ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READINGS

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8:15 p.m.

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, third reading of Bill 28, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this bill for a few minutes. I am glad to see it coming up for third reading but I have certain reservations about it. As the members know, and as we expressed strongly during second reading, there is a particular provision whereby the municipalities which do not have a regional police force, and there are many of those in Ontario, only receive $12 on a per capita basis, whereas municipalities that have a regional police force will receive $17 on a per capita basis.

One would have great difficulty trying to rationalize this. Take some small municipalities such as Wellesley, Woolwich, North Dumfries, South Dumfries and Palmerston, large municipalities such as Lindsay and Kingston, and still larger municipalities such as London, Windsor, Ottawa, Kanata, Nepean, etc.

All these municipalities receive $12 per capita, and yet when we look at other cities we find -- I have to backtrack there a little. Some smaller municipalities such as Wellesley and Woolwich receive $17, and other small municipalities such as Palmerston, Lindsay and so forth, receive $12.

In the larger municipalities, we find that cities like London, Windsor, Kingston and Ottawa receive $12 while other cities such as Waterloo, Hamilton, Metropolitan Toronto, Sudbury and any city that happens to be a region receives $17.

If we tried to be consistent with all the regions, we could say all the cities in regions should receive $17. But that is not true. The city of Ottawa is in a region but it does not receive $17; it receives $12. There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to this method.

As I pointed out during second reading, the total amount of money that goes to the municipalities for policing purposes is about $112 million. For an additional $12.4 million, all of them could receive the $17 on a per capita basis.

Yesterday, when this matter came up in the standing committee on general government -- this is important and I beg any member to correct me on this or any member to get up and say he is opposed to it -- all the members agreed it should be $17. At that time, I put forward two amendments which would have corrected this discrepancy and this discrimination against many municipalities in the province. Unfortunately, the chairman ruled them out of order, because he stated that only a minister can bring forth a money-spending bill.

8:20 p.m.

I accept that, and what we would very much like to do -- and we gave the committee the opportunity -- would be to come back next week and have the minister make an amendment, which certainly all of us would have agreed with, in order that this anomaly, this discriminatory practice by the government of the day, would be eradicated from the books of this province and they could hold their heads high again with respect to this matter.

Unfortunately, that was not the case; they voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to do. Maybe you can give me some direction and indicate how a city like Peterborough, which you represent, could be treated as fairly as the townships of Wellesley or Woolwich, or the cities of Hamilton, St. Catharines, Thorold or Brampton, represented by the Premier (Mr. Davis), or Niagara-on-the-Lake, represented by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch). All these get $17, yet they discriminate against the city you represent, Peterborough. I just do not quite understand that. Even the city the chief government whip represents, Mississauga, gets $17. There is no rhyme or reason to this discrepancy.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: For the record, the city of Mississauga is part of a region.

Mr. Ruston: That is what he said.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: He was referring to the city getting a different grant.

Mr. Epp: I am sorry. I missed that. Mississauga is in the region of Peel, and they get $17 per capita.

Mr. Ruston: That's what he said.

An hon. member: In comparison with Peterborough.

Mr. Epp: In comparison. Mr. Speaker, I wish you could give me some kind of advice as to how I can get the government to see this discriminatory practice clearly and indicate how we can correct it. You would really solve a lot of problems in this province if you could do that and if you could speak to those people over there.

I find it difficult. I see the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), and he used to be mayor of the city of Pickering.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Town.

Mr. Epp: Town of Pickering. I am sorry. They get $17; they are in Durham region. I do not see him complaining. I am from a region where all the municipalities get $17. I am quite happy with that, but I feel that the other municipalities that are being short-changed on this grant should get $17.

The interesting thing is, and I want to finish with this, all the members of that committee, comprising seven Conservatives, two New Democratic members and three Liberals, not necessarily in that order, support $17 per capita. They all support equality.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one or two brief remarks on the bill. We have had a full debate on this, lots of indications as to where the parties stand on it and the division on second reading. But I did think it was worth while to report to the House that in committee there was clear consensus that the provisions of this bill are wrong; that there is an inequity which was identified for the committee from communities as far away as Hammertown, Michipicoten and Ottawa. Big and small, in different situations, all agreed that there is a wrongness in all of this; that this is an occasion where one day a year, when the government hands out the grant money, it decides there is a difference between big and small, yet on the other 364 days it works very hard to eliminate those differences. That consensus was crystal clear.

The bill is before us tonight for third reading and will not get an extensive debate on our part, even though the wrongness that is in the bill is every bit as bitter to us as it was when we had the second reading. I am convinced by the undertaking given to the committee by the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), who is the parliamentary assistant, that the government itself admits there was wrongness, inequity and unfairness in this bill and will take steps to rectify that, and that we will not see another bill of this nature before this Legislature. The undertaking was made very clear in committee that the government has internal committees working on it and that the ministries involved are attempting to resolve the matter.

The argument was put forward that this was the best the government could do under the present circumstances, that it was slightly better than its feeble efforts in the past and that we will never again see legislation put before us like this legislation, which has built into it something that all members on that committee, from all political parties, and virtually everybody who came before the committee, agreed made it a wrong-headed piece of legislation. They admitted it.

In the spirit of friendliness and co-operation that we have in this caucus always, we will not extend the debate this evening. We have made our points rather clearly, and we anticipate some fairness, for once, on the part of the government, when the next round of financial negotiations is concluded.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, one cannot allow third reading of this bill without repeating again, some may say ad nauseam, the embarrassing situation that those of us in Ottawa-Carleton, and in your case, Mr. Speaker, in the great city of Peterborough, are experiencing in not getting a fair share of grants. I know you must be restrained and neutral in this debate, but you can rest assured that those of us on this side will say a few kind things on your behalf for the city of Peterborough in that we think they are not getting a fair shake by not getting their $17 in policing grants; and we see no good reason for this.

As I look at my colleagues across the way I can see a look of embarrassment on all their faces, including that of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) --

Mr. Kerrio: That's a look of embarrassment all right.

Mr. Breithaupt: All 17 of them are embarrassed.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Which is better than the eight of you.

Mr. Roy: I can see it. I know they are awfully quiet. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will not object to this. I can indicate on your behalf, for the record, the look of concern and embarrassment worn by the caucus members of the Conservative Party about this very unfair legislation. In fact, I can say, again for the record, that I see the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) sitting there with his face drooping and his head down.

Mr. Bradley: Are you sure that is the Solicitor General?

Mr. Roy: That is the Solicitor General.

Mr. Bradley: It is not a high-profile issue.

Mr. Roy: That is right. It is not a high-profile issue; it is an embarrassing issue and here he is having to defend that. It is not fair that a new Solicitor General should be faced with a situation of having to tell certain municipalities that because they have retained their own police forces they can only get $11, is it?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: It's $12.

Mr. Roy: Twelve dollars. The other regions --

Interjection.

Mr. Roy: The Minister of Education should congratulate me when I am wrong, because if I am wrong I would be on the same side as she is most of the time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You could not be in a better place.

Mr. Roy: I intend to be brief and not overly provocative, but I am glad to hear that the government is at long last reconsidering this.

The biggest irony of all, Mr. Speaker -- I know you will join with me in finding it difficult to understand this -- is that I thought when the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), took over -- after all, he is the sponsor of this bill -- that as an Ottawa member he would not tolerate seeing Ottawa-Carleton being the only region in the province not to get $17 a head for policing in Ontario.

I thought, "With Claude as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and representing an Ottawa riding, he will not tolerate this -- not Claude; he is going to fight for Ottawa-Carleton." The record should show my great disappointment that on all occasions, on first, second and third reading, the member for Ottawa South was not even here. I know that it is embarrassing but he was not even here to support his own bill. I can understand that is embarrassing.

8:30 p.m.

