MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
ASSESSMENT APPEALS PROCEDURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT
ASSESSMENT APPEALS PROCEDURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT
CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to give some evidence to that famous saying, "Brevity is the soul of wit." I will attempt to be brief, if not witty, in these few comments. I will also attempt to indicate to the minister a very sincere concern that many of my colleagues have about this piece of legislation.
The minister is aware, as are other members of this chamber, that I spent a considerable number of years in the teaching profession and that over those years I developed not only a feeling for what the teachers were doing in their own professional way in the classrooms, dealing with the variety of young folk who came to them day to day, but also a considerable empathy with those teachers who struggled over the years to gain some degree of individuality, some degree of recognition within their communities and some degree of clout in so far as their profession is concerned, to a point where those people had to become almost militant to get their point across.
At the same time, school boards as they developed from the small school boards, of which we had many hundreds across this province, to the point where they became joined as county boards, struggled and fought among themselves and with the process to get to a point where they thought they were really doing what was expected of them in the province; that is, to recognize their individuality and the things they had to offer as a particular part of our province.
I could name some of the boards I have been associated with. I have worked with the Norfolk Board of Education, with the Board of Education for the City of London and with the London and Middlesex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. I saw these in the smaller sense, going back to the Simcoe situation, as almost one-man, one-horse organizations; and on to the collective groups, the county boards, we got in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
I have seen them try to adopt and adapt what they were doing to serve the communities, where not just the children and not just the parents but also the teachers made up part of communities. Now we are at a point where we see the government, the minister and the people who advise her, saying we have reached a point here in Metropolitan Toronto where we should bring in legislation, such as we have in Bill 127, which would in effect provide an opening for the wiping away of what the county boards and the smaller boards have struggled for over the years.
The minister shakes her head in the negative sense as though to say that is not what they are after. That may very well be the way she sees it, but the perception outside is that is what will happen.
Many speakers before me have addressed themselves to that similar concern regarding this bill. I indicated at the outset that I would attempt to be brief. I do not want to repeat all the words that have been said about the potential of this bill. It may well not be the minister's intent, but the potential is there. It is the thin edge of the wedge that concerns people.
I would like to make reference to a letter, as many other members have done to try to make their points. It is a letter sent to me by one of my constituents. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to part of this. I know you do not like us getting into lengthy quotations and references, but I would like to read briefly.
This constituent's name is Marlene Maycock. She lives on Runnymede Crescent in London, Ontario. She indicated to me the following:
"Dear Mr. Van Horne:
"As a member of the teaching profession, I am very concerned about Bill 127, the Metropolitan Toronto act. The proposed legislation would remove negotiation from the local boards, thus destroying local autonomy. This is an alteration to the collective bargaining of teachers; should this be done in the Education Act?
"We in Middlesex" -- she is working for the Middlesex board -- "are concerned that this is a back-door method of tinkering with education, and it is the thin edge of the wedge. It will only be a matter of time until all salaries were negotiated at once and effective local autonomy would be lost."
She goes on with other points to which reference has already been made in this chamber.
Beyond that, I do not think there is any question that our party has spoken out strongly against Bill 127. I cannot for the life of me understand why the minister and her officials would bend to whatever pressures have been put on them to allow this to happen.
After all, this government, through the course of the 1950s and 1960s, saw education grow under the leadership of the person who is now the Premier (Mr. Davis); and beyond that, under the leadership of one of his dear colleagues, a member who has been away from us for some little time. I am referring to the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells).
Under the leadership of those two gentlemen, the Ministry of Education went through some dynamic and changing times. I cannot for the life of me understand it, since those two gentlemen attempted to give autonomy to the communities in an organized way which they were able to accomplish with the introduction of county boards and many other things they did.
I could go back even beyond that to the former member for London North, a person who lived only a few blocks away from me, my wife and family. My wife happens to be here in the chamber with a couple of young people listening to these few words of wisdom. We were all neighbours of John Robarts, who was very concerned about education. We have witnessed how he, the present Premier and the former Minister of Education, the member for Scarborough North, saw education and encouraged the changes and development.
I hope that our new Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), who is deep in thought, and a few of the other members in this chamber will reflect on what this might do to the degree of respectability and the degree of acceptability of the three persons to whom I have made reference, what it will do to their credibility and respectability, etc., to see this happen because, in my view, it very much takes away from the foundation of their thinking by bringing in this type of legislation. It knocks it away, and I cannot understand it.
I know the minister is very loyal to her staff. I would love to hear her response to this. I think she has been misled by some of her staff and by some of the people within the Metro community who have pressures to bring for whatever reasons.
I indicated I would be brief. I told our whip I would not go past 10 minutes, and I have almost reached that point. In summary, I simply cannot support this. I am sorry to see it happen. I wish the minister would reconsider. I do not think she would lose face in doing so.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, surrounded as I am by my colleagues, I want to conclude our participation in the debate on Bill 127. The minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is aware by now that we are opposing the bill. The difficulty is that I do not think the minister understands the nature of our opposition, the determination with which we are opposed to the bill or the reasons for our opposition.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, I do.
Mr. McClellan: No, I do not believe you do.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Well, tell me then.
Mr. McClellan: I will try once again to explain it. I will take a bit of a historical approach. Before I do, let me dispose of one detail which I am not sure has been referred to in the debate so far. I may be wrong, but I do not think anybody has mentioned the strange provision in subsection 6(7) of the bill which adds an additional $6 million to the city of Toronto's education levy.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not strange.
Mr. McClellan: The minister thinks it is not strange. I am not sure this has been mentioned by previous speakers. One of the things Bill 127 does is bring in -- the minister hoped, quietly, without anybody drawing it to anybody else's attention -- an additional charge of $6 million --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am --
Mr. McClellan: The minister will have her chance to speak. She has had one chance already. Perhaps the acting government House leader (Mr. Gregory), who understands how interjections contribute to the length of debates as we witnessed this afternoon, could whisper in the ear of the Minister of Education that it is in everybody's interests that we proceed as expeditiously as possible with the debate.
If the minister wants to interject after every second sentence of the speaker, I can respond in kind and will lengthen the debate however long the minister wants it to proceed. In fact, I can yield the floor under the precedents that have been established and allow the minister an opportunity to make her points known, but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you do not want that to happen. I do not want that to happen. I know the acting government House leader does not want that to happen.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Speak on.
Mr. McClellan: I am going to try.
I have a document from Mr. Stephen G. McLaughlin, the commissioner of planning for Toronto, which talks about the effects of Bill 127 on Toronto. I quote one paragraph:
"The bill alters the calculation of assessment for apportionment purposes by increasing the amount of leviable commercial, industrial and business assessment, specifically the increase in such leviable assessment as determined by dividing raw assessment by 0.085, which is equivalent to a 17.5 per cent increase. The impact of this is the taxpayers in the city of Toronto will have to pay $6 million per year more towards Metropolitan education expenses."
This is wonderful. I always thought it was the function of local government to make determinations with respect to the property tax. Am I confused somehow? Have I missed something in the course of life's journey that leads me to be totally confused about the basic job of a municipal council?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, you have.
Mr. McClellan: Oh, I have? One of the things I missed, obviously, is the power of the provincial government, represented by the Minister of Education, to do this job. We all know that municipalities are simply creatures of the provincial government established under provincial bylaws, if you will. They are poor, pathetic, abject creatures who lack the capacity to determine what the mill rate should be, what the property tax should be. These things are far better left to the wisdom and judgement of their betters up the street at Queen's Park. That is the attitude reflected again in the bill in section 6.
It is an intolerable intrusion for two reasons. First, it makes the assumption that the city of Toronto is incapable of setting its own property tax rate for education purposes. That had to be done in a semi-clandestine way with no consultation, no advance notice, no discussion beforehand with city of Toronto officials until they saw the bill and somebody went through it with a fine-tooth comb and discovered an extra $6 million in property taxes.
That is a wonderful way for a provincial government to do business with any municipality: to present them with a $6-million bill buried in a seemingly innocuous section of a bill which ostensibly deals with something else entirely, joint bargaining. It is a fundamentally dishonest and disrespectful approach.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is very straightforward.
Mr. McClellan: Very straightforward, the minister says. As I was saying, what is for me dishonest and disrespectful of another level of government is for the minister very straightforward. It is precisely the same approach that the federal government is now taking vis-à-vis the provincial government. It is exactly the same thing as the established programs financing trick which the federal government is in the process of playing on Ontario and the other provinces.
