MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
On section 3:
The Deputy Chairman: We are continuing the committee review of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. We have completed section 2 and are now proceeding to section 3. Just to check the amendments, does section 3 carry?
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4:
The Deputy Chairman: I note the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) is standing.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary to notice me standing; I am standing.
The Deputy Chairman: I recognize you.
Mr. Grande: This section deals with the fact that 10 members of the school board, -- by the way, in a previous section, section 2, the amendments the minister produced do not compose the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, therefore, for all intents and purposes, once this bill is passed there is no such beast as the Metro board.
Anyway, proceed that as it may, I think perhaps the minister will be coming in with an amendment before the amendment route is over here, before the snow melts on the ground in Metropolitan Toronto.
Let me deal with section 4. It says. "Ten members of the school board are necessary to form a quorum when the school board is dealing with matters that affect public schools exclusively and 11 members of the school board are necessary to form a quorum in all other cases … "
I am particularly interested in the brief the borough of York brought before us because I represent that great borough in this Legislature. One of the points the chairman -- now the past chairman, but still the chairman of the York Board of Education -- made in the brief before the standing committee on general government was that, out of the 21 members necessary to constitute the Metro Toronto School Board, the borough of York basically has one vote on that body; and the chairman, with the board in agreement, asked us, "How can we affect anything at the Metro board when we have only one vote?" They were talking about changes of boundaries. I guess they were referring to the Robarts commission report.
If the government had accepted the Robarts commission report iii 1978, it would have enlarged the boundaries of the borough of York substantially to give it the proper tax base it requires in order to run an efficient school system or an efficient municipality. However, this government has turned its collective back on the borough of York. The municipal election in the borough of York said, in a very clear way. "If you as the government of the province turn your back on us, we will turn our back on your candidates. And they did so. Of course, we will have to wait for the official recount to see who the mayor of the borough of York will be, and we will find out pretty soon, I suspect.
But with regard to the board of education they are saying, "In our own board of education we can make decisions about our priorities, whether our priority will be to keep small schools open" -- and, as a matter of fact, it is -- "or to maintain as small a class size as we possibly can" -- this is a direction in which they at the local level have rightly gone but how can we effect any change at the Metropolitan Toronto board level when we have only one vote?"
They were saying to the minister and to the committee -- more important to the committee than to the minister, because the minister has always turned a deaf ear to these pleas from the different boards of education or parent groups or --
The Deputy Chairman: I am having difficulty
relating the honourable member's presentation to the quorum that is referred to in section 4. which we are now considering, so I would ask him to tie his remarks in to the section that is before the House.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, in order to talk about a quorum. you have to talk about the composition of the Metro board: otherwise talking about a quorum is meaningless.
The Deputy Chairman: I was just asking. I was not sure where it was going.
Mr. Grande: I thought I was being clear on that, but since you told me to clarify it. I have done so.
But the borough of York is asking, "With a quorum of 10 in certain votes and a quorum of 11 in other cases, how can we effect any change when we have only one member on the Metro board?" I would like to know how the minister is going to address this particular concern of the people, the trustees and the board of the borough of York. Whether she does it here or elsewhere or at any other time I do not care.
As you very well know, Mr. Chairman, this bill gives tremendous, almost frightening powers to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. And, as the former Minister of Education put it in the House back in 1978 in response to the Robarts commission report, with these powers that the Metro board will have, the borough of York, with its one member on that board, will find itself totally at the mercy of the Metro school board in terms of the priorities and the delivery of educational services needed at the local level.
8:10 p.m.
I am asking the minister to address that particular concern of the borough of York. Obviously, the quorum this section talks to is very much determined by the representation York has on the Metro board. I hope the minister will give a satisfactory answer to that tonight.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of comments. This section of the bill appears to be quite innocuous, but in its own little way it adds to the power of the Metro school board. That is what this prolonged discussion is all about; a little bit of power here, a little bit of power there.
Mr. Boudria: What do you mean, prolonged?
Mr. McClellan: I do mean prolonged.
Mr. Nixon: We do not find it prolonged.
Mr. Boudria: No, nonsense.
Mr. McClellan: It is going to be prolonged because we are very much opposed to the thrust of the bill, even to a seemingly innocuous housekeeping amendment, such as the one in front of us, which changes the nature of the quorum of the Metro board.
The footnote to the bill indicates that the quorum is being changed because the Metro board has been strengthened by adding to its size. Again we are seeing on the part of this government a determination to increase the size and the power of the Metro school board at the expense of the area school boards.
My colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) has spoken about the problems he has in his borough. For a moment, I will just touch on our concerns in the city of Toronto.
The struggle began over 15 years ago, to deal with the inequities in the distribution of education services throughout Metro and, in particular, throughout the city of Toronto. I am talking about the fact that, in the inner city and in the area south of Bloor Street, we were cursed with second-class facilities. Our children were streamed into second-class programs and given access to second-class opportunities because of the bias of the education system in favour of well-to-do neighbourhoods and well-to-do citizens of the city and of Metropolitan Toronto.
Over the last 15 years, a concerted struggle has taken place to try to redress that imbalance; to make sure that children who go to school south of Bloor Street, for example, have the same access to quality education as children who go to school in north Toronto, Don Mills, York Mills or parts of Etobicoke, the more prosperous and favoured areas of this metropolitan area.
That struggle has not been easy and the battle has not been won. There are a few signs at least that in the city of Toronto we have managed to make some real progress in reducing class size and in providing additional services, opportunities and special education programs to our children. We have not done that with the co-operation of the Metro school board, but in the face of its opposition. People have had to battle at the Toronto Board of Education against the opposition, the harassment and resistance of the Metro school board.
For the reasons I have spelled out, we do not think that is fair. We do not think it is fair that children who live south of Bloor Street should have less opportunity than children who live in more favoured areas. We also do not think it is fair, because the city of Toronto has been generous to the rest of the Metropolitan area in sharing its tax base, particularly in the earlier periods of rapid growth of our suburban areas in the 1960s when Metropolitan government was first established. The city of Toronto was very generous, permitting the suburbs to develop their own education facilities and to use the borrowing power of the city of Toronto to put in place an educational system right across the boundaries of the Metropolitan area.
We have found that generosity has not always been reciprocated when it comes to trying to deal with some of the problems of our inner city areas. We have found that the Metropolitan school board, representing as it does the majority of more prosperous and more favoured areas of Metropolitan Toronto, has not been willing to go out of its way to redress the imbalance in educational opportunities and services in the city of Toronto or, may I say, in many of the suburban areas: in the Jane and Finch area, in parts of Scarborough, in parts of East York, in parts of the borough of York and in parts of Etobicoke and northern Etobicoke. The Metropolitan school board has shown itself insensitive to these kinds of concerns; the only pockets of concern and sensitivity have been at the level of the local boards, in particular the board of education of the city of Toronto.
