Journal des débats 1983-févr-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, while our colleagues are gathering, I am sure you, along with our colleagues in the Legislature, would be glad to know that this is the 60th birthday of our good friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), and we wish him well.

I think it would be appropriate if the government would withdraw some of its footling resolutions and unsupportable legislation and we could all celebrate by going home.

Mr. Speaker: The member stole a bit of my thunder. I was waiting for more people to come in. However, I am sure all members of the assembly will join with me in wishing our colleague a very happy 60th anniversary and many years to come.

DELIVERY OF REPORT

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege which has developed out of an incident that occurred in my office before Christmas. Before the break there was delivered to my office a copy of a report prepared by the Ministry of the Environment. It was left in my office by special messenger and before I had a chance to look at it the messenger came back, presumably with instructions from the ministry, and removed it from my office.

During concurrences I raised the matter with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton). I had believed at that time he was going to deliver another copy of the report to my office, but to this date the report has not shown. I would respectfully request, Mr. Speaker, that you investigate the incidents that took place before Christmas and advise what can be done to protect the sanctity of the members' offices with respect to this type of operation.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I will check to see if I can produce a taxi chit -- I hope and believe I can -- to prove to the honourable member the report was sent to him by taxi rather than by mail. I do not know why it did not arrive in his office. Perhaps the taxi driver went to the wrong building, or perhaps the member has to do more to attract attention in the news so they recognize his name.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let us not have this disintegrate into a debate.

Mr. Elston: I am not debating, Mr. Speaker, but obviously the minister does not understand what has happened. If he checks Hansard he will find an indication that he was prepared at the time of concurrences to send me a copy of that report. He has not sent the report to me. He is now trying to suggest that the material I have presented here today is not true. I resent that very much, and I think he will now have to go back, look for that report and make it available to me, as he said he would during concurrences.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you make an inquiry to check on whether or not it is proper that a ministry can ask one of its officials to come into my office and take a report that I have not had an opportunity to review. That really is the issue.

Mr. Speaker: Once again you raise a matter and ask me to make a judgement on it. You are also asking me to investigate, which I am not empowered to do. I do not have the authority to do so.

However, the matter has been raised. I am sure the minister will take note of it and will give you a proper response.

CONSTITUENTS' REQUESTS

Mr. Van Horne: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I think you will agree that the privileges of individual members of this assembly are directly related to their responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is to make reasonable requests for our constituents, and we do that either in the chamber, in committee or, if necessary, at times in the cabinet minister's office.

I do not think anyone should consider making a reasonable request on behalf of a constituent to be begging or mooching, as it was referred to by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). For the record -- and I think this is important -- neither I nor the people of London North should be considered beggars or moochers, as they were called by the minister.

I think beyond this the minister should reconsider the comment he made when he said, "Perhaps, then, I will revoke the cheque." I do not think it is a proper use of his authority as a cabinet minister to make such a threat to me or to any of my constituents, and I want that to be on the record.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to a personal request the honourable member had made. I was in no way talking about his constituents. I would think that a member who had on that occasion -- whether it was inspired by something or not I do not know -- an extremely low view of the minister would not want to be associated with him on a personal request.

FUND-RAISING

Mr. Roy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

[Applause]

Mr. Roy: Is it not wonderful, Mr. Speaker, that you are missed around this place? I am glad to be back.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: Were you not paired with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow)?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: He was paired with the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure what precipitated that reaction. I thought maybe it was because I had stood up.

The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) has a point of privilege.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I think it is somewhat offensive to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) that nobody missed her when she was not around.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Roy: No; that was just an off-the-cuff comment. I have not got to my point of privilege yet.

Mr. Speaker, if I may: In this assembly we are all referred to as honourable members. In fact the seating plan for this place clearly indicates that we are referred to by different parties. We are referred to as Liberals, Conservatives or New Democrats.

An hon. member: And Liberal-Labour.

Mr. Roy: And Liberal-Labour, as one of my colleagues has said.

But, Mr. Speaker, as you know, over a period of years some of us who are proud to be Liberals have been receiving, continuously, correspondence from the Tory party asking for funds and we have thrown it in the basket. However, lately, it has gone too far. They have my name --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Roy: No, no. They have my name, Mr. Speaker, on a PC fund credit card. That is going too far.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa East will please resume his seat.

Mr. Roy: They will have to stop that. That attacks my integrity and reputation.

[Later]

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, to correct the record: The member for Ottawa East stated that nobody missed the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. I would like to say I did miss her very much. I want to correct the record.

Mr. Speaker: I might just make a general observation that she would be very difficult to miss now.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention that I tabled questions 693 and 694 on January 25, and question 696 on January 28. In violation of standing order 81, I have not received any answers from the minister. I would like your advice.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the government House leader (Mr. Wells) will take note of that and make sure that oversight is corrected.

Mr. Bradley: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was looking through the orders and notices in respect of the application of standing order 81 of our procedures.

My colleagues and I are very concerned about the fact that approximately 150 questions were placed on the Order Paper during September and October 1982 and remain unanswered to this time. In many cases the information was promised to us on or before December 17. I appreciate that it does take some additional time. For instance, if I looked at one of the questions, I could understand that --

Mr. Speaker: I will call the honourable member to order because that is not a legitimate point of order. However, the House leader, I know, has taken note of the member's request. Undoubtedly, he will respond very quickly.

DELTA PLATING CO. LTD.

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Last Thursday, in response to my leader (Mr. Rae), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) indicated he would take immediate action regarding the fired East Indian workers at Delta Plating. I understand they have been told by his ministry, or the Ontario Human Rights Commission to be accurate, that they would be optimistic to expect any action in less than three to three and a half months.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would suggest the honourable member put his question to the minister at the appropriate time.

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, to correct the record: In this morning's Globe and Mail a letter from the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) was published, part of which read: "It was also reported that I intended to propose legislation to allow Metro council to request reassessment for the whole region, and thereby impose reassessment on the city of Toronto. I said that we were considering such legislation to enable regions to request area-wide consolidation of reassessments, which have already been undertaken at the request of the individual municipalities under our regular section 86 program."

I now refer to the statement of the Premier (Mr. Davis) in the House on February 11 when he said, "The government is not contemplating a change in the law." He went on to say, "The government is not contemplating a change that would give to the Metropolitan Toronto council the legal right to have Metro-wide reassessment imposed." There is a very distinct difference of opinion, and the minister may want to take this opportunity to clear that up.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I think the issue should be clarified. If the Leader of the Opposition would read the basis of my letter, it was in response to the initial article in the Globe and Mail. It was delivered to the Globe and Mail the next day, and, as is quite typical, it was published about a week later.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister is so bad even Robert Duffy does not like him. When Robert Duffy does not like someone, that is bad.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: There is no problem with that, that is fine.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Even though the members opposite cannot read what a calendar says, time has overtaken my letter and the Premier has made a statement in that regard with which I have no problem.

ORAL QUESTIONS

STATUS OF GREYMAC AND SEAWAY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. He will be aware that thousands of people receiving interest cheques from Seaway and Greymac trust companies continue to have problems in banking and negotiating the cheques received from these companies. I am sure the minister is aware of the hundreds of people who are having trouble negotiating the instruments received from these companies.

I will give some examples: A retired gentleman of the cloth from Kitchener -- I could give the names, but I do not want to cause any public embarrassment for these people -- received Seaway and Greymac interest cheques for modest amounts on January 27 and February 3. Both cheques were stamped by Touche Ross. Both cheques were deposited on the days payable with the Bank of Nova Scotia, drawn on the respective accounts of Seaway and Greymac with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the Bank of Montreal. They are now in collection, and have been for some three and a half weeks and two weeks respectively. At this point, we have no idea whether those cheques will be cashed.

Then there is a retired lady from Ottawa, the major portion of whose monthly income is from Seaway interest cheques. The cheques were received. They have not been negotiated and this lady has not received any money. After exhaustive efforts to have those cheques cashed without success, she is now contemplating selling her house, because she cannot make the mortgage payment. Another gentleman, who had a Bank of Montreal bank draft, totally negotiable, had only "re Greymac" written on the surface. The Bank of Nova Scotia totally refused even to accept this bank draft and would not send this negotiable instrument to the Bank of Montreal on collection.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I want to give the minister some examples of the harm --

Mr. Speaker: Those are plenty of examples.

Mr. Peterson: -- that is being rendered by his incapacity through his agents to run these companies.

Another example is of a gentleman with a $19,000 certified Touche Ross-stamped Seaway cheque, dated February 3, 1983. The bank totally refused to accept that cheque and he had to send it to Seaway and did so on February 11. There is still no response, no information, and no money.

I am asking the minister now to clear up this situation. Will he issue instructions to the banks as well as to the trust companies to make sure no one's regular interest cheques will be held up because of the great confusion that has been caused?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the legitimate concern the Leader of the Opposition has as well as I can the concern of those who have advised him of their problems.

I think we can all agree the possession and operation of a trust company under section 158(a) of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act is a relatively new thing in terms of managing a trust company. I think those in charge, particularly Mr. Voelker, acting as chief executive officer of Seaway, and Mr. Taylor, acting as chief executive officer of Greymac, and the staffs of those institutions, deserve a great deal of tribute and credit for the fact that there have been so few problems.

I have said before that if there are specific instances of problems I will very happily consult and discuss these matters with the advisory committee, which consists of five private sector people, as well as with the chief executive officers of those two trust companies. Certainly there will be problems; thankfully they have been few in number.

I understand the confidential nature of some of the information the Leader of the Opposition has. I can assure him it will remain in confidence. If he wishes to give me the particular instances, I can speak to the chief executive officers operating the institutions on behalf of those people who have contacted him.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have given the minister four examples. I believe there are many more problems than we have just illustrated here today.

I am asking the minister to use his good offices to talk to the banks in this province to make sure there is no holdup in the clearing of those cheques. Clearly that is the problem. The minister has to talk to the banks through his agents who are running those companies, assure them that those cheques can be cleared and ask them to expedite these cheques.

That is what I am asking the minister to do. Will he do it this afternoon to make sure there is no holdup in the disposition of these cheques?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, we have talked about this before. Again let me emphasize, as I have in the past, that if there are specific problems I am pleased to relay those to the chief executive officers to have them review them.

I do not know the problems banks may have, but there is at present a limit of $20,000 imposed on the amount that can be withdrawn from Seaway and Greymac. The banks, I am certain, do have an obligation to make certain the amount of the cheque being processed does not exceed that. This is the only explanation I can think of for any undue delay of this sort.

Certainly I will consult with the chief executive officers and ask them if they are aware of difficulties similar to the ones the member has referred to. I know they have been in contact with the banks. Part of the role played by the advisory committee of five has been to try to avoid the types of problems that individuals have complained about.

Frankly, I think those in charge deserve a great deal of credit, as do the employees, for the kind of work they have done to minimize the problems that have occurred.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, what is the present state of the minister's discussions with the government of Canada or of the discussions the Premier (Mr. Davis) may have had with the Prime Minister about getting the $20,000 limit raised to $60,000? Surely that would solve a good number of these problems. What can be done to ensure the change in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act?

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a supplementary, but the minister may respond if he wishes.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Fine, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned last week, I had telephone conversations with the Honourable Paul Cosgrove, with the leader of the New Democratic Party and with the critic from the Progressive Conservative Party. I have also written to the Honourable Paul Cosgrove with copies to those two individuals in the other parties, and the Premier has written to the Prime Minister of Canada requesting that this be dealt with in an expedited fashion.

Mr. Peterson: Perhaps I did not put my question to the minister properly -- either that or he does not understand or does not choose to understand.

These cheques are not in the amount of $20,000. These are monthly interest cheques that people are living on. That is what we are talking about; small amounts of money. We are talking about cheques that have been stamped for clearance by Touche Ross, the interim receiver or manager of those companies at the present time, yet the banks refuse to clear them expeditiously.

