tired and fed up with the cheap, sleazy tactics the minister uses in responding to these very basic statements that have been made. They just will not add up.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the supplementary.

Mr. Rae: If the minister is doing such a marvellous job, can he explain why, in the coroner's jury verdicts that have come out in the past while, there have been several recommendations since 1981 with respect to amendments to the Nursing Homes Act in terms of requiring emergency policies and procedures under the act, establishing better safety standards and so on? The only changes in regulations that have been made by his ministry have to do with the amount of money being charged. Can he explain that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, I know the member would want to make sure enough funding was going to the nursing homes or else he would be standing up complaining that since we did not give enough, the shortage would come out in nutrition and in services being provided to the residents. We make these adjustments because we want to make sure the homes are funded to a decent level in order that those services can be provided.

Second, as I have stated several times in the past few days, changes are to be made in the next couple of months. The member will see those shortly.

Third, the impression left here yesterday was that there were no random checks. I am glad the member took the opportunity today, after I provoked him to do so, to clarify that what he meant to say yesterday was that, apart from the random checks, there are no random checks.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject of contradictions, I wonder whether the minister might clarify to this House an apparent contradiction between something he said last Friday with respect to the investigation of 17 further nursing homes over and above the Ark Eden Nursing Home. On Friday, the impression was certainly left in the media that there were concerns specifically expressed about 17 more nursing homes.

Mr. Speaker: I might point out to the member that the supplementary has to come out of the original question or the answer -- not from something last Friday, but from the immediate question.

Ms. Copps: Yes, we are talking about the Ark Eden Nursing Home. My question relates to the issue of the inspection of nursing homes raised by the leader of the third party. There is an apparent contradiction between what the minister said on Friday and what he said yesterday. It is now his position that the reason he is investigating or looking at these other nursing homes is simply that they are also homes for children rather than adults in the nursing home service.

Can he clarify to this House the apparent discrepancy between what he said on Friday about 17 other inspections and what he said yesterday, that it was more of a routine nature?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has provided an important opportunity for me to say that I indicated to my staff last week, when this thing came to a head, that the team inspection approach, which is the one we used at Ark Eden earlier this month, as opposed to sending one or two inspectors in on a random check --

Mr. Foulds: A prearranged check.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Repeat it again and tomorrow I will stand up and correct what the member is saying again.

Instead of sending one or two inspectors in, we were taking a team approach. We were sending in a team, as we did at Ark Eden, and we were now prepared to send in teams to other homes. I want to be in a position, when I introduce the legislation in this assembly next session, to be fully satisfied about the situation and to provide a full report to the House at that time. I asked my staff, "How many team inspections can we accomplish in the next couple of months?" Their answer was, "About 18 or 20." I then said late last week, "Let us send the 18 or 20 into the places you are most concerned about, if you have any concerns at all."

When we met again on Friday afternoon, my staff indicated to me, having looked at the list, there really were not 18 or 20 that caused them great enough concern to warrant sending in an inspection team. They then asked, "Minister, what would you like us to do?" I said on Friday afternoon: "Let us go into those circumstances where we tend to find the greatest dependency situations. They will be the homes that have young adults in them." So on Friday afternoon we decided to switch those 18 or 20 to those homes that have young adults in them, because there were not 18 or 20, I am relieved to say, that my inspection branch said they were terribly concerned about sending inspection teams into.

Mr. McClellan: The story does change every day, does it not?

Mr. Speaker, since the minister indicated yesterday that the results of the nursing home inspection reports we are discussing are not going to be made available until the form is changed, will the minister prepare a report that will advise this House whether, as a result of investigations, the four nursing homes I referred to yesterday have any history, in the past or at present, of violations of the Nursing Homes Act and regulations? If they have, will he tell us what the nature of those violations are?

The nursing homes are: The Good Samaritan Nursing Homes Ltd. in Alliston, Barton Place Nursing Homes in Toronto, Country Place Nursing Homes Ltd. in Richmond Hill and the Lakewood Nursing Home in Huntsville. The question is very simple. Is the minister going to tell us, or is he not, whether those four nursing homes have any record, past or present, of violations under the Nursing Homes Act or regulations?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will have a look at the situation of those four nursing homes since the honourable member raised them on a previous occasion. I think he raised some, if not all, of them on a previous occasion. He raised them again yesterday. Obviously some people will be concerned about it if for no other reason than that he has raised it. Therefore, it is important that we try to resolve --

Mr. Martel: Now it is our fault.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not say it was the fault of the members opposite. I said there will be some concern out there.

Mr. Swart: Sure. You should have answered it then.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member opposite was quite right when he raised the last concern about Ark Eden. Unlike the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has a record of being right once in a while; therefore, I am going to look at those four and see how we can satisfy both the members opposite and the public with regard to the current situation.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Considering the minister's statement today on the analysis of the Niagara area water, how does he respond to the comments in Saturday's Toronto Star by Canadian and US scientists that unless politicians and governments immediately tackle the pollution problems in the Niagara River it will be too late, particularly as it relates to what is commonly called a witch's brew of chemical poisons and the river's largest polluter, the Niagara Falls, New York, water treatment plant? How does that square with what the minister is telling us today about the quality of water in the river? Is the minister as concerned as they are about cleaning it up?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised the honourable member would once again have to ask that question. Surely he has a memory long enough to recall the numerous times I have stood in this House both in response to questions from him and others and in statements to reaffirm not only my personal concern about the situation there but also the concern this government has had on an ongoing basis.

We have been very much involved in initiating many of the actions that have led to the establishment, for example, of the international committee on the toxics in the Niagara River, to promote the exchange of information and to promote speeding up the cleanup in the Niagara River.

Regarding the specific example the member cites with regard to the Niagara Falls, New York, waste water treatment plant, I have to say that over a period of two or three years -- certainly we began prior to my incumbency in this ministry -- we were after the American authorities to do something about the condition of that plant and the fact it had not functioned properly since its completion.

Publicly the commissioner of environmental conservation of New York state credited us, through the pressure we brought to bear on the American government over time, with having resulted in the release of significant funds for the restoration of the activated carbon beds that are part of that plant and had not previously functioned. As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency made available several millions of dollars to New York in order that the plant could be put in operation; to the best of my knowledge that is now under way, with the projected date for completion some 12 months to 18 months away because of the magnitude of the task.

Yes, we are very concerned about it. Yes, we have been active, and yes, it has been productive.

Mr. Kerrio: Was the minister advised by his representatives who attended a public hearing I attended in Niagara Falls, New York, chaired by Maurice D. Hinchey, chairman of the committee on environmental conservation of the assembly of the state of New York, and did his people report back to him that there was a letter read into the record which said even if that work were done on that plant in Niagara Falls, New York, that because they are attempting to treat the city waste water and the chemical plant waste, the plant will not function and will not take the chemicals out of the water flowing into the river right now?

Did the minister's people report back to him about that letter read into the record? I wonder whether the minister is not just hiding behind the fact that the Niagara has a flow of some 200,000 cubic feet and they are just diluting the toxins to meet these requirements and the ministry is really not doing enough about it to guarantee that the river will be cleaned up.

Did the minister's people report back to him that the plant is not going to work even when the activated carbon filters are put back in place?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have no doubt there are varying opinions about the effectiveness of the technologies they are using. I cannot say with certainty that I am familiar with the specific letter to which the member refers, but I can remind him -- and I am sure if he casts his mind back he will recall that he is aware of this -- that the standards now required for the effluent from that plant were tightened up as a result of the involvement of Ontario.

Last year, when the permit for the plant first came under review, we notified the state of New York of our intention to intervene. At that point they said: "Hold it. We will review it in conjunction with you and others." We sent them information on our position with respect to tightening up the parameters that govern the effluent coming into the river, and in fact much of what we asked for was achieved.

I say to the member, do not sit there and suggest we are indifferent to what is going on. We have continuously played a very prominent and significant role in improving the situation with regard to the Niagara River on the American side.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the original question posed by the member for Niagara Falls and his reference to the minister's statement today. The statement indicates very clearly this is the first time that dioxins in any way, shape or form have been detected in water. The minister has said he is going to be doing ongoing testing. Assuming he finds persistent indications of dioxin in the water, at whatever level, is he prepared, as we have requested a number of times in the past, to do whatever is necessary to ensure that our water treatment plants for Ontario residents are capable of dealing with that?

Hon. Mr. Norton: First of all, Mr. Speaker, even if we are able to confirm the results of those three out of some 22 tests that were taken at about the same time and which would appear to indicate that in the samples as tested there was some evidence -- and now we are talking not in parts per trillion but in parts per quadrillion: we have taken another quantum leap -- and that it was present in the original samples from the raw water as opposed to being introduced by way of the contamination of the samples at some point during the process, then I think it is important and very significant that at the same time as we did those tests we also took samples from the treated water at the water treatment plants in the immediate vicinity of those tests.

Not only our tests but also those of the laboratories of the Department of National Health and Welfare confirm that there is no evidence, even at parts per quadrillion, of any dioxin in the treated water. Why might that be the case? The belief on the part of the scientists is that dioxin is transported in water by being attached to suspended particulate. If that is the case, it would seem to confirm that our present system of treatment, through either flocculation or filtration, is successful in removing any evidence of dioxin from the water even at parts per quadrillion.