Many people have come together, as I said, over a long period of time, over a period of more than 15 years. I do not speak this way simply because, in recent years, the New Democratic Party has had a leading role in that movement. I would say the movement preceded the involvement of the New Democratic Party. I can recall, in the mid-1960s, the efforts of the Trefann mothers' group to bring attention to the problems they were facing in Ward 7 in south Cabbagetown when Cabbagetown was still a low income area. That is a long time ago.
Mr. Nixon: I thought we were talking about the school board.
The Deputy Chairman: I know the honourable member has much to contribute to this, but we are specifically dealing with section 4 and that has to do with a quorum for voting.
Mr. McClellan: I tried to set out at the beginning of my remarks that this is only one of a series of amendments in this bill.
Mr. Nixon: Now we are approaching the end.
Mr. McClellan: I am approaching the end. This is one of a series of amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act that serves to strengthen the Metro school board, and the purpose of that strengthening process is to weaken, at the same time, the area school boards. It is a stingy and miserly concern related to constraints, restraints, cutbacks and the containment of educational opportunity. It has nothing to do with meeting the needs of children.
I do not want to exhaust the patience of my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) or yourself. Mr. Chairman, and I will not pursue these thoughts on this relatively insignificant amendment. But we will becoming back to this theme, and as this debate proceeds over the following days, weeks and months, we will be raising our opposition to what the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is trying to do to education in Metropolitan Toronto.
9 p.m.
The committee divided on whether section 4 should remain as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 58: nays 40.
Section 4 agreed to.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I thought that with the number of members present in the House, they would like to welcome one of their former colleagues, the former member for Lincoln, who now is the mayor-elect of Grimsby.
The Deputy Chairman: Indeed, we welcome him.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: I am glad the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is in the House, because I am in somewhat of a quandary as to how to deal with this matter. Under the rules of the House, standing order 18. I must speak immediately at the first opportunity on a matter of privilege.
My matter of privilege, and perhaps as the House --
The Deputy Chairman: What you are talking about should be raised before the House. We are in committee right now.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to give you and the House notice that I intend to raise a matter of privilege with respect to the breach of my privileges by the exchanges between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the Attorney General with respect to remarks made by the Attorney General outside this chamber on November 4.
I raised this matter a week ago. I give the Attorney General notice that, first thing tomorrow. I will ask him either to explain his statement, to withdraw his statement or to apologize to the House for his statement.
The Deputy Chairman: We are considering Bill 127, and we have passed section 4.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, on the point of privilege --
The Deputy Chairman: I do not see this as being relevant to the bill that is before the committee of the whole.
Mr. Roy: It may not be but, pursuant to standing order 18, a point of privilege must be raised at the first opportunity. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) having made a comment about the Leader of the Opposition, I point out to him that if there has been any breach of privilege, it does not involve the question of the Leader of the Opposition to the Attorney General; rather, it is the Attorney Generals statement made in relation to the proceedings taking place during the trial that is a breach of privilege.
On section 5:
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, if we could pick those sections of the bill that are more offensive than others, section 5 would not qualify as one of the more offensive sections. Again, I would indicate that in our view, if section 5 had been included in a separate bill because it is relatively of a housekeeping nature, it would have received speedy approval and would not have had to await the final passage of this bill, which we anticipate is going to be some time off yet, if at all, unless there is a withdrawal on the part of the minister in midstream.
There was a need for clarification of the term of office for members of the school board. We recognize that this section of the act is to provide for resignations and to make the provisions related to members of the school board appointed by the Metropolitan Separate School Board more closely parallel to those related to the members appointed by the boards of education.
As I have indicated, that is not going to generate much controversy when members of this House deal with it, because that section did require some improvement, but again to include it with other sections of this bill which we find more offensive is obviously going to slow down this process.
For instance, the last section was of no great controversy but required a vote of the House. If we wanted to zero in on those sections that were most offensive, they would be those that are yet to come in this bill.
On this section as a whole, we do not find any great objection. There is no reason for us to demand withdrawal of this section of the bill as we would sections 6, 7 and 8 if the minister were really responding to the wants and needs of the people of Metropolitan Toronto as they relate to education.
There will not he a great deal of objection to it. The minister may have some comments and clarification, or she may not. There will be some questions raised. The member for Oakwood has indicated he has a question related to the separate school board and wants to place that question now. I am going to give him the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Chairman: We are speaking on section 5. I took the chair when we were just getting into it. Are we going to talk on each specific section or generally on the whole section?
Mr. Grande: There is only one section. It is section 5.
Mr. Chairman: There are a number of subsections. The member for St. Catharines suggested we were speaking on the whole section at once.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I have one question in terms of the separate school representatives. While the minister did make an amendment in this legislation to provide for the three-year term of office for all the trustees across this province, I am wondering why it is that, for the separate school representative on the Metro board, the two-year period is still in place. Is there any explanation?
At this time, I want to take the opportunity to say to the minister that if she wants to expedite the work of the Legislature when we have questions, I hope the minister or somebody on behalf of the minister will try to answer those questions and bring some clarification.
On the previous section, I asked the minister a question about the borough of York and I did not hear any answer, if indeed the government has any answer. I guess, since we heard no answer, the government has no answer to that particular concern.
9:10 p.m.
I hope that when I ask questions as we go through this bill, the minister will find it possible to come to grips with answering those questions. The questions are asked by me or other members of the New Democratic Party, but obviously they are asked on behalf of the parents, the teachers and anybody in Metropolitan Toronto who wants the minister to withdraw this obnoxious bill.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to what I believe was the question which the honourable member put and which I had little opportunity to answer since other members decided they wished to participate.
The question was related to the representation of the members of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. That is a very simple procedure which is in existence right across Ontario. It relates specifically to a formula based upon population and assessment. That formula applies to other areas of the province in the same way as it does to Metropolitan Toronto for representation at the Metro school board.
Should the formula be changed? There is, right now, a committee of the ministry looking at trustee representation. If there is to he a modification of that formula, then obviously it will apply as well to the Metro school board and to representation throughout Metropolitan Toronto.
The member also asked a question which, I gather from what he said, related to the suggestion that under this bill the Metropolitan Separate School Board was on a two-year election cycle. That is not so. There is nothing within the bill which suggests that the Metropolitan Separate School Board is on a two-year election cycle. It is on the same cycle as everyone else. Therefore, the representation will be precisely as it is: on a three-year basis, with the same kinds of principles applying as apply to other trustees.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6:
Mr. Chairman: I see that the minister has an amendment. It would make sense to allow her to put the amendment first so that all members might have the opportunity to discuss the section with the amendment.
Mr. Martel: The whole bill doesn't make much sense: so why would you make that suggestion?