When Ontario's ox is being gored, the Minister of Education, who is one of those who will suffer from this kind of victimization politics, cries loudly to heaven for justice and rails against the perfidious federal Liberals for their betrayal and for their bad faith. At the same time, she treats municipalities with exactly the same betrayal and bad faith and she wonders why her credibility somehow is less than that of some of her colleagues.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: That's only your opinion.
Mr. McClellan: I state my opinion. That is all I can do. I cannot do anything else. My opinion is that this minister has less credibility than any other member of cabinet and it is because of things like this.
That is the first point with respect to the $6-million tax sock in Bill 127. The second point is an easy assumption to make. Do we not all hate fat-cat Toronto? Does everybody not hate Toronto? It is the easiest stick in the political arsenal. Take a good whack at Toronto, because everybody hates Toronto. Even other parts of Toronto in the Metropolitan Toronto region can take a kick at the cat because Toronto is greedy, selfish, nasty, short-sighted, imperialist or whatever. They can always say, "Let us take another slice off Toronto" and everybody will clap, because the assumption is that Toronto has always been greedy and selfish and does not share. With respect, it is not true and it is not fair.
When it comes to metropolitan government and when it comes to metropolitan government with respect to education, when the Metropolitan Toronto School Board was set up in 1953 it was an act of considerable generosity on the part of the city of Toronto to the suburban boroughs, which were going through a period of rapid development in the post-war years. The city of Toronto gave to all the area boroughs, not only its borrowing capacity, its credit rating, to permit the financing of capital expansion in our school system to all the area boroughs, but also a share of its assessment for the purpose of easing the burden on those suburban municipalities.
8:20 p.m.
Over the course of the past 30 years -- it will be 30 years in 1983 -- the city of Toronto has given, in credit rating and risk and in shared assessment --
Mr. Piché: There are only one and a half Liberals here.
Mr. Bradley: They are all in the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order, please. The member who has the floor would like to be able to continue his presentation without interruptions, and so would I like him to.
Mr. Piché: I'm sorry. The way he was talking I thought he was finished.
Mr. Swart: If you want to interject, get in your own seat.
Mr. McClellan: That's right. This is the member who lacks the courage ever to speak in the House; all he can do is interrupt and interject.
Mr. Piché: Who?
Mr. McClellan: You.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Piché: You are repeating yourself. It has all been said this afternoon.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Bellwoods, please do not allow yourself to be distracted by mild interruptions.
Mr. McClellan: Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was saying that the city of Toronto has been generous over the course of the past 30 years in sharing its assessment and its credit rating to finance the expansion of our school system throughout the entire Metropolitan Toronto region. The assumption the Minister of Education is making in Bill 127 is not only that somehow this is not true but also that the city of Toronto has been even taking a free ride at the expense of the suburban boroughs.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Right on.
Mr. McClellan: The acting government House leader says, "Right on." This is the kind of Toronto-bashing the minister is appealing to. The minister will have the opportunity to prove her case when we get to the hearing. I challenge her to try to prove the case.
The Robarts commission is very clear in its presentation of the facts up to 1977, and the Lowes commission before it was very clear in its presentation of the facts. There is no evidence that the city of Toronto was taking a free ride. The evidence is that the city of Toronto, through its assessment, its sharing of tax revenue and its lending of its credit to the boroughs, made possible the tremendous expansion of our school system to the benefit of all the suburban areas.
I challenge the Minister of Education to bring us the facts and figures that would substantiate her allegation that Toronto is coasting and taking a free ride and that it somehow needs to be punished, an impression she is so obviously trying to convey. She always speaks about having a respect for the facts. I challenge her to bring those facts forward. I do not think she can do it. We will wait to see them at the hearing; I doubt if they will materialize, because the facts are contrary to her assertions and her assumptions.
Let me try again to explain our concern to the minister. During the period from 1953 onward, when the city of Toronto lent its assessment revenue, its tax dollars and its credit rating to finance the enormous capital expansion in boroughs, the city of Toronto paid a price. I have tried many times in the estimates of the Ministry of Education, as my colleagues have, to explain to the Minister of Education the kinds of problems we confront in the city of Toronto, which has received the bulk of the post-war immigration and which has had the most extraordinary strains placed on its elementary school system since the end of the Second World War. The price we have paid has been to sacrifice the quality of education in the elementary schools in the inner city of Toronto.
It is no accident that all the level 4 schools, the vocational schools, are located south of Bloor Street in the city of Toronto. In my riding of Bellwoods, I am blessed with Central High School of Commerce, Bickford Park High School and Heydon Park Secondary. These are all what are now known as level 4 schools. Unless one does not believe in the Bell curve, this is some kind of demographic miracle, it is some kind of educational happening. Here we have a little community in the west end of Toronto, south of Bloor Street, and all our high schools are vocational schools -- dead-end schools, if I may say.
That speaks to a failure within the school system of the city of Toronto that has not been corrected to this day. I do not pretend that those problems have been solved. The problems are real, and the problems are that the schools have not been able to provide a quality education to our children in the community south of Bloor Street, east and west of Yonge Street, and that for many children the failure of the school system has meant that they have been consigned to dead-end vocational programs, or worse, have dropped out of school. They have not even achieved a minimum grade 8 level of educational achievement.
These problems have not been solved in the city of Toronto. I was over at Winona Drive Senior Public School earlier this year when the annual screening meeting was taking place. This is the meeting where the grade 6 children come with their parents and they are told which of them are going to go to the level 6 program, which are going to level 5, which are going to level 4 and, God help us, which are going to level 3. This happens in my community at grade 6, when the children are 10 or 11 years old. From that point on, their social, economic and cultural achievement levels are fixed. They are locked in. This is the kind of concern I am speaking to when I try to address the Minister of Education about Bill 127.
About the middle of the 1960s many people in the city of Toronto realized the price we had been paying as part of the metropolitan structure; they realized the damage that had been taking place and the harm that was being done to children who were not receiving the education they required in our inner-city schools. All kinds of attempts were made to reform the quality of education, starting with the worst of the inner-city slum areas in the east end. All kinds of special initiatives were attempted using Company of Young Canadians money, experiments based on Operation Headstart in the United States, dedicated community volunteers providing after-school programs in places such as Park Public School and Duke of York Public School.
There is a history of 15 years of effort within the city of Toronto to try to come to grips with the problems that are manifested in the development of nothing but dead-end vocational high schools in our communities south of Bloor Street. There is a whole generation in the city of Toronto that has worked very hard over the course of the past 15 years, from about 1965-66 to the present time. That work has taken a variety of forms and shapes. Some people have worked in the schools. Some people have worked in social agencies developing after-school programs. Some people have done both. Some people have even run for the board of trustees and become school trustees and tried to effect the kinds of changes that would make equality of educational opportunity a reality for children in some of our inner-city areas.
Again, I am the first to admit that work has barely begun and that we have many miles more to go. But when I read the comments of the Minister of Education about Bill 127, in the speech she made to the St. David Progressive Conservative Association on June 22 --
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Swart: Is this the one she had printed at public expense?
Mr. McClellan: This is the one that has been printed as a Ministry of Education brochure.
Mr. Bradley: Does it have the logo of the Ministry of Education on it?
Mr. McClellan: Yes, it does. I will come back to that in a minute.
I wanted to continue the thought with respect to this minister's apparent lack of understanding of this whole movement I have been talking about, which has preoccupied so many community leaders, so many parents and so many teachers in the city of Toronto over the course of the last 15 years. What is the minister's comment on this phenomenon? She said the Toronto Board of Education had been out of step with the rest of the boards of education in Metro.
Mr. Di Santo: Out of step?
Mr. McClellan: Yes, that is right. That is what she said. I am quoting from her speech: "In support of my argument that the Toronto board is out of step with other boards and out of step with the realities facing the taxpayers, I should like to cite the evidence. 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 has dropped by three points, from 21.9 in 1971 to 18.9 in 1981, making it the lowest for all Metro."
Mr. Speaker, 15 years of struggle went into reducing the size of our classes in the city of Toronto, in order to make it possible to have the kind of additional help for immigrant kids and kids from inner city areas, the slum areas, that would perhaps redress the imbalance they had in their life situations. A lot of blood, sweat and tears, if I may say, went into achieving that seemingly innocuous little statistic, into getting the class size down from 21.9 in 1971 to 18.9 in 1981.