The short answer to the member's question, I suppose, is this. It would appear from this that the present system of treatment is successful in dealing with this contaminant if it is present in the water. If that is not the case, then obviously we will take whatever further steps are necessary to ensure that the water is both pure and safe for drinking. In fact, at levels of parts per quadrillion it does not even approach what is now viewed as the threshold for any possible remote chance of harm to human health.

3 p.m.

ONTARIO HYDRO CONSTRUCTION OFFICE

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Is he aware that Ontario Hydro has decided to close its construction branch in Sudbury and that this will result in the loss of maybe 60 to 80 jobs at a time when we are losing probably 2,000 jobs in the mining industry permanently?

Does the minister not believe there should be a permanent construction office there to serve the four fifths of the land mass of this province which is represented by the north, rather than sending workers from the Toronto office, at a much higher cost, for the purpose of constructing new transmission lines or transformers? In short, should the government not be helping to develop the economic base in Sudbury rather than watching it being destroyed?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the matter for several reasons, not least of which is that yesterday morning the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) called me to express his concerns. Indeed, he shares the concerns the member for Sudbury East has just raised in connection with the consolidation of our construction zone offices, which affects not only Sudbury but Peterborough and the head office here as well.

I would point out that since July 1982, when we had a peak number of about 1,200 employees in this area of lines and stations, that number is now down to about 800 as of this February. It is not as if this has just come upon the management of Hydro in order to rationalize what they may need in the way of employees to deal with immediate and future projects.

Notwithstanding the fact that some will be able to take advantage of early retirement provisions and will be offered job opportunities in the other parts of the organization, I share this concern with the members. Yesterday, following his conversation and a subsequent conversation I had with the chairman of Hydro, I asked if they would review that decision and he has assured me they would.

Because I share the concerns expressed, I hope that in reviewing this matter Hydro will take a number of factors into consideration, not the least of which, obviously, is the efficient operation of the corporation and the necessity to effect some savings in the system.

Mr. Martel: As one of the reasons given in a statement on the matter, Hydro cited the lower use of electricity by major consumers, such as Inco, as causing a reduction in Hydro revenues and, therefore, forcing Hydro to cut back.

Surely that should not be considered as one of the reasons. We realize the consumption of hydro may be down right now, but that will turn around. Falconbridge went back to work in January and Inco goes back on April 4. That should not be one of the considerations used in making that decision, because it is a short-term problem.

According to my understanding, the minister is telling us the move by Hydro will reduce that work force from the figure he quoted to about 210 in total. At a time when the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is attempting to create short-term jobs, Hydro is wiping out long-term and permanent jobs. The two do not seem to make much sense, do they?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am not really familiar with the technical reason to which the member makes reference. I do not doubt that information has been obtained by him as part of his research. As far as I am concerned, the decision to rationalize or consolidate these offices was based on straight work load requirements with respect to lines and transmissions.

I reiterate what I indicated yesterday to the member for Sudbury when he called to express his concern. I have asked the chairman of Hydro to have this matter reviewed in the context not only of the immediate need, but the longer-term need the member has indicated.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, when all is said and done and the gobbledegook is finished about early retirement and shifting people, surely the minister understands that if this review does not put those jobs back, we are talking about the loss of jobs for an area that can ill afford any further loss of employment.

Does this minister not believe that before these kinds of announcements that strike fear into the hearts of long-term employees are made, as the minister responsible he perhaps ought to take a hand and personally review such decisions to make sure that so-called rationalizations of employment by Ontario Hydro square with the kind of employment strategy the people over there supposedly have for the province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, when making reference to the various options that may be available when people in the work force find their jobs terminated because there is no need for them to perform their functions, the minister should not really be accused of being insensitive to human needs when, in fact, at least two options may be available. There may be those with seniority who would take advantage of the provisions of early retirement. I do not know what the age group may be and indeed where they may be with respect to seniority. The opportunity to be placed elsewhere in the system might be an acceptable alternative.

I do not think Hydro is insensitive. Just in case the member thinks this is the only case, he may recall that two or three weeks ago in the minister's own area -- the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) raised this question -- the regional office affecting the area from which the minister comes announced the Hamilton office would be closed and efforts were going to be made to relocate people.

The member cannot, on the one hand, stand in this House and talk in terms of making sure that Ontario Hydro is operated efficiently and that we keep costs down, and then criticize it when it reviews all these matters and attempts to rationalize. I repeat what I said to the member who asked this question, that we will have this matter reviewed and satisfy ourselves with respect to the consolidation suggested.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In November, the Council of Ontario Universities indicated it would need an additional $31.1 million for equipment replacement.

I have a difficult time talking through the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel).

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Sudbury East please sit down.

Mr. Van Horne: It is bad enough looking to my left and finding that, but to look across and find it is more than I can take.

I will start again. The indication was that $31.1 million would be needed for equipment replacement. When the minister announced the operating grants by press release last Tuesday -- a release, by the way, we had to call for on Thursday because it was not distributed in the House on the day it was made, nor was it sent to our mailboxes; we had to call for it -- it was indicated that $12 million would be provided for equipment. I would like to ask how the minister expects the universities to make up the difference of $19.1 million.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member recognizes there may be some small problem in attempting to meet the wish list of every group for which the provincial government has some responsibility.

3:10 p.m.

I recognize those lists are important to the institutions. We have to do the very best we can to ensure that an amount of money is made available to provide the kind of support for those activities that were included within this group of requests at the university level, and that is precisely what we did.

I apologize to the honourable member if the press release was not put into his mailbox. It was my understanding they were supposed to be there for all members. I would remind the member as well that very seldom do we release this information regarding colleges and universities in any other way than simply through information that is shared with the members on paper. We have not made it a practice, as I understand it, for many years to make a statement in the House about those allocations.

Mr. Bradley: Claude does it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Claude may do it, but in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities it has not been the standard practice.

Mr. Van Horne: I appreciate the difficulty the minister has in meeting everyone's needs, but in the light of the council's indication that it was expecting or hoping for some supplementary assistance through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, does she intend to announce any more funding for equipment at the university or college level through BILD?

Second, when they made their request or indication in the fall they indicated they had a 15-year-cycle replacement program they wanted the minister to consider. Could she indicate whether she has considered that 15-year proposal, and also if there will be any additional funds for equipment from the BILD program?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The request from the Council of Ontario Universities, like all other requests related to the university system of this province, is referred to the Ontario Council on University Affairs. They examine those requests in the light of their information and knowledge and make recommendations to us.

The 15-year replacement cycle is something I think they are looking at right now. But it is perfectly obvious the list that was developed by the Council of Ontario Universities was based on their assessment of their desires over the next few years, and we have done a great deal. In addition to the 12.2 per cent, which I would remind the member last year was about 1.5 per cent above the inflation rate, the 7.5 this year, which I believe is about one per cent above the projected inflation rate, and the additional $12 million for library supplies and facilities, the BILD program has in the past two years provided approximately $16 million to the universities specifically for equipment and for the upgrading of facilities for the purposes of research and teaching.

ONTARIO HYDRO STAFFING

Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe when the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) was responding to a question from the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and from my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) he may have inadvertently misinformed the House in that he implied in his answer the reason Hydro was forced to make these employee cutbacks was in an effort to restrain and to economize.

The minister should know full well that while 74 professional employees and staff and trainees are being let go from the Hydro offices in Toronto, Hydro is continuing to hire staff from the United Kingdom. I refer specifically to bulletins that the minister will be aware of where Don Tyler, the director of manpower --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please resume her seat? With all respect, that is not a point of order.

Ms. Copps: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, they said they were cutting back to economize and they are hiring people from Great Britain.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I am not going to argue with you. Resume your seat, please.

PETITIONS

KICKBOXING AND FULL CONTACT KARATE

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 115 residents of Goderich and surrounding municipalities. The petition reads:

"We the undersigned feel that Leo Loucks" -- who, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is seated under your gallery; stand up, Leo, and be recognized -- "should be allowed to try for the world championship title in London, Ontario, in April 1983. This bout was signed before the government announcement of a hold on the sport of kickboxing."

I support the petition, as I believe the minister has done a great injustice to the sport of kickboxing and full contact karate by banning them before he had a chance to investigate these sports.

[Later]

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in response to the ban by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) on full contact karate and kickboxing, which was announced a week ago today. The petition contains 688 names and, with the addition of the 115 names just presented by my colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), there are now 9,507 people who have shown their opinion of this situation.

I am pleased to present this in the presence of Mr. Jean-Yves Theriault, who is seated under your gallery. He is the world middleweight kickboxing champion and a Canadian who has been involved in many international events.

CLOSURE OF AUDIO LIBRARY

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) with 356 names from Downsview, Scarborough, Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa, Agincourt. Ajax, Dunnville, St. Thomas and Toronto, which reads as follows:

"As taxpayers in Toronto, we would like to protest the fact that the audio library located at Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, may be forced to close because it has never been able to obtain ongoing government funding. The program uses voluntary readers to tape and record textbooks for handicapped secondary and post-secondary school students thus enabling them to complete their education and become self-supporting citizens.

"Surely access to textbooks is not only a basic right to anyone, handicapped or not, but in the long term a moneysaver for the government, which would otherwise be forced to provide welfare payments."

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Allen moved, seconded by Mr. Foulds, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to debate a matter of urgent public importance, that this House convey to the federal government its urgent conviction that the cruise missile and similar first-strike nuclear weapons, weapon systems and delivery vehicles not be tested in Canada under the recently signed umbrella agreement or any other agreement concluded between Canada and the United States.

