UNIFIED FAMILY COURT AMENDMENT ACT
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House in committee of the whole.
UNIFIED FAMILY COURT AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 135, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any amendments to propose.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 6:
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): Mr. Renwick moves that section 6 of Bill 135 be amended to read as follows:
Section 24 of the act is amended to read as follows: This act is repealed on the first day of July, 1983.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the minister will recall that during second reading debate I expressed concern that there had been no opportunity for this assembly, or any of the members responsible as critics of the Ministry of the Attorney General, to deal with the evaluation procedures carried out to establish whether the model that had been set up achieved, or was in the process of achieving, the goals forecast for this court as a trial court for unified family court treatment of family cases, before it became a generalized concept to be established across the province.
The minister has introduced a bill which would have removed the self-destruct provision of the bill and by so doing simply established the court permanently. I feel the evaluations leave many questions unanswered.
I am content because the Attorney General was good enough to send to me, and to my colleague the Liberal Party critic, the Report on the Unified Family Court of the Judicial District of Hamilton-Wentworth, submitted to the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario and the Department of Justice, Canada, by Andrea D. Maurice and John A. Byles, dated October 1980, and subsequently, because there is a reference in that evaluation report, the study prepared on behalf of the ministry on the administration of the court and its procedures by Ernest W. Lawson, the consultant, dated May 31, 1978.
A perusal of each of the reports would clearly show to the members of the assembly that the question of the evaluation of the courts is a matter which leaves many questions still unanswered as to whether the goals are being achieved. I do not intend to take up a great deal of time referring to the nature of the criticisms made in those reports. It does seem to me that when the Attorney General comes before the assembly, as he did to establish this project to change the administration of the courts in a significant way, we are entitled to ask whether or not the change has accomplished what it was intended to accomplish.
Each of the reports to which I refer has indicated clearly there is no overall reason to reject the original concept, no reason necessarily to reject the model developed and used in this unified family court for the judicial district of Hamilton-Wentworth. On the other hand, the reservations in the report and the criticisms of certain aspects and procedures of the court leave no doubt there is a long way to go before the intended goals will be achieved.
The appropriate time to deal with this question is when the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General are before us later this year. In order to avoid misunderstanding about the kinds of problems that remain in the courts -- and I know that because the consultant's report is dated 1978, the Attorney General can say there has been significant improvement, but we do not have any updated report to tell us that -- I want to read very briefly one of the reservations expressed in the consultant's report about the procedures of the court.
"Paramount of the problem areas is the question of court scheduling and the related procedures of docket/list preparation.
"This procedure currently creates the most obvious confusion with the clients and associated social agencies. It also uses a large percentage of available clerical time, and produces (potentially) the most costly errors in wasted resources. Hence any improvement can have widespread benefits both in the court and in the outside agencies.
10:10 a.m.
"Court scheduling and related procedures are not simple tasks. They utilize a wide range of skills, forms, space and physical plant, access to files and other resources. Hence a change to this procedure must be multidisciplinary in nature. It should be well thought out and tested on an experimental basis prior to the adoption of any change. The stakes are high for both improvement or failure.
"This report addresses a potential technique that may assist in the work simplification, and also looks at the space/environment or work place layout suited to court scheduling in the context of service dispatching."
It is obvious that there are still many problems. I use only that one example from the summary of the consultants' recommendations to illustrate the points that I wanted to make.
I would ask the House to carry this discussion completely so that we can deal with the reservation expressed in the other study about the court to which I referred, the study by Andrea D. Maurice and John A. Byles.
Dealing with the conciliation services of that court, this report simply states, quoting from page 94:
"The actual needs of the unified family court and the families it serves were unknown and difficult to predict with respect to social services at the outset.
"The model was developed primarily by judges and lawyers; the model would have benefited from greater input from social service professionals in the community providing service to family court clients.
"The kinds of social services and the roles to be played...
"The organizational structure has not supported the social arm and helped it to integrate with the legal arm, affecting the ability of the court to function effectively as a whole. The roles and responsibilities of court administrators and the conciliation advisory committee were not clear to those involved.
"Some social service professionals perceived the status of the social arm to be less than equal to that of the legal arm, a factor which they believe hindered integration of the two arms.
"Lawyers reported that a lack of information and clear guidelines for using conciliation services hampered their integration with legal services.
"Conciliators reported that inadequate orientation and training made it difficult to integrate their services within the court structure.
"The conciliators reported feeling professionally isolated and without any mechanism for obtaining the clinical consultation or supervision necessary to maintain high standards of practice.
"Legal and social service professionals both reported that the service lacked sufficient personnel to serve clients adequately.
"Social service professionals believe that the lack of an intake service has adversely affected the efficiency of the conciliation services."
Again, I have selected only one comment contained in the report to illustrate again for the future what I have tried to say about this court to the Attorney General on second reading.
We do not intend to divide the House on this amendment, but we place it to show our concern about the inability of this minister to consult with the assembly to establish that this unified family court is along the road somewhere, at what point he is in achieving the purpose that this assembly originally established for that court, and the serious defects in the processes used by the Attorney General with respect to this kind of matter.
I can forecast that the provincial court project in Toronto with respect to small claims, which is taking place in Scarborough, will have the same problem. I have not seen any evaluation study. I have heard rumours that an evaluation study was at least commenced with respect to that court and at some point I am quite certain we will be asked to establish that court on a broader basis across the province.
I am serving notice on the Attorney General that we will not be quite as gentle the next time if we do not receive and have the opportunity to discuss the progress of that court concept and the model which is being used in Scarborough in relation to what were traditionally the small claims courts.
Both matters, the state of the unified family court and the project in Scarborough in the small claims areas, are matters that I would like the Attorney General to make a particular note of so that when we come to those matters in his estimates in the fall, we can have a thorough discussion in the standing committee on administration of justice about these changes.
One does not have to be a lawyer to understand that the courts' inertia against change is immense. To change court processes and procedures and to combine the paramount element of justice with the needs of efficiency and proper processing is an extremely difficult task. We are very sceptical about it.
But I would not want any member of this assembly or any member of the public who happens to hear or read of these words to think the unified family court in the Hamilton-Wentworth area is some very fine success. A great deal of work has to be done before that court achieves its purpose.
The comparative statistics, for example, between the work in the unified court and the work in the diverse courts of the adjacent judicial district of Waterloo, indicate quite clearly that there are very real questions as to whether or not the solutions of the cases have been altered in any way because of a change of process.
I am not suggesting for one single moment that there are not some positive factors about the court. This party is not objecting to either the concept or the model. Our concern is whether the model is achieving the goals, objectives and purposes in a satisfactory way in relation to the very communities which it is intended to serve.
Many problems are still involved with it, and these reports set out those problems in great detail. If the Attorney General chooses to comment on the amendment which I proposed to the committee, I would like him, if he is able and willing to do so, to give us some assurance that during his estimates we will have an adequate opportunity to discuss these reports.
In addition, I would appreciate receiving whatever information there is about the other major problem related to small claims and the project in Metropolitan Toronto so we can, without having it suddenly placed before us in the assembly -- and I emphasize that this bill came to us only on June 3 of this year, even though the court would otherwise have expired on July I -- have well in advance whatever studies are under way now; or, if none is under way, if my information is incorrect and it happens that none is under way, that it be undertaken immediately so we would have it in ample time before the estimates come before the standing committee on administration of justice this fall.
In the short time that I have had the report, I have not had an opportunity to share it with my colleagues, both present and former in the social services area as critics of this party. I look forward to doing that and having some positive response about the obvious theme throughout the one report -- that the social services are very much a junior part of the unified family court concept and have not as yet been given the kind of full recognition that was originally intended without dividing the court into two sealed compartments, separate and distinct from each other.
The work of co-operation of the legal profession with the social services field is one which takes a great deal of time and thought, let alone the question of other disciplines which may be involved in resolving complex and difficult family affairs through any court process.
I look forward to the Attorney General's response.
10:20 a.m.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat the comments made by my colleague the member for Riverdale, other than to suggest that the time has probably come for the standing committee on administration of justice to use some of its estimates time to look seriously into not only the circumstances with respect to the development and maturity of the unified family court in the Hamilton-Wentworth area, but also into the small claims experience in Scarborough.
I see the chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice, the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), is here this morning, and I say in an aside a goodly portion of the estimates time on the Attorney General's ministry could well be spent on probably a visitation to both of these locations for some background information, and as a result a look in depth as to how these two projects have developed.
I have no particular objection to the situation here with respect to section 6. It might be useful to have this bill continue for a year in order to ensure that the Attorney General does come before the House, or at least in his estimates explains how things are developing. On the other hand, if he is prepared to undertake that kind of response, I would be quite content to let the bill pass.
We have in these reports a number of comments such as one suggested by the member for Riverdale as to observations for changes which still occur in the developing administration of that court. I am sure we have the same circumstance in the small claims situation.
We have this opportunity, on this section that is before us today, to seek from the Attorney General his response as to how we should look to the future of the development of this court system. I would look forward to having a substantial portion of the Attorney General's opening remarks in discussion of his estimates dedicated to the development and the procedures in this particular area and also in that small claims area.