I am asking the minister to send a letter this afternoon to the chief executive officers of the banks of this province asking them to move judiciously to clear all these cheques in the normal course of events. Will he do this and say he and the government will stand behind them through his agents who are running them? I am not asking for a speech about how wonderful those people are. I am asking him to solve a real human problem immediately this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let it be understood we do not need to write to everybody; we can have conversations with people in this world. We have learned that in this House. Sometimes they are pleasant conversations and sometimes they are not, but at least we are all still able to talk. I or representatives on my behalf are able to talk to Mr. Voelker at Seaway and to Mr. Taylor at Greymac.

Let us set aside any notion that those two individuals and the staff working with them are not aware of human problems. It has been a daily concern of theirs to avoid human problems. I will be glad to pass on the concerns the member has raised. They are concerns they are already aware of, although they may not be aware of these particular problems. Let me again say we should be grateful there have been so few problems.

ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I am sure he is aware of the Conference Board of Canada's latest quarterly provincial forecast which predicts the unemployment rate in Ontario will soar to 12.6 per cent by the middle of this year and will result in an additional 25,000 lost jobs or unemployed workers, bringing the total close to 600,000 in this province. Moreover, the employment drop in this province is expected to be the worst in the entire country.

Those forecasts from the Conference Board differ substantially from those outlined by the Treasurer in the House on January 24, 1983. At that time, the Treasurer suggested the employment level in 1983 would return to about the same level as in 1982. These statistics vary markedly from his original budget projections of almost a year ago.

I can appreciate the confusion that is resulting, and I am sure the Treasurer can also, as a result of the sketchy details coming forward from a variety of forecasting agencies. He can also appreciate the uncertainty felt in a number of sectors of this province as a result of not knowing the government's view of the near-term future of economic trends in this province.

In the near future and prior to his budget, will the Treasurer consider issuing a statement, speech, policy document or state of the economy address with respect to his projections? Then people might have some idea about his intentions and projections, and might have input over the next few months as the Treasurer is formulating his budget to deal with these very serious economic problems.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think that is what a budget does.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer's budgets are so wrong, but that is not what his budget will do and that budget will be two or three months from now, at some undetermined time in the future.

Given the uncertainty, the serious problems in the agricultural sector, the thousands of jobs that have been and will be lost in the agricultural sector, will he come forward now with his projections, with his idea of what is happening and with his idea of the problems that have to be addressed in his budget? Will he do this so we can have a public discussion of some of those problems, and so the people who want to help him in the formulation of those policies will have a chance to do so? Will he not give us his opinion of what is happening?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I sense the Leader of the Opposition does not know what I am doing these days, but that is fine. I just left a meeting with a business group made up of people from all three parties, as I read it. I saw some of the member's supporters there. Those people spent an hour and a half with me going over their estimates of the present state of the economy.

As the member probably knows, I meet with some 40 groups of people such as the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the brewers, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and on and on. On average, I make five or six telephone calls of half an hour's duration each day to business leaders and citizens around the province asking them for their opinions.

I would point out to my colleague that even in the last short while since the latest forecast was formulated, even before it was printed, it appeared as if the predictions in the current quarterly forecast of that group were not accurate. The Conference Board has given a gloomy forecast.

The real growth in the United States in January and February appears to be stunning most people. We have seen interest rates drop three quarters of a point today at least at one chartered bank in Canada. We are seeing the reawakening of production in the US, and shortly thereafter in Canada. We will see steel orders at Dofasco and Stelco up much above the levels they predicted. I believe events are overtaking that forecast.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I think the people of Ontario are less interested in forecasts and projections and more interested in jobs and action, and that is what we in this party expect to see from the Tory government.

In that regard, following the December conference of finance ministers, there appeared to be a consensus that work would begin on a certain number of particular projects and work would begin on making jobs and creating jobs directly, by governments deciding it was time to move together.

Can the Treasurer tell us if the government of Ontario has formulated those projects which it plans to go ahead with, or is it prepared to make public the recommendations it is making to the Minister of Finance of Canada, with respect to the projects it expects to see financed by the government of Canada?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the Minister of Finance of Canada, as requested at the December 16 meeting, with a very lengthy letter outlining what we thought could be done in terms of major job creation, in co-operation but in effect separately, which listed a large number of dollars' worth of works for them, for us, for municipalities, after a very careful scrutiny of the potential in this province.

Mr. Lalonde had asked each finance minister to do that, and if in fact the response was encouraging enough, to get back together, hopefully in February. That time is passing, but he talked to me within the last two days and said he hoped it could be done early in March and we would all get together in Toronto to review the lists other provinces are providing. We have done ours; we are now prepared to discuss it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, we are asking for something called a state of the economy address, not just for this time, but as an ongoing process in reforming the budgetary process. We feel this is something that should be done, not just now because of the particular economic situation but on a general basis, in conjunction perhaps with his quarterly update, which deals primarily with revenues and expenditures and what has happened to them.

Would the Treasurer not agree it would be beneficial for all the public -- not just the groups he wishes to consult with himself, but for all the public -- to hear addressed at regular intervals that government's best estimates of employment patterns, housing starts, bankruptcies, gross provincial product and all the things that go into the state of an economy -- perhaps, as the Treasurer says, to counter some of the gloomy and pessimistic views coming from the Conference Board and others? If he has a good story to tell, why not have a situation outside of budget time where he can make a major address that is more relevant to what has happened than what he said on May 13 last year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a great respect for my colleague the member for Rainy River's knowledge of and practice of the art of parliamentary procedure. State of the union messages are usually done by "Presidents," in a system that is not like ours. We have a long parliamentary tradition of doing the same thing in something called a budget. It is not simply a balancing of figures; it is an economic document, it predicts unemployment levels, and it is done at a regular time of year. It will be done and he will see it.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. It concerns the fact that in the last two weeks since February 4, 1983, we are aware of the announcements of closures and layoffs affecting nearly 1,500 workers in this province. At that same time, the Canada-Ontario employment development program and new employment expansion and development program were announcing 1,048 short-term jobs, which means 398 jobs have in a sense been lost in the last two weeks and that the program is falling behind the real need.

It also means that in Ontario we are losing long-term jobs, in companies like Monsanto, Kimberly-Clark, Canadian General Electric, Jarvis Clark and so on, and they are simply being replaced by short-term make-work projects which the Treasurer's own Finance critic in Ottawa has simply described as an alphabet soup and as a political ploy.

I would like to ask the Treasurer, given the fact he has written to the Minister of Finance with these capital works projects, does he not think it would be a sign of good faith for the government of Ontario to fund those projects as of today to get them on the road, to start creating permanent jobs, instead of these short-term make-work projects? Does he not think it is more worth while to have long-term jobs than to be funding pet surveys in North York?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Rae: If the Treasurer's answer is "Yes," I am delighted to hear it. Can he please tell us, is he saying he is prepared to go ahead with those projects as of today as a sign of good faith? In particular, can he please comment on the fact that with the interest rates falling, the Treasurer himself has admitted he is saving a very substantial amount of money in the servicing of the debt?

Is the Treasurer not prepared to use the money he is saving in servicing of the debt to start putting people back to work and start creating jobs in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My colleague likes to choose figures to suit himself. He selectively chooses some layoffs and then selectively chooses some jobs created under COED and NEED up to date. He forgets about the jobs we have created under the Ontario program itself, the $50 million being spent in the three months ending March 31.

He forgets about the normal recalls in industries. He forgets that companies like General Motors, Oshawa, is bringing back I think it is 1,500 people shortly. He does not like to do his balance in total; he likes to be very selective.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, why does the Treasurer continue to measure the success of what he is doing in coffee-spoons rather than getting his sights up? Why is he not having some active, dynamic programs here to build in this province? Why is he not building housing when we need it so badly? It would create some jobs immediately. Why are we not diverting moneys into those kinds of areas? How can he sit there day after day and justify some rinky-dink programs, such as we have had in the past, that are yielding virtually no results?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the rinky-dink programs have put a lot of people to work this winter building houses in Ontario at a rate that we have not seen mid winter for a long time. Sixteen-thousand-odd people in Ontario purchased homes because of the Ontario program.

Mr. Peterson: Miserable little response.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Miserable little response? Let me pass that message back, then, to the people in the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada and the Urban Development Institute who believe it was a great program, who believe it succeeded, who believe we have put a lot of people back to work in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: Surely the Treasurer has to appreciate that the real point is that by writing Mr. Lalonde with a set of projects, the Treasurer himself has admitted there are projects in this province put forward by municipalities, put forward by co-operative housing groups, put forward by nonprofit housing groups, put forward by the province itself, and the only thing holding these projects back is the unwillingness of the Treasurer to fund them.

Mr. Speaker: The question, please.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Treasurer, is he willing to fund those programs and is he willing to get them going so we can put people to work this winter?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can understand why the finances of socialist countries never work.

Mr. Wildman: Well, yours are not working.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member for York South talked about what I was doing with the $50 million I saved. He would get out and spend that money.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member for York South cannot listen and yell too. I know the Premier (Mr. Davis) got to him the other day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If I have saved $50 million in interest costs in the last year, I think the member would recognize we also laid out a good many more dollars in job creation programs. The $50 million we put into the three months alone equalled that saving.

METRO CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Now that the minister has launched another personal attack on somebody else in the social services agency --

Mr. Hennessy: How about you? You are pretty good too.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I thank the member for Fort William very much. I appreciate the help.

Mr. Mackenzie: Get on the question period list, Mickey, and let's hear you for once.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have never really thought of him as an anti-imperialist myself. I always thought he was a great supporter of the IODE.

Would the minister please clear up for us his accusations made towards the Metro Children's Aid Society of Toronto, which he is picturing as very fat and complacent by saying, for instance, that there was one management person for every two workers?

Let me quote from the Toronto Sun of Thursday, February 17: "He's got one manager for every two employees." Would the minister not agree that, in terms of service delivery workers, it is actually a one-to-seven ratio, 78 managers to 552 workers, and in the rest of the operation it is 16 to 80, or a one-to-five ratio?

Will the minister clear up for us why he does not think there is going to be any staff reduction when the minister's letter from Mr. Bruce Heath, the regional manager, on January 13, indicated a list of options for reductions that would have included a reduction of between five and 23 front-line workers, a three- to eight-position reduction in department heads and several reductions in clerical positions? How can the minister suggest those would be done through attrition in the course of a one-year period? Would he mind clearing that up today?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member is dead wrong. We never said in a one-year period; we said in a three-year period, so please correct that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Not in Heath's letter.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Come on. Just to go through that long litany of protest from a gentleman who established a reputation the other night that shall never be equalled in this House, the fundamental reason for the redistribution of child care funds in Metropolitan Toronto is to reflect population change. There is no reduction in them. In fact, in total they will be raised by five per cent, just as they are across the province to similar societies.

The press has pointed out rather abundantly that the Metro Children's Aid Society of Toronto is now being funded on the basis of representing 63.2 per cent of the non-Jewish, non-Catholic child population when it is now down to 54 per cent. It is not a stringent redistribution. It is fair, equitable and just. If I were to do it by population alone, $5 million would have been taken.

I did not start the little rumble. The little rumble was started by the executive director of the society. The reason --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It was started by the minister's deputy.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No. Just as in the case of the Royal Ottawa Hospital of recent memory, the rumble was started by the hospital. The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) knows that. He benefited enormously from it.

Mr. Roy: I am with the minister on that one.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is right. I think the member will find the same result in this one.

May I just point out a couple of other things to put all this into perspective. I have not used these figures before. The average per capita cost per child of the Metro CAS, since I am being accused of doing things, right now is $135.17 per day. The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto is $94.47. The total number of cases the Metro CAS handled in 1979 was 6,590. Today it is handling 5,433. That is a drop of 1,157 or a drop of 17.6 per cent. The number of children in its care has dropped by 19.4 per cent.

May I point out that in the institutions run by the society, the average cost per child is $64,652 a year. That spells e-m-p-i, and if the member wants to ask me another question, I will be glad to give him the r-e.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister has brought that up as if it should be a surprise that there has been that kind of decline, especially in the residential care sector of --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I believe this is part of it, Mr. Speaker. In terms of the number of children in care, will the minister not agree this has been part of the plan, and he has known it for a long time? As a matter of fact, last July the ministry approved a service plan that outlined that it would be trying to cut down the residential services by 10 per cent per year. That was part of the plan. As a matter of fact, family services this year are slightly higher than they were last year. That was all part of the plan until he decided to move in and intervene at this time.