All the minister can see in it is that somehow the board is out of step. We are not facing the realities of declining enrolment. We are not engaged sufficiently enthusiastically on her constraints, also known as cutbacks. She does not understand the significance of what is being attempted. She does not understand it at all. She goes on to use the most vituperative language --
An hon. member: Shame. There is only one Liberal in the House.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, would you --
The Acting Speaker: I keep trying. I ask the honourable member to discontinue these interjections.
Mr. McClellan: He is not even in his own seat.
Hon. G. W. Taylor: They are listening to their kissing cousins. They are all out before the TV sets paying homage.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have all night. Either you will enforce a measure of decorum or I will just stand here and wait while the honourable member mutters into his microphone.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Piché: I have been listening all night. You have said nothing.
The Acting Speaker: The chair is anxious that the debate continue. I ask honourable members to withhold their comments. Carry on, please.
Mr. McClellan: I concede that I may have said nothing that interests the honourable member. But I do not understand why the Minister of Education would use the most vituperative language to attack the integrity of the Toronto Board of Education, and also why she would attempt to link the issues relating to Bill 127 with the very emotional issues related to heritage languages and the use of a third language as the language of instruction on a transitional basis. She has tried to merge all of those and, quite frankly, to lower the level of debate to one of fear-mongering within the community.
This is precisely what she has done with this venomous little tract that she has had the gall to have published under the logo of the Ministry of Education and distributed by the communications services of that ministry. Aside from the stridency of the language in this document it is quite simply an attack by a member of the Progressive Conservative Party on members of the New Democratic Party.
Obviously it is the business of politics for each of us to criticize the policies and programs of the other parties; that is why we are here. But in my seven years here I have never seen a piece of Progressive Conservative Party propaganda specifically designed to discredit members of other parties that has been published as a Ministry of Education document, as this one was during the municipal election campaign this fall, to discredit trustees of the Toronto Board of Education who belong to parties other than that of the minister.
What right does the Minister of Education have to turn the Ministry of Education into an organ of the Conservative Party? There are some things that simply are not done. We all have means of communicating with our constituents: We have our riding reports, our legislative offices with mailing privileges and our constituency offices and their mailing privileges; and each and every one of us, as MPPs, has staff. Why does a cabinet minister need to destroy the integrity of her own bureaucracy by making it an arm of her political party? Does she not realize how it compromises whoever works in the communications services division of the ministry to be sending out political tracts rather than information about the ministry?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is a factual statement.
Mr. McClellan: The minister says it is a factual statement; but, of course, it is not. One of the things the minister says in the text, and I just want to take a second to find it, is that the discretionary one-mill local levy provided for in Bill 127 will produce for the city of Toronto, and I will read directly from the tract: "In Toronto's case this would amount to about $6.5 million, an amount which certainly would cover the salaries of 40 or 50, 100 or 200 teachers."
This is totally false. The minister has already conceded that she was wrong when she settled on the one-mill discretionary local levy. And she has already backed down from that point of view, because she has been advised that it is not possible to switch funds from the elementary panel to the secondary panel because of the separate school supporters at the secondary panel. So she ignores --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Was that suggested in there or stated in there? It was not.
Mr. McClellan: The minister knows that this whole section of the document is false, because she has already backed down on her position with respect to the one-mill local levy.
The real problem, of course, is the tone of the document, which, as I said, is strident and plays on fears and misconceptions about other programs in order to sway people to her position on Bill 127. It is one of the sorriest performances I have witnessed in the seven years I have been here. I do not recall ever seeing a minister behave in quite so unpleasant a way with respect to a bill which was introduced here and that generated a fair amount of contrary opinion.
8:40 p.m.
There have been many pieces of legislation that have produced something of an uproar when they actually saw the light of day. Nobody is infallible. We all make mistakes except, of course, for the Minister of Education, who is, after all infallible. All those thousands of people --
[Applause]
Mr. McClellan: Right, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) applauds. That notorious supporter of Bill 127 will stand in his place and vote for Bill 127, together with his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) because they are unable to admit that they were conned and manipulated and did not understand that they were selling their own constituents down the pipe when the bill went through cabinet. Rather than fight to have this bill withdrawn, they will stand in their places and vote for it and try to ameliorate its more sordid provisions.
The best thing would be to simply have the bill withdrawn. The point has been made many times that it takes away the effective power from the Toronto Board of Education to conduct its own affairs, to make fundamental decisions about the quality of education that will be provided within the city. Those powers will be taken away because the board will lose the capacity to be the decision-maker as to how many teachers are hired. The board will be constrained in its capacity to raise additional funds, to provide additional quality services because the Metro board will have the override of these provisions.
The Minister of Education denies and denies and denies that any fundamental change is taking place. It is crystal clear to everybody within the board of education in the city of Toronto that these are fundamental changes; not just the trustees and not just the trustees of a particular political party; not just the teachers; not just the leaders of the teachers' unions, but parents who have been engaged over the course of the last eight years in a process of liaison with the schools throughout the city, through the school staffing committees and the area councils and the conventions; the parents and the officials of the board of education.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Manipulated and orchestrated.
Mr. McClellan: The officials of the board of education are manipulated and orchestrated?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, no; the conventions and conferences.
Mr. McClellan: The parents are manipulated and orchestrated. I see. Has the minister ever tried to manipulate and orchestrate 2,000 parents? Has she ever tried to do that? If she knew how to do that I wish she would commit her thoughts to paper as to how one manipulates --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: You have not read some of the concerns of some of the participants.
Mr. McClellan: Does that make the Attorney General cringe?
The Acting Speaker: Order, order.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Is that really water?
Mr. McClellan: Unfortunately, yes. But really, after a comment like that, I do need a good stiff drink. It is not possible, despite the crazed views of the Minister of Education, to manipulate --
Interjection.
Mr. McClellan: If the minister is trying to provoke the Attorney General into agreeing with her on that last set of propositions, I doubt that she is going to be successful. I think I know that my friend the Attorney General has a better regard for his own constituents than to suggest that the parents -- who are involved in the staffing committees in our schools and in the area councils and in the conventions -- are able to be manipulated.
Finally, of course, there are the officials of the board of education. Is somebody manipulating Dr. McKeown? I do not know if the minister is aware, but the documents that she was so vitriolically angry about, that were sent home with school children, were authored by none other than the eminent Dr. McKeown.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, I am aware.
Mr. McClellan: Oh, she is aware, and still she acts in this deranged, vituperative, vitriolic and nasty way.
He is one of the most distinguished educators in the province, an eminently civilized gentleman, who is not embroiled in the hurly-burly of partisan politics. I have had many interesting disagreements with him on matters of policy. To suggest that Dr. McKeown is somehow involved in some nefarious, partisan plot, or that Dr. McKeown is involved in some nasty attempt to exploit children is absolutely preposterous, absolutely preposterous.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it isn't.
Mr. McClellan: It is preposterous and the minister should be ashamed of herself.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No. You should be.
The Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the bill.
Mr. McClellan: Finally, the interpretations of Bill 127, which is the product of much scrutiny and thoughtful consideration by officials of the Toronto Board of Education, are listed on the documents that were sent home to the parents. They have been spelled out time and again by participants in this debate. They are: increased regular class size; the closing of neighbourhood schools; the elimination of the additional staff allocation provided in schools with French immersion programs; the reducing of the availability of English as the second language program for pupils who need this kind of help; the closing of all-day kindergarten programs in the most inner-city schools; and the moving of the common starting point for core French from grade 4 to grade 5 or 6.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Now, there's fear-mongering for you.
Mr. McClellan: Then again, it may serve some mystical purpose of the Minister of Education to accuse officials at the Toronto Board of Education of fear-mongering. It is one thing for the minister and I to exchange views in a heated manner across the floor of this chamber, separated as we are by two sword lengths, and it is quite another thing for the Minister of Education to engage in a kind of systematic character assassination of trustees, parents and board of education officials at the city of Toronto level simply because her bill is under attack, simply because they disagree with her, simply because they are saying these are the consequences of Bill 127, because this bill takes away their essential powers and their essential capacity to fund their quality of education programs.
As usual, the minister refuses to accept the slightest criticism and we are used to this. She interprets her role as using the full power of her ministry to squash those who are so audacious as to put forward contrary views, to use for her partisan purposes the communication services division of the Ministry of Education, to insult in the most mean-spirited language those who oppose her views and to characterize the parents in derogatory terms.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not.
The Deputy Speaker: Back to the bill.