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that subsection 127(4) of the act as set out in subsection 6(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "an amount that, in the opinion of the school board, is equal to the portion of the surplus that was raised by local taxation in the area municipality" in the 10th, 11th and 12th lines, and inserting in lieu thereof "an amount that does not exceed the amount of the surplus, and in determining the amount of the reduction in the apportionment. the school board shall give consideration to the circumstances that, in the opinion of the school board, contributed to the size of the surplus."
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment is that it provides an equal area of responsibility, as established by the guidelines to be determined by the Metro school board, by representatives of all the boards in the Metro school board in their responsibility for determining both the deficit and the surplus amounts which are to be dealt with in the legislation.
It is felt that the responsibility should he equal on either side. The responsibility for the method of determining the surplus and the method of determining the deficit should be equally balanced responsibilities for the Metro school board. That is why this amendment is introduced.
Mr. Chairman: It might make some sense if we could get copies of that to the --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: They have copies of that.
Mr. Chairman: Oh, have they got copies?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, they have.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of confusion. My copy of the bill, and I think I am reading from the right copy of the bill --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Subsection 6(2).
Mr. McClellan: My confusion has been clarified.
Mr. Chairman: Is it the 10th, 11th and 12th lines of subsection 2 of section 6?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I regret that is incorrect.
Mr. McClellan: I was right. It is at the wrong place.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.
Mr. Martel: I told you something was wrong with this crazy bill, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.
Mr. McClellan: I cannot find in my copy of the bill the section and subsection that is referenced in this amendment. Somebody is going to have to locate it in my copy of the bill.
Mr. Chairman: Let us have a minute's grace and allow the minister to consider.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: In fact, it is on page 5 of the bill: it is subsection 6(4) and not 6(2). I am sorry. It was an error, and I apologize for that.
Mr. Chairman: In the 10th, 11th and 12th lines.
Mr. McClellan: Could we start again and pretend the previous fiasco did not happen?
Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) made a fairly good suggestion, it seems to me, that we consider it clause by clause in this section.
Mr. McClellan: Yes. That is what we normally do.
Mr. Chairman: I know we normally do that, but section 5 we carried as a whole.
Subsection 6(1)? Carried. Subsection 6(2)? Carried. Subsection 6(3)? Carried.
On subsection 6(4), the minister has an amendment. Shall we do this again then?
Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that subsection 127(4) of the act as set out in subsection 6(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "an amount that, in the opinion of the school board, is equal to the portion of the surplus that was raised by local taxation in the area municipality" in the 10th, 11th and 12th lines and inserting in lieu thereof "an amount that does not exceed the amount of the surplus, and in determining the amount of the reduction of the apportionment the school board shall give consideration to the circumstances that, in the opinion of the school board, contributed to the size of the surplus."
All right.
Mr. McClellan: You may say all right, but I would like to know what that means.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It means that when a board engenders a surplus as a result of prudent spending. there will he a return of that surplus to the board. The amount that is returned cannot exceed the total amount of the surplus engendered and, in fact, may be reduced from that total amount based upon the guidelines the Metro board's members will establish.
For example, if a board were to develop a surplus as a result of a very dramatic overestimation of the enrolment and its requests for levy were based on a highly overestimated enrolment which did not materialize, then the surplus that was engendered might not be considered a surplus that would be appropriate for total return to that board.
9:20 p.m.
If a board engendered a surplus because of a protracted dispute that had as one of its consequences a withdrawal of services by its teachers, then the amount expended by that board would not reach the amount that was levied on behalf of the board, and all of that surplus would not accrue to that board.
There are circumstances that are taken into consideration or should be taken into consideration when the determination of the amount of the surplus that should go back to the board is actually made, and it is suggested that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, as a result of the consultation that is going on right at this time, will develop guidelines. Each of the participant boards is involved in establishing those guidelines for the rules that will be followed in either the assessment of the surplus that should go back or the assessment of the deficit that should be charged to that board. This balances precisely the same kinds of directions that are in the subsequent section related to the apportionment of the deficit.
Mr. Chairman: Before we continue, I think I have some bad news for the minister. I am looking at other proposed amendments and it looks as if she had an amendment to subsection 6(3), because the list I have was placed in numerical order, thinking that the original amendment was actually to subsection 2, but it was subsection 4.
The committee of the whole House in its wisdom has passed subsection 6(3), and I am looking for some direction. Is that right?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, no.
Mr. Chairman: Am I wrong?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: If you will notice on page 4, section 6 has subsection 1; subsection 2, with three subclauses and then a clause 1b.
Mr. Chairman: Wait a minute.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Subsection 3, which is apportionment, is listed at the bottom of page 4. At the top of page 5 is subsection 4, and you will notice that in the final lines --
Mr. Chairman: No, I am dealing with another --
Interjection.
Mr. Chairman: Where does this one come in? Wait a minute. So it becomes -- well, all right. Shall we --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Now we are thoroughly confused.
Mr. Chairman: It would appear, Madam Minister, I have a little note from some magic gnome which says that the next amendment, subsection 3, will come in on page 6 before section 7. If that is how that works, that is fine. Is that correct? Now that I review it, I think that's correct. I'm sorry.
Any further discussion on the proposed amendment to subsection 6(4) of Bill 127? Shall the subsection carry?
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, believe it or not, I am still standing.
Mr. Chairman: Oh, sorry. The member for Bellwoods then.
Mr. Grande: Bellwoods? No, he is there; I am Oakwood.
Mr. Chairman: I meant Oakwood.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, basically in this amendment the minister is attempting to get rid of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. The minister knows very well that during the committee hearings we were able to persuade the minister and the people within her ministry that this section should read as it is in the bill as it came before the Legislature the one before the House right now. That is that particular section which you, by the way, are changing right back to the way it was in the original bill.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.
Mr. Grande: Of course you are. The change was that particular section which says, in the second last line of that clause in the bill, "is equal to the portion of the surplus that was raised by local taxation in the area municipality." What you are doing is amending and taking that section right out of the bill and replacing it with the original section that you had, which basically means that you flipped in the committee and are flopping right back now.
There is absolutely no way anyone in this Legislature -- Tom Wells, Larry Grossman and Roy McMurtry included -- can stand in this House and vote for the amendment to this particular clause, the amendment as presented by the minister tonight.
It says any board of education in Metropolitan Toronto that has a $3-million surplus can maintain that surplus within that particular board. The point is, and the minister understood the common sense of the position that was made in the committee, that you cannot say a board should retain the $3-million surplus it has when, in effect, the local taxation for that particular board, depending on which board it is in Metropolitan Toronto, raised only a certain percentage of that particular surplus.
I just want to read for you, Mr. Chairman, the proceedings in the committee where it says that the Honourable Miss Stephenson said: "We can most certainly say that because I'm concerned that the minimum level must be reached." She was talking about the minimum level that the school board can retain in terms of its surplus. My contention was that the minimum level should not be surpassed.