Mr. Speaker: Just before you proceed, I would like to say that I have some reservation about accepting this motion. However, I do find that it does comply with standing order 34(a), it has been received in time, obviously, and I will be pleased to listen to the member for up to five minutes as to why he thinks the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, a matter of such urgent importance does demand the attention of this House, particularly in view of the fact that the Legislature will be rising in the next few hours, if not days, and probably will not have an opportunity to address this question again in the near future.

May I say that I do not introduce this motion raising in any sense any question as to existing alliances in which we may be involved, but rather in terms of the strategies which are important to us as those alliances, with ourselves involved, pursue the question of peace in our time.

3:20 p.m.

What is at issue is whether the development of cruise missiles and similar systems moves us further towards that objective or not. In that respect, I suggest they not only put in question the traditional strategies we have followed since the Second World War, but also put in question the capacity to engage in any significant disarmament negotiations.

The reasons I propose this are not my own; they have been echoed on many sides. First, the cruise missile is a first-strike weapon which represents an entirely new Western posture in nuclear strategy. Traditionally, we have repudiated first-strike strategies. We have argued it was important to deploy sufficient deterrents to counter and indeed to make it entirely unsafe for any aggressor to launch any first attack upon us in the West.

We have moved a complete circle with this new weapon and related missiles to a position where we are proposing that first-strike capability and first-strike intimidation is the true deterrent. In those circumstances, we have moved to an entirely new international, new military and even new psychological situation in the arms race.

A weapon such as the cruise missile is a qualitative change in our strategy and as such should be addressed by all members of this Legislature as well as by the federal government. That this does not fall within our jurisdiction per se does not mean we should not address it. It is a matter which it is proper for ourselves or any other Legislature in this country to address, as with any matter of significant concern to us.

This new class of weapon is not detectable. It cannot be monitored by any of the traditional means. In that respect, it further undermines our current, strategic and disarmament planning. Having gone from escalation to escalation in the belief there was an ultimate deterrent that would force the Soviet Union into significant concessions, negotiations and, ultimately, disarmament, we find ourselves in the horrifying position of proposing the horrifying and unsettling step of first-strike intimidation.

That will be matched by the Soviet Union and by the Warsaw Pact. In the past, we have followed a path of restraint in this country in denying ourselves nuclear weapons. It is appropriate and no sign of weakness to act, and I specifically say "to act," so as to counsel restraint among allies who are embarking on a highly questionable course.

Because of the ethical, economic and international stakes involved, the matter is rendered the more urgent by the recent statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that, "We have no choice." That is precisely the point. Is the cruise missile to symbolize our impotence, or will its rejection symbolize our readiness to break away from the paralysing pattern of an arms race which will finally breed death all around.

Other western nations are embarked in making choices about such missiles at this time. Why can we not make a choice? Why can we not decide? This House must say that we can choose and we can act according to our own best lights. It is urgent the public hear those words from us.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask that you entertain this motion and that we engage in a debate on this highly significant and urgent public question.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, people with a narrow view of the responsibility of the members of the assembly might be quick to say that international treaties and matters of national defence do not come within the ambit of our responsibility.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you would agree that with the feelings expressed at many levels of our community, both in support of our full role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and diametrically opposed along the lines of the resolution put before us, the people expressing those views would not be prepared to accept this narrow definition of our legislative responsibility.

I align myself with those who feel we must broaden our responsibilities here and try to reflect, in our comments in a debate such as one that is called for this afternoon, try to reflect our views of our community and, more specifically, our own view of the morality of the armament situation that is a part of the realities of the global village and, included in that, the responsibilities of taxpayers and citizens of Canada.

I personally hope the Speaker will rule that the motion is in order and that we can have an opportunity this afternoon for members on all sides to present their personal views in this important forum.

At a level of far less importance than that, I bring to the Speaker's attention that there is some indication the work on the last remaining bill of this session may not be completed today anyway, because of some needlessly careful application of some tootling, obscure rule of procedure learned by those skilled at featherbedding and working to rule. If that happens, then we may very well have some time which would otherwise not be put to useful application.

If that is the case, I would hope that the afternoon from now until six o'clock could be spent in debating a matter which is certainly of public importance. Its urgency has got to be practically the same as it was back in 1944 when the first atom bomb was exploded in Alamogordo, New Mexico. It was something of tremendous urgency then and every day of our lives in the atomic age.

Speaking for my colleagues, we hope the Speaker will find the motion in order and that members on all sides will allow the motion to proceed so that we can express our views as individuals and as parties if we see fit, then proceed with Bill 127 this evening in the hope that we can come to some conclusion with that bill and the government will eventually withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I guess I am going to be portrayed in the role of one of those who would portray the very narrow view of the role of this assembly. I would submit that portraying the narrow role of this assembly is what really preserves the integrity of this assembly. The integrity of this assembly is to debate and to come to conclusions, without some of the protracted debate that we have had around here, about those things which the Constitution of Canada gives to this assembly as the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The thing that it does not give to us is the right to legislate in the area of the defence of Canada and it does not, in any way, suggest that we are part of any treaties, bilateral, multilateral, umbrella or whatever they may be, between the government of Canada and other nations concerning defence or military alignments.

I would submit there is a multitude -- in fact, there are millions -- of things we can discuss that are within the purview of this assembly. This matter is very important, it touches the lives of all of us and is something, I am sure, we will all want to discuss with our federal member who can stand up in the proper Parliament and present our views, along with the views of his constituents. But I submit it is not really a resolution or a discussion that is within the purview of this assembly. Therefore, we would urge the Speaker to find this motion not in order.

Mr. Speaker: Notwithstanding the reservation which I expressed earlier, which really has to do with the form of the motion rather than the content, I do find that the motion is in order and I do find in favour of the motion. Therefore, I shall put the question to the House, shall the debate proceed?

3:50 p.m.

The House divided on whether the debate should proceed, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I.;

Newman, Nixon, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Sargent, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;

MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.

Ayes 43; nays 60.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur has a point of order.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Foulds: I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government House leader still has not filed an answer to question 535. It had been indicated the information would be available November 29, 1982. Who is riding in those cars anyway?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure he will act immediately to correct that oversight.

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 9:

The Deputy Chairman: We were not ready for the question last night at 10:30.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, section 9 touches so many other sections of the bill in its references to section 130j of the act and over in the explanations to section 1301. As you go back to each of them, they refer to section 130a and so on back to section 127 of the act.

The Deputy Chairman: That is the whole bill. I do not think I will go for that.

Mr. Sweeney: The point I was going to make is that this particular section has so many interconnections and so on that we could go back and debate the whole bill. It would be entirely possible to do so. However, in the interest of time and the patience of the minister, which has been sorely strained the last few days, I will limit myself somewhat more narrowly. The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and, I am sure, the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) will want to expand much farther beyond that.

4 p.m.

Very specifically, clause 9(1)(e) refers to a fundamental principle we have to reflect on for just a short period of time. By the use of the word "separately," clearly what is set out here is the distinction between those teachers who are hired by a local board of education under the master agreement, the fairly broad body of teachers who would be hired under that master agreement, and those teachers who, in addition to the master agreement, are then hired under the additional local levy. It is my understanding that is really the significance of this particular clause 9(1)(e).

There was considerable debate in the committee itself as to whether or not there should be a separate designation in this area. As far as an individual board was concerned, the total number of teachers in its employ was all that really mattered. The rebuttal by the minister was that what we were dealing with here was primarily a bookkeeping measure. In other words, there were certain teachers for budget purposes only, if I remember correctly, that had to be identified in one way and a smaller number of additional teachers for budget purposes only, that had to be identified in a separate manner.

I am sure the minister is well aware that we have challenged her contention that there should be these kinds of limitations. However, we seem to have come along in the legislation to the point where, under sections 6, 7 and 8, we are going to be limited in some way. Therefore, for purely bookkeeping purposes, there probably is a certain logic to the fact that this section should flow.

I want it to be very clear, however, that we do not accept the premise that is contained in the previous section and we have reflected that non-acceptance by our voting patterns, of which I think the minister is very much aware.

I also want to refer to the fact that over on the explanatory note with respect to this subsection there is a reference made back to section 130i, which clearly deals with the principle of variance. Again, the minister knows that I and others of my colleagues have spoken on this legislation to the fact that there should be some option for variance. However, once again, we have reached the point in the debate on this legislation where that is not now to be permitted.

We want to put it very clearly on the record that we believe there should be some option for variance. We should have a better sense of the diversity and the variety, even within the Metro area, despite the fact that the minister, either last night or last Thursday or Friday -- I think it was last night -- argued that there really is not that much diversity across Metro Toronto now. She said there were certain needs in Etobicoke, in North York and certain sections of the city of Toronto which were becoming more and more common. Agreed, there are certain kinds of issues that are common to all, but there are others which are not, and they have been brought up more often than I care to repeat at this time: so the principle is still there.

As I move on to subsection 9(2) and go back to the legislation, to the act itself, as I read these sections, they are substantially the same as the present clauses 133(4)(a) and (b) with the exception of the addition, "less the amount of the increase," and from then on. Basically, what we are talking about here are the changes that have now been brought into the bill which refer back to the whole question of surpluses and deficits and which were not in the original act. The minister will be well aware of the points we made with respect to surpluses and deficits. We have tried to draw to her attention that there are internal contradictions in the legislation by allowing them to stay.