Mr. McClellan: I do not think the minister even hears what she says. It is just a kind of a reflex action. I don't expect I am making any impact on the Minister of Education. I hope some of her colleagues have retained a measure of common sense around this issue so they can drag this minister, kicking and screaming, back to a rational position because at this point in time she is out of control.
This bill is a damaging and destructive piece of work that is going to harm the quality of education in the city of Toronto and, eventually, in other communities. I hope her colleagues such as the Attorney General -- who I think knows what I am talking about, even if he would be reluctant to so signal -- will have the opportunity to bring this matter back to cabinet or to caucus, whatever the decision-making mechanisms are, and have a sober second thought about it, a sober second glance before it is too late.
8:50 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in this debate? Then I call on the minister.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) was standing so I hesitated.
The Deputy Speaker: I was waiting. He who hesitates is lost. In my examination of the situation the minister has missed it.
Mr. Ruprecht: Let the member for Downsview have five minutes.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I would like to participate in the discussion of Bill 127 because I represent the board of education in Metropolitan Toronto which is the one that sent a letter to the Premier (Mr. Davis) on June 10, expressing support for Bill 127.
I think that since the minister represents --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview has left me in an embarrassing position. As tolerant as I am, I had called for any other members wishing to participate. It has always been my approach, as Deputy Speaker, that I would hardly limit anyone wanting to debate in the Legislature. So with those few comments in mind I trust the member for Downsview, who I think was a little slow in getting to his feet, will limit his words to a reasonable length of time.
Mr. Di Santo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I said that I would be very brief. The only point that I would like to make is that I represent the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) in the part of the city where North York has jurisdiction.
If the minister was ever justified in making an attack on the local autonomy she should not have attacked the Toronto Board of Education. That has been the only board which has proved in the past to be in touch -- not out of touch, as the minister says -- with the problems of the population it represents, as opposed to the board of North York.
The minister said in her speech, which was paid for by the taxpayers of the riding association of St. David, that the boards which do not use the money now are forced to give the money back to the Metro board. That is the case with the North York Board of Education, which also tried to give back $95,000 of money allocated for the heritage languages programs. If, in the mind of the Minister of Education, that is progressive, then I can understand why she attacked the Toronto Board of Education.
I do not want to take much more time except to say this bill is a most reactionary attack on local autonomy for partisan reasons. It may suit the interests of the Conservative Party of Ontario, of which the Minister of Education is a spokeswoman in this instance, but it will damage in the future that structure of the school board that we think is fundamental in representing the interests of the parents and the students. For this reason, like my colleagues, I will vote against the bill.
I also hope that those members on the Conservative benches, such as the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), who has already spoken openly against the bill, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), and I do not see why the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) as well, will not stand up and tell the Minister of Education that this bill is an attempt against students of ethnic origin. I had hoped that those members and the ministers on the other side who understand what is at stake with this bill would stand up and try to stop the Minister of Education, even though I think that is an impossible task.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to some of the remarks that have been made regarding Bill 127 during the course of second reading. I appreciate the active participation in this debate of so many members of the Legislature. I am concerned there still are misconceptions about its intent, purpose and structure. For example, the first of the debaters, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) wondered why it was in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
As the members of this House know, when the metropolitan form of government for what is now Metropolitan Toronto was established, it was determined that it was necessary to find some mechanism to try to ensure some equitableness in educational arrangements throughout Metropolitan Toronto. The basic premise of the Metro arrangement is not that a single board of education owns the funds generated from its ratepayers, but that the schools across Metro should be supported by all the taxpayers across Metro. That was one of the principles and objectives of establishing that form of governance.
It is not a matter of six boards agreeing to share and share alike, it is a matter of the area pooling all its resources and sharing them equitably amongst the individual boards so there is equality of access to educational programs regardless of the assessment wealth of an individual board that has responsibility for education in that area.
I do not think there can be any doubt, particularly amongst certain members of Metropolitan Toronto, that the quality of educational programs and the quality of educational opportunity has improved dramatically as a result of the capacity of various area boards, particularly the larger ones, to share or to pool the resources for the benefit of all of the Metropolitan Toronto area.
If one begins in that way, with the knowledge that the governance of a school system for that purpose and the funding mechanism established to achieve that purpose was the basis of discussion of amendments in this area, then one has to understand it is quite rational that the requirements would have to be included in an amendment to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
When in September 1981, as a result of our review of the Matthews commission last fall, we began to share information and the kinds of directions we were thinking of with the Ontario Teachers Federation, with the Ontario Association of Education Administrative Officials and with the Ontario School Trustees' Council, they were given documentation of the kinds of directions we were thinking of. They were told specifically that we were looking at joint bargaining on a province-wide basis by panel, that we were looking specifically at that for Metropolitan Toronto and that we did not know at that time in which way this would be presented.
In January, when they were given the final legal wording for the proposed amendments, they were again told we did not know whether this would appear for Metropolitan Toronto in amendments to Bill 100 or to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. It did not come as any surprise to anyone, truly, because they knew we were awaiting the advice of legal counsel about the way it should be presented. Since the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act has primacy, it obviously had to be presented in that act.
I should think everyone who has had any experience with legislation would realize that although that act has primacy for those items mentioned specifically within the act, the other piece of legislation which provides the framework for board-teacher negotiation is in place for all other activities related to that board-teacher negotiation, and nothing can fall outside that framework within this province because it is there, it is in existence and it provides the direction for those legal negotiations.
9 p.m.
The Matthews commission very strongly suggested in the body of its report, on page 52, that in its view Metro-wide negotiations were desirable, but only if provisions could be made for special problems within the scope of the negotiations. Being sensitive to the concern that was being expressed about the need for accountability at the local level, we very specifically separated away the kind of direction the Matthews commission was suggesting, that there be total negotiation at a co-ordinated level at Metropolitan Toronto for all items within the teacher contract. That, of course, would have made the teachers ostensibly employees of the Metro board.
We did not want that to happen and therefore ensured that although there would not be regional negotiations, there would be joint negotiations with one representative from each board, not necessarily the representative elected to Metro board, I would remind members, but one representative from each of the area boards, plus one representative of the Metro board. That would ensure that the contract encompasses those teachers who are hired directly by the Metro board, and there are some, as members well know. It would also ensure that joint negotiation would take place with each of those representatives representing their boards for the purposes of the two items that were to be negotiated centrally.
That would apply to all other items related to the contract, which include the provision of facilities, the distribution of staff under the allocation formula, the special ways in which special education allocations are to be distributed, the organizational patterns of schools and the structure, function and organization of programs, and a number of other items related to staff-board relationships that are not in the master agreement, or the central agreement, and make up the bulk of most of the teachers' contracts.
The sensitivity to that led us to the position that we had to ensure there would be local negotiations, which would form the basis of the contract and of which that centrally negotiated agreement would become an integral part when it was finalized. In this bill, the teachers are employees of the local boards. In this bill, part of the contract, which is negotiated jointly by the boards with their elementary and secondary teachers, becomes part and parcel of the local agreement to be monitored and carried though by the teachers within that local area and the board within that local area.
A question arises about what would happen if a grievance were to occur in part related to the two items that are to be bargained centrally. That is a matter we have to look at very carefully. I am aware that under the province-wide negotiation system for construction workers there has been a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board that in some circumstances the master agreement prevails and those who negotiate the master agreement become part and party to the grievance arbitration.
In this instance, where the representative of the local board is functioning jointly with representatives of other local boards in a co-operative effort to define a contract that will apply to all the local boards equally, but specifically will become a part of a local contract, I think we need some further clarification of the role of that representative, who is not necessarily a member of the Metro school board, in terms of grievance arbitration if it should arise.
I believe it is important that we look at the specific concerns, quoted at length by the member for St. Catharines, as raised by a member of the legal profession. That lawyer suggested it was illogical to place the amendments in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. As I have suggested, it is not at all. It is entirely the appropriate place to put them. That eminent legal counsel suggested we were not being politically honest by ensuring that there was a function for Metro board and for the joint bargaining mechanism in the action that has been taken, and he is obviously assuming that the two-tier system of governance of schools in Metropolitan Toronto simply cannot work.
We have much evidence to the contrary and I believe it would be politically more honest to give that structure a chance to work than simply to suggest it should be disbanded out of hand without attempting to find a way to make it more effective.
There is a suggestion within the very first part of counsel's letter that obviously a similar approach was going to be forced on Ottawa-Carleton, for example, or Hamilton-Wentworth. It is obvious the eminent legal counsel has never looked at the government structure of the school systems in those regional governments. There is no other two-tier system in Ontario. If I know anything about my colleagues in this Legislature, particularly in cabinet, there is unlikely ever to be another two-tier system in Ontario.