Without wanting to prolong this debate unduly, it is unconscionable on the part of this government to consistently -- did I say something wrong?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Roy: I did not call him hypocritical, I said unconscionable. It is unconscionable on the part of the government to tolerate a situation where it is trying to make certain municipalities second class citizens by giving them only $12 instead of the $17 they deserve. As the representative for Ottawa East and on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Peterborough, I say it is unconscionable and intolerable. Please change that.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion for third reading of Bill 28 will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 112, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act;

Bill 113, An Act to amend the Provincial Land Tax Act.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved third reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on second reading of this bill, because of some manipulation on the part of the Conservative House leader and others --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Where were you on Wednesday?

Mr. Kerrio: He spoke to it on second reading. Where were you?

Mr. Roy: Yes, I spoke to it on second reading.

It is embarrassing that the minister has to defend this bill and I understand that. He should try to understand that some of the things he is doing with Bill 114 are unfair to certain sectors of the industry. The minister and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) are going around the province trying to tell small businesses they are doing them a favour by granting an exemption of corporate tax. On the one hand, they are taking most of that away with the retail sales tax, and on the other hand there are about 90,000 small businesses --

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the honourable member that the motion before the House is whether the bill should be read a third time. The principle of the bill has already been accepted.

Mr. Roy: I will get to the principle then, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, the principle has already been accepted.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You can't get to it.

Mr. Roy: The principle of why it should not be read for the third time; I am sure you do not want me to repeat myself. One reason among many why I do not want it to go through third reading, and I am sure even the House leader and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) -- who, the record should show, is taking notes -- will understand that, is that this tax is unfair. There are about 90,000 small businesses that will not be paying corporate tax and will not get the exemption.

The major reason I do not want it to go for third reading is that when I asked the Treasurer the other day why it was that he limited the granting of an exemption only to those small businesses that were incorporated, he stated that small businesses which were not incorporated should go out and incorporate themselves if they want the exemption.

Members understand, of course, what legal fees are about and how high they are.

Mr. Breaugh: Some lawyers have to get part-time jobs to support themselves.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: What did I say, Mr. Speaker, that has so aroused the members opposite?

How cynical it is on the part of the Treasurer to tell the small businesses that they should go out and spend $500, $700 or $1,000 to incorporate in order to benefit from these exemptions. I think that is part of the cynical approach taken in this budget. For that reason, I am sure members will agree with me that such a bill should not get third reading.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak at any great length, but I do want to speak. Perhaps some one could check the record for me. I know I should not be shocked, but I also know that it is now Thursday night and between Tuesday and Thursday there was a lot of time for a lot of people to change their minds on a given bill. I recall that on second reading the party to my extreme right over here thought this bill was just sliced bread, a wonderful thing and great stuff. I can recall they were anxious --

Mr. Roy: It is half a loaf.

Mr. Bradley: Better than none.

Mr. Mackenzie: You voted for it.

Mr. Breaugh: Half a loaf. Having got half a loaf, the member has now decided -- I just wanted the record to be clear, Mr. Speaker, that when we were discussing the principle of what was before us, when we were dealing with the mechanics of the bill, I did not recall any amendments coming forth --

Mr. Bradley: Half a loaf. We will take a few crumbs once in a while.

Mr. Breaugh: The problem is if there was half a loaf we might be happy, but there are just a few crumbs left.

In fairness, I want the record to show that when the Liberal Party of Ontario has its biweekly policy convention and the changes are made, I believe they should be noted here.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I would like to clarify a point on the issues raised by the first speaker. I think it fair that the record should show the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) had the floor -- as a matter of fact, he closed the debate -- on Tuesday night. When the debate resumed the next day he was at his law practice in Ottawa and was not here. That is why he had to interject on third reading.

Mr. Bradley: You must have wanted to hear him speak.

Mr. Breaugh: You see, Albert, you should not have come here.

Mr. Roy: They are imputing motivation that I was out working.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Ottawa East please resume his seat.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am just wondering if it is possible for the Speaker to allow another bending of the rules to see whether or not the member for Ottawa East would canvass his caucus and join with us this time in voting against the bill rather than for it, as they did two nights ago.

Mr. Bradley: We are not against small business.

Mr. Speaker: You are all familiar with the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Mr. Breaugh: I couldn't hear how the member for Ottawa East voted.

Mr. Speaker: I heard very well.

Mr. Roy: Do you want it on the record?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Motion agreed to.

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 am glad to continue with the debate which I adjourned this afternoon. When the debate was adjourned, I was talking about the negotiations in Metropolitan Toronto, the negotiations between teachers and school boards and the fact that the Education Relations Commission has stated in its report of 1980-81, and I want to quote for the benefit of the members who are here that: "The collective bargaining process in Ontario education is functioning well and it is in a fairly healthy state."

8:40 p.m.

I was questioning the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), Mr. Speaker. The Education Relations Commission was established primarily to monitor negotiations between school boards and teachers and it told the minister that the negotiations have never been better and have never been in a healthier state than now. Why then does she bring in Bill 127, which basically says there are so many problems here that we have to take hold of it and we have to have all this great power and control?

I will divert for a moment and speak about a rally that took place this afternoon at the Holiday Inn in downtown Toronto. The expectation of the teachers' organizations which called that rally was that about 1,000 teachers and parents would be able to attend. They said that if 1,000 appeared it would be a very successful demonstration. I want to report that about 3,000 teachers and parents appeared. The hall at the Holiday Inn was so full that people could not get into it. Many people were in the hallways, down the steps and all the way to the corridors and outside of the Holiday Inn waiting to get in. Of course, there was no room at the inn.

Of course the minister was there, so this is not for her benefit but for the benefit of reporting to the House. That rally this afternoon was a very successful rally; not from the point of view of the government or the Minister of Education but certainly from the point of view of protecting education and the educational programs for the children of this province it was a tremendous rally.

I want to publicly congratulate the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Public School Men Teachers' Federation and all their affiliates who did the spadework in terms of making sure those people came. I will not forget the many parents from Metropolitan Toronto, who basically had stronger language to use against the Minister of Education and Bill 127 than I could ever use in this Legislature. I want to congratulate those teachers' organizations and parents who did a fantastic, tremendous piece of work.

I am sure the children of the province will, in years to come, be grateful for people who came together to the Holiday Inn to protect and safeguard the future of educational programs in Metropolitan Toronto and basically in the whole of Ontario.

The minister came to this rally and spoke. The president of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, George Meek said -- actually he did misuse the word -- that it took a tremendous amount of chutzpah for the Minister of Education to appear.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Chutzpah.

Mr. Grande: That is right. I am sure the way she was welcomed did not leave a good taste in her mouth at all.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, it did.

Mr. Grande: I am sorry; if it left a good taste in the minister's mouth, I hope that between now and the time she withdraws Bill 127 she will have a similar taste in her mouth. When the minister marched in flanked by the flunkeys, as I like to call them, the trustees at the Metro level who represent the parents of --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I was not flanked by the Metro trustees.

Mr. McClellan: Flunkeys.

Mr. Mackenzie: Probably had an Ontario Provincial Police bodyguard.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not have an OPP bodyguard.

Mr. McClellan: Was Larry Grossman there?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I was invited.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The Minister of Education has interjected quite vocally that she did not have an OPP guard there today. It was a Metropolitan Toronto police guard and they prevented both the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) and myself from coming back into the meeting once the minister had entered the meeting. It was only by devious methods of going up --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: In the case of the member for Oakwood, the elevator --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege --

Mr. Speaker: I have just ruled it was not a point of privilege and the minister cannot really speak on a matter that is not before the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It is clarifying the record.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The record, it's not --

Mr. Speaker: If the minister wants to rise on a point of personal privilege to clarify the record, I will recognize that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I would like to do. I arrived at the hotel to find Metropolitan Toronto police there. I had no idea they were going to be there. I had no responsibility for their presence, nor for any of their actions.

Mr. Grande: If indeed the Minister of Education arrived without the flank of the flunkeys by her side, then that is so. I know I was sitting on the chair next to the member for St. Catharines. When the minister came in, the Metropolitan Toronto trustees lined up right behind the podium and stood up right behind. That is why I say the minister was flanked.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: And all the teachers stood up in front so they could not be seen.

Mr. Speaker: Now can we get back to the principle of the bill, please?