The minister has called upon the voting power of her colleagues to see to it that this premise and this principle are left in the legislation. We want to make this point to indicate to her we still do not agree with making the local boards responsible for those surpluses and deficits.

We can follow the minister's own logic of last night that increasingly there is this commonality across the entire Metro area. I have indicated I do not completely agree with that, but over and over again we have these internal contradictions, even using the minister's own logic. If she is correct that there is a commonality, that the various parts of Metro Toronto are becoming more and more alike rather than dissimilar, then that would seem to rule against the principle we are involved with here.

There is the rateable property that is defined in this section and which goes back to section 127. If we are trying to reach some commonality of rateable property and equity with respect to assessment and the tax which is raised from assessment, and if the minister is arguing there is a commonality of educational needs across the whole Metro area, I have to come back and say we are still at a loss to understand why we then want to apply the surpluses and deficits to particular boards.

All of those points have been brought up by the minister's statements or by other members of the cabinet at one time or another over the last few weeks in debating other aspects of, if not this legislation, then other points of view. Therefore, I want to make it clear to the minister we are no more willing today than we were previously to accept this principle. That is what we would be accepting if we supported this section of the legislation. I am sure the minister is going to say there is a necessary logic to having section 9 once we have passed sections 6, 7 and 8. I agree with that. But since we have disagreed with sections 6, 7 and 8, we are also going to have to disagree with section 9 and not support it.

Mr. Nixon: That's news.

Mr. Sweeney: I do not think the minister is surprised at that. At least, let us be clear what the issue is. Let us be clear as to the position on which we are basing our decisions. Let the minister have no doubts whatsoever about whether we are trying to be ambiguous about our points. We would argue that is not the case.

I want to continue with one other point. That is the references in clauses 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(b) which refer to rateable property as defined in section 127. The minister, of course, will be well aware that rateable property includes residential property, farm property and also commercial property. The minister will not be surprised if I raise with her once again the -- what can we call it? I am not even sure what the correct definition is. Is it a proposal, a recommendation, a rumour? Whatever we would call it, I am referring to pooled commercial assessment.

If commercial assessment is part of rateable property as defined under section 127 and if there is -- again, I am not sure what term the minister uses any longer. I would be quite happy to have her define for me where that section is now.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: May I identify it for you?

Mr. Sweeney: Certainly. Go ahead.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I hope the honourable member recognizes that even at the present time there is pooled industrial, commercial and institutional assessment in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Sweeney: I have no doubts about that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It sounded as though you did, not just today but yesterday.

Mr. Sweeney: I am talking about the whole principle. Given the fact we are talking about rateable property, I wonder to what extent that is going to be impacted. If the province-wide decision, recommendation or proposal goes through, to what extent will that have an impact on this legislation? That is one of the difficulties we face with legislation like this.

4:10 p.m.

We have raised others, for example, the 1.5 mills. If there is a frozen assessment base for 1983, what will the impact of that be over two or three years? What will be the impact of a province-wide pooled commercial assessment? Surely it must have an impact on Metro Toronto. If it is going to impact on London, Windsor, Hamilton, Ottawa and my own community of Kitchener-Waterloo and Waterloo region, then it is going to have an impact here as well.

I want the minister to know we are conscious of that potential impact. We are conscious of consequences that we are not really sure of. That is another reason we want to indicate to her pretty clearly that we are not going to support this section of the bill.

With those brief remarks, Mr. Chairman, I think I have indicated our concerns. They are continuing concerns; there is nothing particularly new about them. They do very clearly bring to the minister's attention that our decision to oppose this section flows from other sections we have opposed.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I could talk of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings, and when the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings.

The Deputy Chairman: It would have been off topic.

Mr. Renwick: However, I will limit my remarks specifically to the provisions of section 9 before us. I do so with some trepidation and a reasonable degree of diffidence because I have never understood the mathematical acrobatics of the financing of the educational system in the city of Toronto and in Metropolitan Toronto. That may well be the reason I adhere to the Robarts commission view that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board should be phased out over a period of time.

I particularly want to speak about section 9 of the bill because, in a strange way, this is a culmination of the sections we have dealt with over the past few days, particularly the preceding sections 6, 7 and 8, which are related to the motives I would like to impute to the minister for her introducing the bill and bringing it before the assembly.

Those motives are very clear. They are not unavowed but avowed motives of the minister. Therefore, under our rules I am quite entitled to impute them to her. They are, as I have said, very clear. She wished to attack the Toronto board and to destroy its capacity to provide the quality of education which is essential to the kind of riding I represent in the assembly. I represent the riding of Riverdale, which is an inner-city riding. It is a riding which has a diverse cultural background. I represent a --

The Deputy Chairman: I call the honourable member to some form of order under section 19(d)(9) of our standing orders for imputing false or unavowed motives to another member.

Mr. Renwick: That is precisely my point. I was not imputing false or unavowed motives.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Indeed, the member was; they certainly have not been avowed.

The Deputy Chairman: My concern is that the member, who is among the most honourable of all members, would not want to have that section imputed to what he is saying; so I would ask him to respect the chair's concern.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to the point of order?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, please.

Mr. Renwick: My precise point is that one is prohibited by the rules from imputing false or unavowed motives to a minister or to any other member of the assembly. I was imputing avowed motives, not unavowed motives. The motives are very clear. One has only to read the speech of the minister on June 22, 1982, to the St. David Progressive Conservative Association at Rosedale public school. I am not going to read the whole of it; I would like to, but it has been referred to on many occasions. It was very clear that the purpose of the minister and what motivates the minister was that she found the Toronto board had the temerity to isolate itself in ways that were unacceptable to her from the collective arrangements of the --

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Riverdale has great ability with the English language, which the chair respects. The chair is most anxious that the member also have the same respect for that section on imputing motives, avowed or otherwise, to another member.

I would just say that you are walking on dangerous ground where the chair is wanting to challenge you. Would you move away from the motives because, unless you can actually prove them, it becomes a very dangerous area. If the honourable member would speak to the motion on the floor, which is section 9, the chair would be far happier.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, only your words would suggest for a moment that I should change anything I have said. I certainly will. I will not impute any motives --

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Renwick: -- even avowed ones, which I am entitled to impute to the minister. I will not impute another motive to the minister.

She said on that occasion: "In plainer words, however, what went wrong is that the Toronto Board of Education has been out of step with the rest of the boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto....

"I suspect that the reasons that the Toronto board is out of step with the area boards are varied and complex and perhaps more political than educational. I can only conclude that it is for political reasons that the board is opposed to common-sense change." It goes on in that tone.

This speech embedded in the attitude of the people in the area I represent their concern about the bill. It was this speech that triggered a very real concern for the people in Riverdale -- parents, teachers and the school trustees representing the area. When I say the school trustees representing the area, I say three out of four of the school trustees representing the area I represent.

I want to say to the minister very clearly and very distinctly that it is this section of the bill that in a very real way is going to affect over a period of time the quality of the education that the children from the diverse cultural backgrounds in my riding are entitled to receive in the education system.

I happen to believe exactly the opinion the Toronto board has of itself. Whether one speaks of the past chairman of the board or whether one speaks of the director of education in Toronto, they both believe and are convinced that the moves they have made over the years with respect to educational policy have produced one of the finest boards of education, one of the most co-operative with the teachers and one of the most open and available to the parents that there is in Metropolitan Toronto, in southern Ontario or in Ontario, and that would bear comparison, as the Tories always tell us, with any jurisdiction anywhere in the free world.

I want the minister to understand that section 9 of this bill refers specifically, in the first amending clause, to the process by which the temerity of the Toronto board back in 1979 to have used the local levy for the purpose of hiring additional teachers to provide and maintain the quality of education and to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio to an acceptable level is now not going to be available over a period of time to the Toronto board, or to any other board, if it should find itself in that position.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, you do not happen to be a member from the Metropolitan area, but I must say to Mr. John Tolton, the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, who sent me a letter dated February 11, I do not accept the tone of his letter. I do not believe for a single moment that the questions I am relating to section 9 of the bill will, over the course of the development of Metropolitan Toronto, be confined to Metropolitan Toronto in isolation. There are going to be very real problems perhaps in certain parts of the city of North York or in certain parts of the borough of Scarborough, the same problems that are going to require the kind of attention to the quality of education that the Toronto board has had to deal with.

In order to understand section 9 of the bill, I will ask the minister to correct me if I misunderstand the intricacies of the amendments proposed, or if I have difficulty in articulating for the minister the concerns I have.

A good part of the disinterest of this committee, which is also demonstrated by the limited numbers of members who are in the House for the debate and by the conversations which are going on among those members who happen to be in the House at this time, is because a reading of section 9 of Bill 127 shows that it is incomprehensible. Even if one tries to relate it to section 133 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, which is the section of that act being amended by the bill, one becomes even more concerned and confused as to what it means. I will ask the minister to correct me if I should go wrong.

The Deputy Chairman: You can.

Mr. Renwick: Subsection 9(1) of Bill 127 provides for an amendment to subsection 133(1) by adding a particular clause to that section, which is clause (e). In order to understand that, one has to refer to what subsection 133(1) has to say, which is:

"Each board of education in the Metropolitan area, instead of submitting to a municipal council its annual estimates as provided by law, shall prepare, adopt and submit each year to the school board, on or before such date and in such form as the school board may prescribe, its estimates for the current year, separately for public elementary and for secondary school purposes, of all sums required during the year for the purposes of the board of education, and such estimates, shall...."