Does the minister not agree that now, when we are facing this kind of pressure on our society, is not the time to cut back what is known as one of the best and best-funded CASs in this province? This is the time to bring the others up to their level, not to bring them down as he raises the others up. Would that not be a more equitable approach to funding the CASs?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The Metro CAS has a surplus of cash today of $901,000. In terms of bringing them up, I am bringing up the Catholic Children's Aid Society on its base budget, and I am bringing up the Jewish Family and Child Service of Metropolitan Toronto, not nearly to the level of population, but I am bringing them up. In addition to that, I will make significant adjustments to both of them. That is the E. We have gone through EMPIRE.

If the member is suggesting to me that I should turn a blind eye to the population shifts in Metropolitan Toronto, and a blind eye to the requirements of the Catholic Children's Aid Society and the Jewish Family and Child Service of Metropolitan Toronto, by statute, then he is absolutely incorrect. We are not going to do that. The budget for the three of them has been raised in total by five per cent, the same as for every other children's aid society across the province. It is merely a redistribution.

Earlier the question was asked why I felt no layoffs or job losses were possible with the surplus of $901,000. The fact is that long before we even discussed this with the Metro CAS, it put in a hiring freeze of its own accord. The Metro CAS's own report from its board of directors pointed this out long before we had talks with them. I suggest that if the member wants to champion a lost cause, he should get up and ask the third question.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I can understand and have sympathy with the minister because we realize he has to go down swinging in order to save his own face, and we all know he is going down.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: Nevertheless, the personal attack --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: In terms of the ministerial record, I look back to last year and the famous incident of Art Bossen. I look to the public hand-wringing of the minister yesterday over radio and television about the empire-building of Douglas Barr. I wonder if it would not behoove the Minister of Community and Social Services to deal with issues, so those parents who have children at present under the care of the Metro Children's Aid Society of Toronto could have faith that the system amounts to a little more than a bit of personality wrangling in public such as we saw displayed by the minister yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of record that I never said a word on this anywhere until Mr. Barr chose to start the war. I never said a word. I say to the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), when one starts a war, one should not do it with me.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Your deputy minister did once before you did. Your hit man did it for you.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There may be another war on the verge of starting.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is very reassuring for us all to have a gunslinger in the minister's position in that ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Does the minister not think the role played by his deputy minister was perhaps a little provocative in all of this? Does he not think that perhaps the deputy has contravened section 8 of the Child Welfare Act in terms of essentially disrupting the normal methodology for filing estimates by children's aid societies; that by stating they are now working on a new base and are coming down firm on it, he is prejudicing their rights to appeal under sections 11 and 12? Does the minister not think the deputy has overstepped his role in all of this -- on the authority of the minister, I would presume?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The answer to that is very short and sweet. The answer is "No." I think someone who is --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am the nicest, most peaceful person I know. I am very friendly, I am a grandfather and I am a lot of things.

I would just like to point out one final matter because I do not want it getting lost in all of this. In the honourable member's first question --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister should answer the question I asked. He is not answering my question.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- he talks about my saying there was one manager to two employees.

Mr. Laughren: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The fact sheet I gave out said, very clearly, "virtually one manager to every two child care workers." Yes, it did -- in writing. The member should not smirk at me, as he did the other night. He should show his ability to read.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

An hon. member: Let the record show that he smirked.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Did the member smirk?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Why is it that the Premier (Mr. Davis) cannot sit through the minister's answers?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If there is any confusion about that -- and I can understand from time to time, because of certain jargon that is used, there appears to be some confusion -- let me make it plain that the CAS has some 700 employees to the best of my knowledge. And by the way, they have not been filing their number of employees with us, lately.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Then the minister should cut them up some more. Why does he not go and cut them up?

Hon. Mr. Drea: There are 235 child care workers and approximately 115 managers. They spread between the child care workers, our support workers, etc. The argument made by the CAS has been that they need those managers for their front-line services.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification: This afternoon when I was discussing per capita costs, on page 1440-2 of the Instant Hansard I said "$135.17 a day." Obviously the per capita is based on a year. It is the standard measurement across the province.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on February 8, I undertook to report back to the House on a question raised by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) regarding carbon monoxide fumes from sidewalk snowploughs in the city of Ottawa.

The honourable member alleged that occupational health branch samples taken in February 1981 indicated carbon monoxide levels in two of four machines exceeded the Ontario recommended level of 35 parts per million and that noise levels were at 94 decibels. Ministry reports reveal only one of the four machines had carbon monoxide levels in excess of 35 ppm and that no noise tests were conducted at that time.

The member also alleged that subsequent tests by the occupation health branch, in 1982, were done under nonrepresentative conditions. The union complaint regarding the snowploughs was not received by the industrial health and safety branch until February 23, 1982. When the occupational health branch investigated on March 18, 1982, there was no snow, thus making it impossible to conduct air sampling for carbon monoxide under typical operating conditions.

Ministry of Labour policy is that consultants conduct routine investigations unannounced in order to check normal operating conditions. As none of the machines the union wished to have sampled was on site and there was no snow, a similar model was sampled in the neutral position for 10 minutes.

Because the sampling of March 1982 was not undertaken under representative conditions, further testing was scheduled during the peak of the following season. I am pleased to inform the House that my ministry conducted air sampling for carbon monoxide on four ploughs on January 12, 1983, during an entire seven-hour sanding operation. One of the four vehicles had a level of 44 ppm during a four-and-a-half-hour sampling period. This was subsequently found to be due to a cracked manifold. Orders were issued for equipment to be maintained in good condition and for the provision of ventilation in the cabs.

The industrial health and safety officer delivered the report to the city on February 9, 1983, at which time copies were transmitted to the two union health and safety representatives.

There are recognized difficulties relating to fumes in snowplough cabs, and the city of Ottawa and the union are fully aware of the potential hazards in the use of these vehicles, the precautions that have to be taken and the need for proper maintenance as well as periodic monitoring. However, even stringent maintenance programs can never guarantee that the vehicles will not malfunction on occasion and produce an increase in fumes.

The ministry's staff have investigated the situation and have issued orders where necessary. Recommendations for structural modifications to decrease the likelihood of cab fumes have been suggested and complied with. The ministry will continue to assist the parties in achieving a healthful and safe work environment.

Today I am pleased to transmit a comprehensive report to the member for Sudbury East that addresses all the questions raised in respect to this matter on Tuesday last.

HOUSING PROGRAMS

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. During estimates the minister said a key objective for his ministry will be, "To assist the residential construction industry towards an orderly adjustment to the changing level and patterns of housing demands."

My colleagues and I believe the government's major priority should be in the building area if it wishes to cope effectively with our economy. Instead of boasting about past programs, as the minister is prone to do, can he tell me what plans he has in the immediate future to stimulate the residential construction industry?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I did say at the time of my estimates that we were interested in helping the construction industry, and I did take a great deal of pride in the fact that this government had announced some programs that had produced opportunities for people in Ontario both in rental accommodation and in ownership, and I take no back seat.

I recall the opposition a year ago belittling the renter-buy program as not being one that would serve any useful purpose in this economy of Ontario. Indeed, I heard members opposite say we would not achieve our goals and objectives.

Mr. Speaker, we achieved them and even went beyond them. Indeed, it was a program that was valuable to the construction industry, and it delights me to say that the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, the Urban Development Institute and the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies have said publicly that without it the construction industry in Ontario would have suffered greatly in 1982.

So this government does take some degree of pride that it brought in a program that not only served this province well but also was looked at by nine other provinces in Canada, which used some parts of it to stimulate the construction industry in their parts of Canada as well.

I said to Mr. LeBlanc, the minister reporting for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., and I have said before in this House and repeat it again today, that it is incumbent upon this government and his government to work in unison to bring a program into being in 1983 that will stimulate the construction industry.

I make no apologies that I have been going through some long discussions. Indeed, I did so just a week ago last Monday for three hours in Vancouver when, at the HUDAC annual conference, Mr. LeBlanc and my colleagues from four other provinces met with the association and discussed the possibility of some type of co-operative program between provincial governments and the federal government to stimulate not only the ownership business --

Mr. Sargent: Talk, talk, talk.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It might be only talk, talk, talk, but I can assure the member that as long as we are talking we might, if he can persuade some of his friends in Ottawa, get some action to go on a co-operative program.

I do not intend to recommend to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) of this province that we continue to go on programs by the provincial government alone, at times finding ourselves in conflict with what the federal government is trying to do with some of its programs. I think there is a great deal more to be gained for the government and the people of this province in working in a co-operative program with the federal government. I have sent Mr. LeBlanc a further letter in the last couple of days, again suggesting to him areas where I think there is a possibility for some co-operation in programs.

3 p.m.

I want to make one other point. I said to Mr. LeBlanc that I am not sure the announcement of a program on this very day is going to stimulate opportunities for employment. The renter-buy program is using the capacity of the small house-building industry to its extent at this moment. I think there is value in announcing something come the Treasurer's budget.

Mr. Epp: I recall that after the renter-buy program had been under way for three or four months and the media were asking the minister why it was not very successful, he said, "Because we had a hot summer."

The Premier (Mr. Davis) has indicated that housing is a priority this government will pursue. He also said it would be possible to introduce or reintroduce a construction stimulation plan before the new budget comes down. The minister will recall the Ontario Liberal proposal to stimulate rental housing, announced last December. I am pleased to report that this proposal has gained wide acceptance right across the country, and particularly from municipalities in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Epp: In praising the plan, Mayor Norm Jary of Guelph indicated that a provincially sponsored study of Guelph's housing situation indicated an immediate need for 175 to 200 apartment units and a future need of somewhere between 300 and 400 units.

Will the minister assure the House that one goal of a future construction stimulation program will be to ease the rental housing shortage? More important, will he introduce measures to stimulate the residential housing industry now, instead of waiting for the Treasurer's budget?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, let us go back just a year ago, because the members of the Liberal Party seem to have a shortcoming in memory as to what their party in Ottawa did to our rental construction loan program.

I want to indicate very clearly that we had the Ontario rental construction loan program in 1981. It was a very successful program. We got about 16,700 units committed to various parts of Ontario under that scheme, designed by the Treasurer and announced in this Legislature.

Members will recall that as we advanced into 1982 we were thinking very seriously of continuing the rental construction loan program because it had been successful and because it did bring units into the marketplace, where they were required to try to meet the shortcoming.

I reported to this House -- and I suggest the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) note very clearly -- that Mr. Cosgrove, at the time the minister reporting for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., invited this province to remove itself from any kind of scheme that would stimulate the rental construction loan program. He said the federal government through CMHC was going to bring into place the Canada rental supply program. Does the member recall that?

He also made the promise to this minister, to this government and to the people of Ontario that through this program they would put in place in Ontario 10,000 rental units in 1982. They did not succeed in doing a third of that, but they removed us from that field.

I spoke just two minutes ago about conflicts in programs. I think it is rather foolish for this government to try to design a rental construction loan program that would be in absolute competition with CRSP, which the federal government extended through 1983. It is ridiculous to expect this government now to try to overstep a federal program. They have it in place; if it is not working, they should look at it. We have suggested, as ministers across Canada reporting for housing at the provincial level, that the federal government should look at improving CRSP to get a further stimulus into the marketplace.

I am not denying the requirement for rental accommodation in certain parts of this province -- not at all. But the federal government asked us to remove ourselves from that particular position because it was going to fill the bill with some $300 million, and it extended it to 1983. I am not about to recommend to the Treasurer at this time that we get involved by ourselves in a program in competition. I did say to Mr. LeBlanc, and I repeat here again, that we can still find opportunities for co-operation between federal and provincial governments to make that a more worthwhile program in the economy of Ontario, both from an employment point of view and from a supply point of view.