Therefore, that is why we reached the agreement that satisfies all the committee members, which is to add the phrase, "is equal to the amount that was raised at the local level." That made sense if you believed that a school board in Metro Toronto should retain the surplus. The amounts of money raised in Metropolitan Toronto by the Metro school board are such that East York raises approximately 3.53 per cent of that share of the Metro school board; in Etobicoke, it is 14.59 per cent; in North York, 23.35 per cent; in Scarborough, 14.99 per cent; in Toronto, 39.81 per cent; and in York, 3.73 per cent.
If you were to maintain the amendment the way we decided upon, or as we reached the consensus in the committee, what in essence it would say is that the surplus that a particular board generates -- and for the time being never mind how they generate the surplus -- should be retained only by that percentage which was raised locally. Because the rest was not raised locally; it was raised across Metropolitan Toronto.
9:30 p.m.
If you agree that back in 1953 the Metro Toronto board was set up so that equity would be reached across Metropolitan Toronto, the principle you are putting into legislation right now in this clause denies the basic principle of equity and fairness. In essence, you are saying that no matter how much East York raises locally to contribute to the surplus. East York should retain the whole surplus.
You know that when East York came before us the director of that board, Mr. Dodds. basically said the only way they could sell -- no, he did not say it, sorry.
People have said the only way the concept of Bill 127 was sold to the East York Board of Education and to the people of East York was that East York would retain the $1-million surplus it had a year or a couple of years before.
In other words, when the minister agreed in committee to change that phrase and add the phrase "is equal to," the carrot she was dangling before the eyes of East York. York, Etobicoke or North York simply disappeared. That is why they are pressuring you to reinstate the clause as it was originally. They will have no part of Bill 127 if you do not make it profitable for them to involve themselves in it.
Basically what you are saying is: "Regardless of the equity, regardless of the fairness across Metropolitan Toronto, regardless of the raison d'etre the Metro system was set up, we are going to say to East York, 'You maintain all the surplus.'"
What the Minister of Education should be asking those boards that have surpluses is: "Why do you have a surplus? What services did you cut back? What services are you not providing to the children" -- of East York or any other Metropolitan Toronto board of education -- "in order to generate a surplus? If you generate a surplus, are you doing a good job of budgeting?"
The minister knows what we have in place here is an incentive to cut back, to destroy the quality of education in Metropolitan Toronto. Yes, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: No problem.
Mr. McClellan: The Liberals do not seem to appreciate your --
Mr. Grande: That is fine. They do not have to appreciate it. I am not here on behalf of the Liberal Party. I am speaking on behalf of the people in Metropolitan Toronto and the people in Metropolitan Toronto --
Mr. Roy: You would not make it as a Liberal, fellow.
Mr. Grande: I have no doubt in my mind I would not make it as a Liberal. Let us leave those people aside because they are aside on this issue. But the basic point against the bill --
Mr. T. P. Reid: There are really good arguments against the bill and I haven't heard one of them from you.
Mr. Grande: I return to the minister, because basically she is the one who is pushing and landing Bill 127 on Metropolitan Toronto and its area boards. If you believe in the basic fairness of the Metropolitan Toronto system --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: You don't, so why are you arguing in support of it?
Mr. Grande: Obviously the fact is we have failed in terms of the amendment. As far as we are concerned, we want this bill scrapped and you know that. Just scrap the bill and a solution will have been found. Then you can go back to enjoying the credibility within your caucus and cabinet that you had prior to the birth of this bill.
I return to the basic point of fairness. If the minister or anyone in this Legislature is going to be supporting this amendment, basically she is supporting inequity in Metropolitan Toronto; she is basically saying that if money is raised in Toronto or in North York or in Etobicoke, if East York or any other area board decides to cut back enough by firing teachers or by closing schools or by not producing and providing education programs for its children, and if it is able to have a $2-million or $3-million surplus, that particular board can keep all the money even though it was not raised within that particular municipality.
I would hope that the Minister of Education. as she saw the light in committee, would not allow herself to be pushed around -- and I repeat my words -- by a John Tolton or a Charlie Brown in Metropolitan Toronto. She should not allow herself to be pushed around, because basically that is what they are doing to her. She cannot, as she did three weeks ago, agree to the basic equality and allow the change to take place in committee and then come here three weeks later and say, "We made a mistake, because Charlie Brown and John Tolton told me so."
I had certainly hoped that the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells) would be here, because I did speak to him in a private session a little while ago. He said basically that it is unfair and he would not support this change, and the Minister of Education knows he would not support this change.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I do not.
Mr. Grande: Maybe if the member for Scarborough North comes into this Legislature tonight and gets up to speak on that amendment he will tell the minister himself what he feels about it.
I am sure other members of my caucus will participate in this debate, although sometimes I wonder whether Liberal members will participate, but I am positive that no members on the opposite side will participate in the debate. With that, I hope this amendment will be defeated.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, speaking in opposition to this amendment by the minister, I would remind the minister that in committee --
Mr. Martel: Where is Patrick?
Mr. Van Home: Are you his keeper?
Mr. Martel: He was supporting the amendment before he left.
Mr. Ruston: He was not.
Mr. Chairman: The member for St. Catharines has the floor.
Mr. Bradley: You know, the tune sure changes when some people are in the gallery, doesn't it? This afternoon it was nice and quiet; things were running smoothly. As soon as there are people in the gallery, you have to outdo us.
The minister has disappeared. Speaking in opposition to this amendment, as we did in committee, as those who were in committee will recall, one of the few areas, as the member for Oakwood has aptly pointed out, where we in the opposition were able to extract what I felt was a reasonable compromise from the government, one of the very few areas where we could get any kind of support from the Conservative members on the committee -- and that was because of the acquiescence of the Minister of Education, partially on the advice of some of her advisers -- was on this particular point.
This particular argument was put forward very well at that time by the member for Oakwood. The minister gave it some consideration. She hesitated; she consulted with her officials. There was some consultation with the parliamentary assistant to the minister, and ultimately there appeared to be some sense of agreement at long last on one aspect of the bill. I must say it was the only area where we felt there was any progress made, although later on in the bill we felt that there might have been a little bit of movement made in the direction of the mills. two mills as opposed to one and half, or at least some compromise on the part of the minister that we will discuss later on. That turned out to he what we term a sleight of hand, but this was not. This was one area where there was relative unanimity.
9:40 p.m.
The argument is made, I think very justifiably, that when there is a surplus accruing to one of the boards of education, the surplus going back to that board should he only that which is raised within that municipality, so that other boards of education or other municipalities and the ratepayers in those municipalities are not forced to contribute to a surplus which is accumulated and of course looks very good to some people, at least on the hooks of one particular board.
I suppose the example of East York, for instance, which is the prime example because of the figures used, indicates that a board could actually come out well ahead in these circumstances, deriving funds coming from other boards of education contributing to that surplus. Certainly with dollars as tight as they are at the municipal level at this time, that would he an unfair circumstance.