It then itemizes (a), (b), (c) and (d) as matters which must be dealt with in those estimates which are sent forward to the Metropolitan school board. We are now going to be asked to add the following clause:

"(e) shall set forth separately the estimated expenditure in respect of the employment of teachers under section 130j."

Section 13Oj was introduced and discussed in this assembly in committee of the whole House yesterday because it is in the preceding section, which is section 8 of the bill. It says, "in addition to the number of teachers that a board is entitled to employ under an agreement under section 13Oa."

Section 130a was the section of this very confused bill which we dealt with in this committee, I think yesterday. It is the one which deals with the question of joint bargaining in section 7 of the bill.

What we are being asked to do with respect to section 133 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act in the first portion of this amendment is to give effect to the matters that we have dealt with under the two immediately preceding sections of the bill. I do not want the members to think for a moment that I am going to deal with joint bargaining or the question of the additional teacher function, both of which are dealt with in those immediately preceding sections. I want the House to understand what is happening here.

The very first step in understanding section 133 of the act is to understand that the first thing we are being asked to do is to require that the estimates which were to be put before the Metropolitan Toronto board, and I use this as an example, by the city of Toronto board and by each of the area municipality boards are not only required to set forth the whole of their estimates but also, in particular, they must set forth the estimated revenues and expenditures of the boards of education. They must make due allowance for a surplus of any previous year that will be available during the current year. They must provide for the deficit of any previous year, and they may provide for expenditures to be made out of current funds for permanent improvements.

Subsection 133(2) deals with that specific question of including estimates for expenditures for permanent improvements out of current funds etc. and the considerations that the Metro school board is to take into account.

We are being asked to add to that fundamental part of the process which is set out in the whole of section 133. In the initial stage we are being asked to add to that the particular reference to the estimated expenditure in respect of the employment of teachers under section 130j. In addition to the number of teachers the board is entitled to employ under an agreement under section 130a, that provides the method by which the number of teachers to be employed by the board is determined.

The members will see how, in a sense, this particular section is a culmination of the preceding two sections and of the discussions that took place.

It is not a departmentalized bill simply dealing piecemeal with different amendments. There is a certain progression to this bill which is designed for the purpose of preventing, to a significant degree and probably over time -- and only time may tell -- the elimination of that kind of freedom which the Toronto board dared to assert in 1979 when it set itself apart from the other boards in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Some may ask immediately: "In what way did the Toronto board set itself apart?"

I want the House to understand that the Toronto Board of Education is, if anything, ultrascrupulous about the legality and the adequacy of what it does. The Toronto board hardly breathes without taking a legal opinion as to whether it would be permissible. It usually gets a reinforcing legal opinion if it wants to sneeze in the course of its proceedings. It is that particular about what is required.

4:30 p.m.

I think it is fair to say that there has been floating about an implication that somehow or other the Toronto board had acted illegally or had acted politically in what it did in 1979. As I understand it, in some people's minds, acting politically is equivalent to acting illegally.

There is, in the existing Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, subsection 133(5), the following provision which is called in the margin "Local levy." It states: "The council of each area municipality shall levy and collect each year and transfer to the board of education for that area municipality from time to time as required, but not later than the 15th day of December, such sums as may be required by the board of education for its purposes during the year in accordance with its estimates submitted to the council under subsection 4."

It is not under subsection 1 but under subsection 4, the operative parts of subsection 133(4) that we are being asked to amend as we proceed through the balance of section 9.

What happened was that the Toronto board in 1979, which happened to coincide with the year in which it was negotiating on its own with the teachers under the collective bargaining process which was permitted to it at that time, said to itself, "We are going to use the local levy which our municipal council, the city of Toronto municipal council, is required by statute to provide for us with respect to our educational needs." They made use of that. The minister and my colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) and others can correct me if I do not understand it.

I do not know what the dollars are. The figure I hear, comme ci, comme ça, is $6 million, which was spread out amongst the rateable people who are liable to local assessment in the city of Toronto so they could use that money to provide for the salaries of teachers who otherwise would have had to be discharged or would have been considered unnecessary in any Metropolitan Toronto view of the needs of the Toronto board. That is what they did. They provided for additional teachers through that local levy.

That was a significant and important step in the whole concept of the quality of education necessary in a culturally mixed society in the inner city of Toronto, with all the other problems, economic, social and otherwise, that are inherent in the inner part of any city.

That was due to the concern of the Toronto board to protect the inner city, its concern to make certain that what goes on in the inner city will be a credit to Toronto and to Metropolitan Toronto and its concern that it will remain a city of people and not simply be a place to which people come in the morning and leave at night. I say that of the city council generally in Toronto in its noneducational sense.

With my colleagues the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) and the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) I was in Hartford, Connecticut, which is the insurance centre of North America. I wish to explain clearly to the members that more than 50 per cent of the population of Hartford is dependent on the receipt of public and social assistance. Why is that? It is because all the people who run the insurance business in that centre in the United States leave the city every night, or else they live in their own enclaves on the company property, totally divorced and separated from the city. If anybody disbelieves me, he should go down there and he will understand the kind of thing that can happen when the centre of a city deteriorates.

I can assure the members that one of the essential elements in protecting the inner city is the quality of education. I can think of nobody better able to determine the quality of education than a tripartite arrangement among the teachers who teach in the schools in the city of Toronto, the trustees who are elected to the board of education by the people in Toronto and the parents of the children who attend those schools. That is a complex that produces quality education and that is what we in the city of Toronto who represent in this assembly the inner-city ridings are most anxious to protect.

We are coming back to what the Toronto board did with the local levy. It was perfectly legal, but it happened not to be one of the matters that was touchable by the Metropolitan Toronto board. Perhaps for those members of the assembly who have been listening to my attempt to elaborate on what we are being asked in section 9 of the bill, the first thing we are being asked is to bring it within the purview of the Metro board. The process by which that is being done is very complicated. The first provision in subsection 9(1) of the bill is to require us to bring in the provision we passed yesterday evening after closure was moved by the government and the provision we passed yesterday afternoon after closure was moved by the government. To finish that portion of my argument, I want to repeat what we are being asked to include.

When the city of Toronto board submits its estimates to the Metropolitan Toronto board for the moneys required for the public, elementary and secondary school systems in Toronto, we are required in those estimates to set forth clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) that now appear in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act in subsection 133(1). In addition, under new clause (e), we will now have to set forth separately the estimated expenditure with respect to the employment of teachers under section 130j, which is section 8 and which we passed under closure yesterday, in addition to the number of teachers the board is entitled to employ under an agreement under section 130a, which is part of section 7 and which we passed under closure yesterday afternoon. It provides the method by which the number of teachers to be employed by the board is to be determined.

So we have come full circle. They are going to be able to negotiate the number of teachers with the Metro board on a joint basis, as well as the dollar salaries. Those are the two things they are going to be allowed to negotiate jointly. That is what the bill says in the sections we have passed. We are supposed to be able to say: "You will be able to decide the number of teachers. You will have a real say in that. Toronto, if you need more teachers for your purposes, you will be able to negotiate it in the joint sessions.'' I do not come from Missouri, but I come from east of the Don River and I do not buy it. I see my friend the Chairman, who is also from east of the Don River, does not buy it either.

That is the very clear problem we are presented with in this section of the bill. We have the first step in this complicated process that is to go on. We are not altering subsection 133(3) as set out in the act, and which says, "In considering such estimates, the school board shall endeavour to provide for all boards of education in the metropolitan area, having regard to their varying needs, the funds necessary for an educational program throughout the metropolitan area."

4:40 p.m.

We are not called upon to touch subsection 133(3), but a great deal has been said that somehow or other the legal, proper and appropriate action taken by the Toronto Board of Education with respect to the local levy destroyed that section. That section will remain, as will that obligation, which will remain clearly and distinctly as an obligation of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. It has been quite adequate over the years to have provided the kind of commonality of interest in the Metropolitan Toronto area coupled with the kind of diversity of adaptational response of the area municipality boards of education that has allowed the city of Toronto to produce a board of education second to none.

I am not in any sense comparing these boards with the boards in the other area municipalities. They are undoubtedly good boards and see their needs and responsibilities over a period of time. I am not setting up any invidious comparison. I am trying to respond to the invidious comparison which the Minister of Education injected into this debate at the point in time when, if she had had the courage and capacity to conciliate, the problem would not have existed. That is the problem and that is what is at the root of the difficulty in this assembly at this point in time, and it is shared not just on these benches but on the government benches as well.

It is very interesting; I used a House of Commons term. I was reading an article the other night that the influence of the American system on Upper Canada was sufficient that the desks, the pages and the Speaker's cocked hat are elements of our parliamentary process to which we are indebted to the United States of America as adaptations of our system. That, sir, is only by way of an aside.

I believe I have placed subsection 9(1) in the proposed amendment to subsection 133(1) of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act in the context which I accept as being an appropriate context in which to consider what the minister is potentially doing to the educational system in the city of Toronto. I do not have the command of the educational figures the minister has, because I can only refer to her quotation in the notes for her speech on the evening of June 22 before the St. David Progressive Conservative Association at Rosedale Public School.