As I have said, it would be time well spent as part of our estimates procedure to come to grips with an area of the administration of justice. This area, and the small claims area, would be convenient and practical and would bring the standing committee into the field to see what is going on.
There are many themes to be discussed in the administration of justice. A variety of subjects has come before us these past several months that members will want to discuss in the fall. But we would have the opportunity to look seriously into one aspect and try to do a job as we see how that theme is developing.
My colleague has referred to the comparative figures between the Waterloo region and Hamilton-Wentworth. The Attorney General will want to make some response, because even those reports are now several years old. There has, I am sure, been assimilation in the operation of the courts, in the development of procedures and, it is hoped, in the balancing of the social service area with the judicial traditions of the court framework.
I would be quite pleased to hear from the Attorney General as to when he will bring us up to date on how this procedure is working. If it means a commitment to go into it more thoroughly in the estimates in October or so, that would be quite satisfactory.
The time has come, now that the court has been in operation for a number of years, to take a serious look at how it is developing so that we can be assured the system is proceeding in the right way.
The small claims area has also been referred to and it may well provide another opportunity for us to spend a portion of our time delving into those two themes in an appropriate and professional way.
I look forward to that opportunity and to hearing what the Attorney General has to say about the suggestions that have been made.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of comments to the minister. The member for Riverdale has already indicated our support for the bill.
This summer, the standing committee on social development is going to meet on the question of family violence. Our first emphasis will be on wives as victims of abuse and their interaction both with the social service network and policing in the province and also with the courts. One group we will ask to come before us has some representatives from the court in Hamilton who will tell us their firsthand experience.
A number of us have been looking forward to the idea of the unified family court being expanded so that social services can be integrated more humanely with the legal system, in terms of assisting both victims and litigants in the legal system.
I have some real concerns with some of the criticisms -- maybe that is too strong; with some of the concerns -- raised in the report on pages 94 to 97 in terms of the feeling of isolation by social service agencies in working with the court and their feeling of a lack of power and maybe a second-class rating within the operation of the court at this time. One of my concerns would be to hear from the Attorney General.
I appreciate that critics from both opposition parties are encouraging the Attorney General to emphasize in his estimates where he sees this whole policy area going in the province. For me, as Community and Social Services critic, I think the possibilities and the potentials of the unified court system in terms of aiding social service agencies in the province are just enormous. I would hope he would spend a fair amount of time both in his estimates looking to the future, and also today, if he will, in terms of responding to some of these concerns by the social services portion of the unified family court and how he sees that changing over the next little while.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I certainly welcome the interest of the members opposite with respect to the unified family court. I say that with a great deal of sincerity because I know they are truly interested in and very supportive of the concept, and I can appreciate some of the concerns that have been raised. Many of these concerns relate to the day-to-day administration of the courts. I think they will learn -- and I think the estimates procedure will be a very good opportunity to explore some of these details -- that some of these administrative problems have been ameliorated to a considerable extent in the last two years.
A new trial co-ordinator has been appointed and that has had a beneficial effect. Some problems relating to courts administration, as the members opposite well know, are not, unfortunately, peculiar only to this project. The efficient administration of the courts in this province is something that will always remain a very significant challenge for the Ministry of the Attorney General.
I think the members well understand that the concept of conciliation, the interaction of the social service agencies with our courts, particularly with the unified family court, is a relatively new concept. Certainly, there have been and will continue to be some growing pains. The history of the court system is largely related to the adversarial system. The interaction of social service agencies with respect to the courts of justice, as I mentioned a moment ago, is still relatively new and we are still very much at an experimental stage.
10:30 a.m.
At the same time I should say there is increasing recognition and acceptance of the fact that the traditional adversary model is not particularly appropriate for the resolution of family disputes.
It is our belief that while it is essential to maintain the adversarial approach, this should be regarded as a last resort and every effort should be made to mediate family disputes, to encourage conciliation, without forcing the parties through the emotional trauma so often a part of the trial process.
Unfortunately many parties caught up in the deep-seated emotions of these family disputes are determined to have their day in court regardless of the consequences and despite efforts directed towards mediation and conciliation.
There is no question the whole process of conciliation and the extent to which it can effectively dovetail with the justice system is still at the experimental stage. We are still learning. We just do not have sufficient history and tradition to expect it to run as smoothly as we would like.
Of course we are concerned about the availability of resources, not only in relation to the unified family court project in Hamilton where, quite frankly, they are better than in many other parts of the province, but we sincerely welcome the interest of members opposite in this project and I welcome interest as well in the civil court project going on in Metropolitan Toronto.
It is absolutely essential that we continue to explore alternative dispute resolution approaches. We recognize that the traditional adversary system has become very expensive, quite apart from the emotional trauma often associated with it.
In my view, one of the principal challenges of this decade, and I am sure decades beyond, will be to find alternative dispute resolution models. I certainly would welcome a visit by the justice committee to both the unified family court in Hamilton and the civil court project in Toronto.
I would hope that a good deal of time could be set aside to explore the whole issue of court administration, and particularly these areas. I can assure members opposite that those in my ministry directly involved with these projects will be alerted forthwith to the increased interest among members of the assembly.
I think their awareness of this increase in interest will be regarded positively. We will be happy to make those directly responsible aware that in the estimates a certain amount of time -- I hope a significant amount -- will be taken up in a very careful analysis of the various issues that have been raised.
It is important to demonstrate to the people in the province that the unified family court concept is going to be a permanent feature of the administration of justice. For that reason I do not wish simply to renew the project for another year. It will be salutary to all involved to let them know it is going to be a permanent feature, but at the same time to communicate the concerns that have been expressed. While general agreement exists as to the validity of the concept, there are some concerns about the effectiveness of the operation, the extent to which it truly serves the public, particularly those who are caught up in these disputes.
While there is general agreement about the value of the concept, the fact that members opposite have expressed concern about the effectiveness of the operation is very healthy in the matter of improving these models. Certainly the court system can be improved generally. In these particular models we are dealing with new concepts and the potential for improvement is even greater.
The fact that the justice committee, through the opposition justice critic, has indicated its intention to take a good look at the unified family court project will be very helpful in the process. I would even be prepared to add some time to the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General, if that is deemed appropriate, in order to engage in a very careful analysis.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I welcome comments from the members opposite and their genuine interest in the success of these projects. Although I am not willing to accept the amendment from the member for Riverdale, I respect the motivation behind it. We are certainly put on notice that the degree of accountability that must exist is something to which a great deal of attention is going to be paid in ensuing months. I welcome that participation.
Mr. Renwick: I have two or three very brief comments. I appreciate what the Attorney General has said about the amendment. I am not going to press it; I have made my point. I am certain the removal of the deadline will be accompanied by a removal of the sense of urgency to get on with correcting various problems that have appeared as the model which was to carry out the concept becomes a reality in the area served by the court. That is a very real concern to me.
It may well be possible that in co-operation with the chairman of the standing committee on the administration of justice, the Attorney General could arrange before his estimates for some of the members of that committee to visit the courts in Hamilton and Scarborough. In that way we would have some actual firsthand sense of the operation of the court before we proceeded to try, in his estimates, to get a hold on whether or not the improvements are effective.
10:40 a.m.
A very brief further comment to close my remarks about the debate: I refer to the kind of essential problem that is of such concern to me; I am quite certain it will be of concern to others. Chapter 4 of the report by Andrea D. Maurice and John A. Byles is headed "The Outcome Evaluation." On page 164 in that chapter in the summary about the evaluation, the report states as follows:
"Almost all lawyers and social service professionals surveyed think that families are better served in a court with unified jurisdiction. With its various social and legal services, the unified family court was considered to be providing families with a more informed result."
Then further down in the next comment -- and this is the one that is most striking in the report:
"Unified family court clients were no more satisfied with the results than clients in a nonunified family court system."
I suppose that illustrates more than anything else the problem of the administration of justice. The professionals involved get wrapped up in the system and think it is great; the people whom the courts are designed to serve do not feel that sense of satisfaction.
I think that is a fair statement about the essential concern I have about the court. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. Our other comments can await the estimates of the ministry.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I very much favour the member's idea of arranging visits. I will certainly co-operate in every way I can to make those visits possible before the estimates. I think that will be very helpful.
The Acting Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Renwick's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
Bill 135 reported.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 26, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): Mr. Snow moves that subsection 3(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Subsection 90(8)(b) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) governing the use of different child seating and restraint systems based on the age, weight, height or birth date of the child, or the relationship of the child to the driver or owner of the motor vehicle, and prescribing or adopting by reference manufacturers' recommendations concerning the manner in which a child is to be secured therein;
"(c) prescribing classes of motor vehicles, drivers and passengers;
"(d) adopting by reference in part or in whole any code, standard or specification concerning child restraint systems;
"(e) exempting from any of the provisions of this section or the regulations made under this section:
"i. Any class of motor vehicle.
"ii. Any class of driver or passenger.
"iii. Drivers carrying any prescribed class of passenger and prescribing conditions for any such exemptions."
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, this amendment gives a broader and a more precise definition of the regulation-making powers of this bill and I would be pleased to answer any questions on it. It allows us to adopt by reference the federal regulations for child seats and child restraint devices.
Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, we will be supporting the amendment. I want to thank the minister for providing a copy of the amendment to us.