Metro, in its unique characteristics, must be governed uniquely and this is not to be copied. I can say honestly, without fear of being in any way considered to be breaching any faith, that there is no intention of expanding this mechanism, this structure, this pattern to any other part of Ontario. None. This is specifically for the purpose of Metropolitan Toronto in order to try to make that government structure more effective in support of the objectives of the Metro system of education.
The legal counsel also suggested we had not clearly defined all the terms within the legislation, specifically and precisely, so that legal counsel could determine exactly what they were. I believe a financial benefit is something that either accrues some financial prize for the individual or, indeed, is money that individual will have in hand as a result of a contract. But if there is any difficulty with that, there is no doubt in my mind it will be negotiated, as all sorts of other things have been negotiated, at the table when bargaining begins. I do not believe the counsel's suggestion that the proposed amendments fail to provide any forum for clarifying answers to the problems raised, because I really believe the forum is the negotiating table.
It has been suggested by some of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that I am not aware of what goes on at negotiating tables. I can tell them I am acutely aware and I am also aware that under Bill 100 the scope of negotiation is anything but limited. All this act is doing is defining negotiation at one level only and that level is there simply for the guidance of the boards at local negotiations as well.
I believe the lawyer suggested that the sections under 130a, 130f and 130g are contrary to section 8 of Bill 100 in law and philosophy. I do not believe, from the legal advice I have received, they are contrary at all to the spirit, the philosophy or, indeed, the legality of the others. All the terms and conditions are negotiable now as they always have been, under Bill 100, since Bill 100 came into place. I do not believe that is a valid argument in this situation.
Many other suggestions were made by that eminent legal counsel, none of which I believe carries any weight or has any validity, except for one. That is, if there is a problem related to -- I am sorry, there is one we intend to correct and that relates to the mechanisms for bargaining at the Metro level, I guess one would call it, even though it is not the Metro board that is bargaining -- the mechanism regarding the teachers. There will be an amendment introduced that will ensure that the rules and guidelines for negotiating which apply under Bill 100 will be part and parcel of the negotiating system within Bill 127 for the part of the bargaining that is done at the central level.
9:10 p.m.
Section 7 of the act will be amended in order to ensure that this part of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act will apply specifically to the negotiating committees referred to in subsections 130b, 130c and 130d. This, I believe, does provide for the flexibility the Ontario Teachers' Federation has been asking for.
There are a couple of sections that I believe we will not be able to monitor or assess appropriately with respect to the potential difficulty that the legal counsel in this letter has pointed out, but it is the view of several of the law officers of the crown that it was unfortunate that so much money was spent for such a poor assessment of a piece of legislation.
Nothing is cast in stone, and if there are problems with the wording in this legislation I will be very willing to look at suggestions that are made to improve the wording in order to clarify it. The intent of the legislation is entirely clear: it is to try to bring a greater measure of equality of educational access and opportunity again to the children in Metropolitan Toronto.
I might go a bit further and suggest this is one of the major reasons we are moving in the direction of bringing Toronto into line with the rest of the province with regard to the change in the apportionment. The honourable members may be aware that until now within Metropolitan Toronto the apportionment has not been based on the same division as it has been in the rest of the province. There is a mechanism in this bill to equalize the residential and commercial mill rates across Metro on the budget as approved by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.
The previous apportionment was based on raw assessment, both residential and commercial, of each area as a proportion of the total in Metro, and this resulted, quite honestly, in a lower mill rate for all ratepayers, whether commercial or residential, in the city of Toronto and in Etobicoke than for the ratepayers in other area municipalities. The procedure certainly has been different from that which has prevailed throughout the rest of the province.
The proposed change calculates the assessment in each area municipality by using the same formula as prevails in the rest of the province. That is, 85/100 residential to commercial differential will be used in Metropolitan Toronto, the same way it is used in all other parts of the province by all other school boards for both apportionment and grant purposes.
The impact of this change on each area municipality for elementary and secondary education is as I have announced. The dollar increase involved is estimated to be about $550 million in the city of Toronto. It is about $315 million at the elementary level and $240 million at the secondary level. The effect in Etobicoke is less significant in the total comparison than in Toronto. The percentage differences are 0.001 and 0.007, respectively. That adds about $7 to each of the tax bills in the city of Toronto.
But the interesting effect it has is on the assessment level from which the discretionary levy is calculated. Under the current raw assessment that is used, the discretionary levy within the city of Toronto for elementary schools is unweighted and amounts, at 1.5 mills, to approximately $4,401,458. If it was hiring teachers at an average salary of $30,000, that could provide a board with an additional 146 teachers.
With the modification of the apportionment to the 85/100 level, the increase in the assessment base provides for the local levy to deliver for the city of Toronto, at 1.5 mills, $4,879,324 elementary, which, at the rate of $30,000 average salary per teacher, would provide 162 teachers.
The effects in the other boards are much less significant. For North York, the difference at present in this kind of apportionment provides for a change of about only $100,000 in the discretionary levy; for Etobicoke, it provides for an additional $200,000 and the other boards are proportionately somewhat less. Scarborough would gain something like $115,000 in its discretionary levy if it were to choose to levy the 1.5 mills.
The other night when we began discussion of Bill 127, I suggested I was very much prepared to look at the retention of the current discretionary levy of 1.5 mills. This was as a result of discussions with several trustees in the Toronto board itself. The other interesting part of that discussion, which I should report to the members because I think we must consider it seriously, is that there be a limitation placed upon the utilization of that 1.5 mills.
Up to one mill might be used for the purpose of additional teachers, and the remaining half mill used for a purpose which appears to be of some critical concern to many of the Toronto trustees, that relating to community joint projects with the school board, and perhaps the addressing of whatever deficit problem there might be as a result of the action of the school board. That is something that should be considered very seriously in the deliberations on this bill.
There is no doubt that the legislation provides for the deficit of a school board, incurred on a basis which could not have been avoided, to be assumed by all of the boards within Metro, as it is at present. That means any increase in potential cash requirements for boards occasioned by a seven per cent sales tax, for example, would be considered to be an unforeseeable and therefore approved deficit which would be assumed as a burden by all of the boards in Metropolitan Toronto.
However, if a deficit is incurred which could have been foreseen and avoided, it is obviously going to become the responsibility of that area board to ensure that the deficit is met through its own capabilities and not the capabilities of other boards.
One of the members has asked if we have any evidence that there had been that kind of action. I have to tell the members there has been very definite evidence of it. In 1979, the city of North York incurred a deficit of approximately $2 million and another one of about $869,000 in 1980. In 1980, the Toronto board incurred a deficit of $1.5 million and in 1981, one of $1.6 million.
It is the strong feeling of all of the trustees, including Toronto trustees, that they should be responsible for their own deficits or surpluses. There is no doubt that is a feeling which is shared by many of the trustees in Toronto and I believe in all the other area boards. It is a matter which makes area boards more directly accountable to their taxpayers.
This Legislature does not own the school system, nor does the Ministry of Education or the trustees; the taxpayers own the school system. The responsibility of each one of us who has any kind of relationship on a day-to-day basis with the school system is to be as accountable as we possibly can be to those people who are providing all the dollars.
It was suggested by the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) that there was some kind of peculiar philosophy related to this piece of legislation. The philosophy which the legislation expresses at the request of a large number of very responsible trustees is that those who are responsible for education must provide the best possible programs for all of the children within their jurisdictions as effectively and as economically as possible.
We must realize there is no bottomless pit of money available within any areas of public responsibility anywhere. All the money that goes to provide for any system, especially the elementary and secondary educational system, comes from the taxpayers of this province. There has to be some way we can ensure that their money is spent as effectively as possible and that economies can be developed without damaging the educational program but hopefully enhancing it, for their benefit and the benefit of the children.
9:20 p.m.
There is no doubt that the input for this legislation came primarily from the boards involved in Metropolitan Toronto. After four or five years of attempting to struggle with what they found was an extremely difficult, almost impossible situation, they began to worry about whether they would be able to function effectively. They strongly requested that we introduce a piece of legislation that would ensure joint bargaining. Their original suggestion was that it would be by the Metro board -- that is not a part of this act -- and that there be a mechanism to increase the responsibility of the local board to the local taxpayer.