"A board may employ additional teachers beyond the number determined by the jointly negotiated staff allocation formula. The cost attributable to their employment, however, will not exceed the amount that can be realized from the discretionary one-mill local levy provided for in Bill 127." If I am correct, that has been changed to 1.5 mills in the bill at present.

I want to bow to the minister because of her sense of numbers and the accuracy of the figures she uses.

"In Toronto's case this could amount to about $6.5 million, an amount which certainly would cover the salaries of 40 or 50, 100 or 200 teachers."

One can see how finely she has perceived the problem; we are not quite certain whether it is 40 or 50 teachers or 100 or 200 teachers that somehow or other will be available from the minister.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It depends upon their level of remuneration.

Mr. Renwick: I can understand that. It would have been helpful to the audience that night and to the people in the area if there had been a little bit more explanation of just what the minister was talking about in respect of those references.

We move on now to subsection 9(2). In the process that section 133 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act outlines, I want to try to give the minister at least my impression of what its effect is on section 133. I have dealt with subsection 133(1) and the amendment in subsection 9(1) of the bill. I have referred briefly to subsection 133(2), which is not affected by the amendment. I have referred to subsection 133(3), which is an important basic element of the sense in which members from the city of Toronto share the common concern that there be a certain commonality about the education program throughout the Metropolitan Toronto area. I now move on to the areas of subsection 133(4) that we are being asked to amend.

The amendment can be explained in the assembly, I believe, only if we look at the opening words of subsection 133(4), which are not reproduced in the bill, so we can understand them. We are being asked to change clauses (a) and (b), which are simply clauses of the whole of the sentence that is contained in subsection 133(4). I must read the opening paragraph so we can get the context in which the amendments are going to effect the change the minister proposes.

Subsection 133(4) states: "If the estimates of a board of education are not approved in whole by the school board, the board of education" -- that is the --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is the area board of education.

Mr. Renwick: Let me start over again. I am going to have to interpolate so it will be understandable.

"If the estimates of a board of education are not approved in whole by the school board" -- that is the metropolitan board -- "the board of education" -- using my example, that is the Toronto area municipality board -- "may submit to the council of the area municipality in which it has jurisdiction, within 20 days after notice is given under subsection 2" -- and there is a notice provision under subsection 2 -- "its estimates made up as provided for in subsection 1" -- and I dealt with subsection 1 and the change we are being asked to incorporate in subsection 1 -- "except that such estimates shall include and make due allowance for the revenues to be derived from the school board" -- that is the metropolitan board -- "pursuant to the estimates approved by the school board" -- the metropolitan board -- "provided that, before submitting such estimates to the council, the board of education" -- that is the Toronto board -- "shall revise the estimates, if necessary, so that the difference between" -- and then we come to (a) and (b), which exist in a certain form in section 133 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. At present we are being asked to amend them by subsection 9(2).

I think it is important that the committee understand what the amendment says, because that is the guts of the change we are talking about. That is why in a funny way this is a culmination section in the bill that we have to deal with, because in the step-by-step amendments we have gone through we reach this particular summit. There may be other summits and there may be other effects, but this is one very precise summit we are going to reach.

As it stands, and I am only going to use (a) and (b) because members will notice that (a) and (b) both appear in section 133 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act and in subsection 9(2) of the bill, (a) refers to the elementary school system and (b) refers to the secondary school system. Otherwise, as I understand it, they are identical. So what I have to say about (a) will refer to what is referred to in (b).

Subsection 133(4) says: "provided that, before submitting such estimates to the council, the board of education" -- the Toronto board -- "shall revise the estimates, if necessary, so that the difference between" -- this is what the Toronto Board of Education has to do -- "(a) the aggregate estimates of all sums required for public elementary school purposes and the aggregate of the revenues for such purposes to be derived from the school board" -- the metropolitan board -- "pursuant to the estimates approved by the school board shall not exceed a sum calculated at one and one-half mills in the dollar upon the total assessment in the area municipality for public school purposes according to the last revised assessment roll."

4:50 p.m.

That may sound like a lot of gobbledegook, but those who had to make the calculation understood what they had to do with that section.

It is my understanding we are being asked to re-enact that whole provision, which is clause 133(4)(a) of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, not with the identical words, but for practical purposes the same words, down to a certain point. Then we come to the hooker in the game.

From that aggregate under the proposed amendment, the Toronto board has to deduct a certain figure, which up to now it did not have to do. What is the figure? Less the amount of the increase, if any, in the amount of the apportionment to the area municipality for public elementary school purposes under subsection 127(6) of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Subsection 127(6) is one of the sections we passed in committee after closure by the government a little while ago. It sets out the calculation of this apportionment. It sets out the mathematics that are to be done to find out the number of dollars that will now have to be deducted by the Toronto board in forwarding to the municipal council of the city of Toronto the number of dollars that council is going to be required to levy. So it is a reduced amount.

I do not pretend to understand what its immediate effect will be. Last night, as I understand it, we put a cap on the amount for the future that can be available for additional teachers. I understand what this now says is that we are going to tell the Toronto Board of Education that when they make up the revision to their estimate that they are now required to make, and deduct from it the amount this new provision will require them to deduct, that means in simple terms they will have to take into account the amount available to be raised by local levy and the deficit they may be running with respect to the apportionment. That is subsection 127(6) which I referred to a moment ago, and which was part of the antecedent amendments now passed by closure; that is the effect it will have.

So what is the position of the Toronto board? Inherent in the attack by the minister on the Toronto Board of Education was the imputation very clearly that it was running a deficit at the expense of the other boards, which is another way of saying it had its hands in the pockets of the other school boards in order that it could have the local levy and could spend it for additional teachers to maintain the quality of education in the schools in the city of Toronto. That is a particular concern to me and to a number of my colleagues who represent the bottom stratum of seats of the city of Toronto represented here. The quality of education is what this is all about.

In a funny way, the game is too cute for words. It could only be the net result of a bureaucracy determined to confuse the people in the city as to what this is about. If I am wrong, I will be the first to apologize, but if we pass this bill, as I understand it, the amount of the local levy will be reduced in the first instance by the amount of any deficit and then whatever amount remains will be available for the Toronto board to use as it may see fit.

In the subsections of section 127, to which I made some reference a few minutes ago, members will remember there is a reference in section 9 to the amount that the Toronto Board of Education will have to deduct in making the revisions of its estimates for submissions to its own council about this local levy. The reference is to subsection 127(6). It is very interesting that subsections 127(4) and (5), which again we passed under closure by the government, are part and parcel of how one works out the calculation under subsection 6.

If members will look at subsection 127(5), which is part of section 6 of the bill, "and in determining the amount of the increase in the apportionment the school board" -- that is the Metro board -- "shall give consideration to any circumstances that, in the opinion of the school board" -- again the Metro board -- "contributed to the size of the deficit and could not reasonably have been foreseen."

I did not hear everything that my friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) had to say on the bill, but I did catch something about yearly bookkeeping. This is not yearly bookkeeping. There is a lot of sleight-of-hand in here. There is a lot of cooking of the books in here. The net effect of it is going to be to remove the discretionary capacity financially of the Toronto Board of Education to get the local levy moneys, which will give it the capacity and flexibility to deal with the quality of education in the city.

Mr. Philip: Or any other board for that matter.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, any board. I made that point earlier in my remarks. I am not making any invidious comparison with any other board. I do not impute the kind of things to each individual area board that the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board had the temerity to put in a letter, which I assume my colleagues read, of February 11. That is what is happening here.

Do members know the answers we were given? They can negotiate the number of teachers and, therefore, they will be able to work that out. That will not be any problem, because they can do it altogether at the Metro level. Of course, if there are any specific local things, you remember, Mr. Chairman, under the joint bargaining arrangements that are going to be enforced by this government by closure on this assembly it is careful to say that the only things that are going to be subject to joint bargaining --

5 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I was going to wait until Mr. Renwick had finished his remarks, but there seems to be some delay there.

I would draw to his attention that he is correct in what he said, he had not been listening to my remarks, because I clearly stated, and Hansard will show it, that it was not simply a matter of bookkeeping. I was referring, rather, to a comment made by the minister at the committee stage when we debated the whole principle behind this. Let the record clearly show that.

Mr. Renwick: I accept what my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has said. I did not believe for a moment that he was using it in the disparaging sense in which I had used it at all. I accept what he says and I bow to him on his knowledge of educational financial arrangements, which are something beyond the ken of we mortals in this assembly.

But what is the answer of the government under closure to our concerns about this? Under joint bargaining the only things that can be jointly bargained are the terms and conditions of employment referred to in subsections 1 and 2. The limitations on the jurisdiction of the joint bargaining are salaries and financial benefits of teachers and the method by which the number of teachers to be employed by a board is determined.

Do members see what the catch is? We went through this in Bill 179. You can bargain for the number of teachers, but you will not have the capacity to go to your local council and get the moneys that will permit you to do what you need to do in order to maintain the quality of education because of the essential necessity of adaptation in a large municipality such as Metropolitan Toronto to the specific needs.

We are told, "But those other matters can be negotiated separately." It is again the appalling ignorance of a former Minister of Labour of the government and the present Minister of Education; it is the appalling ignorance of the government of the province. They do not understand the collective bargaining process. If they take out of school negotiations the financial benefits and the number of teachers and put those up to joint negotiations, they have absolutely no method of achieving negotiation on what is in anybody's terms the great bulk of the other terms and conditions of employment and all the arrangements that in a complex system ensure the outcome of the collective bargaining process.