Let me finish with a comment relating to the Premier's remark about the housing industry in Ontario. The Treasurer met with his counterparts from across Canada and with the federal minister. The federal minister said very clearly, in unison with the 10 provincial ministers, that the priority item for development of employment, not only in Ontario but in Canada, indeed the one that could respond most positively and quickly to supplying employment, was the housing industry. They were united in their determination to provide housing. I hope the member's federal counterparts will come forward with some proposals shortly.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very complete answer. Thank you.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my question will be a lot shorter than the minister's answer. How can the minister expect this House and the public to believe he is serious about rental construction when only one out of the three programs he announced with great fanfare to deal with the issue have been financed by this government?

How can the minister expect co-operation from the federal government when in areas such as co-op housing he is putting in less and less while he expects the federal government to put in more and more? What is the minister going to do about the 18,000 families who are waiting for Ontario Housing in this province and who badly need the kind of programs he has finally announced?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if one goes over my remarks in this House, not only in the past year but in previous years, relating to the development of housing through a co-operative program with the federal government, he will see that one of the areas in which we agreed to get involved in 1978 was public and private nonprofit housing and co-ops.

The allocation factor happens to come from the federal government. It does not originate with the provincial government. We are given the allocation for municipal nonprofit housing by the federal government. May I remind the member that the co-op and the private nonprofit programs are 100 per cent financed, administered and allocated by the federal government. It does not come through this government in any way, shape or form.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just listen for a moment. It does not come through us at all. The member for York South (Mr. Rae) is shaking his head. He was down there and he did not do a very good job in arguing on behalf of anybody to get a better allocation.

I have told Mr. LeBlanc that in this current year the federal government has to recognize that provincial governments have social requirements for further rent support units. I have asked him to look seriously at the allocation he is not making to this province in the field of nonprofit -- public, private and co-ops -- that will supply that market. We agreed to supply it that way in 1978, and if the federal government is not about to move an increase in that allocation we will be in some difficulties.

There is unison among the 10 provincial ministers of housing that the federal government's allocation in the field of public and private nonprofit and co-ops should be increased substantially.

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General and concerns the various probes and studies that have been conducted at the Hospital for Sick Children.

Can the Attorney General confirm whether he is now in receipt of the report of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta as well as the final report from the police investigation that has been headed by Superintendent Robert Bamlett?

Can he also comment on the statement made on January 28 by the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), in answer to a question from me with respect to a public inquiry? At that time the Minister of Health stated very clearly that once those reports had been received, it would then be appropriate for the government to consider whether to go ahead with a public inquiry.

Is the Attorney General now in a position to order a public inquiry in order to restore full public confidence in the events and affairs of the Sick Children's hospital?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has just advised me that his response included the necessity for any conclusion of a criminal investigation without charges before the issue of a public inquiry can be considered.

The investigation by the Metropolitan Toronto Police has not yet been concluded. I have seen some statements to the contrary reported in the news, but I can assure the member the investigation has not been concluded and I am not in receipt of any report from the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

With respect to the Atlanta study, we are in receipt of that report and I will be making a statement to the Legislature about that report either tomorrow or Monday.

3:10 p.m.

In regard to the matter of the criminal investigation, I repeat it has not been concluded. In the event it is concluded without any additional criminal charges being laid, the issue of a public inquiry becomes very real and at the forefront. That is obviously an option that must be and will be very seriously considered, but I cannot comment further on that until I am satisfied the police investigation has been concluded.

Mr. Rae: I want to thank the Attorney General for his answer, and ask him this question in the light of the information which is contained in today's press reports with respect to the conclusion of the police investigation and the resignation of Superintendent Bamlett, who was heading the police probe.

Can the Attorney General give us an indication as to when he does expect the conclusion of the Metro police investigation? If the reports of Superintendent Bamlett's resignation are true, is he disturbed at all that the superintendent heading the investigation would appear to be leaving the investigation before it has been completed? Is he worried about that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not aware of Superintendent Bamlett's impending resignation. I think it is very hazardous to speculate as to when the police investigation should be concluded. Assuming there are no unexpected developments, I would say the police investigation will be concluded by the end of this month or early next month.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Attorney General was not aware that Staff Sergeant Bamlett was going to retire in the normal course of events --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: He is not a staff sergeant; he is a superintendent.

Ms. Copps: I am sorry. Superintendent Bamlett is retiring in the normal course of events. He has not resigned as a result of the investigation.

Nevertheless, the Attorney General will know, because I am sure his office will have followed this up, of the comments which were made by Superintendent Bamlett with respect to the investigation. He is quoted as having said, "The investigation has gone as far as it can go and now the only thing left is a decision on what course is followed here." Has the Attorney General been in touch with the department to find out whether this information is accurate? If it is accurate, who is going to be making the decision about what course of action is to follow from here?

Will the minister make a commitment today not only to make a statement in this House with respect to the report from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta but also to table that report so that all members of the Legislature may have an opportunity to see the findings of the Atlanta study before the House rises.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the report will not be tabled, for very good reasons. If the member had listened to me a moment ago, she would have heard me say I would be making a statement about that report either tomorrow or Monday.

I do not speak directly to the Metropolitan Toronto Police on a day-to-day basis. As a matter of fact, most of my communication is through the director of the criminal law office and the criminal law branch of my ministry. If the member had the vaguest idea as to just how the ministry operates, she would understand that. I would invite --

Ms. Copps: Does the Attorney General not think this issue is important?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CLOSING OF KIMBERLY-CLARK MILL

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry and Trade. As the minister is aware, Kimberly-Clark of Canada Ltd. announced on Monday, February 7, it will permanently close its mill in Kapuskasing on April 22, throwing 127 people out of work --

Interjections.

Mr. Piché: I listen to the silly questions from over there. They should listen to a question with some meat to it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.

Mr. Piché: As the minister is also aware, a meeting was held here at Queen's Park last Monday between government representatives and top Kimberly-Clark officials to discuss the matter and seek a six-month postponement on the closing, a request that was refused by the company.

Will the minister now proceed with an action plan to see what can be done to continue some type of operation in the 100,000-square-foot plant adjoining the present newsprint operation of Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co.? The resources are available and there might be other parties prepared to move in.

The minister is also aware of the impact this will have on the community and on the whole region. What is he prepared to do immediately to alleviate the problems faced because of the closing?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question he has asked. I know this is one that has caused a great deal of concern to him. We have talked about it and he has arranged a number of meetings. There have been serious discussions.

An hon. member: All sorts of constructive things on it.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Very constructive things, that is right. Very constructive things have been done in respect of the matter. It is very gratifying to know that constructive moves are taken by members of the House in respect of these matters that cause a great deal of problem in a community. I certainly applaud the member for the efforts.

This is one of the difficulties we are facing in a number of communities, when old or outdated facilities or facilities that are growing a bit aged become caught up in an economic squeeze. This appears to be one of those. The facility seems to be becoming quite a bit more uneconomic than it has been in past years.

However, if there is a way of solving the problem, if there is a way of finding an alternative to the operation of this mill, which is in a sense an adjunct to Spruce Falls through the Kimberly-Clark facility, if we can attempt to resolve it that way then we are more than willing to do that. We are prepared to take enough steps to attempt to set up a vehicle for alternatives to be sought out.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and I have discussed one vehicle, a task force, that I think might be appropriate. In fact he, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) have met on the issue already with officials of the firm. If we could possibly set up a task force that might include community people and senior ministry people, there might be ways of seeking out from elsewhere in the world some facility that might make use of it.

I would be prepared to pursue that goal. In fact, I would be prepared to become directly involved in it. I share the member's concern.

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You may remember that last December I raised with the Minister of Labour the question of the task force on video display terminals which had made some recommendations. At that time, he indicated to me by correspondence that the task force report to the advisory council was going to be sent back to the task force for rethinking.

I quote the letter: "A further draft will be discussed at the January meeting and it is hoped that council will be in a position to submit formal advice to the minister shortly thereafter." The minister also assured me he would report to the House shortly thereafter.

On February 8, the task force report was before the advisory council. It changed some wording but reaffirmed the major points about monitoring for ionizing radiation, shielding of various machines, an epidemiological study, and protection from the reproductive hazards, including Workers' Compensation Board assistance for women.

I hope before the end of this session the minister will rise and indicate whether or not there will be legislation bringing in these new recommendations in the coming session.

Mr. Speaker: Undoubtedly the minister has taken note and will reply at the appropriate time.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The minister wants to reply now.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, the time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Renwick: This would be an appropriate time for the reply. It was a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Then I have no alternative but to rule your colleague out of order.

Mr. Renwick: It was a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order, with all respect.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We could, by unanimous consent, revert to statements.

Mr. Speaker: We could, if you want to put it.

Mr. Foulds: I would so ask the House.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously we do not.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: My friend refers to unanimous consent to revert to tabling. I know of no provision in --

Mr. Speaker: He said "statements."

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am sorry, I thought he said "tabling." I am sure my friend has had enough statements for today.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Conway, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely:

The continuing confusion and lack of information following the takeover of control of Greymac Trust and Seaway Trust by the Ontario government, and, in particular, the lack of any indication concerning the ultimate ownership and disposition of some 20,000 apartment units previously managed by Kilderkin Investments Ltd. and Maysfield Property Management Inc. to the great concern of tens of thousands of tenants;

The lack of any indication concerning the ultimate ownership and disposition of Greymac Trust and Seaway Trust, to the great concern of tens of thousands of depositors and other creditors; the difficulties and anxieties experienced by guaranteed investment certificate and debenture holders of Greymac Trust and Seaway Trust, some of whom are finding that even after three weeks the chartered banks are not clearing the interest payment cheques arising from their investments;

The lack of any accounting on the part of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for the series of regulatory and legal actions, which it has initiated over the last six weeks; the lack of any explanation for the serious lapse in the regulatory responsibilities on the part of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations extending over the last two years, which has resulted in the current crisis;

And the refusal of the Ontario government to establish a royal commission to examine all aspects of this most recent breakdown in the exercise of the regulatory duties on the part of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Can you control the members of your government?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the honourable member would like to reconsider that statement.

Mr. Renwick: Could you ask the members of the government party if they would allow those of us who are interested in the business of the House to hear what it is?

Mr. Speaker: I surely will. I ask all honourable members to please co-operate and, if they have private business, to carry it on outside the precincts of this chamber.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

To get back to the business at hand, I must rule this motion out of order because, as all honourable members will recall, this was the topic of a motion that was introduced by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and was debated on January 17, 1983. I refer members to standing order 34(c)(iv), which provides, "The motion must not revive discussion on a matter that has been discussed in the same session under this standing order." Therefore, I have no alternative but to find the motion out of order.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I am obliged to challenge your ruling.

4:10 p.m.

The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, 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, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Kerrio, Lupusella, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 67; nays 43.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to raise a point of order not about the decision you have just made with respect to whether or not the motion was in order, because a major ruling has been challenged and your ruling has been upheld.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out it was not a ruling. That was the whole exercise.

Mr. McClellan: Perhaps I can make a brief statement of concern with respect to the procedures under standing order 34(a).

Mr. Speaker: No, the honourable member is out of order. The matter has been decided, and we cannot have any further discussion.

Mr. Roy: It is on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Quite clearly the standing orders provide, as you all know, that when a matter has been decided it cannot be debated further.

Mr. Roy: No, I do not want to debate it further. I just want to bring to your attention one standing order.

Mr. Speaker: No. The decision has been made.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, for the future I want to raise a point of order with you.

Mr. Speaker: No, this is not the appropriate time to do it.

Mr. Roy: Listen to my point of order.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Roy: I am not debating it.

Mr. Speaker: No, there is nothing out of order.

Mr. Roy: I am not debating with you. Are you going to listen to a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: The standing orders do not provide for any questioning of the Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Listen to my point of order first and tell me if I am out of order.

Mr. Speaker: You are out of order. I have decided that. The honourable member will resume his seat. The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) will please resume his seat.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order and you do not know what my point of order is. You cannot rule in advance that I am out of order.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, you indicated it when you said what you were going to make your point of order on.

Mr. McClellan: Unless you can read my mind, you do not know what my point of order is.