The only comment I would make -- and I do not know if it entirely relates to this bill, it may relate to regulations -- is that the ministry should make some aggressive move to ban standing on school buses. I think the chairman of the committee might be attracted to that point of view too.
There is something inherently hypocritical about our legislative stance that requires people to use seat belts or restraint systems while permitting standing on school buses. I realize it will be an expensive proposition to implement, and I for one am inclined to favour government restraint, but I believe the cost in terms of injury, suffering and human life may exceed that concern. It is within our power to minimize if not eliminate standing on school buses. I think that should be an immediate goal of the ministry. I commend the minister for sending the amendment over to us and we will support it.
Mr. Samis: Mr. Chairman, we will support the amendment since I think it is an improvement on the previous subsection. I would also like to speak in support of the comments made by the member for Wentworth North regarding the problems on school buses.
Like him, I do not know if one can ban such things, but I think we do have to tighten the regulations on limits and enforcement. It is a difficult problem in an age of restraint but I do think something has to be done.
Beyond that, we will support this amendment.
The Acting Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Snow's amendment?
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Samis: Mr. Chairman, one small further amendment.
The Acting Chairman: Mr. Samis moves that section 3 be amended and a new subsection 5 be added to read as follows:
"The purchase of an approved child restraint device shall be exempted from the provincial retail sales tax."
Mr. Samis: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to recognize the economic climate in which this legislation is being introduced. We are faced with massive layoffs, wage freezes, wage cuts. This legislation will impose a financial burden on some families in the province of somewhere between $40 and $120 depending on the situation.
In view of the added burden of between $125 and $305 per family imposed on the families of Ontario by the recent provincial budget, and because this legislation makes this purchase mandatory, the least we can do to accommodate the current economic climate is provide sales tax relief for families that have to purchase these devices. That is the rationale for the amendment.
10:50 a.m.
Mr. Cunningham: Our party is anxious to support this very intelligent endeavour proposed by my good friend, the member for Cornwall. I was talking yesterday with an unnamed civil servant who I know is reasonably well paid but his pay is justified by the tremendous job he is doing. He mentioned to me that he has three or four children and he had the foresight to buy these devices in advance to protect his children.
When I contemplate the dilemma a family of two or three or four would have in buying these things, especially in these difficult economic times, the sales tax component alone could involve an expense of $12 to $15. Some of us may think that is not a lot of money, but with the number of people unemployed, laid off, etc., one thing we can do to induce people to buy these devices, apart from the legislative feature that will require them to, is to remove the retail sales tax.
Not long ago we brought in the seatbelt legislation. I sense it met with some resistance, if not very sincere opposition from several members of the Legislature -- members from all three parties if I recall correctly. I choose not to criticize those individuals because in many ways I share their concerns.
One of the concerns I had about the implementation of the seatbelt legislation was the legislative requirement of it, and the reticence on some part of the public to accept it. Even today we probably have a compliance level of 65 to 70 or 75 per cent. Certainly, there is a great deal of abuse of Ontario law.
Many people either care not to or choose not to. The basis of the disobedience of the current seatbelt law, the reticence, the annoyance on the part of some people, is that the government is legislating that they must wear a seatbelt. One thing that can be done to encourage purchasing these devices, to facilitate goodwill and understanding with the consumer public, the driving public and the passengers, is to remove the sales tax.
It would be a very fine gesture on the part of the government to adopt this amendment, and require the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) to make the appropriate changes to his regulations to ensure this becomes a reality.
The minister may say this is not within his power. I sense that he, as a common sense sort of individual, is probably attracted to the merits of the amendment. I hope the minister would use whatever moral suasion he has with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Revenue to ensure this becomes a reality. I would be very disappointed if this amendment was not supported by all members.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I in no way disagree with the proposal or the reasoning behind this amendment. I cannot accept the amendment because the Highway Traffic Act is not a vehicle by which to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.
As we were developing this legislation I made a submission to my colleague the Treasurer several months ago suggesting that consideration be given in his budget to exempting these devices for use by children from the Retail Sales Tax Act for the very reasons the honourable members have put forward. The Treasurer, in his wisdom, was unable to accept that suggestion. The Retail Sales Tax Act is now before the committee of the House and I suggest that would be the proper vehicle by which the members might wish to make their point. They could bring up in the committee study of the Retail Sales Tax Act that these devices should be exempted.
I do not disagree with the reasoning behind it whatsoever. However, I cannot accept the amendment in this bill.
Mr. Samis: I can understand the dilemma the minister is in. I would just make the point that the purpose of the sales tax was to apply to discretionary items. With the recent budget we have drastically and dramatically narrowed the scope of the definition of "discretionary." This is one product we are not only making nondiscretionary, we are making it mandatory, subject to fine and penalty if it is not acquired in the next 12 months and from here on in.
I do think it is a special situation. I understand the legislative dilemma it puts the minister in but we in this party feel strongly that parents should be given some form of relief from the financial burden of acquiring these child restraints.
The Acting Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Samis's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. Stokes: Section 4 is, in effect, amending section 92 of the act, permitting a greater length for highway vehicles. The section also has some reference to mirrors.
It is my understanding this will be done by regulation after experiments now under way have been completed. I am advised there are vehicles now operating on a test basis in Metropolitan Toronto that have a length of up to 98 feet. I do not know what that translates to specifically in terms of metres.
I am concerned about the length of vehicles. I know it is a problem throughout the province but it is a greater problem in northern Ontario where hills and curvatures are much more pronounced, and there is not the same number of dual-lane, triplelane or four-lane highways. Most of the highways in the north are single lanes. We are trying to get them --
Hon. Mr. Snow: At least there are two, Jack; they are not single.
Mr. Wildman: The other ones are cowpaths, eh?
Mr. Stokes: Single-lane; one each way. You know what I am talking about. You can only use one in any instance.
An hon. member: Unless you are like the government, going in two directions at once.
Mr. Stokes: Or unless you are like some of the drivers who straddle the centre line.
It is a concern in northern Ontario, particularly when you get that section of the act that prohibits trucks and trailers from travelling any closer than 60 metres apart. That is something like 180 feet.
11 a.m.
If you get a 100-foot vehicle or a 98-foot vehicle, you can appreciate how difficult it is to get by one of them, let alone four or five travelling on a northern highway one behind the other. And that happens in many instances. They will stop for a cup of coffee at a truck stop and tell their cares of the day to one another and set out in this cavalcade. If it happens to be raining or snowing or blowing, it is utterly impossible for a vehicle to get by them.
It is not too bad if the roadway permits them to travel at the posted speed of 80 kilometres an hour, but if there is the slightest little grade, and given the loads they carry, they will quite often get down to as low as five and 10 miles an hour. If there does not happen to be a passing lane, as is the case in a lot of locations in northern Ontario, traffic simply piles up behind them. It creates a hazard if they do not maintain a distance of at least the 60 metres that is prescribed in the act, and they do not.
Frankly, I would like to see the distance they must maintain set as as much as 120 metres. When one sees these people pulling out of a truck stop, one could not get an average-size car between the tailend of one of these great big 18 wheelers and the bumper of the next one. They must be excellent drivers because how they do not run into one another is beyond me.
It is no consolation to people in northern Ontario who have to drive mile after mile behind these cavalcades, two, three, four or five of them, one behind the other. That is what concerns me. Even if we were to enforce the provisions of the act, it would be a lot better than it is now.
I know the enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act is not the minister's responsibility, but it is the responsibility of those people who are employed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I think the minister can use his good offices to insist that the Ontario Provincial Police and other law enforcement agencies in this province at least enforce the law as it is written at present. It is not, and I can attest to that.
I am getting a lot of complaints from constituents of mine who find themselves in the same position as I have described. They get out on a highway and they will travel behind these cavalcades for mile after mile. The minister will know there is nothing more frustrating than that. Of course, they will put up with it, they will tolerate it for a few miles and then they finally say. "Well, I am not going any place." So a driver will stick out his neck and will try to pass on a solid line. Of course, if it is raining, snowing or blowing, his visibility is impaired and it becomes even more dangerous.
I am hoping the minister will prevail upon his colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), to insist that law enforcement agencies enforce the 60-metre provision in the existing act and be very careful to allow for the increase in the length of vehicles. If he is going to do that, the distance that must be maintained between these very heavy and slow-moving vehicles must be widened.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to respond to the honourable member's comments. First, I would clarify a couple of points. This amendment in section 4 of the bill, changes the length of a straight truck, not a tractor-trailer unit; it changes the length of a normal, straight unarticulated truck from 11 metres to 12.5 metres. Roughly, that is from 35 feet to 40 feet.
The reason for this is a program we have on among the provinces to try to come to more uniform dimensions and weights legislation for the trucking industry crossing our provincial boundaries. A number of the other provinces have the 12.5 metre legislation.
There have been some requests for it here, basically from the poultry-hauling industry for the trucks that haul the crates of live chickens. They want the extra length. I think it would be useful, perhaps, to those hauling baled hay and straw, which is light in weight, because they need the volume for energy efficiency and for the movement of these goods.
It has nothing to do with changing the length of tractor-trailers, which is now 21 metres, or 68 feet 10 3/4 inches. We are not proposing to change that and it will not be done by regulation in any case. The dimensions are in the legislation.