We believe we have managed to achieve that in this legislation. As I said, there may be some refinements of language necessary. I have no doubt that may be so. The intent and purpose of this act is not to be vindictive to anyone or to be a detriment to educational programs. It is to try to help the boards in the Metropolitan Toronto area to provide an equality of educational opportunity that matches their responsibilities.
As I suggested last week when we began this debate, at the time the Metropolitan Toronto board was established there is no doubt in my mind there were major differences in the degree of responsibility for certain programs within the various area boards. That is becoming significantly less marked now as the problems of inner-city schools move to the suburbs in relatively large numbers and are finally recognized to be problems as we begin the implementation of Bill 82.
It has been suggested that this will interfere with Bill 82. Bill 82 is also a piece of legislation that I hope has precedence over any bargaining situation and that requires boards of education to assume responsibility for all exceptional children. There is no doubt in my mind that the boards of this province are moving in that direction with deliberation and with a good deal of commitment. I hope this piece of legislation or any other that has to do with bargaining would not impede the progress of Bill 82. I would find it damaging and disturbing if that were found to be so.
There is no doubt that a campaign has been mounted against this bill and I recognize the rationale for it. I recognize there is concern that this bill might become a pilot project or the thin edge of a wedge. It is neither of those things. There is no intent to move in that direction at all.
I would remind members that the purpose of the bill is to try to help a government structure to function effectively on behalf of its students and be responsible to the taxpayers who support it. That is a very rational foundation for any piece of legislation and I hope there would be a good deal of support for it.
We shall introduce three or four amendments which I hope will clarify some of the concerns that have been expressed during second reading. I hope all members of the House will see their way to supporting this bill vigorously for second reading so that it may go to committee for discussion.
The Deputy Speaker: Miss Stephenson has moved second reading of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Vote stacked.
ASSESSMENT APPEALS PROCEDURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 140, An Act to amend Certain Acts in respect of Assessment Appeal Procedures.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite brief. This bill was introduced recently and I made a relatively lengthy statement on its introduction. It is basically to streamline in a fair and just manner the assessment review procedures, which have been subject to some major backlogs, to everybody's disadvantage, certainly all those who are affected.
As I said in opening, I am grateful to the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) for the introduction of his private member's bill. This legislation has sought to incorporate most of the principles in the private member's bill. Basically, what we are doing is providing a procedure by which appeals from the assessment review court will go to a special branch of the Ontario Municipal Board. Upon leave, appeals can be made to the Divisional Court on matters related to law.
I should say at the outset that this does not prevent any affected person from bringing application to the county court or to the Supreme Court. It is quite separate and apart from the assessment appeal process.
I have one minor housekeeping amendment to introduce in committee of the whole House. I know the member for Waterloo North has an amendment in relation to whether or not there should be a requirement of leave to appeal. We have discussed this and we will discuss it during committee of the whole House. I hope this legislation will command the support of all members, because it is clearly in the interest of the property owners and taxpayers of the province.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill. I have had an interest in this matter for some years since my days in municipal politics. I want to commend the Attorney General for bringing this bill forward. I think it is an excellent bill.
He wrote me a few months ago and said he was going to bring it forward this spring. I was hoping we would be able to get it through before the spring session came to a halt. It now appears that is going to be implemented and we are going to have this legislated as soon as possible.
I think it is particularly important that this bill should come forward because of the great backlog of cases. I see in this chamber a lot of members who have had municipal experience. I refer to my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman), the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean).
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold.
Mr. Epp: Yes, I am sorry. I should not miss the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). There is also the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley). A lot of members here have had municipal experience. At the municipal level, they have heard a lot of complaints about the backlog of assessment cases.
I do not expect the procedure to be perfect. I do not think imperfect people can draft perfect law and perfect legislation, but I do think it is going to expedite a lot of the cases. I want to draw the members' attention to a release I put out on March 30, when I introduced my own bill which, as the Attorney General has said, is similar to this one.
I indicated at that time that in 1978 there were 125,000 complaints about assessments made to the assessment review court and that in September 1978 there was a backlog of 15,000 cases. In 1981, there was a backlog of 48,000 appeals before the courts. This year, there are expected to be somewhere between 160,000 and 165,000 cases, with 175,000 cases next year and probably a backlog not too dissimilar to the figure I indicated for 1981 of 48,000 cases by the month of October.
9:30 p.m.
If we go by past experience, we find that there have been a lot of people who have been held up in the courts for whatever reason. Section 86 was implemented whereby they are trying to equalize assessment within classes, which I think is now known as section 63 of the Assessment Act or something like that.
When I brought in my initial bill, which is a little different from the one that I reintroduced and different from the one that the Attorney General introduced, I sent a flyer to all municipalities in Ontario and, as members know, there are some 800-plus. I got a number of letters back and, for the minister's interest, I just want to refer to a few of them. I am just trying to put into context the urgency with which a lot of municipalities felt there should be some kind of reform here, and that is why I am grateful to the Attorney General that he brought in this bill, because I think it is a good bill.
From the city of Toronto, for instance, the mayor wrote that the joint committee on property tax reform had looked at my bill: "The committee received your proposal and indicated its view that support should be given to new procedures which serve to simplify and rationalize the current appeal process." They were anxious to get some kind of procedure going whereby they could expedite it.
My own city of Waterloo replied, "Please be advised that at a meeting held on February 1, 1982, Waterloo city council approved the following resolution" -- in essence supporting my private member's bill.
The same kind of reply was received from the county of Brant. The member was here just a few moments ago, but I guess he slipped out to see what was going on in the budget. He will appreciate that the county supported it.
The town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, the mayor of Hamilton and the city of Chatham supported it. I particularly wanted to point out that Chatham supported it, not because the former Treasurer comes from that area but because the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario comes from Chatham.
I received replies from Nanticoke and from Kapuskasing. The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) was here just a few minutes ago, and I think he was a member of that council, perhaps mayor. The city of Thorold, the town of Ingersoll, the township of Oxford-on-Rideau and so forth replied. I had a considerable number of letters, certainly not half of them, but a good number, to impress upon me that other municipalities were very concerned about it.
I am very pleased with this and, as the Attorney General has indicated, we will be putting forth some amendments to this bill. I look forward to its implementation and to a great reduction in the number of outstanding appeals before the courts. I am not quite sure when the bill going through this House is going to take effect. I hope it is going to take effect later this year; if not, certainly no later than January 1, 1983.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is not often in this House that anybody in an opposition party rises to commend a cabinet minister, but I do want to commend the Attorney General for bringing in this amendment and the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) for his private member's bill.
Generally, it would be fairly difficult to find areas of this bill to criticize. If there were only one, it would be that we wonder why this did not happen many years ago. I served many years on municipal council, and I served on the assessment review court. I remember at that time there was real concern among both municipal people on municipal council and the members of the court of revision about the appeals to the county court.
It seemed to me at that time that it would have been much more sensible to have gone to the Ontario Municipal Board. First, the county courts are not really set up to do this kind of thing. Second, there is a real reluctance on the part of the unsophisticated property owners to go to court. Over the years they have appeared before the Ontario Municipal Board and have grown to respect its independence and to feel that it is the place where they, as lay people, can make appeals that would be dealt with fairly and equitably. They do not have to have lawyers there, and the whole atmosphere seems to lend itself more to the ordinary person appealing. So this seems a very logical move, and I am glad to see this bill brought before us.
The changing of the name from "court" to "board" is perhaps insignificant, but it is realistic in that for many years it has been not a court of revision but really a board that sits to hear assessment appeals. So that change, too, is appropriate.
I would like to be assured by the Attorney General -- I suspect this is the case, and if I need assurance it may be because I have not delved far enough into the Municipal Act -- that in all the appeals that go to the councils for a rebate of taxes under section 496, I think, of the Assessment Act, there is the option of whether the council or a committee of council actually hears them or whether the assessment review court, which will now be the board, is appointed to hear them; but regardless of who hears those, I presume, and I hope the Attorney General will confirm this, that this will apply to all those appeals, whether they be appeals from the councils' decisions or appeals from the assessment review court.
Although we will be going into committee, I would also like to hear the comments of the Attorney General when he replies to the amendment that has been put forward by the member for Waterloo North. I will be speaking on this later, so I am not going to take up any time on this, but it seems to me there should not have to be the lead for appeal; it should be automatic, as it is in so many other instances under this kind of appeal.