Mr. Speaker: If you have a point of order other than the matter which has been decided by the House I will listen to it.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with the procedures with respect to moving motions under section 34(a). I want to have a clear understanding from you, sir -- and I do not think that is too much to ask -- as to what the correct procedure is. It is our interpretation of the standing order that the procedure is as follows: first, the motion is submitted, and second, each member is allowed to make his arguments for five minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The procedure was demonstrated. The procedure is laid down in the standing orders. It is not difficult to interpret. All one has to do is read it.

Mr. Cassidy: You have it wrong.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No, you are out of order.

Mr. McClellan: I am not out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you are. Where were we? Orders of the day.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a new point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: All right. I will listen to it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am really concerned about that because, as you say, it is perfectly clear in the procedure laid out in the section which says, "Such member may explain his arguments in favour of the motion for not more than five minutes."

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: The Speaker then makes his ruling. That was not done and that is why we want to --

Mr. Watson: That is the same point.

Hon. Mr. Pope: You don't belong here anyway.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) will please resume his seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If you were as knowledgeable as you would have us believe, I would suggest you read the standing order. It is very simple. The proper procedure has been followed.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, you are wrong and you know it.

Mr. Roy: It has not. That is what we are trying to tell you.

Mr. Speaker: I beg your pardon.

Mr. Roy: Don't be so dictatorial.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Orders of the day.

Mr. Cassidy: With respect, Mr. Speaker, a child in grade 5 would --

An hon. member: What grade are you in, Mike?

Mr. Cassidy: What kind of bully-boy place is this anyway?

An hon. member: Throw him out.

Mr. Cassidy: You distort every rule for your own purposes.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to discuss a standing order with you.

Mr. Speaker: No. This is not the appropriate time.

Mr. Roy: I do not want to discuss your ruling. I just want to discuss the standing order. I do not want to discuss your ruling. I just want to discuss standing order 34.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order. I followed it to the letter.

Mr. Roy: I want to ask you --

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in the standing order --

Mr. Roy: Are you independent or are you taking your orders from across the way?

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: That is the way it is. They are shouting across the way. We are not unreasonable. Read standing order 34.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) may want to reconsider that statement. As I have told him quite clearly, I based my interpretation on the standing orders.

Mr. Martel: Read it out.

Mr. Roy: That is what I want --

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. Sit down.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the only person you listen to is the Clerk of the House and he tells the government what he wants to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) should know better than that. I will tell him for his own information --

Mr. Renwick: I don't know better and you don't know what I know.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the question you put a few minutes ago was totally wrong. We are not here to discuss your interpretation. You know that as well as I do. This is getting to be an unbelievable travesty in this House.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale will please resume his seat. I heard his comment regarding the Clerk. To make everything perfectly clear to all members, I did not consult with the Clerk at any time before making the decision. The decision had been made previously and it was made today on the basis of these standing orders.

Orders of the day, please.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, you should have listened to each member before you ruled on that question of order. That is what I am trying to say to you.

Mr. Speaker: No. Read the standing orders.

Mr. Roy: That is what the rule says.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a new point of order?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, can I ask you a question? I think there is a genuine concern for those of us who must read this section vastly differently from you. We are simply trying to get at how you arrived at your conclusion.

I do not question it for the moment, but if we read this carefully -- and I went over it with the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) a while ago -- we have a concern as to how it reads. If there is a difference of opinion as strong as the one that obviously is developing now, then I think you either should take time to go over it with us or send it to procedural affairs. But we cannot go along with this sort of attitude towards this rule because it is very clear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) will please resume his seat.

The matter has been decided. I will be pleased to discuss it at procedural affairs at any time.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, is it not both the custom and the precedent in this House that when a member raises a matter of urgent public importance under section 34(a) of the standing orders, he has the right to make a five-minute argument in favour of his motion? Then -- and the word "then" is used in section 34(a) -- the Speaker may rule it out of order, but only then.

Mr. Speaker: I would refer all honourable members to conditions precedent.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I recognize it is the end of the session and tempers are raised. However, as a point of order, of all the rights in a parliamentary democracy one of the most fundamental is the right of the opposition to be heard, and it is the duty of the Speaker to uphold that right. I would ask you to look very clearly at the ruling you made earlier today and see whether it is consistent with that right of the opposition to be heard.

Mr. Speaker: Resume your seat.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 127

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the business paper shows a particular order of business. It was always our intention that Bill 127 would be debated this afternoon, and I think it would be good that we debated it. So I am going to call order 2.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, is the government House leader (Mr. Wells) withdrawing motion 11?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I am calling order 2.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, since the order of business today on the Order Paper is a continuation of the debate on motion 11, why is the government House leader not prepared to withdraw it? Why is he not prepared to do that rather than play some silly game at 5:45 p.m. that could allow him to call the question when some Conservative member has the floor? I do not think we are prepared to proceed.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: You can do what you want, but we are not prepared to proceed until you withdraw that -- because at 5:45 p.m. you could get the floor and put the question. We are not prepared to accept that possibility.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have a very high regard for the House leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Martel). He has just been talking about a number of rules. I always thought they went by the rules. He should realize that once we call this order, we are into the committee of the whole House on Bill 127. The motion we have been debating, and which will stay in place, has no relevance to what we are now doing. It is a motion that has not been passed by this House.

I suggest that if the member is sincere -- and I have listened for the last few days -- and he wants to get into the debate on Bill 127, he can have it in a few minutes. The members over there have had their fun with their emergency motions and everything else.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Those members do not want us to believe they were moving emergency motions just because they wanted to have them now. We have seen through this whole sham not to allow us to have a vote on this motion. Now let us get on with the bill.

Mr. Rae: The government has to withdraw the bill. It has lost on the motion.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if we take the government House leader at face value, that he wants to proceed, then I cannot understand for one moment why he is not prepared to withdraw motion 11.

Mr. Rae: That is right. He should admit the government is wrong and that it made a mistake. It can happen to anybody.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The government has wasted two days' time because it made a mistake.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The other day the government House leader clearly spelled out the order of business as follows: "Orders of the day: resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for the time allocation of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act." That is the order of business for today. That is what it says here. I am suggesting that if the minister wants to proceed, and we are prepared to, he first withdraw that motion.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the Order Paper we have in front of us, number 162 for today, clearly lists as order 1: resuming the adjourned debate on the time allocation motion. Order 2 is committee of the whole House on Bill 127.

Actually, I am delighted that the government House leader is calling the second order, because we can now proceed with the discussion of the bill in committee stage without the restriction that the government had tried to apply to it.

There is some indication that maybe the government House leader, being kind of a slippery and fast operator, is going to do a double-shuffle at 5:45. I do not believe for a moment that he will do that to restrict the debate on the government notice of motion when we have only heard a few of the remarks from the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). We have not yet heard a word from the New Democratic Party.

Knowing the government House leader as well as I do, there is no way he would proceed with trying to ram that thing down our throats before we heard the views of all parties, perhaps including himself. Surely, if the order is to be withdrawn, it is not the responsibility of the government House leader but the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), in whose name it stands. Perhaps she would like to do her duty in that regard at this time.

Mr. Speaker: I will listen to the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and then the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid).

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a concern that what is happening here this afternoon is a fundamental deviation from the practices of this House as they have existed for the last --

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: When they are finished trying to shout me down, I will make my point of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: For the past three years, at least, it has been the practice of this parliament that the orders of the day are shown on the Order Paper and that they are the result of prior discussions among all three House leaders. Also, the business of the House properly is announced ahead of time by the government House leader.

Today, we have had two House leaders' meetings with respect to the business. There was no indication that Bill 127 would be called. With this procedure -- they can shout and barrack as loudly as they want -- I just point out that they are taking this Legislature back to the days of Eric Winkler when the government decided, on the spur of the moment, what orders of business would be called and when they would be called -- the members opposite may think it is amusing; I do not -- and the opposition had to try to scramble as best it could to be ready for the debate. If that is what the government wants to do with its 70 members, so be it.

4:30 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure it was a slip of the tongue, but the honourable member did refer to the Order Paper, and the Order Paper I have --

Mr. Renwick: Come on, Mr. Speaker, do not play games.

Mr. Speaker: I am not. That is the schedule of business. I just wanted to make that point clear.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The House leader for the government is not usually as provocative as he was earlier when he indicated that the opposition was having fun and playing games in terms of motion 11 and Bill 127. We were prepared to stay here forever to do the business of the House. My point of order is that, under subsection 19(9), no member is allowed to impute false or unavowed motives to another member. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you ask the House leader to withdraw that. We on this side still believe there are some principles that should obtain in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the honourable House leader, being the generous person he is, will give that very serious consideration.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I also heard motives impugned to me a few minutes ago about some sinister plan I had for this afternoon. I say to this House that we have a number of House leaders' meetings that are attended by the House leaders and the whips. We have had several of those meetings this week.

I have always believed, as I think the former Speaker, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), used to say, these things have nothing to do with it and really cannot have any substance in this House. They help us to prepare for what will go on in this House, and I am too much of a gentleman to want to disclose what has gone on at all the House leaders' meetings this week.

Leave it just to be said that we are in a situation now where this House would be best served by moving to the second order right away.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I thought I made it quite clear that I would listen to the member for Bellwoods and then the member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Let's get on with it.

Mr. Martel: Then you listened to the government House leader.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No, as a matter of fact, if the members will recall the sequence of events, the member for Rainy River made a specific request, and the government House leader got up and explained his position.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Order 2.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned consideration of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

On section 6:

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I have my Orders and Notices, which I take it you would consider to be the official Order Paper, listing the second order as, "Committee of the whole House: Bill 7, An Act to incorporate the Toronto Futures Exchange." That is the printed version, which is often referred to --

The Deputy Chairman: To clarify the point of order, we are on Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Breaugh: No. Mr. Chairman, if I may, you did call the second order. As it is printed on the Order Paper, the second order consists of the committee of the whole House in this order: Bill 7, An Act to incorporate the Toronto Futures Exchange Act. That is the order I heard called. I heard it said that the printed schedule was not the order and this was in fact the order. It would seem to me that we are now prepared to proceed with that bill. That bill could be dispensed with shortly. It should not take a long debate.

The Deputy Chairman: I have heard your point of order. I will ask for clarification from the government House leader.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, my friend knows better than that. There is only one order on the paper for committee of the whole House and I called the second order for Bill 127. If the member has looked through Hansard, he will have seen we have done this many times. We do not have any precedent here to take the bills in committee in the order they are printed here. If you want, I will now call Bill 127.

The Deputy Chairman: I appreciate the concern raised by the honourable member, but we will now proceed with the discussion of Bill 127. That is the bill before the House, that is the bill that has been called and I accept that as the tradition we have followed. There is plenty of precedent.

Mr. Breaugh: I am asking for a ruling, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: I have just given you a ruling.

Mr. Breaugh: No, you have not. You can play this a little loose if you want but you cannot get quite that loose. You have a right to call the second order, which the government House leader did. It is the second order listed on the Order Paper, and it is the Clerk's duty to put this together --

The Deputy Chairman: If the honourable member wants to challenge the chair, he can.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not want to challenge the chair.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Breaugh: Are you telling me that this Order Paper, which is distributed to each member's desk, is in error?

The Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with Bill 127 in the second order and that is what is before the House now.

Mr. Breaugh: No, that is not what was called.

The Deputy Chairman: It is legitimately placed before the House and we are now in the process of beginning the debate. I think I have satisfied your point of order.

Mr. Breaugh: No, you have not. You are saying that is in order, that they can call the order and pick a bill --

The Deputy Chairman: I have called you to order. I will now proceed with further discussion on Bill 127.

Just to gain our perspective, we are in committee of the whole and there is an amendment on section 6 placed before the House by the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson). Shall I read this amendment so members are aware of where we are? I think it would be helpful so we can begin, because this is what we are going to be debating:

"I move 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.'" This is before the House.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, this was probably one of the matters of greatest contention and probably why we see the bill back in committee of the whole.

Members of the general government committee who dealt with Bill 127 were very much impressed at one point in the discussion of the bill in committee with the fact that the Minister of Education was prepared to accept one important amendment to that bill. That amendment would have provided for a circumstance where only that amount of money raised within a specific municipality, within a specific jurisdiction of a specific board of education, could be returned to that municipality.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You are repeating yourself. You said that on November 16. It is in Hansard.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: Is the minister going to start that? If she wants to start that, that is fine. I will repeat myself an awful lot after that. If the minister is going to interject with that stuff, that is fine. Perhaps we have to go over that so the House knows what transpired at that time.