The member has referred to tests. I understand that there are offroad test demonstrations being carried out by the trucking industry. I believe that in the normal manner we have also issued one or two overlength permits to haul long loads. The ministry does that on a routine basis for hauling long pieces of steel for bridges, concrete beams and mechanical equipment of one type or another. In those cases we do allow special permits.
We have issued a special permit in conjunction with Dr. Uffen's commission on truck safety to allow the use of a double 45 trailer and also a triple unit, which are allowed in the other provinces. We have manufacturers in Ontario manufacturing the triple units and cannot even take one on the road in Ontario to test. In conjunction with my senior staff and Dr. Uffen, who wanted to observe the action of these longer units on the highway, we have issued special permits to allow these tests only.
As the member may well know, I have made statements in the past that I am very concerned about the thought of lengthening the units on our highways. To date, I have refused totally to consider the request of the trucking industry for longer units. But in order not to hamstring Dr. Uffen, whom I have appointed and who I think is doing a terrific job in looking into the overall matter of truck safety, I did not feel it right to tell him he could not look at or consider submissions made to him by the public since he was appointed to hear those submissions. I thought it was an ideal opportunity.
I believe they took one of these three-unit trailers, which are used in Saskatchewan and Alberta all the time, although in different road conditions to those we have in Ontario, and I believe they made a trip on Highway 401. I have not had a report on it yet, but the intention was that Dr. Uffen would ride in the cab of the truck going in one direction, and then the other way he would follow the truck in a car, pass it and observe it on this trip, which we authorized with the special permit.
I will be awaiting with interest Dr. Uffen's recommendations when he brings in his report, which I expect around the end of this year. Certainly, this amendment does nothing to change the length of those long units. It changes the straight truck only.
The mirror part of the section relates to school buses, which we are now requiring to have a crossover mirror. That is a mirror which sticks out on the front of the bus to allow the driver to see whether there are little children walking in front of the bus close in where the driver may not be able to see them. So we are requiring crossover mirrors.
Those mirrors lengthen the vehicle and might put the vehicle beyond the legal 40 feet. We are saying that those mirrors, which we are now saying by law must be there, are not going to make those buses illegal by making them longer. That is the reason for that amendment.
I will pass on to the Solicitor General the member's comments in so far as enforcement is concerned. The act does say 60 metres between vehicles and that is close to 200 feet. I personally agree that should be enforced. It is not the easiest thing in the world to enforce but we should put a little more effort into it.
Section 4 agreed to.
11:10 a.m.
On section 5:
Mr. Samis: A small point, Mr. Chairman, on subsection 5(2). I made the point on second reading, and I again return to the point that in terms of the general public, if we are going to put out any ads, pamphlets or brochures to publicize the question of distance between a vehicle and a school bus, at least we could try to make them bilingual, metric and imperial, so the general public will understand them.
I would dare say that of the visitors in the gallery today, 90 per cent of them do not know what 20 metres means. In the motoring public, I would say the same percentage applies. Within a few years that will change, obviously, but we are still in the transition stage. It would serve a very worthwhile purpose. You could do it in the same way as the supermarkets or some others:
put in brackets after "20 metres," the words "X number of feet," "65 feet" or whatever it is. It would be more comprehensible to the general public.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Bill 26, as amended, reported.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 84, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Snow moves that subsection 7(3b) of the act as set out in subsection 2(3) of this bill be amended by striking out "in default of payment of a fine imposed upon conviction for a parking infraction or" in the second and third lines.
Mr. Snow further moves that subsection 2(3) of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection 3c:
"Where a person is in default of payment of a fine or part thereof imposed for a parking infraction associated with his permit, an order may be made under subsection 70(2) of the Provincial Offences Act directing that the permit not be renewed by validation until the fine is paid."
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, this is a housekeeping amendment, a rewording that was requested by the Ministry of the Attorney General after they had further reviewed the original wording in the bill.
Motion agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 14:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Snow moves that section 14 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This act comes into force on a day to be name any proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor."
Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I would like some general direction on this with regard to what the general intention of the government would be with regard to proclamations so we might have a clearer indication of when it would be looking at proclamation.
Hon. Mr. Snow: As I understand it in this one section, one part of the bill relating to the Provincial Offences Act and the serving of notices, there are some small details to be worked out between the Attorney General's ministry and my staff as to notice. As soon as these details are worked out, we intend to proclaim this section of the bill. I do not anticipate any delays but we have been asked not to bring it in today or on third reading or proclamation of the bill or royal assent of the bill, but to leave a little time for the staff to work out the details on this section.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the new section 14
carry?
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
Bill 84, as amended, reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Snow, the committee of the whole House reported two bills with certain amendments and one bill without amendment.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I understood from the last day's discussion that the Liberal education critic had not completed his remarks, but obviously he is not able to be here today. I understand he was near the end of his remarks anyway, and had only a couple more minutes to go.
Let me say at the outset that as far as I am concerned and as far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, it is a very sad day when we have to stand in this Legislature and do our best to defend the educational system in this province from the attack that comes from that side of the House.
It is a very sad day for me particularly, and this is on a personal note. For the past 15 years of my life, all my working life, I have been involved in many ways within the educational system to try in my own way to improve the quality of educational programs that are delivered to children and students at the high school level.
For me to be standing here to debate a bill which is scheduled to do nothing but lower that quality of education and destroy those programs which I and many other people within Metropolitan Toronto, within Ontario, have attempted over the years to establish and make firm within the educational institutions and the schools of the province, is very sad.
It is unthinkable for me to stand here and let the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) -- I said "let"; we will not let her, of course -- but it is unthinkable for the Minister of Education even to think of bringing in such destructive changes to education in this province.
This party, without any doubt whatsoever, is in total opposition to this bill. This party will vote against this bill on second reading and we will look forward to the September committee hearings that will be held on the bill.
As many members know, I was one of those people who felt so strongly about the destructive and punitive measures in this bill that a couple of weeks ago I stood in this Legislature and used unparliamentary language. I will not repeat that language, of course, because I want to continue with the debate today.
11:20 a.m.
The Minister of Education distorted the facts of the bill, distorted those facts for the simple purpose of making sure that what the people of Ontario would understand is that which comes out of the mouth of the Minister of Education.
How many people in this province really do look at the details of legislation? I would guess not very many. I would venture a guess that in this Legislature, of 125 elected representatives, I could probably count 20 to 25 people who really took a look at Bill 127, not only at what it says but the implications of Bill 127 for the educational system in Metropolitan Toronto.
The distortions, the half truths, the falsehoods that the Minister of Education has tried to perpetrate on the province are intolerable and --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The honourable member, and I say that advisedly, is using words which I think are quite unacceptable and are, in fact, inaccurate. I would ask that he be asked to withdraw those statements.
Mr. Cassidy: They certainly are not inaccurate.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are inaccurate.
The Acting Speaker: The Minister of Education has drawn to my attention, and indeed I did hear some of the remarks that have come into question. With respect, I would ask the member for Oakwood to withdraw the offending comments.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, with due respect, I do not know what the offending comments are. If the word "falsehood" is an offending comment to the minister, I would venture to say that in this Legislature that word has been used on many occasions.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are "distortion" and "falsehood."
The Acting Speaker: It has been drawn to my attention and I would draw to the attention of the member for Oakwood that he indeed used the word "distortion" on more than one occasion and you have impugned the motives of the minister.
Mr. Grande: Again, Mr. Speaker, the word is a good English word and has often been used in this legislature. I do not understand. I thought the only word that could not be used in this Legislature was the word which I used a while back and for which I paid the price, but that other English words were perfectly legal and perfectly okay in this House. I just want to express those sentiments and leave it at that. I will not use any other words that might offend the sensitivity of the Minister of Education.
The Acting Speaker: I would say to the member for Oakwood, despite his explanation, that those words are still considered to be unparliamentary and I would again ask him to withdraw.
Mr. Grande: As I said, I want to continue with the debate and I do not want to get into any kind of wrangle. If the word "distortion" offends the minister, I shall withdraw the word "distortion" and I will replace it with "obtuse." Is that acceptable?
The Acting Speaker: Would you extend your withdrawal to include the word "falsehood" as well, please?
Mr. Grande: I will withdraw those remarks that offend the Minister of Education and those words that offend the Minister of Education.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: They offend the House.
Mr. Grande: On Monday, June 7, as many members of the Legislature know, study of the estimates of the Minister of Education began in the social development committee. At that time I placed a motion before that committee and I want to put that motion on the record. Basically, it was at that time that the opposition to this bill began. That motion was:
"Mr. Grande moves:
"1. That the estimates of the Ministry of Education be set aside so that input from the public be now heard on the devastating effects that Bill 127, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act, 1982, will have on:
(a) the delivery of educational programs and services to the children in Metro Toronto, (b) the orderly collective bargaining process between teachers and their respective boards;
"2. That the Education Relations Commission be present at the earliest possible date so that the members of the committee will have a better appreciation of how smoothly collective bargaining is progressing as of its last report, 1981, and of the impact that Bill 127 will have on collective bargaining within Metropolitan Toronto;
"3. That some or all of the public hearings be scheduled for evening hours to make it convenient for working parents and groups of working parents to provide input."