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the principle of the bill. The Minister of Education basically says that, as a result of those trustees at the Metro level and as a result of other trustees in five other area boards, Bill 127 came into being. There is no other reason, the minister says, no other reason whatsoever; therefore, it is definitely the principle of the bill as to why the birth of this bill came about.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That was the initiation, not necessarily the rationale.

Mr. Grande: The fact is that these trustees, and every once in a while I was turning around and looking at them, were pointing their heads right where their shoes were, they were feeling so dejected, so out of place in that room in the Holiday Inn. Somehow, and I do not know whether this is true or not, and the minister can correct me, I had the impression they had been given an order to be there.

Who on earth would have wanted to come to that meeting? They knew there were going to be a thousand or three thousand people opposing the bill which they, as trustees at the Metro level, say they badly need in Metropolitan Toronto.

Anyway, they were just standing there and were so quiet, so dejected that it appeared to me they were totally out of place. Probably those people were indeed out of step with what education ought to be in Metropolitan Toronto, and those are the trustees who said to the Minister of Education --

8:50 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is unfair. They are equally responsible. They care as much about education as you do.

Mr. Grande: That is the not the way the minister put it in her speech the other evening at --

The Deputy Speaker: St. David's.

Mr. Grande: -- Rosedale school, when she said that the Toronto board of education is out of step with education across Metropolitan Toronto. I am suggesting to the minister --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No. Read it, Tony, read it.

Mr. Grande: Well, I will be quoting to the minister in a little while.

I would suggest to her that those trustees who were there today certainly were out of step with what goes on in education in Metropolitan Toronto, and those are the trustees from whom she supposedly took advice.

I rarely make predictions, but when we sit in committee during the September hearings on this bill we will go through brief after brief from people who are going to come before the committee, and as November rolls along and the municipal elections arrive those people are going to desert the minister and she will be all alone in the wilderness; and not only those trustees but also a good portion of her caucus is going to desert her. The minister would do a great service to education in Ontario if she would say at this particular point, before the end of this debate, "I will withdraw this bill."

One issue I would like to talk about, because if this bill becomes law in this province it definitely will be a result, and that is the closure of schools. The other day we debated Bill 46 in this Legislature, and one of the noxious powers that the Minister of Education wanted in that bill was to issue guidelines for the closure of schools.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not need legislation to do that.

Mr. Grande: Well, you obviously need it because you asked for it in Bill 46.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not what we asked for.

Mr. Grande: In effect, Bill 127 takes control from local boards and puts it in the hands of a body that is not elected by the people across Metropolitan Toronto and that is definitely not going to be responsive to all the people in Metropolitan Toronto, and as a result the school closure issue comes up all the time. In essence, the issue goes something like this. While the bargaining is going on at the Metro level, the bargaining over salaries, over the formula to allocate teachers and over teachers' benefits, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board in its master agreement may very well decide that there shall be a certain class size across Metropolitan Toronto, that every classroom shall have a similar class size.

What would happen is that boards of education that have made it a policy that schools in their areas of jurisdiction will not be closed, will be forced to close the schools. I do not have to remind the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey) of the pains that he, as an individual, went through when those schools in his area of North York were being closed. I spoke with the member for Armourdale at that time and he said, "I wish there was some way we could keep those schools open." I believe he was truthful and expressed sincerity in that.

When the negotiations are going to go on at the Metro level, Metro level will make the decision as to which schools close. Metro will decide class size. Metro will decide how many teachers are to he allocated to a particular board of education.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You are entirely wrong. You don't understand.

Mr. Mackenzie: Just like you were wrong about the meeting.

Mr. Grande: Basically, Metro --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Metro will not.

Mr. Grande: -- will be making decisions about the level of education in -- as the minister calls the second tier -- the upper-tier level of education, and the local board cannot do anything about it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: How anybody can be as obtuse as you are, I really don't know.

Mr. Grande: So the closure of schools becomes a reality. In particular, two boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto, namely the Toronto Board of Education and the York Board of Education, have made policy determinations that as far as they are concerned the priority is that small community schools will not be closed.

As soon as the Metro level takes over and gathers up all the powers unto itself, there will be no way the Toronto Board of Education or the York Board of Education can maintain those schools.

I notice the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) is here. The reason I am so concerned about this issue is because I did a little bit of calling around. I called the Etobicoke Board of Education. That board, for the benefit of members of this House, in the past two years has probably closed as many schools as North York has. Or perhaps North York has closed one or two more schools.

Etobicoke closed one school in 1977, two in 1978, four in 1981 and four in 1982. Those are the figures. This year, it says it will be closing its first secondary school. I phoned Mrs. Lowe in Mr. Moore's office at the Etobicoke Board of Education. The thing I found really incredible is that she said -- I do not think it is a quote; however, I will use it -- "Miss Stephenson has nothing but praise for our policy and points to it as an example for all other boards to follow."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Because of the community involvement.

Mr. Grande: The minister has to understand that when she talks about community involvement she has to talk about splitting communities apart. Some of the newspaper reports about the Keiller Mackay Collegiate Institute, which it was declared would be closed last year, the fighting and the words and the debates that occurred between one group of parents and another literally tore that school community apart.

The reason I mention this case is because we are talking about North York and we are talking about Etobicoke. We could even talk about Scarborough but I am not aware if any schools in Scarborough were closed.

9 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Grande: There were? All right. But the fact is the three boards I have mentioned, though we go to the Metro level at this particular time, form a majority of the Metro level. In essence, if Toronto wants to keep its small schools open, if the borough of York wants to keep its small schools open, that is too bad. They will not be able to do so.

During the estimates of the Ministry of Education I asked the minister what kind of research she had done in terms of school closures. The minister gave me the report called Educational, Social and Financial Implications to School Boards of Declining Enrolments, a report that was done in 1977. It is a ministerial report. The conclusions in that report refer to size of school and cost per pupil and say:

"As expected, there is a relationship between size of school and cost per pupil even when differences in salary scale levels, years of experience and qualifications are discounted from all personnel employed in schools. From the 216 schools examined in the study, it is concluded that serious increases in cost per pupil do not begin until schools fall below the 200-pupil level."

I have seen that magic number of 200 pupils in ministerial reports since 1969. I have also asked the board which I represent in this Legislature, the borough of York which, as I said before, has a policy not to close small schools, how many schools have an enrolment of 200 pupils or less. That board said it has six such schools, and one school has an enrolment of 215 kids.

I suggest to the minister that if this bill goes through, within the next year or so those six schools in the borough of York will be closed. That is the direct implication of this disastrous bill we have before us tonight.

I want to return to the negotiations between teachers and boards. I am satisfied that I made the point about the Education Relations Commission so I will not use it again, but I do want to quote briefly from the report of the commission that reviewed the collective negotiation process between teachers and school boards, in short, the Matthews commission report. That is the report of the commission the minister established in the Legislature on October 30, 1979. I want to quote from the minister's remarks in the Legislature. She said:

"The School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act has been in force since July 18, 1975. Before that time, there was uncertainty and disruption in teacher-board relationships. A decision of the court was required to confirm the rights of teachers to withdraw their services. The act, when introduced, provided for the first time a legally defined, equitable and reasonable framework within which teachers and trustees could pursue their goals through the collective bargaining process.

"The act has improved that process in many ways. It has unquestionably reduced the number of occasions when a breakdown in negotiations has led to strikes and other sanctions. In the three years before the passage of the act, there were 28 cases which will now be defined as strikes or lockouts. In the four years since the act was passed, there have been over 900 settlements, with only 18 strikes and lockouts."

In other words, Bill 100 provided stability in negotiations across this province. The Education Relations Commission stated that it did provide that stability.

For no reason whatsoever, we find ourselves with this Metropolitan Toronto act which, I would assume, is here for the reason that the Ministry of Education and the minister do not want to see stability in teacher-board negotiations in this province.

This afternoon, I read recommendation 18 on page 49 of the Matthews commission report, which says: "The commission recommends that Bill 100 continue to provide for voluntary joint bargaining by branch affiliates and by school boards subject to adjudication of the Education Relations Commission as recommended in recommendation 19."