That is why the original wording that we see, not the very original wording but the wording that comes before this House that the minister now wants to amend, "an amount that in the opinion of the school board is equal to the portion of the surplus that was raised by local taxation in the area municipality," is far superior to what the minister is suggesting in her amendment.
I think it has been aptly pointed out that when some people accumulate surpluses it is not necessarily because of the efficiency of that board of education. It is often because there are corners cut, which effectively reduces the quality of education available to the students within a board of education. The minister is well aware of this. She smiles, but she is well aware this does happen.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Where?
Mr. Bradley: In Metropolitan Toronto, and in any board you want to name across Ontario. Surplus can he accumulated because people are cutting corners, not providing the kind of quality education that might otherwise be provided.
The minister provides for us an amendment that would undo that which was ultimately agreed to by members of the committee. The question must be asked: If it was acceptable to the minister at that time, and to the officials who advised her throughout these proceedings dealing with this bill on a clause-by-clause basis, if it was satisfactory at that time to those officials and to the minister, and apparently to the Conservative members of the committee and most certainly to the two opposition parties and their membership on the committee, why then is it suddenly no longer acceptable to the minister? Why is it that when we get into committee of the whole House the minister wants to advance another amendment?
She announced back in committee that she was going to do it. In fact, that is one of the reasons we are dealing with this in committee of the whole. We will come back into the House with an announcement later on, after she has reconsidered her position. Some might speculate that she had received some telephone calls from certain members of certain boards of education, particularly the chairmen of those boards. I can only speculate as to that. She might well have received representations in the form of letters, or may have had personal meetings with those people where they brought to her attention their concern about the fact that one of the attractions in this piece of legislation, this particular provision, is removed by the change in wording that took place in the committee.
This wording is far superior to what the minister is proposing. Every time the opposition or those people in the general public who have expressed concern about this bill get some flicker of hope that the minister might be relenting on one small aspect of the legislation -- and sometimes it can be a significant amendment, as I think this amendment that she accepted back in committee was a significant amendment -- every time those of us who are opposed to the bill get the feeling that somehow she is going to relent in at least one small area, the door is slammed shut again.
This is a prime example this evening. The other, as I indicated, was the sleight of hand she engaged in later on in the bill regarding the amount of money which can he applied for the hiring of teachers.
The minister seemed to relent on that. There were great headlines -- I fail to see how she can generate those headlines; I almost admire her for it -- which indicated that she had made a great compromise. But on reading the story below, one discovers that the compromise in that part of the legislation was not a real compromise at all because of the little rider attached to it.
I recall looking at it in the committee and praising the minister for it. But as we went along in the discussion of that aspect of the legislation, I found in the event that she really had not made a substantial change as to the dollars that would be available.
Certainly, we cannot support the amendment which, in effect, changes in mid-stream the minds of the government, of the Minister of Education and of the Ministry of Education. After showing a flicker of progressiveness, the minister slams the door shut and says: "Well, you know, we tried to compromise. We thought about it for a moment." Now, because of obvious pressure that that received from people who are opposed to that change, she wants to change her mind again and zap the opponents of the bill.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: What kind of pressure have you been under, James?
Mr. Bradley: I am not under any pressure at all. Over here we are on the side of good. The minister should recognize that.
Mr. Roy: There is always free choice in this party.
Mr. Boudria: We are the good guys, Bette.
Mr. Bradley: I am not subject to the same kind of pressure that the minister obviously has received from members of her own government, particularly those who represent the downtown Toronto ridings and who, unfortunately, could not make it to the committee hearings when the people came forward with their views on matters such as those which are touched upon in this particular section. I submit that those members were not there because they would have been embarrassed that the minister was not prepared to relent or to compromise or to adjust the legislation. I would suggest that at least some of them would be in favour of the withdrawal of this particular bill.
If I allow my imagination to wander for a moment, I can imagine the debates that must take place in caucus when those people on the side of the minister, who are feeling the pressure, including people in the cabinet, speak to the minister about this.
The chairman has reminded me that I should be addressing myself to the specific amendment. The chairman has been fair throughout these proceedings --
Mr. Roy: So far.
Mr. Bradley: -- so far, at least, so I will address myself to that. I will simply say that we in this party, as we indicated during the committee hearings, will take the same position we did at that time: the wording we see in the bill at the present time is adequate; it is much superior to the wording the minister has provided in her amendment. Therefore, we will be voting against that amendment.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the remarks of the member for St. Catharines. I was not able to distinguish his argument from the argument made by my friend the member for Oakwood five minutes earlier which produced a howl of outrage from members in the Liberal Party.
Mr. Cunningham: It was not the same argument.
Mr. McClellan: Why don't you get your act together, comrades?
Mr. Cunningham: If you had been in committee, periodically, you would know the difference.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, they should go to their caucus and work out their differences of opinion in secret instead of washing their laundry in public here in the Legislature.
Mr. Ruston: You are the only one who needs washing.
Mr. McClellan: Unlike his colleagues, at least their Education critic understands what the minister is trying to do in this amendment.
Mr. Cunningham: Why don't you drop in some time?
Mr. McClellan: I know what the minister is doing. She is offering a further incentive to school boards in Metro Toronto to run surpluses by cutting back. That is what she is doing in this amendment.
Sequentially, the minister brings forward amendments that are even worse than the original Bill 127. I do not know what kind of advice the minister is getting. Does she have, locked in a closet, a demon of some kind to consult regularly as to how this bill can be made even more odious than it already is?
9:50 p.m.
What the minister has done is change the apportionment formula so the borough boards will have even more of an incentive to accumulate a surplus. Those who accumulate the biggest surplus will be rewarded most handsomely by being able to keep the largest portion of that surplus.
There is only one way to accumulate a surplus. It is illegal to plan for a surplus; the minister knows that. It is against the law in Ontario to plan for a surplus. No school board can sit down and plan for a surplus; there is only one way to get a surplus, and that is, to cut back. to constrain, to restrain, to eliminate, to be a scrooge.
The minister asked for some examples. I will just cite one area: Scarborough, if she would like an example. I used to be the area planning consultant for the Scarborough Social Planning Council at a time when her colleague the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) was also on the Scarborough Social Planning Council.
One of the critical problems in that borough was the lack of educational opportunity for children in the southern part of the borough, particularly for immigrant kids. That showed up in the tremendously high failure rate of grade 8 students in Scarborough borough schools.
How does the borough of Scarborough address the plight of immigrant kids in its jurisdiction, or of any innercity kid in the south end of the borough? I will tell you how, Mr. Chairman, In 1975, the borough of Scarborough ran a surplus of $1.3 million; in 1976, they had a modest deficit; in 1977, they had a surplus of $500,000; in t978. a surplus of $4.3 million: in 1979. a surplus of $3.18 million: in 1980, a surplus of $1.63 million; in 1981, a surplus of $2.045 million.