Basically, that is the motion I put before the social development committee. Unfortunately, that motion was defeated, because of course the government has six sitting members on the social development committee and the opposition combined has five members on the committee.
To this very day, I still do not understand why that particular motion was defeated in committee. Why would the Minister of Education and this government not want to have input from parents across Metropolitan Toronto and indeed Ontario, from teachers and from other people who are seriously and deeply concerned about education for their children? I do not understand why. However, the opposition is there; it is on record.
I think the people of Metropolitan Toronto and the teaching profession, the affiliates and the umbrella associations of the teachers, have won a battle. The battle is that we will have September hearings on this bill. While the Minister of Education was phoning and writing letters and trying her best to inform people, "No, we will have July hearings," none the less that first step in the battle towards the eventual disappearance -- or as this button says, "Kill Bill 127" -- has been successful.
I want to say to the House, for the record, in the social development committee I put it clearly to the minister without mincing any words, "Either we will have September hearings on this bill or you will not have the bill go past second reading." The Minister of Education, using her inflammatory words and her way of expressing herself with her emotional outbursts every now and then, said: "Oh, this is blackmail. I cannot condone this kind of blackmail."
11:30 a.m.
Whatever the minister thinks, it is a good legislative tool to be used, especially from opposition members who rarely, if at all, have any kind of power to persuade the majority government of the day to do anything for the people of Ontario.
In other words, I am not here to apologize at all for attempting to use the legislative tools at hand to accomplish what I think ought to be accomplished in the province. Basically, what I am saying is that I am happy, elated that the hearings are to be in September. I shared a deep sigh of relief with the thousands of parents in Metropolitan Toronto on the day that became final. I share that sigh with the 100,000 or more teachers in Ontario who likewise were very relieved when the September hearings became a reality.
Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if you could tell us whether you see a quorum.
Assistant Clerk: Mr. Speaker, a quorum is not present.
Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.
11:36 a.m.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is present.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, as an aside to the debate, I hope some of the government members will remain in the House. Bill 127 happens to be an important bill and I hope government members who do not have a seat in Metropolitan Toronto would also have reason for concern about this bill. I will talk about that later.
In the past week, it has been customary that quorum calls have been more frequent than at any other time. Those people on the other side of the House obviously do not want to hear the debate. They are not interested in debate. They know what they want. They have a majority and by God they will do what they want. They do not want anyone in this Legislature to confuse them with facts. Obviously, their minds are made up.
They have decided to do whatever they have decided to do and in Bill 27 --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It's Bill 127.
Mr. Grande: In Bill 127, they have decided to do to education the kind of havoc they are wreaking with the sales tax bills and the budget they produced in this province.
I have a few words on the September hearings. Even though I realize the minister has commitments in the month of September and she so stated those commitments in the standing committee on social development, I hope the minister will see fit to spend as much time as it is physically and humanly possible for her to do during the hearings on Bill 127.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: The first week.
Mr. Grande: I understand the minister says she will be there during the first week. If I understand correctly, her itinerary for the month of September does not take her anywhere outside of Metropolitan Toronto. As a matter of fact a reporter was saying to me, "The minister is scheduled to go back to the Middle East in September," but I do not think she is going to go back to the Middle East. I want to say to the minister --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Where? That's your opinion.
Mr. Grande: You are? I understood the minister was going to be in Metropolitan Toronto for some meetings with people, with ministers within Canada.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That's part of it.
Mr. Grande: That is what I understood. If she is going to be in Metropolitan Toronto, and if she consents to have evening sittings of the social development committee so that working parents are able to put their feelings on Bill 127 clearly and simply to the minister, then I hope when we sit in the evening she will be able to sit at some of those committee hearings.
11:40 a.m.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: You don't understand that I work five evenings a week now.
Mr. Grande: I am not going to quarrel with the minister. Obviously she will make decisions in terms of her itinerary, in terms of her priorities, etc.
I want to repeat, this bill represents nothing else but a direct attack on children and student programs based on children's needs. It represents a direct attack on parental involvement in the education of their kids. It represents a direct attack on teachers in Metropolitan Toronto. It represents a direct attack on small community schools in Metropolitan Toronto. It deals a very direct blow to the free collective bargaining process between teachers and their boards.
The minister has her way of expressing herself, and that is fine. I have my own way. This bill has created more public anger than I have ever seen in the seven years I have been in this Legislature, at least in terms of an education bill. The only thing that comes close, and is perhaps of greater significance in the life of this province in terms of education was the 1974 attempt in legislation by this government, this party, the Tories who sit on the other side, to bring in a bill forcing teachers to compulsory arbitration.
At that time, as we all know, the teachers of the province and the parents of children who were concerned about the education of their children, came down to Queen's Park and held probably the greatest demonstration that has been seen around Queen's Park. There were about 35,000 people on the front lawn and stretching all the way down University Avenue.
This bill reminds people of what happened in 1974. The public anger I am certainly experiencing in the office where I sit, obviously not directed at me but directed at this government, is of untold proportions. I am not exaggerating when I say in the last two to two and a half weeks I have had over 200 phone calls on this bill. Nor am I exaggerating when I say in the last two and a half weeks I have received, and I know the Minister of Education has received, many petitions. I know the Minister of Education has received hundreds of letters; that cannot be denied.
The parents, the teachers, anybody who is concerned about education in Metropolitan Toronto and outside is organizing to fight this bill. I am optimistic that the fight on this bill will be won. I am optimistic for many reasons. One is that the government never really likes pressures brought upon it by communities, parents or whoever. If we look back at 1974, they dropped the compulsory arbitration bill they had brought in; what they then did was to bring in the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, which certainly did not talk about compulsory arbitration. In other words, their initial proposal was dropped, and I suspect that this initial proposal in Bill 127 will go the same way as compulsory arbitration back in 1974.
Another reason I am optimistic that this bill will be dropped is that the Minister of Education does not enjoy the support of the caucus nor the support of cabinet. I certainly do not have any internal knowledge of the debates or discussions that go on in cabinet, but it is public knowledge that people like the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), people like the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), and certainly the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells) and the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry), are opposed to this bill.
There are many people in that cabinet, people who have -- how shall I put it? -- some credibility, supposedly, within cabinet, are opposed to this bill. Basically, that is the second sign; and I am very optimistic that this bill will be, as my button says, killed.
The third sign is that while the Minister of Education attempts to put forth the view that this bill will affect only Metropolitan Toronto, nobody believes her, because basically the people I am in contact with and who get in contact with me are saying, "This is the first step the Ministry of Education and the government of this province are making towards taking away local autonomy." As a matter of fact, what they are saying basically is --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I really would like to know what you smoke.
Mr. Grande: I will get to those remarks, which are not mine. I will read into the record --
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Could you make the minister withdraw that remark? The minister has just complained about comments made by the member for Oakwood; perhaps she had better subscribe to the same standards of conduct that she asks from other members of this Legislature. Ask her to withdraw that comment.
Interjections.
Mr. Cassidy: That is a slur on the character of the member for Oakwood made by the minister.
The Deputy Speaker: She has just withdrawn.
Mr. Cassidy: I think she should withdraw it.
The Deputy Speaker: She has.
Mr. Cassidy: She suggested that the member is not in full control of what he is saying. That is imputing motives, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest it be withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: She has withdrawn.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It has already been withdrawn.
Mr. Cassidy: Thank you.
Mr. Grande: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As I said during the estimates of the Ministry of Education, any time the Minister of Education and I are debating I enjoy debate; I do not enjoy standing up here and giving a monologue, I really do not.
I was talking about the positive signs that make me feel optimistic that this legislation will be dropped. I was talking about the fact that many people in this province do not see this Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act as being just for Metropolitan Toronto; they see it eventually affecting the whole province.
11:50 a.m.
On that, I just want to mention -- and I will return to it again -- the speech the Minister of Education made the other night at, I believe, Rosedale Public School to the St. David Progressive Conservative Association. Ironically, that very same school will be one of the first schools to be closed if the effects of Bill 127 are going to come about and if the bill is not withdrawn. That particular evening the minister gave what I like to refer to as her "kneecap speech," shoot at the knees, the very defensive kind of stance she took, which certainly did not in any way persuade anybody not to organize around Bill 127. As a matter of fact, she was trying to say to the Progressive Conservative members of the riding association that evening that this is not a Metro issue, it is just a Toronto issue. I understand what she was trying to do. I understand her plan of action, but it will not wash.
As a result of that speech, I have with me a news release from the Area Councils' Coordinating Committee on Staffing and Bill 127. It is entitled, "Parents Slam Minister of Education." They consider the Minister of Education has declared war on Metro parents. These are very harsh words. In effect, the other evening, the minister fired her cannon and it did not hit the mark. In fact, the cannon misfired.
The news release the parents put out said: "A Metro-wide meeting of parents from Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York, East York and Toronto has expressed deep shock and outrage at the Minister of Education's speech given to the St. David Progressive Conservative riding association meeting tonight at Rosedale Public School.