Every time the Minister of Education talks about this outside this Legislature she says, "Yes, but the Matthews commission report also states, not in a recommendation but in the text, that compulsory joint bargaining is desirable."

Let me quote the paragraph which I assume the minister is talking about. It is on page 52 of the report and says: "Although the special situation in Metropolitan Toronto has brought the matter of joint bargaining by different school boards to the fore, it may become a more general problem in the future. This could easily happen if neighbouring school boards begin to press for joint bargaining in order to avoid being whipsawed by the federations. It is not uncommon for the federations to build upon each settlement in turn, thereby engaging in a process commonly known as leapfrogging or whipsawing."

The Minister of Education calls upon this paragraph to strengthen her position that Bill 127 is needed. I want members to listen again to a few words. The commissioner said, "it may become a more general problem," and "this could easily happen." In other words, nothing of the whipsawing and leapfrogging has occurred in Metropolitan Toronto since 1975.

How could it happen? All the boards have been bargaining in Metro on a voluntary basis anyway, except for one year. That year was 1978, when the Toronto Board of Education decided it wanted to bargain with its teachers on its own. What happened that year was not a case of whipsawing or leapfrogging. The teachers of Toronto decided to take a one per cent pay cut in order to protect the jobs of 50 or 60 of their colleagues. Is that leapfrogging and whipsawing?

What other information does the minister have? If she has any information, on what basis did those trustees at the Metro level -- I call them the "flunkeys" -- say to the minister, "Bring in Bill 127, we need it desperately, we need it badly"? Show us the proof. I certainly did not see any in the compendium of information that she brought before us when she introduced this bill.

9:10 p.m.

I would like to continue a little more with the Matthews commission report. If the Minister of Education says the reason she is bringing in the bill is because the Matthews commission report -- in the body of the report and in the text of the report, not in the recommendations -- said joint bargaining is desirable because it could lead to some kind of leapfrogging in the future, why is it that the commissioner also talks about province-wide bargaining in the text of the report? It is not a recommendation, but does that mean the minister would say that because the Matthews commission in one or two lines of the report talks about province-wide bargaining, she will bring in a bill which says that province-wide bargaining is needed? Nonsense.

As a matter of fact, we have tried to get this minister and this government to act on good sound recommendations. Report after report is lying on shelves gathering dust in this place and has not been implemented because the government said, "While it is a report, we do not have to accept the recommendations of the report. It is just advice."

This was not even a recommendation in the Matthews commission report and the Minister of Education brings in Bill 127. The Minister of Education should come clean and tell us why this bill was needed because I have not been able to find anywhere in reports anything that would indicate it is needed, other than what the minister said the Metro trustees, the trustees in North York, in Scarborough, in East York and in the borough of York have said, which was, "We need this legislation."

I received those letters. They are just in the form of saying, "The board met and the board made a decision." There were no reasons for the decision stated. I want the minister to provide the reasons, and until she provides the reasons I suppose this bill stands on very shaky ground.

As members will recall, last night while the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) was speaking on the bill, he quoted extensively from material that he received from the different teachers' organizations, namely, the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Public School Men Teachers' Federation, the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario and others.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope you will have the same patience with me that you had with the member for St. Catharines last night, because I would like to put some of those concerns on the record as well.

The Deputy Speaker: If that is the case, I am always tolerant under such conditions. However, I will always be reminding members at some future time when some other members read at great length.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my apologies. Thank you very much. I am not going to read a lot. The Ontario Teachers' Federation had a press release on the bill which says:

"The teachers oppose An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, Bill 127. The Ontario Teachers' Federation and its affiliates and branch affiliates have agreed to sponsor joint initiatives to combat proposed legislation to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

"Introduced and given first reading in the Ontario Legislature May 28, 1982, the bill imposes compulsory joint bargaining by panel and compulsory regional bargaining with Metropolitan Toronto. It therefore denies teachers the right to bargain directly with their employer on the major items of salary, financial benefits and staffing.

"In a meeting held at the Chelsea Inn, Toronto, on Friday, June 4, 1982, approximately 100 branch affiliates, presidents and representatives from across Metropolitan Toronto met to discuss the implication of the bill as it affects teacher representation, voting and contract ratification. They are totally against proceeding with any amendments in Bill 127 that have to do with negotiations and finances.

"Participants concluded that, while at the moment this is an issue of concern to teachers employed within the Toronto area, it would be impossible to implement compulsory regional bargaining in the municipality without also enforcing some form of compulsory joint bargaining by panel.

"The bill is an abrogation of the teacher's right to negotiate through the local branch affiliate with his or her employer and would in all likelihood set a precedent of operation for other urban centres throughout Ontario.

"Specifically, the legislation would have a single board committee to negotiate on both regional and joint bargaining panels chaired by the Metro board representative. Teachers would have two committees, an elementary committee of 16-plus and a secondary committee of eight-plus. The provisions on voting move the power from the branch affiliates of the board to negotiating committees.

"Decisions of committees have to be made by double majority. One interpretation of this double majority concept would allow as few as 2,900 teachers to make the decisions with regard to an elementary agreement for 9,300 elementary teachers across Metropolitan Toronto."

As did the member for St. Catharines, I will let these documents speak for themselves. I do not need to comment on them.

I am sure all members of the House received a memo from the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Malcolm Buchanan. I would like to quote the first part of this memo. "The bargaining rights of 8,400 colleagues in Metropolitan Toronto would be seriously eroded if a Pandora's box of amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act is passed in the Ontario Legislature. The new legislation would make guinea pigs of Metro teachers in a pilot project to test regional bargaining for the rest of the province."

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation has retained the law firm of Golden, Levinson to see what kind of bill this is and what effects it will have. Maurice A. Green makes a very extensive report to the OSSTF about the effects of this bill and what the bill is basically all about.

I do not want to read the whole thing. The member for St. Catharines put it on the record last night. However, I will read the passages I feel are salient and more to the core of the problem.

Lawyers rarely get upset about things. They always have a cool sense of déjà vu that the world will not come to an end and there is always a tomorrow. However, in this case the lawyer is obviously upset about this legislation. His aggravation is demonstrated when he says: "My anger rises because the Metro bill has placed on the legislative table labour relations concepts which deviate greatly from past government policies and which, if followed across the province, would strip both teachers and boards of long-existing freedoms. Rather than create a legal and bureaucratic manure heap, the minister would have been more politically honest to have disbanded the local boards of education in Metro à la Reagan and created one efficient school board."

9:20 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is that what you want?

Mr. Foulds: That's what you want.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it is not.

Mr. Foulds: You want province-wide bargaining.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Don't presume you know what I think or feel about it.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I am simply quoting from this document. I continue quoting: "The concepts which I analyse in the following pages could easily be extended to any area of the province where regional government exists or is being extended. Thus there is no reason why a similar approach cannot be forced upon Ottawa- Carleton, Hamilton-Wentworth or other convenient groupings."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are not two-tier systems.

Mr. Grande: I say to the minister, lawyers deal with legislation and they interpret legislation.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: This one produced $1.98 worth of opinion for several thousand dollars.

Mr. Grande: My annoyance arises simply because there are many provisions that have been badly drafted or have not been thought through. There seems to have been no reference to how Bill 100 functions.

Let me continue with some quotes, Mr. Speaker. This is another quote from page 3:

"The worst part of the envisaged scheme relates to section 130a(2) and (3)" -- that is the section that deals with the master agreement at the Metro level -- "130f(2) and 130g(3). On the assumption that salaries, financial benefits and staffing are to be negotiated in a 'master agreement,' the teachers cannot negotiate and include in such master agreement other terms or conditions of employment which could be applied across Metro, unless all parties, including the Metropolitan Toronto board, agree. This creates a prospective bombshell, apart from being contrary to section 8 of Bill 100 in law and philosophy."

The Minister of Education, of course, knows what section 8 of Bill 100 is. It is a very short clause which says all items brought in by the board or by the teachers can be laid on the table for debate, discussion and negotiation. However, this particular law says: "No. We do not want all items. We just want to deal with one, two and three, and nothing else can be dealt with."