This is a borough which has its share of immigrant kids who need extra services; its share of innercity kids who need additional services. What does the Scarborough Board of Education do? It accumulates whopping big surpluses. It accumulates them at the expense of additional programs, of special education programs. I suppose Scarborough does not even offer heritage language programs.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not in this funding mechanism and the member knows it.
Mr. McClellan: I believe 20 per cent of it is. It is simply indicative of a rotten attitude that the minister is encouraging with Bill 127. Every time she gives an incentive to school boards to ignore disadvantaged children; every time she brings in another amendment to this rotten piece of legislation to make it even worse --
Mr. J. M. Johnson: Don't get excited.
Mr. McClellan: That is what is happening, my friend. Those are my constituents she is going after. So if I get a little mad, Mr. Chairman, the member will just have to understand it, the way he gets angry when people go after his constituents. That was what I was sent here to do, to represent them.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: You are hysterical.
Mr. McClellan: I am not hysterical at all, sir. I am angry and there is a big difference.
Mr. I. M. Johnson: I am not sure.
Mr. McClellan: I think there is a difference, if he does not understand it. I have heard him get mad on behalf of his constituents.
Mr. Philip: No, you haven't. You have to be alive to do that.
The Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with an amendment and the member for Bellwoods has the floor.
Mr. McClellan: The minister asked for an example and I have given an example. There is nothing to be proud of in a borough that systematically ignores its disadvantaged children by accumulating big surpluses. There is nothing to be proud of in an amendment to this bill which simply reinforces that tendency by giving a reward to boards. like the Scarborough board, that treat their children in that way.
Those of us in the city of Toronto who have fought for the last 15 years to try to make sure we have a local board of education that has a different attitude, now find ourselves confronted with this piece of legislation that promises to strip all of the powers of our local board to redress the imbalances of educational opportunity. This amendment simply makes that situation worse.
Mr. Cunningham: Initially, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put on the record that I regret that most of the Conservative members who attended the committee hearings are not here tonight. I find that regrettable in two ways: primarily, because they cannot add the expertise they have obtained through the course of the very long and arduous committee hearings and, more appropriately, because we will not be favoured with some quasi-Metro perspective, at least from the government side, on the efficacy of this bill.
I have developed, as a result of this amendment, a more cynical assessment of this bill than I had in the past. I am inclined to think that the minister has reached the stage where she feels that if she is going to endure the all-time, continuing disrespect of the thinking educational community in this metropolitan municipality, she might as well go for broke and this is it.
I feel this section strikes at the fundamental heart of the legislation, and of local autonomy for that matter. God knows we would like to report to our constituents that we have brought in a surplus, that we will be in a position where we will not have to raise taxes, that we have managed our funds wisely and well. But we are abusing them if we think for one 10th of one second that by cutting back and reducing fundamental expenditures today in very necessary areas we are, in fact, saving money. Those very trustees who come back -- usually, I must say somewhat cynically, immediately before an election -- and say, "For this last year, we are reporting a surplus," have to reflect on whom that surplus is being exacted from.
My submission is that in many situations, particularly in Metro Toronto, those surpluses are being exacted from people who need those programs. Mr. Chairman, had you been in a position to attend committee, you would know very clearly that in Metro Toronto there is a myriad of people who need English as a second language, English as a second dialect, and many more special programs. Some of these programs may be unique to individual boards and may not he able to be accommodated by way of this section in this legislation.
I must confess, frankly, that I have a preoccupation with fiscal responsibility, but it is not at the expense of fair play, common sense and equity. My concern with this item of legislation is that it undermines, in my view, which I express very humbly to you, Mr. Chairman, the opportunities for people in need in their individual areas and districts in this metropolitan area. It undermines their ability to obtain the services they require in the context of obtaining proper education.
Interjection.
Mr. Cunningham: The minister is interjecting something at variance, I suppose. with my opinion, as she is inclined to do with other members of the Legislature. Frankly, I find that regrettable. I find her interjection to be at variance with the overwhelming majority of opinions that were expressed to us during the course of the committee hearings.
I must admit that periodically members of my party and even, occasionally, the members of the New Democratic Part possibly are wrong. but I find it is really inconceivable that we would be wrong in this instance when we have heard from more than 150 groups who provided a plethora of written presentations, most of which, I must say, were not politically motivated one way or the other, that expressed their very real concerns about this bill in general and the apportionment section of the bill specifically.
10 p.m.
I think this whole idea is wrong-headed. I reflect back on my studies when I was a student at the University of Western Ontario, not that long ago. I want to tell the minister while she shakes her head I can hear her shaking her head --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I was not shaking my head.
Mr. Cunningham: I could hear her shaking her head.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry. My brain doesn't rattle like yours.
Mr. Cunningham: Well, I am sorry, I could hear it.
One of the first courses they taught us was the difference between "cheap smart" and "cheap stupid." This section of the bill and this bill in its entirety are cheap stupid.
We will have to redress the inadequacies of underfunding, inadequate funding and, if I could characterize it, chauvinistic funding, particularly before elections. We will have to redress those inadequacies long after this bill is reality.
We will have to endeavour to deal with people who have not been given a fair shake in our educational system, people who have not been properly trained, people who have not had their learning disabilities properly diagnosed and people who have not been able to accommodate themselves to a mainstream of educational thought as a result of inadequacies in our current process.
If the minister thinks for one tenth of one second that saving money in these individual boroughs will accommodate some progress, I want to say as clearly as I can that she is very seriously wrong. She reminds me clearly of that analogy offered to me in my early days at the University of Western Ontario, the doctrine of "cheap smart" and "cheap stupid."
In the current economic milieu, it reminds me of the idea of fly now, pay later, because we are cheating. We are cheating students who are not even enrolled in the secondary program, students who are hardly even advanced in the primary program. We are cheating those students and we are doing it today.
The minister may sit there and proffer some contrary point of view. That is the minister's right. But I want to say as clearly as I possibly can this evening that I have never, during the course of our committee hearings or our debate in this Legislature, indulged in any kind of personal activity with the minister because, notwithstanding my severe disagreement with her on the efficacy of this section of the bill and on the propriety of the bill itself, I have no personal quarrel with her.
Normally, I happened to have been of the point of view that, as a fellow member of the Legislature, her interests were based primarily on behalf of the students. I must say that for the first time in a long time, she has caused me to waiver in my thinking. It had nothing to do with Maggie Siggins's article at all.
Mr. McClellan: You are more patient than we are.
Mr. Cunningham: I guess I am. The member for Bellwoods interjects. I have a great regard for his feeling in this regard in so far as he is a member representing this area. He is a member representing a metropolitan constituency, as it should he. I am only the representative of Wentorth North.