The government tried to sell us that on Bill 179. I am not going to go back to Bill 179; it makes me absolutely angry. What happened to the government on Bill 179 is something that I trust they will rue some day. They may not accept it. But they said, "We are going to fix the salaries of everybody in the public service of the province, regardless of what their contracts say, but they can bargain about everything else."

The word "collective" in the term "collective bargaining" is not a simple word. It means a complex thing. It is not like some Latin phrase that is accurate in its description. It does not just mean people getting together. It means a collective bargaining. It means a collective bargaining about all of the issues as well as on behalf of all the people. All the issues, and you put them on the table. The government members know as well as I do that if you go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and try to put a little bit on the table, it will want it all up front in negotiations.

They will not say: "These are the things that are going to be negotiated. These are the things that we on this side of the table want to negotiate. These are the things on the other side of the table." We may not have the resolution of them, but we cannot wander around and make it a piecemeal operation. I referred, on second reading of this bill, with great temerity to the question of the fragmenting of the collective bargaining process -- a different kind of fragmenting, but one which will make it totally impossible.

I do not really know that I have a great deal more to say on the section. Section 133 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act provides a process by which the Metro board gets the estimates, deals with the estimates and acts upon the estimates of the various boards in the complicated formulae which are involved and we are being asked to amend it in order to make certain that what the Toronto board did in 1979 cannot be done again.

We are being asked to accept this on something called equity, or that the city has had its hands in the pockets of the other school boards and was doing something at their expense, when everybody well knows that the number of dollars which the city of Toronto, in its assessment, puts into the Metropolitan Toronto pool from taxes far outweighs the number of dollars we are talking about.

When one looks at it from the other side of the coin and says that if the Toronto Board, through the local levy, wishes to deal with additional dollars and if the municipal council, in performing its mandatory obligation to provide those additional dollars -- if the effect of that is to increase the mill rate in Toronto, then what happens? Every politician knows the levy on property tax in Ontario determines the -- if I could use the dreadful term -- bottom line of political survival.

That is what it means in municipal terms and it is an immense process. Politicians, whether at the school board, or at the municipal board, or in the interchanges which take place at the city level, decide whether or not those things can be done. Once the demand is made, I agree, the statute is obligatory.

I have tried desperately -- and I am glad the Chairman is back in the chair -- to avoid imputing motives, particularly avowed motives, to the minister, even though that is permissible under the rules and even though the Chairman has quite rightly drawn to my attention that the line between unavowed and avowed motives is sometimes difficult to draw. I appreciate that, because I was perhaps getting a little bit carried away.

This section is the culmination of what we have been doing, is one of the summits of the bill and is part of the retribution that this minister is wreaking upon the city of Toronto, in so far as the board of education is concerned with respect to its quality of education, and I will have none of it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could respond to some of the concerns that were raised by the member for Riverdale.

Indeed, it is absolutely essential that this section be there because in the current circumstance, as he so rightly spelled out very clearly, when a board submits its estimates to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, the school board jointly -- because all of the members belong to this kind of activity -- looks at those estimates and approves either in whole or in part. If it is, indeed, in part, then the local board has the responsibility to provide a further estimate to its local council for the use of the discretionary levy.

All that has happened in this bill is that under the bill, local boards, who have developed deficits which have been foreseen and for which they will therefore be responsible, will have to deduct those deficits from that local levy before they utilize that 1.5 discretionary levy at the elementary level for the purpose of hiring teachers. It seems to me that is a fairly responsible and accountable way in which to deal.

The honourable members have forgotten, of course, that all of the boards together have developed guidelines, which they have all agreed to, including the Toronto board, related to the way in which they will determine whether a deficit could or could not have been foreseen. That activity has been completed and approved by my honourable colleagues on the York borough board. They have felt some concern for a period of time about that deficit-surplus provision and this section simply ensures that actions to be taken under this bill will be reported honestly and in an accountable fashion.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: This is the fourth time I have risen to make my comments on these sections and every time I rise the minister moves the motion. Now in this section --

The Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Ruprecht: I wanted to put this on the record. We are down to two speakers per section now and the minister is going to call the motion in a minute. I know what she is going to do.

The Deputy Chairman: I cannot believe it. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Ruprecht: I can tell, because I am trying to raise the point here --

The Deputy Chairman: I do not accept it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman --

The Deputy Chairman: I have another point of order from the member for Oakwood. Is this a point of order?

Mr. Grande: It is a point of order in terms of your overruling this debate. If the Minister of Education has the document from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board about guidelines, would the minister table it so this debate can be more orderly? As of now, I have not seen such a document.

The Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order, but it is a legitimate point of debate.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is a request I shall transmit to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board or to any one of the component boards with access to the guidelines established. I shall be delighted, when I receive them, to provide them to the honourable member, as I have always done in the past.

Section 9 is necessary to complete the action that has been taken under other provisions of the act. We have heard the concerns expressed by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot and the member for Riverdale and I would not want to disappoint the member for Parkdale; therefore, Mr. Chairman, I shall at this point under section 36 move that the question be now put.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves under section 36 that the question be now put.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how you think you can conduct the business of this House. I do not want to be forced to move that you leave the chair, which is a motion under the rules. I want you to understand that you have to exercise a discretion about this particular motion and I wish you to exercise that discretion in accordance with the rules.

5:35 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 43.

The committee divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion that section 9 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.

On section 10:

The Deputy Chairman: I recognize the member for St. Catharines.

Mr. Ruprecht: I tried four times to speak on Bill 127.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, he tried four times. I want to point out in beginning my remarks on section 10, a very important section of the bill, that the member for Parkdale has tried on four occasions to be heard on various sections of the bill and the minister each time has cut him off with a closure motion.

She is obviously afraid of what he is going to say, afraid his searing arguments will bring down the government, but that is not why I am here this afternoon. I am here to speak to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, do you want to get order? I will wait until you get order.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for St. Catharines has the floor.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, when one looks at section 10, it does not appear at the beginning to be an important part of the bill, but it most certainly is an important part of Bill 127 because it deals with the amounts levied by the Metropolitan Toronto council for public school and secondary school purposes. The subsections are re-enacted to relate to the amendments of section 127 of the act. What we are objecting to is that this could possibly be tied in with section 127 of this act.

5:40 p.m.

Once again, we get down to dollars and cents in section 10, as has been the case with a number of other sections of this piece of legislation. Those of us in the opposition who have had the opportunity to speak have expressed disapproval. I know if the member for Parkdale had not been blocked by the minister in his last three or four attempts to make a significant contribution to this portion of the debate, he would have joined us in objecting to the provision in section 127 that the levy must be tied in with section 10. We are in a situation in this bill where we do not have two or more mills in a discretionary levy to tie in with this section.

He would be concerned that the provisions of section 10 will mean cutbacks -- I think they are inevitable -- in services provided by various boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto because the Metro board will have its powers increased at the expense of the local boards of education which, as has been pointed out on many occasions in the House, have the most direct contact with the people.

Those who sat in the standing committee on general government would recognize that those who came to the committee with experiences involving the local boards, as opposed to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, time and again indicated the accessibility of the local boards of education. Many used the Toronto Board of Education as an example.

Many found it difficult to make appointments with the Metro board, and when they were able to be heard by them, they did not feel the welcome was nearly as warm as that received from their local board. Of course, the local board of education is elected directly by the people within that municipality, whereas the Metropolitan board is not.

Those familiar with the operation of the municipal form of government in boards of education, or in terms of municipal governments themselves in area municipalities as opposed to regional municipalities, are aware that there is great concern that there is far less accessibility at that level.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: This has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Nixon: I warned you about this. Do not allow yourself to be carried away.

Interjections.

Mr. Bradley: Before he leaves the House, I notice that I seem to have excited the Minister of Hiding Information.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Are you going to call him to order?

Mr. Bradley: Of all people in this House, I know he, as the minister responsible for freedom of information, would want to stay in his seat to listen to the lucid arguments that will be made by the critic for the Ontario Liberal Party, as well as many others within our caucus who want to make a contribution

Hon. Mr. Sterling: If the member made any sense, I would stay.

Mr. Bradley: And our friends in the New Democratic Party once again will want to put on record their objection to this portion of the bill as well as to others.

Because this section relates to the implementation of Bill 127 in its whole, it is necessary to recall some of the arguments that have been made in earlier sections. I know the chairman will be interested. He did not have the opportunity to bear all the arguments that could have been made in the last section because we were limited to approximately an hour and a half on that extremely important section of this piece of legislation.

Subsection 10(3) says: "The amount levied under subsection 1 for public school purposes shall be apportioned among the area municipalities in the amounts determined by the school board under section 127." That is what we object to in this legislation. Subsection 4 states: "The amount levied under subsection 1 for secondary school purposes shall be apportioned among the area municipalities in the amounts determined by the school board under section 127."

As I have indicated, our great concern is that the minister has not accepted an earlier amendment. I thought it an extremely reasonable amendment that many on the government side would no doubt agree with me was reasonable. I think the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) would certainly have been in the forefront of those who would agree with that amendment --

Mr. Conway: Who?

Mr. Bradley: The member for St. George.

Mr. Conway: The member for St. George, who is now fleeing the chamber.

Mr. Bradley: The member for St. George, who, when she appeared on Metro Morning with the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), indicated that there should be several amendments to this bill before she would be satisfied with it. I think some of the amendments she was talking about are the amendments that have been placed by the opposition.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No. They were those I have already put.