"'Her statement is filled with half-truths and innuendos,' said Tina Cartwright, president of Danforth Gardens Home and School in Scarborough'. . . 'Bill 127 will increase the Etobicoke tax bill and result in more school closings,' said Michael Kinani, parent from Sunnylea school in Etobicoke. . . 'Dr. Stephenson has declared war on all parents working to improve educational opportunities across Metro,' said Barbara Gill, parent from Indian Road of Mountview school in Toronto.'
"'Bill 127 will not increase equitable educational access, it will stifle local initiatives,' said Sharon Scott, a parent from York... 'Thank God the parents of Metro are concerned first with their children's futures and not with the bashing tactics of the Minister,' said Carolyn Riemer, chairperson of the Work Group of Metro Parents... The parents who have worked all year on matters of curriculum and staffing expressed dismay at being attacked and insulted by the minister for their many years of hard work and commitment."
Basically, that tells it from the parents' point of view and indicates how the parents received the minister's remarks at Rosedale Public School the other evening.
I did say this legislation is a direct attack on children's education in Metropolitan Toronto. I want to explain for a few minutes what that direct attack is. The Minister of Education knows or ought to know that in Metropolitan Toronto we have, sadly, a great number of poor kids who come to our schools. The minister ought to know that in Metropolitan Toronto approximately 50 per cent of the kids going to school come from immigrant families. Those children need special programs in order to learn English and learn it well.
The minister ought to know there are parents who want their children to take French as a second language in Metropolitan Toronto. Of course, there are children enrolled in bilingual schools and children enrolled in programs for exceptional children, whether they are children who are slow learners or children who are highly intelligent -- in those two spectrums.
Boards of education across Metropolitan Toronto have decided, in their wisdom, that in order to meet the special needs of the children I am talking about, special programs have to be established. The ordinary program in a regular classroom where there are 30 children and one teacher is not enough. The children need special education programs in order for them to derive benefit from education and from the regular schooling.
In this bill, the Minister of Education in effect says: "You think you need these particular services and programs. I think you are spending too much money on them."
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That's idiotic. Five of the six boards in Metro have asked for the legislation. It is their legislation.
Mr. Grande: She says, "You are spending too much money on those particular services, on those particular programs, and therefore we will not allow you to raise the money to spend on those programs."
This legislation reduces the discretionary levy a board of education in Metropolitan Toronto can raise, from 1.5 mills to one mill. In effect, it is a reduction of resources for establishing programs for those children I talked about, namely children who come from homes that do not have the resources we would like everybody to enjoy, for poor families in Metropolitan Toronto and children who need special education programs. If this bill comes into effect, and I certainly hope it will not, special education classes and programs for children will have to be cut back. English-as-a-second-language programs will have to be cut back.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is incredible. It really is.
Mr. Cassidy: It is incredible; that's why we are opposing the bill.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is incredible that he would even suggest it. He knows it isn't true.
12 noon
Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, the minister --
The Deputy Speaker: That is all right. Just speak to me.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker --
The Deputy Speaker: Right.
Mr. Grande: Yes. I am addressing you.
The Minister of Education does not want to understand. She knows that for her own benefit at this point she does not want to understand. If she really does not understand then she has not been in this Legislature for the past five years. She has not heard a thing I have said to her either in this Legislature or in the social development committee dealing with education estimates. I do not think the minister suffers from deafness.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: More's the pity.
Mr. Grande: The minister suffers perhaps from hearing only what she wants to hear, when she wants to hear it.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is your disease, not mine.
Mr. Grande: If the discretionary levy the boards of education across Metropolitan Toronto can raise at present is reduced from 1.5 mills to one mill, as the bill says it will be, then certain programs will be dropped for children who come from poor families. Certain programs for children in special education will be dropped across Metropolitan Toronto; certain programs for children who take French as a second language will be dropped; certain programs for children who need to take English as a second language will be destroyed. Certainly, programs for exceptional children will suffer. There is no doubt about it.
The minister knows and I know that certain boards of education have established these programs, have attempted to meet the needs of their children in their schools much better than other boards. This is because certain boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto start with a basic philosophy different from this government.
I will try to put that philosophical difference in words and then try to put it in some kind of context. On one hand there are people who are deeply concerned about the education of their children -- whether they be trustees, teachers or parents. These people say basically, "We have to develop and staff educational programs well to meet the needs of children," and the needs are definitely identified and quantified.
Then there is the other philosophy which says: "That is really nice for you to do. However, this is how much you can spend and develop whatever programs you want within that amount. If you fall short, too bad. If you cannot set up these programs; sorry, we cannot help you."
In other words, one of the two philosophical principles looks at the basic needs of students and of the community and develops programs to meet them. The other looks from the point of view of the amount of money this government wants to make available to school boards. It basically says, "With that amount of money, do your best, and if you fall short, we cannot help you." It is basically a philosophical difference.
As the Minister of Education knows, the Board of Education for the City of Toronto in the last 10 to 15 years has become a leader in creating and developing programs for the special needs of children. I learned this while I was a teacher with the Toronto Board of Education, and as a politician keeping in touch with what goes on with that board. There have been many delegations from countries outside the North American continent, and certainly delegations from the United States, which have come to the Toronto Board of Education to see what it is doing to meet the special needs of kids. Articles written about the Toronto Board of Education in the past have certainly shown that, and have suggested that board has shown some leadership.
That is not to say the other boards in Metropolitan Toronto do not show leadership; they do. The board I represent in this Legislature, the Board of Education for the City of York, has shown leadership in developing a policy that basically says: "We want to keep small schools open. We do not want to close schools. We want to maintain, as best we possibly can, a small pupil-teacher ratio."
Those are principles the Toronto Board of Education agrees with. However, the Minister of Education in her speech the other night said: "You cannot do that. You cannot keep a low class size, you cannot keep a small pupil-teacher ratio. You have to close down your schools. We cannot have this."
Hon. Miss Stephenson: You are hallucinating again.
Mr. Grande: The Minister of Education says I am hallucinating. Perhaps she should be reading her speeches prior to delivering them.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry.
Mr. Grande: The minister should not apologize for not being able to read her speeches before she delivers them. On page 3, paragraph 3, the minister says: "In a comparison of student enrolment, full-time teachers and the number of schools operated by school boards in Metropolitan Toronto, figures for the Toronto board are particularly insensitive to the enrolment decline. For example, the pupil-teacher ratio for the Toronto board dropped by three points from 21.9 in 1971 to 18.9 in 1981, making it the lowest for all of Metro." Imagine, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is a fact.
Mr. Grande: Of course it is a fact. What is the minister saying? That the Toronto board of education --
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Just make your presentation. There will be an opportunity.
Mr. Grande: Through those remarks the Minister of Education basically says: "Naughty, naughty, Toronto Board of Education. You should not lower your pupil-teacher ratio, you should not lower your class size; you should be more sensitive to enrolment declines and you should close schools."
Mr. Kerr: Hear, hear.
Mr. Grande: Good. I am glad you are in agreement with the Minister of Education. Larry Grossman is not; Yuri Shymko is not; Margaret Scrivener, whose Rosedale Junior Public School will be closed, I hope will not be in agreement; nor will Susan Fish and Tom Wells. I can --
The Acting Speaker: I ask the honourable member to remember that when we refer to other members in this House, we refer to them by their seats.
Mr. T. P. Reid: By their seats?
The Acting Speaker: Electoral districts.
12:10 p.m.
Mr. Ruston: Do you mean the empty blue seats over there? They are not here right now.
Mr. Boudria: Should we say the member for empty seat number two?
The Acting Speaker: The chair has used an incorrect phrase. Members may have another way of referring to them, but by their electoral districts would be a preferable way of doing it.
Mr. Grande: Two or three sessions past, the Speaker started to get me used to naming members by their names as opposed to their seats. Then the change came about. I will do my best to refer to --
The Acting Speaker: I recognize the difficulty in the matter.
Mr. Grande: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In that speech, the minister told boards of education in Toronto and the borough of York that have a policy not to close small community schools, or at least to encourage the Continuation of small community schools, "No, you cannot do that because you will be insensitive to the enrolment decline."
As an educator, as one who learned something about education in the province and what good, sound education is, I have always known the smaller the class size, the more good sound education will be given in that classroom. Research backs that up.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Prove it.
Mr. Grande: If some members of the government disagree with that, fine. It is a basic disagreement. I happen to believe that in a time of declining enrolments -- and that is fact; the figures do not lie -- we should be saying that now we have this relief from the expansion of the 1950s and the 1960s we can really begin to take a look at the delivery of good, sound educational programs. This legislation says we cannot do that because we are interested in cutbacks -- our restraint program. Come what may, we are going to do it.
The next thing I want to mention is costs. The figures are very clear in terms of the kind of support this government has been giving education in the province and Metropolitan Toronto in particular.
In 1943 the provincial government provided to school boards 15.69 per cent of their costs in legislative grants. In his famous charter for postwar Ontario during that election in 1943, George Drew made a promise to the people of Ontario: "We will support education up to 50 per cent." When did this government fulfil that commitment? It basically fulfilled it in 1970, 27 years after the promise had been made by George Drew.
In 1970 the support the province was giving to education across Ontario was 51.51 per cent. We achieved a peak for the 1970s in 1975, when the province provided 61.37 per cent in grants to the boards of education. Between 1975 and 1981 the government was back to 51.37 per cent support, which basically returns us to 1970.