I must admit as I have previously -- Mr. Chairman, I know you will indulge me, because we discussed it very briefly on section I of the bill -- that many of us from outside Metro had no idea of the technical niceties that relate to the operation of the delivery of educational services in the largest school board in Canada. Many of us did not have an idea.
The minister may look at us and say, "That may be your problem on the opposite side." I want to suggest that the presence of only five members of the government party here tonight, only two of whom had taken the time to attend our committee meetings in general and most of whom I think are very sincere albeit they do not represent Metro Toronto, speaks more clearly to my concern about this than anything else.
Frankly, I find it abhorrent that tonight there are literally no Metro Toronto members here.
Mr. Philip: Just on that side, though.
Mr. Cunningham: On the opposite side, of course. I understand very clearly the political niceties that are associated with that more than anything else on the opposite side. Well, I happen to be here and our members have been here, and I want to say regardless of --
The Deputy Chairman: The honourahle member should be dealing with the amendment that is before us.
Mr. Cunningham: I am sure you will tolerate my response to the minister's objection, Mr. Chairman, because you have a passing acquaintance with fair play.
The Deputy Chairman: You are getting off topic. Please get back on topic.
Mr. Cunningham: I will only say that it does not matter where we happen to live here. I live in Waterdown; I think I demonstrate a far greater concern than the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) or a plethora of other members, some of whom are in the cabinet, who have not had the integrity of purpose to stand on their own two feet and express their point of view on this subject. So I need not be challenged with regard to where I live or where some of the members from my party happen to live.
The Deputy Chairman: Speaking to the amendment.
Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, this section of the bill and this amendment strike at the very heart of what the bill is all about: apportionment, the ability of the local areas to determine just what is going to be the order of the day for the constituents they represent. Those constituents for the most part do not have a vote in the political process. We are their trustees.
I want to say tonight as clearly as I can, because it may be my last occasion to do this, although I sense that we may debate this until some time next year -- it would be my wish that we would do so until the minister changes her mind or until the cabinet changes her mind -- that we are discussing the fundamental democratic process.
I may beat some slight philosophic difference with my colleagues to the left, but I think our purpose is the same, and that is a good, equitable, commonsense formula for funding in Metro Toronto.
I do not really think we can characterize the past six, eight or 10 years as having been some form of financial disaster. Were that the case, I would ask that the minister take to her cabinet colleagues the issue of regional government in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, and in several other regions for that matter, because the operation of those regions is far more inequitable than the dispensation of funds for the purpose of education in Metro Toronto.
But here we have what I would regard, and I do not want to characterize it unfairly, as a major response to a situation in which the minister may for one reason or another have some political variance.
I want to say again as clearly as I can that I think this amendment is mean-minded, wrong- headed and ill-conceived. And while I attribute no political motive to the minister, it is obvious to me, as one who has attended the general debate in this forum previously, the clause-by-clause discussion in committee on a very regular basis -- I think I missed one or two -- and sessions hereafter, that the government has prepared itself, because it has accepted the political abuse that it already has endured, to go whole hog on this.
Frankly, I think they are making a very serious mistake. I do not know what the logic is in this current apportionment formula. I do not know what the logic is in creating and legislating the division that I anticipate they are going to obtain from each and every board in the near future. I just think they are setting this whole process back, not only by way of the amendment but also by way of the legislation in general. I think they are setting this whole process back possibly a decade.
The minister may endure with this puzzled look she has, but as one who attended the committee hearings I just think this is at variance with the suggestions that were made by a myriad of people who made their presentations to us, as I have said: people who have written their presentations out in longhand on kitchen tables. They represent no particular political party.
I remind her of the contribution made by Mr. Rogers of cable TV fame, representing some --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It wasn't Ted Rogers.
Mr. Cunningham: I did not say it was Ted Rogers but he is of the same family, I am advised. He was speaking about the John Ross Robertson school in the Attorney General's (Mr. McMurtry) constituency. His presentation is indelible. In fact, it is not a surprise to me that they would select somebody as well advised as Mr. Rogers to make his presentation to us.
10:10 p.m.
Regardless of where we were in Metro Toronto, we had well-documented presentations made to us indicating that this whole bill was ill-advised. The apportionment section strikes at the very heart of the bill. Today in committee, and I say this with no malice because I have no malice towards her, the minister has chosen through this amendment to further exacerbate that situation. Frankly, I think it does not in any way contribute to the process and only adds to what is a very poor piece of legislation.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put on the record the exact words as they were spoken. I will not talk about the whole debate on October 13, 1982, on this amendment specifically. But I think it will be very instructive for us to know that so we can assess the flip-flop that has occurred on the government side on this amendment.
I am reading from the Hansard report of the meeting of the standing committee on general government, Wednesday, October 13, 1982, the morning sitting. After the debate, I suggested:
"Mr. Grande: No more than. If I may, Mr. Chairman, let me give the minister an example. Let us say that one board in Metropolitan Toronto has a surplus of $1 million. Now that particular board, let us say for the sake of argument, happens to be the borough of York. In the borough of York the amounts of money that were raised locally to that particular surplus is a fraction of that $1 million. Let us say for the sake of argument it is $200,000. The amendment I have" -- which basically was changing it no more than that which was raised locally -- "says that in the case of that particular board no more than $200,000 should be kept.
"Hon. Miss Stephenson: But how do you say in that circumstance that it has to receive $200,000 as well?
"Mr. Bradley: 'Not more than.'
"Hon. Miss Stephenson: But that does not say that there is a minimum.
"Mr. Grande: No more than that which was raised locally according to the percentage by which that local is determined.
"Hon. Miss Stephenson: What we are trying to say is that the amount which was raised by the local taxation must be transferred back to that board.
"Mr. Bradley: Can you not somehow word it so that both could be accommodated?
"Mr. Dean: I thought I understood this when I read it over at other times, but something is bothering me now because of the question raised by the member for Oakwood. His amendment basically says it shall not he more than the amount; the proposal by the government is it not be less than the amount. Why is it not exactly equal to the portion that is raised locally? I find that rattles around my head. I cannot see why. My simple explanation is if there was a $1,000 surplus and board X raised 20 per cent of it or $200, why do they not get the $200 back, not $199, not $201?
"Hon. Miss Stephenson: We could most certainly say that because I am concerned that the minimum level must be reached.
"Mr. Dean: And the member for Oakwood is concerned that a maximum level must he reached."
Then the chairman corrected Mr. Dean by saying that the minimum level should not he surpassed.
"Mr. Wildman: If the government is prepared to say that, we could accept that as a friendly amendment.
"Mr. Dean: We have that amendment in. Do you want to amend the amendment or withdraw that amendment on the understanding that we will change it to say, 'will be equal to the amount of the surplus'?
"Hon. Miss Stephenson: 'Is equal to the portion of the surplus that was raised by local taxation in the area municipality.'
"Mr. Dean: If the member for Oakwood would withdraw his amendment, I would be prepared to move that one.