If there is one thing that gave us some flicker of hope that perhaps the government was going to be co-operative on this matter, it was when the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) proposed a compromise amendment in committee which would have allowed only the sum raised in that municipality to be returned to that municipality at the time of a surplus.

I think the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) was the member on the government side who eventually agreed to that amendment. We had considerable discussion about it. All of us in the committee felt it was reasonable. If my recollection is correct, it passed unanimously. It at least passed with a majority of the committee and that would have to include members of the Progressive Conservative government.

It was a reasonable amendment. It was a reasonable stance on the part of the Minister of Education. I commended her at the time for agreeing to it and I want to do so again. When we got to the end of the bill, we heard a request in committee that we revert to this section so we could undo what we had already done, which was not reasonable in our opinion and therefore it had to be done in the House.

It was not reasonable for a number of reasons. We feel there are some boards of education which might well want to generate a surplus by cutting back on what many people would consider to be essential services in the field of education. The children in the schools under that board of education might well suffer as a result of cutbacks in various programs, which I will not repeat at the present time, that have been implemented in the different jurisdictions in Metropolitan Toronto.

There was a feeling that immediately before election time or at a time when municipal taxes were being increased, a board of education might well be in a position to gain, if I can use the terminology, Brownie points with a certain portion of the electorate by indicating how frugal and supposedly efficient it had been by returning a surplus.

As politicians, we all know, particularly those of us who have served at the municipal level, that when a sum of money is returned to people in terms of a lower mill rate or lower expenditures than might have been anticipated, the politicians in office at that time are often given the credit. Nevertheless, we find this can often be accomplished only by removing essential programs.

I want to commend not just the Toronto Board of Education which has received a lot of accolades for the programs it has implemented to meet its special needs, but many of the boards of education in the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto that have looked at circumstances which are unique to their specific areas and implemented programs to meet them -- I think of English as a second language and special education programs -- because they are in a position to do that, probably more so than those of us who come from what I call the hinterlands. Our electorate recognizes this only from a trip to Toronto.

In Metropolitan Toronto, we are now dealing with a very cosmopolitan circumstance in terms of population. For instance, in other parts of the province there are fewer people who would be speaking a language other than English in their own homes. We know many of the children who go to schools in the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto hear another language at home and perhaps seldom hear English spoken in the home environment, except through television or the other media. Therefore, I commend those boards of education which have attempted to meet those needs.

If we have an opportunity whereby they can gain more than they have generated from within their own municipalities in terms of a surplus by running a surplus in a particular year, then that incentive is going to be there. Despite the rhetoric of this bill and the cantankerous debate that has taken place on the closure motion, I think there are many government members who are interested in maintaining those programs.

As representatives, the members know their own ridings and the importance of those programs. If they gave it a good deal of thought, I think they would be very reluctant to have a board of education placed in a circumstance where by generating a surplus which is good with the electorate, I guess, just before the election, they are going to be cutting programs and cutting corners in various areas to the detriment of those children.

All of us, regardless of which riding we represent, and I guess all of us in Canada, recognize we are in an extremely competitive world. Many wiser than I have said we are in a circumstance now where Canada is not in the favourable position it was in the post-war era when, almost by default, although there were resourceful and good people in the various levels of government, it was able to accomplish more than some other nations, which had been ravaged by war.

As we get into 1983, no one here would argue the fact that we are in a very competitive world. Many of those nations which were devastated by war are now stepping ahead of us in many areas. One of the major ways we can compete with them effectively is by having a top-notch educational system in Ontario and other provinces in this country.

If we have an incentive, as would be the case through the minister's amendment, for people to cut back in programs which are essential to providing quality education in this province, then we are going to reduce our opportunity to be competitive in a tough world.

The example we all hear is that of Japan which, after having been ravaged and devastated by its participation in the Second World War, has bounced back. They have approached this in many ways. One way is how they have geared their education system. They have placed the dollars in the education system which are necessary to make them a very competitive country.

I go back to the fact that the amendment that was proposed and agreed upon was not a circumstance we were entirely happy with in the bill. We would have preferred entirely different wording. Indeed, we would prefer the entire bill to be withdrawn and the consultation process to start again. Obviously, that will not be done by this government, so I want to gear into the amendment, as I know the Chairman would want me to.

I do not do this to embarrass these people, but if the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) and the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) were there, I am sure they would have looked at it as favourably as the minister did at the time the amendment was brought forward by the member for Oakwood, which was a compromise amendment accepted by the government members.

Why did the minister turn around after having accepted that? I do not want to be overly repetitive of the fall session, so I will not read into the record the minister's exact words as she agreed to the amendment; others may do so. We look for compromise; we look for reasonableness in this House. We know the government has the majority; indeed, in committee, the government can do as it pleases.

There were times when I have tried to embarrass the member for High Park-Swansea in this House; I concede that, but I am not doing this to embarrass him now. I know he is a person who understands the importance of education; I know that very well. I know that if he were sitting in the committee, he would have applauded the minister and the member for Oakwood and those of us who sat in the Liberal Party on the committee as, together, we worked out a reasonable compromise.

I think he would have been concerned and angered when, at the end of the bill's passage through the committee, the minister then decided that compromise would not stand. She had talked to some people on the outside -- if he could, the member for Oakwood no doubt would interject, "The chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and others" -- who obviously said, "We will not accept this amendment and you must undo what you have done."

4:50 p.m.

So we are saying that we think the minister should not proceed with this amendment. If she were to withdraw the amendment, I think she would find that this particular section and subsection might well pass without very much debate; that if it were left the way it left the committee, we would not have a large wrangle over this specific section of the bill. We might well have some considerable debate on subsequent sections and subsections, but on this section we would not.

So I look across to the members of the government, hoping they have listened to the debate, read the Hansard from December and read the Hansard from the committee if they did not have the opportunity to be in the committee at the time for various reasons, and hoping they will implore the minister, who sits on the same benches, to show the kind of reasonableness again that was shown for one moment in the debate in the committee and withdraw this amendment. I think she would find the kind of co-operation she is looking for in this specific section if she were to do so and leave it as my friend the member for Oakwood had amended it in committee.

I know that others in my party had the opportunity to speak to this in the fall session, as I did. We did not change the minister's mind on that occasion, but during the short holiday that members of the Legislature had, she has had a chance to reflect upon that decision to undo what she had previously done and been applauded for.

The members of her party who have supported her position in the House, somewhat reluctantly in some cases, could speak to the minister and say:

"We have a chance here to show our reasonableness. We are using the hammer of closure. We have just taken it away because we know it is not going to work; the opposition has outfoxed us on it, so we have to withdraw it and proceed with the bill for a while at least.

"So we can show some reasonableness and indicate to the opposition just how reasonable we can be when we recognize that the best possible bill must emerge," even though, as I emphasized, the best possible bill would be a bill that would be redrawn after consultation with the various groups that have expressed extreme opposition to this, as well as, of course -- and I think the minister has to hear all sides -- those who are proponents of this bill.

I could go into great detail on the various programs within the various boards of education that could be cut if this amendment goes through and provides that incentive for the boards of education to rack up surpluses as opposed to deficits or as opposed to staying within the regular budget that one would have anticipated.

How the minister can provide the incentive -- and she is a person who is committed to education, otherwise she would not be the Minister of Education -- for people to cut what could be essential, needed programs I do not know. I do not understand how she can do that and how she can allow others from the outside to persuade her that this is a reasonable stance to take.

I indicated I would not be unduly long on this section of the bill. I only indicate our great opposition to this amendment and our hope that the minister will withdraw it and that her colleagues in the House will indicate their approval of a withdrawal of this amendment.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, the games are over. The government has decided to leave the games aside -- a wise move -- and get back to the bill to discuss the amendments, as is normal procedure in this Legislature, clause by clause, amendment by amendment and subamendment by subamendment.

In the course of this debate I hope to be able to put forward the 50 amendments to this bill I have prepared. I hope the government as well, the Minister of Education now having failed in her effort to cut the time for debate on this bill, will not attempt similar tricks; that the government will say, "Well, let this bill take the time it requires for the debate."

Let me start the debate on subsection 6(4), which is probably one of the most dangerous sections in this bill. It is dangerous for many reasons, but the most important reason is this particular section says the cutbacks in education in Metropolitan Toronto for now should be moving at a faster pace than the government has been able to achieve through the legislative grant structure.

In effect, this particular section says any board of education in Metropolitan Toronto is able to keep for itself the surplus it generates. As I understand it, if a particular board has a $23-million budget -- and it obviously has budgeted to spend that $23 million to deliver educational services to children -- and at the end of the year it has $1 million left because it has spent $22 million and not $23 million, then that board will keep $1 million.

That is regardless of the fact that money does not really belong to that board, and despite the fact that money was generated throughout all of Metropolitan Toronto and what the particular area board received in terms of funding and expenditure for the delivery of educational services is determined through the Metro allocation formulae.

Once that allocation has been made, the board goes through its budgets, makes budgetary decisions and says, "We have this much money, we can only spend this much money." As the Minister of Education knows -- and I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you are well aware -- the Education Act in this province prevents a board from budgeting for a deficit. They cannot and should not do it.

If for some reason they happen to do that and the ministry determines that a particular board has said, "We are going to plan for a deficit this year," and has so stated before it passes the budget, the Ministry of Education of this government has the power through the Education Act to go to that board and demand to know the reason. Therefore, no board across this province can work with a deficit situation.

Through this particular amendment, a board that is scrupulous in how it allocates its funds could end the year with a saving. I want to state to the minister, so she will understand clearly, that that saving is effected at the expense of educational services to children.

By allowing this amendment to Bill 127, the Ministry of Education and this government are saying to the boards of education: "Cut back on services to kids, because if you do, we will give you an incentive. We will reward you for doing that; we are going to let you keep the whole bundle."

What the government will have across Metropolitan Toronto is boards -- some boards more than others -- that are going to be scrounging, that are going to cut back on services, that are going to be saying: "The ministry guidelines in terms of special education require eight children per class, but maybe we can put in nine or 10 kids and save a teacher here and there. By doing that, at the end of the year we can come up with a nice bundle of money."

5 p.m.

That, in essence, is a destruction of those programs. I do not want to put it to the minister in any other terms, because I firmly believe she understands what she is doing. The minister and this government understand fully what they are doing. They have heard, if not listened to, the parents and the trustees of the area boards in Metropolitan Toronto.

The latter, from the very beginning in March -- or was it June? -- when this bill came before the Legislature for the first time, decided to pass a resolution in support of it. Those trustees did not have any information whatsoever upon which to base their decision. After gathering more and more information on the issue of Bill 127, and this section in particular, it is becoming evident to the trustees of those boards and they are saying: "We did not understand this before. Now that we are beginning to understand it, we do not like it."

The minister should not be surprised that at a meeting in North York to reconsider Bill 127, from a position of two in opposition to Bill 127 and 16 in favour of it, that board came to a vote of eight in opposition to Bill 127 and nine in support of it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What about York?

Mr. Grande: I will come to that. There is time. This is clause by clause. We have all the time in the world.

The Deputy Chairman: We have time as long as we are speaking to the bill, not being repetitious and tedious. Within the constraints of the guidelines of the House, we have time.

Mr. Grande: The tedium the members in this Legislature may feel as a result of my being on my feet to speak is just a little, tiny pain in comparison to the services to kids that this bill will destroy. Therefore, I am not particularly concerned about the tedium nor about the repetition. As has been said, one has to repeat something 15 times in the normal course of events before people will begin to understand. I am convinced that with Tories, one has to do it 17 times.

The Deputy Chairman: The chair does not want to encourage dialogue as your presentation continues, but the chair will not allow that much repetition.

Mr. Grande: You are quite right. I think the minister has heard it about three or four times. Tonight will be the fifth. After this bill is through and the government has decided its best course of action will be to withdraw it, the government will be hearing those things again and again and not only from me.