The letter goes on: "Section 130f(2) gives any board or branch affiliate the power to veto any item put forward for the master agreement. When such veto results, the proposal can only be taken up with at the local level pursuant to section 130g(2) and (3)." It goes on at length, but I do not think we need to put everything on the record.

One cautious note which the lawyer states to the teachers is on page 4: "One only has to look at the article providing job security to see what game-playing the boards could engage in. First, would such an article fall within the terms that affect the method of calculating the number of teachers to be hired? If the answer is in the affirmative, then such a provision could be lost by the double majority vote. If the answer is no, then the particular district would have to attempt to defend such article from the contract-stripping employer at the local level where (1) the district cannot force negotiations nor (2) go on strike."

In other words, in negotiating this master agreement the terms and conditions of Bill 100 do not apply. If the minister had wanted to change Bill 100, she should have brought in Bill 100, because that is the law that talks about collective bargaining between teachers and boards. She should not have brought in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act and put bargaining provisions into this act, which basically has never dealt with bargaining. The bargaining law in this province is Bill 100. I am saying to the minister that if she wanted to change Bill 100, she should have brought in Bill 100.

Mr. Foulds: She did not have the guts.

Mr. Grande: Basically the member for Port Arthur is correct because, as members know, since October of last year the Minister of Education has been working on changes to Bill 100. As a matter of fact, in February some time the draft legislation was sent out for consultation.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No. January.

Mr. Grande: January? All right. I got hold of it in February.

Interjection.

Mr. Grande: I got hold of it in February. I do not get things immediately.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If you are going to be critical, be accurate.

Mr. Grande: You never send me copies of these things. I have to get them elsewhere. It takes a little time for me to find them, but I do.

Anyway, the minister wanted to bring in changes to Bill 100, and I must commend her for the consultation that took place with Bill 100. The draft was made in legal language, it was sent out to the people affected, I would assume that these people responded, and this is correct and proper procedure. However, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act was not circulated. There was no consultation with anybody. It just came like a bolt out of the blue: "There it is; we made the decision. We are going to go with the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act; we are going to leave behind the amendments to Bill 100 for the time being."

I can only speculate about why that occurred, and I will tell members why it occurred: because Bill 100, or at least the legalese that the Minister of Education gave to the different groups affected, in effect called for joint bargaining by panel across the whole province. The minister and the government, I would assume, said: "Oh, we cannot do that; we are going to upset everybody in the province. It will be too much: 1974 all over again; 35,000 teachers and parents outside this Legislature clamouring at the door. All right, we will not do that."

However, the minister said: "I have to get to Toronto. Those people in Toronto have to be brought to heel; they have to respect my imperatives; they have to do what I want them to do, and they are not doing it. So, by God, by hook or by crook I will get to them. I will smash it."

9:30 p.m.

The speech the minister gave in Rosedale Public School told the whole story. That is the reason the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act is here. It has nothing to do with negotiations; it has nothing to do with contracts; it has to do with bringing a particular local board in Metropolitan Toronto to heel, to bring it under control and make it listen to imperatives from the government.

It is a punitive law, and that is why this Legislature and everybody in this Legislature, and not only the members from Metropolitan Toronto, ought to say to the Minister of Education, "Absolutely not; you will not have it." I hope the members of the governing party, whether or not they are in Metropolitan Toronto -- because sooner or later it will come to their areas as well -- will say to the Minister of Education, "No, you cannot have this."

Let me go on with a few quotes from a letter from the Ontario Public School Men Teachers' Federation to the Minister of Education, dated June 23, 1982.

The president of that federation, Mr. Duncan Jewell, began the letter with one of my favourite quotations from the minister, which is beautiful. At the end of her opening address in the estimates a week and a half ago, she said, "Never lose sight of the fact that the child as a learner is not only the centre of the school system but the only reason for its existence."

It was actually the late Robert Jackson who wrote that, and I liked it so much that I began my leadoff in the estimates by saying to the minister, "Listen to these words and see if they make sense," because basically my feeling was that what the minister read and the actions of the ministry do not jibe at all. It is almost a kind of 180-degree turn. The minister and the ministry are definitely forgetting that the child is the centre of the educational system.

Let me go on. The letter says: "I am sure that you are very familiar with Dr. Robert Jackson's final recommendation in the report of the Commission on Declining [School] Enrolment in Ontario:

"Trustees in this province always have endeavoured to keep budget cuts away from kids but they won't be able to if Bill 127 passes. The legislation will require the boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto to sacrifice programs and teachers to accommodate budget deficits -- no other recourse will be available.

"The dismissal of teachers is virtually inevitable if the legislation receives royal assent.

"I implore you, Madam Minister, to withdraw this legislation to protect the integrity of the educational system in Metropolitan Toronto. Under this legislation it is conceivable that no local board could spend its tax money in innovative ways that improve education, reduce class size or provide for the special needs of children."

Reduce class size? What is that? The minister wants to increase class size. Remember the speech in Rosedale the other night?

"School boards do not need to be placed in the position where they will be forced to apply the bill's new tax formula like a straitjacket.

"I draw your attention to the last sentence in the Toronto Star editorial of June 21, 1982: 'Bureaucratic efficiency and administrative simplicity are no reason to weaken a community's control over the schools its taxes support.'

"Help protect local autonomy now -- withdraw Bill 127."

That was written by Duncan Jewell. The minister knows Duncan Jewell. I wish she would pay heed to these words.

From the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, North York WTA, and the Ontario Public School Men Teachers' Federation, North York District:

"Dear Mr. Grande:

"As teachers within North York, we would like to raise a series of concerns that we have relating to Bill 127, amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

"We hope that as a member of the Legislature, you would share our concerns on some or all of the following issues:

"(a) Should the voting and representation mechanism of the teams be specified in the act? (AEFO-Elementary in North York will have one representative for 10 teachers, while OPSMTF and WTA-North York will have a total of two representatives for 2,250 teachers.)

"(b) How can the board continue to maintain programs for special needs in North York if these continue to involve additional staff, as they do now?

"(c) What is the status of members who hold centrally employed positions? Will they continue to be counted outside the Metro staffing formula or will they be moved inside the formula?

"(d) When will one resolve local issues? Once the central agreement is settled, what motivation is there on either side to discuss local matters?" I guess this points to the law where it says that a local board may negotiate a local agreement.

"(e) Why is it necessary to reduce the option for local levy? If a board and the local taxpayers are prepared to fund special programs, why should the option be limited?

"(f) Who will determine the scope of issues that will be the responsibility of the Metro school board? What is 'at variance'" -- that is a phrase from the legislation -- "going to mean? Can the system administer locally programs in terms decided at Metro?

"(g) How will parents affect education and programs in North York if all the 'dollar' decisions are made by representatives 'appointed' to the Metro board?

"(h) Who will be the employer of North York teachers? North York or Metro?

"(i) How sensitive will other Metro board representatives be to issues and concerns that North York has raised and resolved? Many local arrangements will now require approval from all Metro boards prior to implementation.

"Our major concerns relate to the confusion this legislation promotes. Many of our questions cannot be answered. It appears that an attempt to resolve differences among the boards is producing legislation that will be punitive to the teachers, students and programs in North York.

"We believe that bigger is not necessarily better.

"If the approximately 9,500 elementary teachers in Metropolitan Toronto are forced to negotiate together, there will be a wider range of demands and the negotiation process will take much longer to complete.

"We would be pleased to discuss any of these concerns with you. Please feel free to contact us at our office..."

It is signed by David Kendall, president, Ontario Public School Men Teachers' Federation, North York; Mavis Simons, the WTA president, North York, and Pierre Nadeau, president, AEFO-Elementary, North York.

The Toronto Teachers' Federation has written to me, and I am not going to read the whole thing, but certainly that federation puts it fairly, because basically all these people, all these groups and all these associations and federations talk about the same thing. The thing they say most of all is: "Withdraw this bill. It is a punitive bill. It will erode quality education in Metropolitan Toronto."