"Mr. Chairman: As part of your original amendment? Would it not be simpler, now that we have passed your amendment, to deal with this 'is equal to'?
"Mr. Grande: If the minister accepts the wording 'is equal to,' it seems to me to drive at the heart of what I am talking about,
"Hon. Miss Stephenson: If we amend that portion that has already been amended by the change of the wording in the last three lines, 'has jurisdiction by an amount that, in the opinion of the school board, is equal to the portion of the surplus that was raised by local taxation in the area municipality.'
"Mr. Grande: I am satisfied that deals with the concern in the argument I have presented.
"Mr. Chairman: Procedurally, yes. Let's move a motion.
"Mr. Grande: I will move the amendment.
"Mr. Chairman: Mr. Grande moves that the second last line of section 6(2)(4) of the bill be amended by deleting the words 'is not less than' and substituting therefor the words 'is equal to.'
"Motion agreed to."
Mr. Chairman, my case is closed. The Minister of Education agreed in committee to this amendment and now she is backtracking; in doing so, she is destroying equity and fairness in Metropolitan Toronto.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I noticed this evening that there are more than the usual number of people in the gallery, and I think it indicates the interest in this bill.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, your members noticed it too. We had a lot of grandstanding tonight.
Ms. Bryden: It also indicates that the people who are here are particularly interested in the question of deficits and surpluses, which is the subject we are dealing with in this amendment.
I noticed that the minister, in her famous speech on Bill 127, which was reprinted at government expense, said, "The proposed surplus and deficit provision in Bill 127 will enhance local autonomy by making local boards more accountable to their taxpayers."
The many changes made in this particular section, it seems to me, will make the various boards accountable to the Metro board under the latest amendment, But I think the history of those changes indicates to the people in the gallery that the minister is insensitive to the recommendations of all the deputants who appeared to talk about deficits and surpluses and to the three-party committee system.
As my colleague has just pointed out, the original section was amended by the committee, apparently with the consent of all parties and presumably with the minister participating in the debate, and now we have an amendment before us that really changes the whole thing again,
We have three versions before us. We have the original bill, which says that in deciding on the apportionment it could be reduced by an amount that was not less than the amount of the surplus generated by local taxation. But there was no ceiling on the amount it could be reduced by; in other words, you could take off the entire amount generated by local taxation and then the Metro board could take off any additional amount it wanted.
It seems to me this left great discretion to the Metro board to reward the people who were creating surpluses by not providing the same services as other boards were -- by not providing as much special education, by not providing the maintenance of heritage languages or English as a second language at the same level as other schools, by not providing special services for immigrant children.
10:20 p.m.
It seems to me that under the first version there was an incentive to the Metro board to give bigger surpluses or to decide how much of the additional surplus should be deducted. Then we get version two in the amendment that came out of the all-party committee. It said the amount that can be deducted should not be more than the surplus generated by local taxation. That seems fair enough, but none of the general surpluses caused by underspending in the various borough boards would be allowed as a deduction from the apportionment.
Tonight we find a new version where the minister is really reinstating what might be called the payoff to the boroughs which are supporting this legislation. The four that appeared before the committee with equal endorsation for the bill will now be in a position where the Metro board can reward them under the ministers amendment.
The new amendment says the Metro board has the discretion to determine the amount of the reduction in the apportionment. It can be an amount that does not exceed the amount of the surplus, but in determining the amount of the reduction the school board shall give consideration to the circumstances that contributed to the size of the surplus.
In other words, it does not tie the amount the Metro board can give to the amount raised by local taxation. It is entirely up to the Metro school board to determine how the surplus arose. Then it can reward those boards it wishes to reward by giving them a large amount if they have been dutifully keeping expenditures down to a minimum as the Metro board seems to think is the way to operate an education system, rather than to see what is needed for quality education and to serve the needs of the students and the whole education system.
It seems to me this is a strong indication the minister is insensitive to the needs of the different areas and is allowing an incentive for boards to cut back. It is an incentive that may even lead to school closings because if one closes schools and saves money that way, even though the local neighbourhood would be better off with those schools being maintained and even where there is some declining enrolment, we have to look at the value of a neighbourhood school to a neighbourhood.
Even with smaller enrolments, it can become a community facility, can be the lighted school at night and can serve a lot of things besides daytime pupils. If there is this incentive to close schools and end up with a large surplus, the members of the area boards can show the taxpayers they are able to reduce the mill rate for educational purposes and presumably hope to get the support of people who feel the tax dollar is the most important consideration, people who are perhaps not as aware of what quality education costs, not aware that a borough may be giving a much lower standard of services than other boroughs, and not aware of the effect of cutbacks in services.
We know there are tremendous waiting lists in many of the boroughs for special education. We know there is a target that special education must be available to every student in Metropolitan Toronto, or in Ontario, who needs it.
If we already have huge waiting lists for special education, and if we have this kind of incentive for boards to be able to cut taxes and get back surpluses by delaying the provision of special education, then the buildup that is necessary to provide that service by 1985 will not be undertaken.
The teachers who will be needed will not be introduced into the system at the graduated rate which will result in the full service by 1985. Instead, the whole thing will be seriously delayed until that 1985 year looms and then all of a sudden boards of education will discover that they have to treble and quadruple what they are spending, and they will not be able to find the trained people for that kind of sudden spurt.
What is even worse is that many children in need of special education in the boroughs that have been showing surpluses will be on waiting lists. A waiting list for special education really means that perhaps your whole life may be affected by a delay in the kind of special services you may need. That delay can mean all sorts of problems in the future for those individuals and for society as a whole.
The minister's boast that the deficit and surplus provisions in the bill will increase local autonomy is a completely false statement, because the autonomy to do what they want will be offset by the incentive to generate a large surplus and to get it back in tax cuts. The boards can then play each other off as to which one is saving its taxpayers the most money. I would hate to see this become an election issue in the next municipal election and to have school boards go around boasting that they had succeeded in obtaining the largest surplus as an offset to their apportionment for their particular area.
Mr. Grande: It has become an election issue and the Tories were defeated.
Ms. Bryden: My colleague is right. In the recent elections it was indicated that Bill 127 and all its provisions was rejected very strongly, particularly in the city of Toronto.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh no, you're wrong.
Hon Mr. Wells: Not in the member's riding. In the Beaches riding there were Tories elected.
Mr. Grande: Tom, you disagree with the section and you know it.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Hon. Mr. Wells: This section is all right. It's fine.
The Deputy Chairman: With these interruptions, the memberfor Beaches-Woodbine might be well advised to move the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. Cassidy: She wants to move adjournment.
Ms. Bryden: I will adjourn --
The Deputy Chairman: Oh, you don't have to move adjournment. If you would like to terminate your remarks, we will move to rise and report.
Ms. Bryden: I wish to continue my remarks at the next sitting.
The Deputy Chairman: At your convenience.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported progress.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.