I am reflecting in this Legislature the wishes and needs of children and parents, the needs of education in this province. I am not going to say the Minister of Education is not doing that; she may be doing that from her point of view. That is what this forum is all about, to debate views and differences of opinion, to say where those differences lie and where we stand. I believe we have made it clear and will continue to make it clearer where we stand on this issue.

One thing I really do not want to let go, because it came as close to misleading this Legislature as anything has ever done, is the Premier (Mr. Davis) talking about the 96 hours of debate on this bill. Some hours of that debate supposedly were on subsection 6(4). The Premier allowed the people in the gallery and those who watch TV to believe that somehow there was a tremendous amount of time allowed to debate this bill. If the Premier were here, I am sure he would stand up and correct his own record because, in effect, we have had only 13 hours of clause by clause debate in this chamber, no more than that.

Interjection.

Mr. Grande: We are talking about clause by clause in the Legislature. The Premier said we have had enough time to debate this in the House.

The Deputy Chairman: Speak to the motion, my honourable friend.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I am.

The Deputy Chairman: You are talking about time now.

Mr. Grande: Sure. I guess we might as well leave the time allocation to die on the Order Paper as gracefully as the government would have it. Instead of withdrawing it today, they have decided they will leave it on the Order Paper and it will die a natural death on the Order Paper when the Legislature rises. The little games adults play.

The Deputy Chairman: The motion before the House is what you are really working up to.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I am attempting to address myself to a particular subsection of section 6. Basically, I wanted to return to that eventful day in the committee the member from St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) referred to earlier in his speech, when the Minister of Education decided it made good sense to accept the motion I put forward.

For the record, I will read it. "Where the estimates for public elementary and secondary school purposes of a board of education in the metropolitan area that are approved in whole or in part by the school board have been reduced in accordance with clause 133(1)(b) by the application of a surplus, the school board shall, except where it considers that the surplus is attributable to the provision of moneys pursuant to clause 133(9)(b), reduce the apportionment for public elementary or for secondary school purposes, as the case may be, to the area municipality in which the board of education 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."

In clause by clause in committee, the minister gave instructions to the members of her government who sat on that committee that this motion was acceptable. For the very first time, we did not see six hands popping up to defeat the five hands from the Liberals and the New Democrats. For the very first time, the minister said: "Yes, we will accept that. It makes perfectly good sense." The surplus that a board would keep, if indeed we want to give local accountability, would be that particular amount of money or funds raised within the boundaries of that area board.

5:10 p.m.

Basically, if the city of Toronto had a surplus of $2 million, the city of Toronto would retain only 40 per cent of that $2 million because, as the minister knows, in terms of the Metro pot, the funding that comes to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board from the city of Toronto, percentage-wise, is 40 per cent of all the money that is collected.

Therefore, it would make sense that if Toronto has a surplus of $2 million, then Toronto would retain only 40 per cent of that $2 million and the rest would be returned to the Metro Toronto pot, so to speak, for redistribution to the other area boards from where that money was raised.

I feel strongly that it is unfair to the people in the borough of York that that area is the highest-taxed municipality in all of Metropolitan Toronto. But in a city like Toronto or a city like North York, which has a tax-base that the borough of York does not have, it seems inappropriate to me that that board should retain the $2 million, or a portion of the money which was raised in the borough of York.

I consider that to be unfair. I consider that to be inequitable. Therefore, that should not be allowed. However, the amendment the minister puts before us says that should be allowed, that should be encouraged, because through that process they get boards of education to cut back in children's services.

It is a mistake. The minister knows it is a mistake. The minister, her officials and the government accepted that common sense reasoning and they said, "Yes, we will accept that." Therefore, it appeared in the printed version that came out of the standing committee on general government some time back.

What happened between that point and the end of the clause by clause, only God knows. I can only speculate. My speculations may be wild but, none the less, they say to me that those people who wanted the Minister of Education to bring forward Bill 127 -- let us remember that the minister has not owned up to the fact that it is her government's bill; she continuously says it is Metropolitan Toronto's bill, it is not hers, she is just being a mouthpiece for them.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I never said that. I am not a mouthpiece for anybody.

Mr. Grande: I do not want to begin a debate with the minister. The minister should be listening now instead of confronting. Something that she is an expert in is confrontation.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Speak accurately.

Mr. Grande: She will make a good opposition member some day soon, I hope.

The Deputy Chairman: We are looking at the motion. I want the member to deal more directly with that than personalities.

Mr. Grande: I am, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, as I was saying, I can only speculate in terms of what happened between that day -- I do not recall the date but it is unimportant -- when the minister and the government accepted that amendment and the end of the process of clause by clause debate when the minister came back and said, "I would like to refer back to subsection 6(4) because I have an amendment." We found out the amendment was to return that section to exactly the way it was before. The flip-flop took place.

What happened? I speculate that Charles Brown, the secretary-treasurer of the Metro board; John Tolton, the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board; Mr. McCleary, who used to be the chairman of the North York Board of Education, and Mr. Davis, who used to be the chairman of the Scarborough Board of Education, those people who were the initiators of this particular bill went to the minister or the minister went to them -- one way or the other -- and said:

"Absolutely not. You cannot do that. You have to change your mind. You have to bring it back the way it was, because otherwise we will not need this legislation. Otherwise, what is the point of this exercise? What is the point of this Bill 127, if we are not going to be able to retain that surplus, if we are not going to be able to reduce services to children? We are in agreement with you."

They would say: "We are in agreement with you, Madam Minister, that we should cut back, but you have to give us an incentive to cut back. You have to make it worth while, because you know we are going to have a lot of parents screaming at us for cutting services to their children." Therefore, they would have to be handsomely rewarded in order for them to accept this particular bill. "Without that section," they said, "we want no part of it. We want no part of this bill."

Let me begin the debate on this amendment by taking the members back to May 4, 1978, when --

Mr. Chairman: Is that when we started on this amendment?

Mr. Grande: Yes. I assure the chairman that is where this amendment had its birth. It did not have its birth with those people the minister claims it had its birth. It had its birth in the minds of those people on that side of the House. That was when the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells) was Minister of Education in this province. He presented to the Legislature a white paper entitled, Government Statement on the Review of Local Government in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, May 4, 1978.

The members will recall that when the Robarts commission report came down it was debated for a year across Metropolitan Toronto and the late John Robarts made a recommendation that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board should be dissolved. He said it was no longer needed; the problem was a financial problem.

The problem was the Ministry of Education, or the government through the ministry, through its legislative grants, could achieve exactly what it wanted the Metro board to achieve because now the schools had been built in North York, in Scarborough and in Etobicoke. The schools had been built, so there was no point because there were not going to be tremendous capital expenditures any longer in education.

Since 1969, we were beginning the slow process of declining enrolment so that no great, big capital expenditure would have to be made. Therefore, the late John Robarts said: "Forget it. You do not need Metro. Scrap it."

5:20 p.m.

The government came down with a white paper to tell us exactly what they thought they should be doing, the response to the Robarts commission report. I will not read the whole report, but I am going to quote some very salient and apropos lines in it.

Mr. Chairman: Hold to the amendment.

Mr. Grande: Yes, of course, no doubt about that.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) says, "Even in the four years since the Rose commission study" -- you remember the Rose commission report, Mr. Chairman, the one that --

Mr. McClellan: I don't think he does. You'd better remind him about it.

Mr. Grande: I am just trying to provide some background so members of this Legislature can, for historical reasons --

Mr. Chairman: I will pick it up as you go along.

Mr. Grande: All right, thank you.

The Rose commission report established the local levy as a permanent entity in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Chairman: I remember this from November. I have the uneasy feeling that you might be repetitive.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, if you believe it is repetitive, I assume you have Hansard in front of you.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. If you want to carry on, I will refer to --

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, do you want me to sit down?

Mr. Chairman: No, carry on. I will interrupt if I think it is appropriate.

Mr. Grande: At that time, the then Minister of Education and now the government House leader said:

"It is our conclusion that in these times in which we find ourselves, it is imperative that we have a strong and effective Metropolitan Toronto School Board ... a board that can build effectively upon the many co-operative structures that have evolved over the years and that can increasingly exercise the kind of aggressive leadership which I feel the citizens and taxpayers of Metro Toronto have a right to expect in the period ahead."

The point of that quote is that it was not as a response to these chairmen and trustees in Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York that the Minister of Education brought in Bill 127. That bill was brought in as a result of this government's need and wish to strengthen the buffer zone between the delivery of educational services and the government.

In due course I will get to the financial arrangement and the rewards this government gets from having the Metro board. In other words, this government wanted to strengthen the Metro board. It wanted the Metro board to have the powers it felt it should have to tell the area boards exactly what to do and give the funding to the area boards -- of course in consultation, harmony, and hand in hand with the provincial government.

The fewer people one has to contend with, the better the government's chances of controlling them. As for the deal with Toronto, East York, North York and all these trustees, the government would say, "By God, one of these boards may begin to have a philosophical difference with this government over education delivery to students. At that time what do we do? Let us strengthen the Metro board and make sure that will never come about."

Basically, we are back to 1978. It has nothing to do with those trustees saying to the minister, "We want this bill. Bring it in. Help us," and all that kind of nonsense the minister has been talking about over the last five or six months. If members think I am repetitive, they should be reading the speeches of the Minister of Education on Bill 127 from the beginning until last night.

Mr. Chairman: She is not talking now.

Mr. Grande: That is correct.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Where did I speak last night?

Mr. Grande: The night before when you spoke on the introduction of notice of motion 11, you repeated exactly the same verbiage we have been hearing for six months. The problem is --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have been listening to the same thing from the member for that length of time. You haven't offered any new arguments.

Mr. Grande: Because the educational problems that this government --

Mr. McClellan: Democracy is really unacceptable, isn't it?

Mr. Grande: The educational problems that this government creates in Metropolitan Toronto and across this province are the same. I am not talking to the minister about the rocks and stones. I am talking about kids and kids' programs and those needs remain constant because she and this government do not look after them or provide funding through which those needs can be looked after.

The government is not only leaving the boards alone through this motion and saying, "We will give you a five, six or seven per cent increase in funding." It is saying to those boards, "Cut back and we will reward you for the cutbacks." That is a double whammy to those kids who need services.

I think the minister understands it, but she is locked into her dogma. As we proceed I will attempt to show the dogmatic approach this minister and government have been taking and how locked in they are to that process.

Let me continue with the government's white paper, its statement regarding local government in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Chairman: Because it refers to the amendment?

Mr. Grande: Of course it does, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: How does it?

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, hear me out --

Mr. Chairman: I am asking.

Mr. Grande: -- and then you will determine whether it has to do with the amendment or not.

Mr. Chairman: You are so crafty. You would get it all on the record and then I have to decide, but it is too late then.

Mr. Philip: That is the role of the Speaker, isn't it?

Interjection.

Mr. McClellan: You can move closure once you get to the floor --

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, one of the things discussed at that time regarding the Robarts commission report --

Interjections.

Mr. Grande: May I proceed, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, absolutely. If it makes you feel any better, I have been reviewing Hansard of November 16 and I must confess I cannot find any place you made reference to the Lowes report.

Mr. Grande: Exactly, because I did not. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, at the time of the Robarts commission report when John Robarts said the Metro board should be scrapped, one of the issues being debated was that if one wanted to continue the Metro board one should have direct elections to it. This would be so there would be direct accountability between the people and the trustees who go to Metro. The government said, "That sounds like a good idea, but we need to do further studies." I have not heard a thing about it since that time.

Another part of that report talks about "the portion of the formula allocated that is not spent by the board." In other words it deals exactly with this amendment. On pages 5 and 6 of that report it says: "The government has been anxious to provide a mechanism which would reward an area board if it is able to exercise efficiencies of its own within the Metro formula. In other words, we believe that, if an area board is able to hold its expenditures below the level of Metro-allocated funds" -- Mr. Chairman, are you listening to what I am saying?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Grande: I will continue with the quote -- "it should be possible for that board to pass on such savings to its taxpayers in the form of a mill rate reduction." That is exactly what that surplus amendment talks about.