Mr. Nixon: This time next month she may be the minister.

Mr. Bradley: Certainly, I would be very surprised --

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member is slipping away from section 10.

Mr. Bradley: I might well be.

The Deputy Chairman: Then I will bring you back to section 10.

Mr. Bradley: I will try to get back to it --

The Deputy Chairman: Quickly.

Mr. Bradley: -- by saying that I think the member for St. George could not be bought off by the kind of minor amendments that have been brought in by the minister.

The Deputy Chairman: Speaking to section 10.

Mr. Bradley: That is why in section 10 I am sure she could not agree with those provisions.

Let us look for a moment at what will happen --

Mr. Conway: What the Tory back-benchers have told us in confidence --

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Bradley: I am being interrupted by my own member --

The Deputy Chairman: Don't be led aside by the member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Bradley: -- but it is a very legitimate interruption. The man who might be the Minister of Education some day, were he to have his will, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), heir apparent to the throne on the other side, as a person who was directly affected by education in his previous days, would no doubt agree with many of the arguments -- not all the arguments, but many of the arguments -- that are put forward on this side on this bill.

Let us look at some of the ramifications of the implementation of section 10 for education in this province and specifically in Metropolitan Toronto. Those ramifications are without question of the greatest consequence.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Speak to section 10. The member for St. Catharines is exhausting the patience of the chair.

Mr. Bradley: I would agree. I want to get back. It is just that the interjections from the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) are disturbing me.

The Deputy Chairman: I am just saying that the honourable member has been warned twice and will not be warned again.

Mr. Bradley: Anyway, to go back to the provisions of the bill itself and some of the things we see disappearing, I think one of the best pieces that speaks to this, one of the very best articles I have seen written on this bill, which speaks specifically to this section and what would happen if it were implemented, is that by David Lewis Stein, which appeared in the Sunday Star, February 20, 1983, entitled "Bill 127 Is Bad for Everybody." Let us look at that and why this section of the bill would be bad for everybody. He says:

"Wherever you happen to live in Metropolitan Toronto, you are threatened if the Tory government passes Bill 127 this week. Technically, what Bill 127 does is take power away from local school boards and give it to the Metro school board. Education Minister Bette Stephenson introduced the bill at the urging of suburban school trustees who happen to be card-carrying Tories and who also happen to control the Metro board.

"Stephenson herself, although she has been noisy and pugnacious, and I think downright devious in promoting this bill, gains nothing for her government from it. She is just doing a favour for some political cronies.

"Bill 127 says that all teachers in Metro have to bargain on a Metro-wide basis. This will affect salaries and the number of teachers to be employed. Over the years, the teachers and the boards have got into the habit of voluntarily negotiating together because it obviously makes sense to do so. But whenever there was a major local problem, a local board could withdraw from joint bargaining. With Bill 127, they will no longer enjoy that option.

"The teachers' unions have been screaming that Bill 127 will cause grievous harm to them, but if union members were the only people affected, then Bill 127 wouldn't be worth getting excited about. Bill 127 will affect the quality of education, the closing of schools and, I think, even the value of property.

"Stephenson argues that joint bargaining concerns only salaries and the number of teachers to be employed in Metro. Once a local board has received its allotment of teachers it can 'spend' this allotment any way it chooses. If, for instance, it wants to have more special education teachers and fewer gym teachers, it is free to do so. This is supposed to preserve local autonomy.

"It won't. The principle of parliamentary democracy is that parliament is supreme because parliament controls the flow of money. The team of trustees doing the Metro-wide bargaining will be supreme here because it will control the flow of money to the teachers. That means local boards will be limited in the number of special classes for kids who need special help, no matter what Stephenson says.

5:50 p.m.

"Even if you don't have children in the schools now, you will be affected by Bill 127. With the size of staffs being dictated by Metro-wide negotiations, local boards will find it tougher to keep schools open when enrolment starts to drop.

"In the suburbs, a community used to be defined as the area served by a public school. Concern about their children drew people together and formed the bonds that turned subdivisions into communities. When a school is closed, a community loses its core. A home derives part of its value from being in a 'good community.' When neighbours turn into strangers, a community grows less attractive and a home loses some of its value.

"Stephenson claims that the Toronto board, which just happens to be dominated by NDP trustees" -- we will not hold that against them -- "has been wasting money and Bill 127 will put a stop to it, but she is really indulging in some sleight-of-hand bookkeeping.

"Toronto actually puts far more into the pool of money the Metro board doles out for education than the city draws out. That's because Toronto contributes to the Metro pool on the basis of how much assessment the city has, but it gets money back through a formula based primarily on the number of students enrolled in the schools.

"In 1981, for instance, Toronto contributed 39 per cent of Metro's total school budget and drew out 32 per cent. Put another way, the property owners of Metro contributed $296 million to education and the children of Toronto got back only $245 million.

"Stephenson claimed earlier in the year that despite falling enrolment, 'the Toronto board opened five new elementary schools and 16 high schools.'

"What the Toronto board really did was take space it no longer needed in existing schools and used it for 'alternative schools,' employing teachers it already had on its payroll. The alternative schools offered parents a variety of choices in education. (I confess to a personal bias here. My two children go to alternative schools and I believe they are receiving an excellent education.)

"The Toronto alternative schools are threatened by Bill 127. I do not see how it is going to help people in Scarborough and Etobicoke if the schools my kids love are forced to close down. Instead of sneering at Toronto's alternative schools, Stephenson, if she were a conscientious education minister, would be trying to promote similar schools in other places.

"The debate on Bill 127 will continue this week. If you feel, as I do, that Bill 127 is bad, then let your local MPP know about it."

That was by David Lewis Stein in the February 20, 1983, edition of the Toronto Star. I have read a lot of different pieces on both sides of this issue and I thought that one probably captured as well as any the essence of the opposition to Bill 127 and why section 10 of this bill would be extremely damaging, as it takes into account the entire passage of Bill 127.

He talks about some of the things that would disappear as a result of section 10. Those parents who come here from other countries, many of whom settle in Metropolitan Toronto and have children involved in English as a second language classes, are very concerned that money could be taken away from that program as a result of a general shortage of money because of the parsimony of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. They know that if it were left up to the local school board, that board would better reflect the needs of that community.

If the needs of that community were such that the priority would be to cut back on spending, to cut out programs, then that would be a decision of that local board. On the other hand, if that local board of education felt it were necessary to increase the allotment of funds for various programs in education, that could be done and those people would have to answer to the electorate come the municipal elections, in this case, the second Monday in November, 1985.

There are parents now who recognize that many of the jobs in government, even in this provincial government, require or find desirable those individuals who have at least two languages, oftentimes those languages being French and English. In other words, despite the fact that the Premier of this province could say in the Carleton by-election that he is against the institution of bilingualism, that the opposition parties want to implement, we all know that through the backdoor this government implements bilingual policies.

The Chairman is not part of the government as he sits in this chair, but an impartial observer, so he would know that this government then goes into Cochrane North and other ridings with a large francophone population and extols the virtues of the French language services that are provided.

These people are saying, "Yes, Tom Wells" -- if I can use that in quotation marks, because I know we are supposed to use the member for Scarborough North, as he is in this case, and also the former Minister of Education -- "we enjoyed very much your speeches about providing French language services. We enjoyed those speeches which talked about the virtues of bilingualism in this province, as implemented through our education system. Now we are saying let us see the funds for that."

Let us ensure that there will be funds for those people who want their children to be involved in French immersion programs or to have a good deal of French available to their students so that they can communicate with the approximately one third of the people in this country whose mother tongue is French, so they can go to a province where in many communities, even in our smaller communities -- some of our northern members would know this -- particularly in the north and in the eastern part of this province, much of the government business of this province is conducted in the French language. To be able to do this, they want their children to have the opportunity to learn the French language and, therefore, they want sufficient funds for that.

They also want to know that when special education is introduced in a very big way into our school system -- and we have had it for a number of years in a smaller way than is contemplated under the legislation of Bill 82 -- in full force, there will be sufficient funds for that kind of education.

The member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) would certainly agree, his good wife being a teacher and having attended what is now known as the College of Education at Brock University, along with me at one time. I must say she was a very good student and has turned out to be a very good teacher. She would understand the importance of providing that funding under Bill 82. That funding would not necessarily be available unless the local boards of education were prepared to understand the problems that are met in the local area and take the necessary action that involves the expenditure of funds to rectify those problems.

Certainly, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board would include trustees who would be concerned about that. Not having that special attachment to the local area, not being directly accountable to the local electorate -- as I know the chairman would understand the importance of -- they cannot make the very best decisions that we feel can be made at the local level. Section 10 really mitigates in favour of that kind of erosion of the control those local boards have.

I could go into detail on some of the other programs, but I notice we are getting very near six o'clock and I know the chairman wants me to sit down. I do not have to adjourn the debate, but just have to sit down if it is, indeed, six o'clock in about one minute from now. No doubt, I will want to do that myself.

After the supper break, I will want to address some of the other problems I see arising out of section 10. I know that my colleague and friend, the critic for the NDP and member for Oakwood, has a special amendment he wishes to introduce to this, which would have a marked effect on this particular section. He will want to move that after the supper hour as well. It being six of the clock, I will sit down and rise again at eight o'clock to continue my remarks.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

February 22, 1983