If the Minister of Education and the government want the people of Ontario to return to 1943, when it provided only 15 per cent support, it will do that. But let us make no mistake: The reason Bill 127 is before us today is directly related to the lessening of financial commitment to the education system in the province by this government. This government is saying, "We need Bill 127 because we want to cut back." Basically that cutback is going to be demonstrated in cuts in the kinds of programs I have outlined before.
I would like to give members a clear picture of the financing from this government to Metropolitan Toronto, which is really the area in question under this bill. By the way, if the minister is interested, the figures I am going to quote came from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, just so she does not think I am making them up or pulling them out of a hat. The Metropolitan Toronto School Board stated last February 22, under 1982 general legislative grants, paragraph 2:
"A more detailed calculation is now being made by the school board staff, from which it appears the total grants to be received by the school board in 1982 will amount to $166.1 million, a decline of $28.3 million from 1981."
So the government did not support education in Metropolitan Toronto at the rate of inflation, as is customary. It did not say, "At least we will give you the same amount we did last year." No, they are not satisfied with that, What they did was to give Metropolitan Toronto $28.3 million less. Of course if Metro wants to make up this $28.3 million it will have to go to its taxpayers and raise it. So it is a saving to the government, but it is an expenditure that comes out of the pockets of the ratepayers who support education in Metropolitan Toronto.
So what is the government doing to Metropolitan Toronto? They are not satisfied that the grant rate seems to be decreasing every year. Seven years ago, for every dollar spent in Metropolitan Toronto, 27 cents would come from the provincial government in legislative grants. Today, 15 cents for every dollar spent on education comes from this government. In other words, what it is doing -- and will continue to do regardless of what anybody says -- is shifting the burden of education in Metropolitan Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario. Instead of it being the responsibility of the provincial government -- and after all, education is a provincial responsibility -- this government is shifting the burden on to the local level more and more.
12:20 p.m.
The evidence is very clear. The local level pays more of the dollars for the cost of education. Then the Minister of Education and the government have the intestinal fortitude to say to the people of Metropolitan Toronto: "We will tell you what kind of education you will have in Metropolitan Toronto. You pay the bucks one way or another and we will tell you what happens."
If that is not an assault on local autonomy, if it is not an assault on the parents across Metropolitan Toronto who are lobbying and pressuring the Legislature to kill this bill, I do not know what an assault is. This bill does irreparable harm and I hope -- I am optimistic and will remain optimistic -- that the government will withdraw this bill as fast as possible.
I spoke to this Legislature about the special needs of children and how the programs to look after these special needs will not be met as a result of this bill. There is no doubt in my mind the Minister of Education will say, "By shifting the responsibility from the local level to the Metro level, Metro can look after that."
The Minister of Education knows darned well that one of the continuing fights that I, on behalf of this party, have had with the government concerns English as a second language. She has good, sound guidelines for ESL programs. The moneys generated for those programs and the information to generate that money come from the area boards. That money goes to the Metro level and the Metro level says, "Sorry, we will not give you the money for those programs."
The battle has been going on for years. What makes the Minister of Education think Metro is going to be responsive to the needs of children at the local level when it has not been so, at least in this area, for the past 10 years? She is deluding herself totally. I want to put on record a letter that came to me from a person named John Van Burek, directeur artistique du Théâtre du p'tit bonheur. I wish I could read the letter in French because it was written in that language.
Mr. Boudria: Go ahead.
Mr. Grande: I will do my best. I will attempt it:
"Cher M. Grande,
"Je proteste vigoureusement contre les recommandations proposées par la Commission Matthews et acceptées par le Ministère de l'Éducation (amending Bill 100) concernant le rapport entre le Conseil scolaire de Toronto et celui de la Communauté urbaine de Toronto."
The Acting Speaker: Extensive readings are not permitted. I see pages in front of you. Maybe you would be well advised to summarize it because to put in long letters like that is not within the rules of the House.
Mr. McClellan: I protest in the strongest possible terms, sir, your interrupting my colleague, who has read no more than three sentences of a document in the second official language. I think you should hear him out before you make any comments with respect to how long he intends to speak. Or is it simply the fact that he is speaking in the second official language?
The Acting Speaker: That is absolutely wrong, and you are out of order regarding the statement I made from the Speaker's chair. But I do challenge, and I ask the honourable member, if he is going to make a long quotation, to give me some idea. He has already given me a clue that it could be a long rendition. This House is not going to accept long renditions going into Hansard. If it is short, and there is a point to make, fine: but he has indicated he is going to read the whole letter, and I will not allow that.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, it becomes more difficult than I would want to read this letter to you. I am trying --
The Acting Speaker: Indicate the length and the duration. You have a purpose, I accept that, but if you can just give some feeling --
Mr. Grande: The letter is just four paragraphs in length.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Proceed.
Mr. Grande: As you stopped me from reading this letter, I will not read it at this time. I will just --
Mr. Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I thought this letter was very relevant and I was very interested in hearing the contents of it. I realize I cannot impose upon the member and ask him to read it in its entirety, but in view of the fact that it is short and concerns my community I would appreciate hearing the rest of it.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I have just made a very clear point to the House on extensive readings. A four-paragraph letter is certainly in order.
An hon. member: We will remember this when your back-benchers read entire speeches, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member will proceed.
Mr. Grande: I will continue reading the letter because I think it is important. It is very important because it speaks to the services the boards of education provide to our French-speaking Ontarians. That is a very important matter, and this party is certainly on record in considering that to be a very important matter.
The Acting Speaker: Carry on.
Mr. Grande: The letter continues:
"Si le Conseil scolaire de Toronto perd son indépendance en matière d'embauche de professeurs, choix de cours et de programmes, ceci constituerait un affaiblissement majeur de tout ce qu'il y a de positif avec ce Conseil. Les efforts du Conseil de répondre aux besoins des élèves et des communautés 'inner-city' méritent les plus grands éloges, contrairement à l'indifférence avec laquelle les conseils des banlieues (notamment celui de North York) ont coupé leurs budgets et diminué la qualité de l'éducation dès que la province a pris des mesures de restrictions.
"De plus, le manque flagrant d'enthousiasme pour les écoles françaises publiques dans les banlieues ne m'inspire pas confiance. Là-dessus, le Conseil scolaire de Toronto a fait beaucoup pour faciliter la vie de ceux qui ont la témérité de vouloir envoyer leurs enfants aux écoles françaises. Et Dieu sait, en Ontario, ceci n'est pas un cadeau!
12:30 p.m.
"Donc, je vous demande de faire votre possible d'empêcher le transfert de pouvoir du Conseil scolaire de Toronto au Conseil scolaire de la Communauté urbaine de Toronto. Je vous prie, M. Grande, d'accepter, l'expression de mes meilleurs sentiments.
"John Van Burek, Directeur artistique," du Théâtre du p'tit bonheur.
For those members who, like me, need a translation, the letter says, basically, that the Toronto Board of Education in past years has been responsive to the needs of the Franco-Ontarian community in Toronto. What the writer of this letter expresses is that if the transfer of powers from Toronto to Metropolitan Toronto should come about, French education is going to have a very difficult time in having its voice heard and its needs taken into account.
The letter is really not different, in content or in feelings expressed, to the petition that I presented to the Minister of Education a little while back, which came from the Hawthorne II Bilingual School, and which I want to read into the record. It talks about changes to Bill 100, which was prior to the introduction of Bill 147 and, as far as most people knew, would be undergoing changes in the legislation. This letter and this petition are addressed to the changes in Bill 100. However, in its transposition to Bill 147, the content remains exactly the same:
"Dear Dr. Stephenson:
"We are parents at Hawthorne II Bilingual School, which is the only public school in Toronto that offers a fully bilingual (English-French) program for grades JK to 6.
"Recently, we have learned that you wish to impose joint bargaining for school boards in Metropolitan Toronto.
"We are strongly opposed to this amendment because we feel that the Metro board is not accountable to us as voters and, being a larger body, will not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of local school communities. In particular, the Metro board has never shown itself to be a friend of smaller schools, parent initiative or bilingual education."
This petition and the letter that I read from John Van Burek point up the fact that as far as French education is concerned, either as a second language or as bilingual education in French, the people fear that the transfer of power from the local board, which has taken initiatives in this direction, to the Metro board, is going to be destructive to the delivery of services in French, either as a bilingual subject or as a second language.
I mentioned at the beginning that this bill is also destructive of parental involvement in the education of their children. Let me just give the House one very brief example.
The boards of education across Metropolitan Toronto have the opportunity, and I think should have the obligation, to make sure parental involvement in the running of our schools becomes a reality. The reason is simply that they are the ones who pay the bills; therefore, they should have some kind of decision-making power in the running of their schools. It is very basic and democratic.
That process has started within the Toronto Board of Education in the past three to four years. Parents are getting involved with their schools and with parent education. They are getting involved with what are called staffing committees. This means that the parents, the teachers and the principal get together and decide the best way of using the available staff to meet the needs of the children of that school. Those staffing committees have worked and the parents have become thoroughly involved in the education of their children in their schools.
The last thing I heard was a petition that came to me from Christie Public School and I wish I had that petition with me. The parents there said, "Look, we need at least five more teachers than are allocated to us to run our programs."