The one thing the TTF talks about is that as a result of the levy discrepancy at the elementary level, the changing levy, which, as I understand it from last night, the minister and the government decided to maintain at 1.5 mills and not to cut back to one mill -- that is welcome; I question the motivation for doing it, but it is welcome -- approximately 40 to 50 teachers from the Toronto Board of Education at the elementary level would have to be fired.

9:40 p.m.

The North York Elementary Teachers' Federation also wrote to me. Let me put a few of their concerns on the table:

"1. This bill imposes mandatory regional bargaining by panel in Metropolitan Toronto. This legislation would then deny North York elementary teachers from bargaining directly with the North York Board of Education on major items such as salary, financial benefits and staffing.

"2. The legislation would govern the format of both the board and teachers' negotiations committees, and thus is in contravention with section 6 of Bill 100 which currently allows flexibility in negotiating teams.

"3. The provisions on voting on a tentative settlement in negotiations constitute an unwarranted interference in internal procedures. The process would set up a 'double majority' structure, which would allow a vote to carry by a very small number of teachers in the Metro context.

"4. We are very concerned about the part 6 section of our collective agreement in respect to the status of local issues. Our experience in the past in joint Metro negotiations has proven that local issues take a very low priority.

"5. Would there be a Metro-wide seniority list and thus the possibility of arbitrary relocation of teachers throughout Metro?

"6. Upon royal assent, this bill will come into force and thus could interrupt the current negotiations structure.

"7. This legislation will restrict the ability of local school boards to raise funds for local initiatives.

"8. The Metropolitan Toronto School Board will have the power to 'lock out' teachers in an individual board whether or not the individual board authorizes such an action.

"9. This change in structure will give the Metro school board increased authority without increased accountability.

"10. It is our understanding that this legislation is the beginning of a move by the provincial government towards regional and perhaps even provincial bargaining."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is entirely wrong.

Mr. Grande: These are the people the minister obviously should have consulted prior to the bringing down of this legislation. Consultations iron out difficulties and problems. People can ask questions and the minister can get input.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will be glad to tell you about the consultation. Just go on.

Mr. Grande: The minister can get input and then bring forth the legislation. If people did not like it, at least they could say: "Yes, we were consulted. We understand. We do not like it, but we were consulted." But in this instance, with the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act, there was no consultation, period.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not true.

Mr. Grande: The minister will have her opportunity at the end of the debate.

I now come to that famous Bill 100 and the amendments to it. I want to read some parts of a letter that was sent to the teachers' federation by the Ministry of Education. This is under the signature of Dr. H. K. Fisher, deputy minister. In other words, on this amendment to Bill 100, as I said before, there was consultation. The paragraph I want to read is this one:

"I must make a special comment about the items which relate to joint bargaining in Metropolitan Toronto. The implementation of this proposal could be effected through amendments to either the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act or the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. No decision has been made as to which of these routes will be followed. Proposed legal wording for the proposal is included in this package for the sake of completeness."

In other words, as of January 19, 1982, no decision had been made as to whether compulsory, mandated joint bargaining in Metropolitan Toronto would be made through Bill 100 amendments or through the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act amendments. In effect, the minister had from January until June. She had six months. Of course, I do not know whether the decision was made in January. It could very well be that the decision was made in early May and then the legislation was introduced in the Legislature and was on the floor of the House.

However, the point is clear that in regard to the amendments to Bill 100, the ministry was talking about joint bargaining by panel right across the province. If the member from the food terminal or whatever is doubtful about it, I will let him have a copy of the amendments to Bill 100. I understand that he has some expertise in the law; he can interpret it himself.

But the point is that joint bargaining by panel across the province was what the Ministry of Education was talking about in the amendments to Bill 100.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In September; not in January.

Mr. Grande: It was on January 19, 1982, that this was circulated. In other words, the minister is trying to tell us, the public in Metropolitan Toronto and in the province, that it would be just in Metropolitan Toronto and that is it. Somebody has to wonder whether that is a fact or not, although she will keep on denying it. The fact is that the amendments to Bill 100 clearly put it on the table and say, in essence, there will be joint bargaining by panel right across the province.

I have one more item before I wind up. It is an item that gets me very emotionally upset and angry. I hope my words, as opposed to my loudness, will express the anger in this Legislature. It has to do with the speech that the Minister of Education gave at Rosedale Public School the other night. More than that, it has to do with the fact that I learned this evening that the Minister of Education has made thousands of copies of this speech --

Mr. Bradley: On ministry letterhead.

Mr. Grande: It has the government logo. She is pushing it out, I suppose, to as many people as possible who want to hear the message of the Minister of Education at Rosedale Public School to the annual meeting of the St. David Progressive Conservative Association.

First, let me say to the minister that I sure hope the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario paid for that, because I do not want to feel my money and the money of the people of the riding of Oakwood went into distributing this piece of propaganda, because it is nothing else but a piece of propaganda of the basest nature.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is exactly like the stuff the Toronto board put out.

9:50 p.m.

Mr. Grande: It is propaganda of the basest nature and brings into the foreground the basest of emotions in every one of us. I thought this government, and the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis), said it was the policy of this government to combat discrimination at every level, at every opportunity, whenever it shows its ugly head. I say to the Minister of Education and the Premier that the minister herself is producing the propaganda that discriminates in this province. This is a bunch of hogwash.

Mr. Gordon: You said it, and you should know.

Mr. Grande: It is the Minister of Education's words that are hogwash.

Mr. Gordon: I thought you were talking about what you were saying.

Mr. Grande: The member is in agreement, and I thank him for that.

The remarks the Minister of Education made in this speech in very few words place the heritage languages program in juxtaposition to Bill 127. The Board of Education for the City of Toronto put forward the proposal to the minister for approval and the Ministry of Education denied it. That was fine. It was a political decision that was made. I can accept that, although I disagree with it; but it was a political decision she made. There are 70 members here in the government party, and I accept that on particular issues they take a position and this party takes another. That is fine; that is reality; that is politics.

I read the Minister of Education's remarks, under the Ontario logo, produced in God knows how many thousands of copies and sent to people all over the province. The title of her remarks is, "Bill 127 and Heritage Languages."

If the minister has a problem with Bill 127, if she cannot steer it through this Legislature and if the people of Metropolitan Toronto are angry -- rightly so; they should be angry -- then the minister should not juxtapose her problems with Bill 127 with the heritage languages program. That drives people to anger, almost to the point of insanity. I do not want the minister or anybody in her government or anyone in this province saying in effect, through that title, "Bill 127 and Heritage Languages," that Bill 127 has anything to do with heritage languages in this province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No one suggested it did.

Mr. Grande: My suggestion to the minister is that if she has not distributed this political junk, she should not distribute it. If she does distribute it, it will mean problems.

Let me quote from the minister's remarks, because the minister in this area is totally inaccurate. The heritage languages program has nothing whatsoever to do with Bill 127. If the minister, perhaps rightly, is opposed to the Toronto Board of Education sending material on Bill 127 home with children to their parents because the children would be used as political footballs, I suggest that in this speech she is using all the ethnic groups in this province as political footballs. The context of the minister's speech and the title of her speech indicate that Bill 127 is joined with the heritage languages program, which, in effect, means the ethnic communities in Ontario.

Let me quote a remark the Minister of Education made in that speech: "It takes little imagination to see what could result from such a proposal" -- the Toronto Board of Education proposal. "In some schools, for example, English or French would become third languages, while Italian, Portuguese, Greek and Chinese would become languages of instruction." What rubbish. The minister ought to be ashamed of herself. The Toronto Board of Education asked her for pilot programs to see if the use of the mother tongue would have beneficial effects on the education of children. The board did not say it wanted Italian, Portuguese, Greek or Chinese to be the languages of instruction and first languages of Ontario. The minister ought to be ashamed of herself.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They wanted them to be languages of instruction. Read the recommendation.

Mr. Foulds: It's a deliberate distortion.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not.

Mr. Foulds: It certainly is.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: May I have a copy of that speech?