The final comment I want to make -- and if I had made it first, Mr. Speaker, you would have ruled me out of order, because it does not really apply to this bill -- is that it seems to me we have to take a look at the appeal procedure in the Assessment Act, perhaps, and institute some kind of class action there too, so that where a person has urea formaldehyde foam insulation, for example, and you get a ruling on it, the ruling would apply to everybody in that class rather than just the person who appeals. That seems a reasonable and logical step.
I find it rather easy to support the bill before us. As I say, the only question I might ask is why it was so long in coming before this House.
Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the Attorney General on this bill and our member for Waterloo North. I would like very briefly to add my concern especially about what happened in the Toronto area.
I think this bill is very timely inasmuch as the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) have created so much confusion just recently in the Toronto area. I hope I can get some assurances from the Attorney General that the backlog in the city of Toronto especially will receive some very special consideration.
I will keep my remarks short by making the suggestion that he look into that.
9:40 p.m.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply briefly to the member for Welland-Thorold. There is no question but that these appeals will be treated in the same manner. His concerns should be laid to rest regardless of how they emanate from council.
I agree with the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) that there is a very bad backlog in Toronto. That will have to be given special attention. It is one of the problem areas of the province.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
House in committee of the whole.
ASSESSMENT APPEALS PROCEDURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 140, An Act to amend Certain Acts in respect of Assessment Appeal Procedures.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. McMurtry moves that section 2 be amended by inserting, after "regulation" in the first line, "bylaw or instrument."
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I have sent an explanatory note to opposition critics. If any further comment is required, I will be happy to make it.
Mr. Epp: As I understand it, it is strictly a technical amendment. We have no difficulty with it and will support it.
Motion agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
On section 3:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that section 47 of the Assessment Act, as set out in subsection 3(5) of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(6) An appeal lies without leave from the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board under this section to the divisional court on any question of law;"
And that subsection 47(6) as printed be renumbered as subsection 47(7).
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I put this amendment forward for a number of reasons. I have no difficulty with the bill, but one of the changes that has been made, making it different from the previous bill, is that previously one was able to appeal to the Divisional Court without first receiving leave from the divisional court. The present bill as introduced now requires that an applicant must receive leave.
I want to point out that since Confederation, questions of law and construction of statutes affecting a person's liability for municipal taxes have been subject to review as a right by section 96 judges appointed under the provisions of the British North America Act. It has been felt that recourse to such judges ought to be available as a right, and in my view that procedure should continue. It may be that provincial legislation preventing an automatic right of review of assessment matters by a Supreme Court judge is unconstitutional, being contrary to the division of powers under the British North America Act.
Second, assessments, as complicated taxing procedures, involve significant legal issues, which in many cases can be interpreted only by judges. Very few cases have proceeded to the Divisional Court on appeal from the Ontario Municipal Board but, in each case that has, fundamental principles of assessment law have been determined.
Third, I have also found, as far as administrative law is concerned, administrative tribunals perform their function better when the possibility of review as a right is available to an aggrieved party. We know that people usually perform better when there are a number of safeguards to various issues; when somebody appeals the case and so forth, we generally find people make a greater effort to try to make the right decision.
I put it to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) that this particular amendment, as well as some subsequent amendments, really deals with trying to give a right to the aggrieved parties that they currently have and that I and my party believe they should continue to have; that is, to have an appeal to the Divisional Court without first receiving leave.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a matter of principle involved here. That principle is the right of a person, who feels there is a question of law with regard to the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which should be settled by a Divisional Court, to go to that Divisional Court without having to get leave from the Ontario Municipal Board to go there. For that reason alone we will be supporting this amendment.
It is also true, as the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) said, that it does put more responsibility on the Ontario Municipal Board when it knows that any question of law can be appealed automatically without having the board's leave to do so. I think the safeguard in it, so that it is not abused, is simply the cost of going to court. I doubt very much if people would be using the courts, with the costs that would be involved, unless they felt they had a just cause.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I certainly have a great deal of sympathy with the motives behind this amendment. This was a matter that was considered very carefully in the drafting of the legislation.
I might point out to the members opposite that the Ontario Municipal Board has jurisdiction under a number of important public statutes, including the Conservation Authorities Act, the Municipal Affairs Act, the Pits and Quarries Control Act, the Planning Act, the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, the Municipal Elections Act and the Municipal Franchises Act, all of which are important pieces of legislation.
In relation to all these appeals, the Ontario Municipal Board Act provides the right to appeal to the Divisional Court on a question of law with leave. What we are doing in this legislation is just creating this degree of consistency.
9:50 p.m.
It should also be pointed out that quite apart from this legislation there is another procedure for determining questions of law. This is quite separate and apart from the assessment review board and the Ontario Municipal Board procedure for determining the proper value of property. Section 50 of the Assessment Act itself permits applications to be made to the county or Supreme Court for the determination of any question of law. That remains in force and is not affected by Bill 140. It means, in brief, an application to the court can be made even if proceedings have been taken before the assessment review board or OMB.
Our concern with requiring leave is first of all reflected in discussions we have had with the chief justice of the High Court regarding the possible work load and the risk of a number of frivolous appeals which will only prolong the process.
For example, in 1980-81, the OMB heard 401 assessment appeals but, as a result of removing the county court judges from the appeal process, it is anticipated that the OMB in future will hear between 10,000 and 12,000 appeals. This enormous increase raises the potential for corresponding increases in the number of appeals to the Divisional Court. There is a very serious backlog which we are concerned about, and we think requiring the leave will help avoid frivolous appeals which are often instituted just to delay the procedure.
I respect very much the views expressed by the members opposite, but we do believe that under this legislation, as drafted, there will still be that access to the courts for review of any matter of law.
Earlier, the member for Waterloo North and I discussed this and his proposed amendment, and I advised him that there was some considerable degree of interest in this issue on this side of the House. While we were not prepared to accept the amendment at this time, I gave him my personal undertaking that we would monitor the situation very closely and that next spring, if there was any evidence that this requirement of leave was serving as an unreasonable impediment or obstacle or hurdle to the proper determination by the courts of any issues of law, we would review our position on this matter.
So, I repeat that while we are not prepared to accept the amendment at this time, we will monitor the situation closely and seriously consider an amendment of this nature if there is any evidence to indicate that the average citizen is deprived of reasonable access to the courts in these important matters.
Mr. Swart: After his explanation that section 50 of the Assessment Act permits this in any event, I would like to ask the Attorney General what the difference is between what is proposed here and that section of the act. I may have misinterpreted what he said, but if I interpreted it correctly, it seemed to me he said that in a question of law, anyone could now take it under assessment to the county court, and that is not affected by the section in Bill 140.
If that is the case, what would be the difference if this were passed? Would it just be that it would be more open, that more people would know it because it is in this particular act? What would be the difference? I would like an explanation on that.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Out of the 10,000 or 12,000 estimated appeals annually to the OMB, which will be appeals on questions of fact, possibly questions of law as well, it is our view that unless there is this leave procedure, the likelihood is that the Divisional Court is going to be swamped with a number of unmeritorious appeals.
It is true that at an earlier stage on a pure question of law there can be an application to the court, and we think there is a difference, given the fact that the 10,000 to 12,000 appeals that are heard by the Ontario Municipal Board are on both questions of law and fact.
We will monitor the situation. This is an important reform. I respect the submissions of the members opposite, but would simply state that at this time we prefer to proceed in the manner I have just stated. But we will certainly review it and monitor the situation closely in the ensuing months.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Epp's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
The Deputy Chairman: Any further amendments to section 3?
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I have further amendments, but they are all related to the same matter. Since that amendment was not passed I do not see any purpose in putting the others forth because, as I have indicated, they are related. Therefore, it would be inconsistent to try to get some through and not the others. As a result of that, I will withdraw the other amendments.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 140, as amended, reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment.
CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 5, An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, there are items in this bill relating to some particular housekeeping amendments. We certainly have no objections to them and are quite content to have the bill carry.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the short bill that we have before us contains, as has already been said, housekeeping amendments. All three are desirable and we will support them.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE ACT
Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 21, An Act to revise the Toronto Stock Exchange Act.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, this act which I introduced to the House some weeks ago will take the place of an act passed by the Legislature in 1968. Since then many changes and developments have occurred in corporate and securities legislation that are not reflected in the original bill. The act we are now considering will remedy this situation and will bring the Toronto Stock Exchange thoroughly up to date.
10 p.m.
Although the act will remain largely intact, the following amendments will enable the act to meet the needs and demands of the 1980s:
1. The board of governors of the exchange will be given authority to delegate its investigative and disciplinary functions to one or more committees established by the board or to individuals.