Mr. Ruprecht: Most schools say that.
Mr. Grande: That is right. But I am saying that teachers, parents, principals and the community make that decision. Collectively across Toronto they have said that something like 400 more teachers are required to do the job.
The Minister of Education is not about to say to the Toronto Board of Education or to any other board in Ontario: "You need more teachers. We will give you a bit more money so you can meet the needs of those children and meet the needs of that community." Instead, the Minister of Education says: "No way; we want you to fire teachers. Get rid of them. We want you to close your schools."
It is basically destructive. Bill 127 is destructive of parental involvement with the schools. If one is going to have parents come to the schools one evening, sit around, chat with teachers and principals and express concerns, and nothing develops from that, there is no way the parents are going to be involved in the educational process in that tenuous way. That does not allow parents to get involved in the educational system. The Minister of Education in Bill 127 says, "We do not want that process to continue."
If one looks at the report on the role of trustees, which again I do not have in front of me but I think I can recollect it, there is one section which talks about parental involvement. What did that report suggest? It suggested two things: That it is the right of parents to meet with the principal and to come to the school and make use of school facilities.
We are not back in the 18th century. It does not have to be spelled out in a report for the Ministry of Education that it is a right of a parent to meet the principal. What is going on here?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It wasn't our report. It was the report of a special committee of parents and trustees.
Mr. Laughren: Why are you so defensive?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I'm not defensive. I just wish he would be factual.
12:40 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order.
Mr. Grande: If those are the limits, if those are the rights the parents are to have in the education of their children, then my God, we are really going backwards.
As far as this party and I are concerned, parents should have a major role in deciding what happens in that school. I am not going to say that only parents should have a role, but the parents, the teachers, the staff of the school and other people who are involved in the educational process should be deciding what that school needs, the kinds of programs that school requires and the development of the programs.
Mr. Laughren: The minister is forging ahead with her eyes fixed firmly on the rear-view mirror.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Grande: The speech the minister gave the other night has certainly helped parents to understand where she stands. Mr. Speaker, do you know what the minister called these parents, the hundreds upon hundreds of parents who for years have been working in those staffing committees? A political faction.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I was not talking about parents; I was talking about a group within the Toronto Board of Education.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Grande: What were you talking about?
Mr. McClellan: We have your speech. We have read it. We know what you said.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, but you cannot read, obviously.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I would remind all honourable members of the style of debate in this House. It is for each member to speak, make his remarks in turn to the chair, and not for members to engage in debate across the House.
Mr. Grande: Let me tell the minister, the parents who are involved in these staffing committees are involved in a very serious and concerned way in developing programs for their kids with the help of teachers and of the educational community. Those parents certainly did not appreciate the remarks made by the Minister of Education the other night. As I said before, that speech will backfire. It will help to increase the number of people who become involved in forcing this government to withdraw Bill 127.
I also said that Bill 127 is a direct attack on teachers' associations and their affiliates. I will be quoting extensively from the material the teachers' associations and their affiliates have sent to me, as the Liberal critic yesterday quoted extensively from that material as well. Before I get into these remarks, I would like to say I wish the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) were present. Yesterday I wrote a note to the minister saying, "If it is at all possible, please be here tomorrow." I did not receive a reply, so I assume his itinerary has taken him elsewhere. I appreciate that he cannot be here.
However, the Minister of Labour was here yesterday, and I sent him a note expressing appreciation for the fact that he was here. If the Minister of Labour of this province took a look at this bill and what this bill does to the free collective bargaining process between teachers and boards, the Minister of Labour simply could not support it.
The reason Bill 127 is a direct attack on teachers and their affiliates is that, for the first time in Metropolitan Toronto and for the first time in Ontario, we have enough trained teachers to be able to look after the adequate staffing of our schools. Obviously, in order to do that, we should reduce the size of classes. I would have hoped the Minister of Education would have applauded any board of education, no matter where it is, which did that or which established a policy for reducing class sizes slowly over a number of years. I would have hoped she would have said: "Yes, you are concerned about delivering services to kids. This is one way to do that." In that way we could maintain our qualified people to do the work they have been trained to do after spending a lot of years becoming certified teachers.
However, the Minister of Education and this government want to fire them, want to get rid of them. By June 1983, in Metropolitan Toronto alone, as a direct result of Bill 127, over 300 teachers at the elementary level will have lost their jobs. I am not one to think the jobs have to be saved. I am not one to say that security of teachers for the sake of security is what is important. I am saying those teachers are badly needed to look after needs of kids. The Minister of Education says: "No. Fire them. Get them out of there. We do not want those teachers to be working to look after the needs of kids. We want to save money. We want to spend less on education."
The bill says that the way the minister is going to be accomplishing this reduction in educational services in Metropolitan Toronto is by taking away from the boards and their affiliates the power to bargain, a power that everyone in this province would take for granted in the sense that an employee bargains with his employer. It is so basic to our way of thinking and to that of most of the people in the province, that it is unthinkable for a group of employees to have to go to a third party to bargain. That third party is not their employer. As far as we are concerned, it is a basic principle.
But through this bill, the Minister of Education forces all of the teachers in Metropolitan Toronto at the elementary level, the elementary panel, and all of the teachers of the secondary panel and all six area boards plus the Metro board to bargain jointly and to have one agreement, a master agreement, so-called.
12:50 p.m.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Two.
Mr. Grande: That is right. I thought I made that distinction: one at the elementary panel, one at the secondary panel.
The Minister of Education says that when they bargain jointly, there are basically three areas that should be hammered out in the master agreement. One area is salaries of teachers, financial benefits. Another area is the number of teachers or the formula by which the numbers of teachers are allocated. I suggest that once the salaries and benefits have been negotiate and the number of teachers a board will receive from the pool from the Metro level is established, the master agreement has been done. In effect, it leaves very little room or no room at all for any kind of local agreement between a board and its teachers. But the legislation is so convoluted that no one within the teaching profession, of the people I have spoken to in the last two and a half weeks, seems able to make head or tail of it. How will it work? What they tell me is that it is going to create chaos.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Surely teachers are more intelligent than that.
Mr. Grande: I am not talking about teachers. I am talking about the lawyers who looked at the law.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is what you just said.
Mr. Grande: Obviously lawyers are not teachers and teachers are not doctors.
The fact is that this law, if it should ever come into effect -- and I certainly hope it will not -- is going to create chaos.
I am now going to quote from Genesis, from the Old Testament in the Bible. It is not a direct quotation, but it says "God created order from chaos." The minister, through this bill, wants to create chaos from order. She wants to reverse the whole process. Why does she want to do this? Why does the government want to do this? Why does the government want to create this imbalance in negotiations between teachers and their boards?
I can only suspect it is because teachers' negotiations in Metropolitan Toronto and throughout the whole province in the last four to five years have been running smoothly, have probably been the best. I know for a fact they have been, because the 1981 report of the Education Relations Commission says that the negotiations between teachers and the boards have never been better than in 1981.
This bill is not needed. By introducing this bill in this Legislature, the Minister of Education and the government of this province are creating problems where there were no problems.
The Education Relations Commission points out in its report of 1980-81, in talking about teacher and board negotiations for the year 1981:
"1. The length of negotiations declined in every panel -- elementary, secondary and separate.
"2. There was a significant reduction in the number of dispute resolution stages provided under Bill 100 which were utilized by the parties.
"3. There was a significant reduction in the number of third parties which had to be appointed by the ERC. The number of fact-finding appointments required under the act showed a large drop from 1979-80. At the same time, there was an increase in the appointments of mediators prior to fact-finding, a strategy recommended by the Matthews commission. There was a large reduction from 1979-80 in the number of last offer and strike votes supervised by the commission. Indeed, the number of such votes was the lowest since the enactment of Bill 100."
Finally, the commission says: "The 1980-81 experience is encouraging. Since the passage of Bill 100 in 1975, negotiations were becoming longer and longer. The parties seemed to be relying on third-party appointments to the commission to a greater and greater extent, and each year, prior to concluding an agreement, there was a tendency for the parties to progress through an increased number of stages provided in the act.
"Although the above is not meant to imply that there will not be ups and downs" -- says the commission; that is fine, that is the nature of negotiations, so that is understandable -- "between teachers and boards bargaining in the province, the 1980-81 experience thus constitutes the first reversal of some troublesome trends, and tends
to validate the ERC view that the collective bargaining process in Ontario education is functioning well and is in a fairly healthy state."
This is the commission which was appointed under Bill 100 to make it its business in terms of teacher and board collective agreements, and it gives us the information that the collective bargaining process has never been better since the enactment of Bill 75. The question is, why does the minister want to make it worse?
I will quote to the minister, as I have done at other places before, the report of the Matthews commission, which the minister herself set up a couple of years ago to make some recommendations in terms of changes to Bill 100. I just want to point out to her, on page 49, recommendation
18:
"The commission recommends that Bill 100 continue to provide for voluntary joint bargaining by French affiliates and by school boards, subject to adjudication by the Education Relations Commission, as recommended in recommendation 19."
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member might have an opportune moment now to move the adjournment of the debate, it being the hour of one o'clock.
On motion by Mr. Grande, the debate was adjourned.
The House recessed at 1 p.m.