Mr. Grande: Certainly, and I hope you use it well.

For the time being let me leave it at that and discuss the minister's concern about the Toronto Board of Education using children to take letters to their parents regarding the contents of this bill and the sanctimonious concern she has about the board using children as a vehicle to communicate with the parents. It has always happened that, in the school system, letters from schools, from principals, go to the parents via the children. However, if the minister is concerned about that, then she ought to be concerned about exploiting the ethnic groups of Ontario, in juxtaposing the heritage languages program with Bill 127.

If the Minister of Education ever says to me, publicly or otherwise, that is a legitimate way, then I will say the Toronto Board of Education not only has a policy regarding the heritage languages program, but it has a policy about business and technical education, a policy on computers, a policy on intellectually gifted and talented children, and a policy on children with learning disabilities, and it has developed a policy through work groups and consultation with communities on child care, etc.

A board is elected to make priorities and decisions and the Toronto Board of Education made many priorities and many decisions in the school year, not just the heritage languages program. The minister, by taking the heritage languages program and juxtaposing it with Bill 127, is doing tremendous disservice to unity and harmonious relations in Ontario.

Perhaps what the government should have is membership in the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada. We all know what that alliance thinks about French services and French language in our schools. Perhaps the minister belongs there.

I have never felt so strongly about a particular issue as I do about this one; therefore, I say to the Minister of Education: "Do not exploit the basest of sentiments and emotions in this province so you will be able to pass Bill 127. Do not exploit in that fashion."

10 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Don't tell me not to exploit. You stop exploiting.

Mr. Foulds: Go away. Oh God! Bette, anybody who disagrees with you is somehow wrong.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Grande: To sum up: It is clear, beyond doubt, that educational programs to address the legitimate needs of children in Metropolitan Toronto, children of families who live in poverty, children of immigrant families who must learn English in order to proceed through the educational system and basically to move in Ontario, children who need special education programs, will suffer as a result of Bill 127.

The New Democratic Party will not allow the government to do away with these needed programs. The NDP will encourage the government to do away with Bill 127.

It is clear this bill will strip power from the local level and put it in the hands of a body which is not democratically elected and is too far removed to understand the needs of people in Metropolitan Toronto. The New Democratic Party has said before and will say again, "Do away with the Metro board, it is no longer needed."

It is clear that this bill will create chaos in teacher-board negotiations in Metro Toronto. The NDP agrees with the Education Relations Commission when it said that the collective bargaining process in Ontario education is functioning well and is in a fairly healthy state.

The Minister of Education and the government want to take away local powers from the local school boards and the New Democratic Party says, "No way."

In conclusion, I would say in all honesty and sincerity to the Minister of Education: "Withdraw this bill, it is punitive. If you do not do it willingly, you will do it under pressure."

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have already been told by two members to keep it short because two other people want to speak tonight.

I understand there was quite an interesting meeting this afternoon. A couple of thousand people showed up in downtown Toronto and the minister and the various critics spoke to them. I mention that because it is a pretty clear indication of the strong feelings attached to this piece of legislation.

In retrospect, it is obviously appropriate that we made a decision a few days ago to take this legislation to committee in September. A lot of people want to relate in a very personal and direct way how this will affect them.

I would begin by indicating very clearly that I oppose Bill 127. I will not go through the litany of specific points, so well phrased by my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), which indicated point by point why our party is in opposition to this bill. I would like to speak for a fairly short period of time, though, on what I think are some of the key issues.

I remember that when my colleague was speaking last night he made reference to a particularly well-known saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." He made reference to the grammar of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), and that minister sent over a little note to say he was just repeating Will Rogers's old saying and those were the exact words.

I wanted to refer to that because that is really the sense we have in our party. We really do not understand why this legislation is in. We have a very clear sense that there just ain't nothin' broke and we do not really understand why the minister and the government are going to such great lengths to fix something that, quite frankly, does not need to be fixed.

But there are difficulties in Metropolitan Toronto, as there are all over the province. Not all arrangements, not all relationships are as amicable as we would like them to be, but things are working reasonably well. Quite frankly, every time we look at this piece of legislation we can only concur that things will get worse; they will not get better. This legislation is going to create greater complexity, greater confusion; it is going to lead to more litigation; it is going to upset all the things that now are working reasonably well and we are at a loss to understand.

The minister has referred to the fact that five, I believe, of the six Metro boards have said they want this legislation, which is one of the main reasons it is being brought in. I would like to share with the minister the information that several months back, when I was the Education critic for our party and when this legislation was first broached, I got in touch with the chairmen and directors of education of all the boards in Metro and asked them, very simply, "Do you or do you not support this, and why?" I was not able to speak to both the chairman and the director of every board; I did not get in touch with them all. But I got at least one on every board; in most cases, both of them.

I want to share with the minister the answer from the five boards that support this, according to the minister. It can be distilled very simply into administrative efficiency. That is what it boils down to. We talked about a number of things, but literally what it boiled down to is: "This is a more efficient way. It will save time. We will not have so many people tied up constantly in negotiations. We will not all be going over the same old ground."

Well, it may very well be correct that this could be a little bit more efficient, a little bit tidier --

Mr. Bradley: So is a dictatorship.

Mr. Sweeney: Yes, so is a dictatorship -- but the fact remains that this is no clear indication that it is going to produce better education in the classrooms of the schools of Metropolitan Toronto, no indication at all. And I would suggest that our primary function in this Legislature with respect to education -- and, I would presume, the minister's primary function -- is to ensure good quality education in the classrooms of Ontario and not to be unduly concerned with administrative efficiency. That comes from someone who was an administrator in the past and who was concerned about efficiency.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was part of Bill 100.

10:10 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: I do not know to what extent I was part of it but obviously I had to live with it as did all the people I worked with. I am very conscious of the need for administrative efficiency to a limited degree.

I want to say that neither I, nor the people I worked with, nor the board I worked with ever forgot that administrative efficiency was not our number one priority; it was the quality of the education we were to offer to the children in our classrooms that was our number one priority.

I said clearly to those directors and board chairmen, as I would say to the minister tonight, in my judgement that is not a good enough reason to have this legislation. Yet, consistently, that was the essence of the answer I received from them, what I sense the minister has been telling us and what she will probably tell us again as to why we are doing this. It is not good enough.

As I said a minute ago, I oppose this legislation on a couple of very basic principles. I believe the first one was contained in a letter that both my colleague the member for St. Catharines and the New Democratic Party critic, the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), referred to, that bigger is not better.

I think it was a letter written by the teachers from North York to the minister or to somebody. I saw a copy of it some place. That has always been one of the fundamental differences between our party and the government. It is this question: when does bigger become better? The trend has clearly been for the government of the province to move into bigger and bigger organizations.

The minister has said clearly that we are dealing only with Metro Toronto. It does not affect the rest of the province. I would like to remind my colleagues, in 1953 when the Metro Toronto organization was set up here and when the Metropolitan Toronto School Board was set up, no one in his wildest imagination suspected that 16 to 18 years or so later that same model would be imposed on the whole province.

We had a Metro board in the Toronto area in 1953, but by 1969 we also had consolidated school boards across the whole of the province. We had a form of regional government here in Metro Toronto in the early 1950s, but the province almost, not quite, blanketed us with regional governments from one end of this province to the other.

The government tells us: "We are only concerned about Toronto. Toronto is that unique organization. It will not affect the rest of the province." I am sorry; excuse me if my credibility threshold is somewhat low. I believe not what the government says, but what it does. It may be true that for the next year or two we will be looking at only Metro Toronto, but some way, somehow, this principle is going to get out to the province. That is the way this government believes organizations should operate: the bigger they are, the better they are.

There is another little hook in that. What it is really saying is the bigger they are, the fewer of them there are and the fewer it has to deal with. That is a principle which is applied in everything. More recently, it was the health units across the province and there have been others that have been suggested. That is the principle with all the organizations it has to deal with. It makes them bigger and bigger, but in the process it also has fewer to deal with. When one has fewer to deal with, it is easier to pull them in and get them to do what one wants them to do. Once again, this is not a case of what we think, it is a case of what actually is happening.