2. The board of governors of the exchange will be given authority to hold its meetings by conference telephone, electronic and other communications facilities.
3. The powers of the exchange to hold property will be increased to assist in the planned relocation of the exchange to new quarters.
4. The object of the exchange, as set out in section 4 of the bill, has been revised to reflect the fact that securities, such as options, are now traded on the exchange in addition to stocks.
5. Provisions concerning the election of the chairman and vice-chairman of the board of governors and the appointment of the secretary and the treasurer of the exchange are included in the bill.
6. The exchange will be able to alter the size of the board of governors by bylaw.
7. Where in the public interest an order is made restricting or suspending the privileges of a member before a hearing is held, a hearing must be held within 15 days of the making of the order. Otherwise, the restriction or suspension expires 15 days after the making of the order.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, we have the occasion this evening to put together a new piece of legislation with respect to the Toronto Stock Exchange. Certainly the amendments are quite routine, as set out in the explanatory notes.
I understand one of the major reasons this bill is before us is the necessity of having legislation in place before the construction and completion of the new quarters, so that the powers of the board with respect to the exchange will allow the holding of land and will deal with certain other difficulties and problems on title. The corporation requires that to benefit, and it seemed an opportune time to bring forward further amendments to update the act and, as a result, to have the variety of changes suggested over the past several years brought into one particular statute.
We will now have a new Toronto Stock Exchange Act. Certainly, the various component parts are satisfactory and we will support the bill.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, we, too, will support the new bill before us. In this party, we have some reservations about parts of the principles of the whole stock exchange process. We think they do not always react to the public good. But recognizing the necessity in our society for a stock exchange of this kind, when we have it throughout the world, we will support this.
It does make some improvements. It is necessary for the purpose mentioned of its owning property, and there are some other improvements, such as broadening the exchange so it can deal in options as well as other types of securities, in addition to the stocks that can be traded at the present time.
There are two or three sections of the bill that would normally cause my party and me some concern, and I would like to have some comment on them from the minister when he gets up to reply. One of the things that bothers me is the matter of the quorum. The bill provides that a quorum shall be four members. Though we operate this House with a quorum of only about one sixth of the total members, in most institutions a quorum is in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent. But we could have a quorum which is only one quarter or one fifth. When there is the diversity of membership there, the public members and the members representing the corporations, it seems to me so small a number for a quorum is somewhat unsatisfactory. A larger quorum, out of a total of what could be 15 members, should be considered.
The second question I would like to put to the minister is this: What is the difference, if any, between the selection of the chairman and vice-chairman of the board of directors and that of the president of the corporation? He will notice that subsection 8(1) says, "The chairman and every vice-chairman of the board of directors shall be elected by the board of directors." Immediately underneath that it says, "(2) The president of the corporation shall be appointed by the board of directors." I would like to know what the difference will be in the selection, when the board of directors is going to select them in both instances but one is going to be appointed and the others are going to be elected.
Some of the responsibilities formerly held by the board are going to be referred to committees. I suspect that with the increase in the responsibilities it only makes sense to do that, and I would not object to that change.
I would also like to ask the minister why there has been a change in the terminology and perhaps the duties of the president. Section 9 of the new bill before us provides that "the president shall be the chief executive officer of the corporation." The former act provided that he should be not only the chief executive officer but also the chief administrative officer. I am not sure whether it is just a change in terminology or whether we are now going to have another chief administrative officer, and I would be pleased if the minister would reply to that.
I notice that the bill provides for electronic meetings, if I can use that terminology, of the board and its committees. Once again this gives me some concern. When there is such a small quorum I think there is an even greater possibility of abuse if these meetings are held through electronic devices rather than by having the members themselves attend the meetings.
With satisfactory answers to those questions, we will be supporting this bill and moving no amendments to it.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I thank both members for their comments and for their support in the passage of this bill.
I might point out to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) with respect to the issue of a quorum that under clause 13(c) it says "that the bylaws of the corporation may, (iii) fix the quorum for meetings of the board at four or any larger number of directors as specified in the bylaws."
I think the important point to remember about the Toronto Stock Exchange is the very stringent control the Ontario Securities Commission has over not only certain aspects of the exchange and its functioning but also over its bylaws. Any proposal for bylaws with respect to a quorum is an issue that is taken before the securities commission, and if it deems it appropriate it may hold public hearings about it.
As far as I am aware, the securities commission has not felt it was an issue that the quorum was not appropriate, and it is not usual, as I understand it, to have a quorum that is even up to 50 per cent. So I do not think it is out of line with most of the quorums on organizations that I have been associated with, and in this particular one the securities commission reviews all bylaws with respect to matters such as that.
The second item the member raised related to section 8 and this particular one the securities commission reviews all bylaws with respect to matters such as that.
The second item the member raised related to section 8 and the manner in which the chairman, the vice-chairman and the president receive their titles and positions. As the member can appreciate, the chairman and the vice-chairman are already directors, and they are elected by the other directors to those positions. The president-to-be is not a member of the board of directors, so the board of directors would select someone and then appoint that person to be the president.
10:10 p.m.
The House will see under subsection 8(3) who may and who may not be eligible for the position of president, and will see under subsection 8(4) that the president may be removed from office by a vote of two thirds of the board of directors. I hope there is no misunderstanding simply because of the difference in terminology. In one case they are members of the board of directors and in the other case it is someone who is not a member of the board of directors.
The final item relates to the issue of president. In this bill he will be called "chief executive officer," whereas in previous legislation he has been referred to as the administrative officer. However, their duties coincide exactly.
Mr. Swart: He is both chief executive officer and chief administrative officer.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think the member will find that practice is redundant and that the position of chief executive officer does, in this legislation, include the duties of the chief administrative officer. There will no longer be any appointment of an administrative officer.
I do have some other amendments that we could deal with in committee of the whole House. I hope members have received copies of them in advance.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could suggest at this point that it might be convenient to call second reading of Bill 143, since we have to go into committee with the minister's amendments on that as well. We might be able to save some time.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, we have the embarrassment of not having copies of Bill 143. We could proceed with Bill 120 and then come back to Bill 143. It would mean that we could probably get farther along tonight.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, members of the third party have indicated to me they would wish to reserve some opportunity to review Bill 143 until tomorrow. I am willing to accede to that. Therefore, if we are going to proceed to another order of business it would be to the 23rd order, second reading of Bill 120.
Mr. Speaker: No, no. You have to announce it first.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would suggest we just proceed with the Toronto Stock Exchange Act in committee, if we may.
Assistant Clerk: Do you want to go to another bill?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: No. I think we will proceed with committee of the whole House on this bill, please.
House in committee of the whole.
TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE ACT
Consideration of Bill 21, An Act to revise the Toronto Stock Exchange Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 6:
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Dean): Mr. Elgie moves that clause 6(1)(b) of the bill be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
"Two public directors or where the bylaws so provide up to four public directors."
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, what is the membership of the board of directors or governors at this time?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: There are at present 13 governors, two of whom are public governors. There is some talk that perhaps there should be a greater number of public governors to allow for that flexibility in the future. It has been my view that we should allow the possibility of increasing it up to four.
Motion agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
On section 7:
The Acting Chairman: Mr. Elgie moves that subsection 7(4) of the bill be amended by striking out the phrase "the president of the corporation" in the third and fourth lines and inserting in lieu thereof "a nominating committee constituted in accordance with the bylaws and chaired by the president of the corporation."
Motion agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
On section 10:
The Acting Chairman: Mr. Elgie moves that subsection 10(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "a member" in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof "any person or company of a class referred to in the bylaw".
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12:
The Acting Chairman: Mr. Elgie moves that section 12 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"12. The corporation may acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise, and may hold for any period of time any land or interest therein whether or not such land or interest is necessary for its actual use or occupation, or for carrying on its undertaking, and may sell, charge, lease or otherwise deal with or dispose of such land or any interest therein."
Motion agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
On section 13:
The Acting Chairman: Mr. Elgie moves that section 13 of the bill be amended by inserting after "131" in the first line the number "275."
Motion agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 14 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 21, as amended, reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.
10:30 p.m.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
The House divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion for second reading of Bill 127, an Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean;
McMurtry, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Williams, Wiseman.
Nays
Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Grande, Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Martel;
McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Shymko, Swart, Van Horne, Wildman, Wrye.
Ayes 62; nays 43.
Ordered for standing committee on general government.
The House adjourned at 10:35 p.m.