It is not the trustees of Metropolitan Toronto who forced this minister and this government to bring in Bill 127. It is the government that has had this intention since the year 1978, and even before 1978. One day it was going to do it and here is the opportunity to do it through Bill 127.

Do you know whose bright idea this was, Mr. Chairman? Let me tell you: it was the member for York East (Mr. Elgie). I am quoting from page 6, and I want to make sure you know this is a quote: "Dr. Robert Elgie, MPP for York East, has been a strong advocate of this kind of measure. 'I have agreed with the suggestions, as has the government. The result is a proposal in this paper which would permit an area board to retain, for the purpose of reducing the mill rate within its jurisdiction, a portion of formula-allocated funds not spent by the board.'"

It was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations who planted this idea in the cabinet's mind. This is the person who, in dealing with the people in East York, the people who opposed Bill 127, has been saying, "The government wants to do it and I have to go along with it."

Mr. Chairman: Back to the amendment.

Mr. Grande: I am talking to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: No, you are giving heck to the minister who is not here.

Mr. Breaugh: Where is the Minister of Education?

Mr. McClellan: Are you saying you can't talk about the bill because the minister has gone?

Mr. Chairman: I am not defending the minister. I am just asking the member to speak to the amendment.

Mr. Breaugh: Which member over there is carrying this bill.

Mr. Nixon: Let's save it for tonight. It will be a lot better tonight.

Mr. Chairman: I agree with the House leader for the Liberals. Let us save it for tonight.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I was reading the report. I am not mentioning the member for York East to try to say anything about him when he is not here. He is certainly capable of defending himself quite well on occasions. What I am doing is quoting from this report. The raison d'être for the amendment we have before us in Bill 127 did not come from the trustees of Metropolitan Toronto. It came from the government; in particular it came from the member for York East. That is what the quote is all about.

The Minister of Education right now is probably conversing with some of her officials; she should own up to her own legislation. It is her government's legislation. She wants Bill 127. She wants so reduce services to children in Metropolitan Toronto and across this province. She wants to fire teachers in this province. She wants to close schools in this province.

Mr. Chairman: That is definitely not on the amendment.

Mr. Grande: What are you talking about?

Mr. Chairman: You are talking about firing teachers across the province. To my knowledge, Bill 127 has to deal with Metro Toronto.

Mr. Grande: Then across Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Gillies: Which is it? They are two different places.

Mr. Grande: Firing teachers for the time being across Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Gillies: Have you ever been out of the city? We would love to have you.

Mr. Grande: Yes, I will come to the member's part of town. I am sure I will be there again and again.

The minister and the government cannot hide behind the Metro trustees and say they are the ones who want this legislation. I am trying to point out it is the government that wants this legislation and it should own up to it. It is the government's legislation.

I have a sheet of paper before me entitled, "Summary of Operating Surplus and Deficit Amounts, Total Elementary and Secondary in Metropolitan Toronto," ranging from 1968 to 1981. It shows the boards that have created deficits and the boards that have created surpluses over that past number of years.

North York produced deficits of $136,000 in 1970, $100,000 in 1974, $618,000 in 1976, $1,852,000 in 1978, $2,137,000 in 1979, and $869,000 in 1980.

The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) was quoted in the press about the problems of North York in the Jane-Finch corridor and all the violence and crisis that will develop. It seems to me if North York were to start looking seriously at creating programs for the children within its boundaries to alleviate the concerns the member for Brantford has about the area, it would have to spend some money. It would seem to me one has to begin to develop programs that go to the heart of the concerns the member for Brantford expressed.

If North York attempts to do those things and ends up with a deficit, then even though there is a Metropolitan Toronto School Board the minister and this government will say through this bill: "North York, you pay it yourself. Metropolitan Toronto is not going to help you out."

There is a very unjust factor about this amendment and how it works. It is unjust to North York, to York, to East York and to the city of Toronto. It is unjust, period. One cannot deny the existence of Metropolitan Toronto at the same time as one strengthens the Metropolitan Toronto board. It is a basic contradiction in Bill 127.

Anyway, I want to get to the needs of children. I have been speaking in generalities but I want to get to specific needs of kids.

If we stand up in this Legislature and do not reflect the people out there, we are talking in a vacuum, which is meaningless. So I am going to try to reflect those fears -- and they may be fears -- and concerns the parents and teachers in Metropolitan Toronto have about this particular section in the bill.

5:40 p.m.

The other day my leader asked the question of the Minister of Education: "In 1975 your government was providing boards in the province with 61 per cent of the cost of education. This year your government provides boards only a little over 50 per cent -- 50.8 per cent." The minister is cutting back on her commitment to education in this province. That cutting back, in effect, forces the local level to pay more and more money.

The property tax is the only source the municipalities have to raise dollars. What has been happening is that the government reduces its commitment to funding and the municipalities have to pick it up. As a matter of fact, since 1975 the municipalities have had to pick up more than $200 million because this government has reduced that commitment.

In terms of Metropolitan Toronto, last year the Minister of Education and this government passed on to Metropolitan Toronto only 15 cents for every dollar that was spent on education in Metropolitan Toronto. I understand the reason the government did that and I accept it, I really accept that.

What it basically says is that through the legislative grant structure the wealthier the municipality the less money it will get from the province. It is a fair way to do it because a northern Ontario board may receive 95 or 97 per cent of its money, or -- well, not 100 per cent, because they have to have a school there. I understand that and I understand the grant system and how it functions.

If it functions for the province it ought to function for Metropolitan Toronto as well. What happens is that the ministry needs a buffer in Metropolitan Toronto. It needs a place where, if people scream about educational services for kids, the ministry says: "It is not our fault, it is Metro. Go speak to Metro." Those Metro trustees will deal with parents in a very fast way by saying, "We do not want to hear you out. We do not want to listen to you. We have no time."

Concerning the funding I was taking about, the total school expenditure increased between the years 1971 and 1982 by 172.2 per cent. The increase in provincial grants over that period of time was 125 per cent, while the increase in the local share was 244.2 per cent. The provincial grant per pupil increased only by 153 per cent. In effect, the local level having to pick up more and more of the share is evident through these statistics.

I want to talk about the needs of children who in the past several years, the 1950s and earlier, have come to Metropolitan Toronto. I am one of those people who has had, for better or for worse, learned the language of the country, and speak and write that language. Without that, there is not anywhere one can go to get a decent job.

In the 1950s when I was in the school system as a youngster of 10 or 11 years of age, there was no such thing as an English as a second language program. There were no such classes set up. What happened to me was that the teacher tried in the best way possible to put me at the back of the classroom saying, "When I have some time for you, I will come and see what you are doing."

It so happened that I was quite capable of doing mathematics and geometry. I sat in the back and worked in mathematics. No language is required to do that. But when they were talking about King Henry VIII, the history of England, the kings of England and the work that was written on the blackboard, I did not understand a thing. Basically, for one whole year, I was sitting at the back of that classroom not understanding very much about what was going on.

The minister or anybody can say, "Well, after two, three or four months, you started to learn some English." True, but I did not learn the English that the school required for me to progress through the school system. I was learning the language of the street, that of my peers. That was not the language of the system which the school required.

In the process of coming to this country and continuing my education here, I was placed two years behind my normal grade. That is one of those things, I guess, an immigrant has to go through, losing two years of his life because he came to this country and did not speak English. I guess a lot of people from that side of the House might accept it as something that should take place or something that they do not question very much.

Since the 1950s, we have developed programs to help those children. We have developed programs in English as a second language as well as English as a second dialect for our children in the system who come from West Indian or other countries. We have developed classes to meet the needs of those children. Bill 127 says in this particular section, "We want those classes cut back."

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, I do not apologize to anybody for speaking with a certain sense of emotion about this particular area. I have tried to raise this issue with the Minister of Education ever since I came to this place in 1975. Every year, consistently, whether through the Legislature in questions or through the estimates of the Ministry of Education, I have raised those very same problems and concerns. Here is the response, Bill 127, which says: "Cut back. Get rid of some of those teachers who teach English as a second language. Get rid of some of those programs."

My question to you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the minister and to this government, is how on earth are those children who do not speak English to learn to speak English so that they can progress through the educational system and fulfil their potential? How is that going to happen?

The answer the minister gives me is: "They are not going to be cut back. Who says they are going to be cut back? Those are only fears the people talk about. They are just trying scare tactics. There are not going to be any cutbacks. There are not going to be fewer teachers in the schools."

The Minister of Education is wrong; because once the Metro board makes a determination of how many teachers an area board will have, that number will be fixed and the area board may decide how to use those teachers. Nonetheless, if that number is a lesser number from the beginning, however that number is sliced there will be fewer than there were the year before.

Therefore, in terms of English as a second language, a board will say, "You are going to have fewer teachers. We have fewer teachers to teach those children English."

None of those people over there would deny that those children must learn English. As a matter of fact, they would be the ones who would scream if those children could not learn English and, perhaps, spoke another language on the street or on a bus. There will be some screams. But I am not concerned about those screams. What I am concerned about is that those children learn the English language to the best of their ability so they can find a job. Bill 127 denies those kids those opportunities.

The government is wrong and it should not be allowed to do that. I have told the government to withdraw this particular section and this particular Bill 127, or at the very least to return this clause to the way it was passed in the standing committee on general government. If the government does that, at least it will have built some justice into that system.

As it is, and the government and the Minister of Education want to change it back to the way it was in May, there is no justice in that particular setup.

I spoke of children who learn English as a second language, and I could speak of children whose parents want to have them learn French in our schools, whether it is French as a core subject for 20, 30 or 40 minutes a day, or whether it is French as an immersion program in our schools.

What happens is that the minister is trying to convince the public, is trying to convince people that Bill 127 does not damage the delivery of French services to children.

Mr. Rotenberg: That is right.

Mr. Grande: The member for Wilson Heights should try to understand what is happening.

Mr. Rotenberg: I understand that.

Mr. Grande: How could this bill not reduce the number of teachers who can teach French to our kids in the different area boards when the decisions are made at the Metro level, and the Metropolitan Toronto School Board has not understood that at all?

Which boards teach French? Is it the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, North York? North York has some French programs, but the fact is that the Metro board does not generate the teachers or their allocation. It does not allocate enough teachers to be providing those programs for those kids.

The irony of this whole process is that the provincial government gets the money from the federal government to do that. The provincial government passes that money, supposedly, less or a little bit more --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: A good deal more: 14 per cent comes from the feds.

Mr. Grande: A little bit more, Madam Minister. It passes that money on to the Metro school board. But the Metro school board does not account for that money. It does not tell parents how much money a particular board got for a particular French service. It is all in a big pot.

So nobody is able to decipher that. Nobody is able to come to any determination on how many dollars come from the federal to the provincial government, how many dollars the provincial government passes on to Metro, and how many dollars Metro then passes on to the area boards to teach French as a core or French as an immersion program.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Wilson Heights does not even understand the bill; that's the problem.

Mr. Grande: Maybe I should dig up the brief. I think I will do it because the member for Wilson Heights should have been in the committee to hear the deputation by Lois Thomas who is a representative of the Canadian Parents for French in the Metro area. She said, basically: "The minister said in these hearings the other day that there was no need to provide extra staff because it was an integral part of the curriculum and could be taught by the regular classroom teachers."

Does the minister understand what happens here? The minister and the Metro board both say that French can be taught by the regular teacher so there is no need for other teachers.

Let me continue because the member is the one who forced me to get hold of the brief; otherwise, I would probably be just as happy to talk about it, express the concept and leave it at that.

Another quote, "The grants from the province, those 'significant and identifiable' grants intended as incentives for improving French programs, are in fact not identified at the Metro level but are thrown into the general Metro pot and are not traceable as money to be used for core French teachers or other extra costs."

In other words, parents cannot find where the money goes and how the money is spent. The children in Metropolitan Toronto have needs that the money should be spent on, but Bill 127 cuts those teachers.

Mr. Chairman: It being six of the clock, I think I will leave the chair.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, in that particular case, I will adjourn the debate.

Mr. Chairman: No, I just leave the chair and we will start again at 8 p.m.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

17 février 1983