I am opposed in principle to this tendency of the government to make organizations bigger and bigger. In this party we believe we should be going in the opposite direction. We believe we should be seriously looking at whether we need a Metro board in Toronto at all. We think we should be seriously looking at every single regional government and every single consolidated school board in this province and be asking ourselves whether those large units are working as effectively as they should and where some of them may be made smaller. That is what we should be looking at. That is the direction in which we should be going; not fewer and bigger but more and smaller.

It is on that general principle, that tendency to move to things which are bigger, that I am opposed to this legislation.

The second principle upon which I oppose it is the whole question of accountability, of local autonomy, whatever terminology one wants to use. We have had respect in this province, or at least we have said that we have respect, for the locally elected municipal councillors and the locally elected school board trustees who are making decisions on behalf of the people who elected them.

That is the principle of accountability that we have used in this province right from its formation. We have changed the size and the shape of the organizations I have just talked about, but the principle of direct accountability goes right back to the old English principle of representation: only those who represent you, who are chosen or elected to represent you, are the ones who are going to make decisions on your behalf.

This legislation flies in the face of that principle. We are going to have a board which is appointed, not elected, making these decisions. It is true that the individual members of that board were elected by someone, but they were not elected to that specific organizational pattern. They were elected to the board of the city of Toronto, the borough of Scarborough, the city of North York, the borough of York, the borough of Etobicoke or the borough of East York. They were elected to those. There is not a single man or woman in the Metro area who was elected to the Metro school board.

If what we are leading to is the abolition of all of the other boards in Metro -- and quite frankly I have a strong suspicion that this is leading to our sinking all of them into the single Metro board -- I would prefer that the minister and the government stand up and clearly state that. There is a favourite expression of the Premier (Mr. Davis). He often fires barbs across this floor by saying: "Stand up and say what you really mean. Do not hint at it, do not suggest; stand up and tell us if that is what you really intend to do, if that is what you really believe in, if that is what you really support."

I am going to turn it around. I am going to say to the minister and to the government, if they really intend, over the next few years or whatever length of time, to create a single Metro board that is going to govern all of Metropolitan Toronto, then let us get it on the table. In other words, let us debate the real issue, not this phoney issue, which is what it is. That is one of the reasons we over here are sceptical and have a low tolerance of the government's credibility; and it is why we have strong suspicions that there is more behind this than what is printed on this piece of paper.

That is the second big reason that we are concerned. The first is the question of size; the second is the question of accountability.

10:20 p.m.

The third point I want to draw members' attention to is that an awful lot of this has to do with the whole question of financing. I understand the minister has already indicated that the one-mill levy has been changed back to 1.5 for elementary purposes. At some point along the way I would like the minister to explain to us to what extent that changes section 8 of this bill. Does it mean that we just take all of the parts of section 8 where it says "one mill" and change them to "1.5"? Or does it mean that section 8 is going to be dropped from the bill altogether? I do not know. That is something we would like clarification on.

But the issue behind all of this, again, is financing, the problem with money, and we know that during the last seven years this province has slowly but steadily reduced its financial responsibility for education in Ontario to a very significant extent.

I have a paper entitled Grants Policy, dated June 8, 1982. There is a very significant sentence in it. This is from the grants section of the Ministry of Education. It says, "It is acknowledged that the rate of provincial support for education has decreased between 1975 and 1982."

Let me just share with members the extent to which it has decreased. In 1975, the government of Ontario supported education in this province to the extent of 61.3 per cent of the total cost. In subsequent years that went down to 55 per cent, 54 per cent, 53 per cent and 52 per cent, until 1981, when it was 51.3 per cent; and in 1982 it is also going to be 51.3 per cent. That means since 1975 the share of funding of the province of Ontario has dropped from 61.3 per cent to 51.3 per cent, or a full 10 per cent drop.

Put in percentage terms it may not seem all that serious, so let us put it in dollar terms. Do members know what that 10 per cent means? It means $534 million that Ontario is not funding to the school boards. It means that the school boards of this province either have had to do without or have had to make up that $534 million on their local mill rate.

I point out that back in 1970 the then Minister of Education, who is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), committed -- and the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) knows whereof I speak; as a matter of fact I think he was the Minister of Education in 1970, was he not?

Hon. Mr. Welch: In 1971.

Mr. Sweeney: Okay. I am close. Anyway, one of them made a commitment --

Mr. Foulds: Ten months. Shortest term on record.

Mr. Sweeney: One of them made a commitment that Ontario was going to fund 60 per cent of the cost of education. That was a commitment: 60 per cent. Yet since 1975 they have gone from 61.3 to 51.3. So when I talk of $534 million that the province should be paying and is not, that is a commitment; that was a promise those people made, and they did not keep it. That is one of the reasons we are having a problem in Metropolitan Toronto today. It is not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons we have to be aware of.

I indicated earlier I was opposed to this bill because it would bring in unnecessary complexity and confusion. I want to draw members' attention to section 130i(3) of the act as set out in this bill, which deals with the Ontario Labour Relations Board. To the best of my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected by the minister, the Ontario Labour Relations Board is not involved in any way and no reference is made to that board in negotiations in Metro Toronto now.

Yet this section clearly says "the Ontario Labour Relations Board may so declare and may direct what action boards, branch affiliates and their employees and agents shall do or refrain from doing." That is a brand new introduction of a whole new agency of government into the negotiation process in Metro Toronto. It goes so far as to say, in subsection 4, "the Ontario Labour Relations Board shall file" and it "is enforceable in the same way as a judgement or order of the Supreme Court."

Why do we have to introduce that degree of complexity and that degree of -- the word litigation is what comes to mind; I do not know what else to call it -- in the negotiation process between the teachers and the boards in Metro Toronto? Why do we want to involve the Ontario Labour Relations Board? We already have the Education Relations Commission, we already have Bill 100; why do we have to bring the labour board into it? I do not understand the need for it.

I guess that is the price we are going to have to pay if we get this legislation, because the whole negotiating process is going to become increasingly more complex. For example, we have to ask ourselves what is going to be the relationship between this master agreement and the local agreements? If there is a grievance, which one applies? How does it tie in with Bill 100, which says that the agreement becomes part of the teachers' contract? Which agreement: the master agreement, the local agreement or both of them? Bill 100 says --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Simple. Simple.

Mr. Sweeney: Which? That is the whole point. It is just building up all this unnecessary complexity. There is a part of Bill 100 that says that the outside team can come in if things are not working. Is this going to be possible here? Is it going to be possible at the master level? Is it going to be possible at the local level? These are the kinds of questions being raised.

I notice the time is getting short and I do not want to go beyond 10:30 p.m., but I want to suggest that it introduces unnecessary complexity. It is going to introduce unnecessary, and as someone said, endless litigation that is not there right now.

The minister has indicated -- and I think of that famous speech she gave to the St. David Progressive Conservative Association the other night -- that one of the things that concerns her is the way in which the city of Toronto board is able to pass on its deficits to all the rest of Metro Toronto. I was not aware that was happening, but if it is I would agree with her that it should not happen. However, if that is her concern, surely she could bring in a piece of legislation or change existing legislation to deal with that specific issue.

It is the old situation of using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. Sure, it is a problem. So bring in specific legislation to deal with the question of deficits. If she is concerned about a certain practice of the city of Toronto board and thinks it is an improper and unfair way to distribute the costs, she should bring in a piece of legislation to deal with it. Surely we do not need this to deal with that kind of problem.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is in there, John. It is in there. It is in that piece of legislation, John. Read it.

Mr. Sweeney: As my colleague, who is well versed in the law, would say, it is overkill. Even the minister will agree that when that kind of legal opinion comes from my colleague from Ottawa, I must take cognizance of it.

The Acting Speaker: It might be an appropriate time to move adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Sweeney: This is the appropriate time to say to my good friend from Thunder Bay, I am sorry, but I really have not yet wound up. I still have a couple of minor things to say.

On motion by Mr. Sweeney, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.