Journal des débats 1983-févr-21 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to raise a point that I believe reflects seriously on the respect that members of the government pay to this Legislature.

The House and the Speaker will know that on Thursday and Friday -- I might add, well after leaders' questions were over -- the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) entered the Legislature and I addressed questions to him with respect to the events at the Hospital for Sick Children, the reports that were available to him and the government's intentions with respect to those reports.

The Attorney General answered those questions on Thursday and Friday by indicating he would be making a statement to the Legislature on Monday with respect to the report by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, and he did not choose to elaborate in any way, shape or form on that report in answer to questions that were raised in the House on Thursday and Friday.

On leaving the Legislature on Friday, the Attorney General gave information to the press with respect to the contents of that report, which was then publicized in all the papers in many press reports. Subsequent to that time, I understand according to the Toronto Sun on Sunday, a member of the ministry staff -- Mr. Allen, I believe, according to the story in the Sun -- gave additional information with respect to the study by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.

Today in the Toronto Star we have additional reports from the ministry with respect to information on the disease control study that was supposed to have been confidential and was supposed to have been revealed in its impact in the Legislature today.

The reason I am raising this is that I believe it reflects on the attitude of the Attorney General and of his ministry to this Legislature and to the legislative process. The Attorney General made it clear he would be making a statement in this Legislature. It is nothing short of disgraceful that he chose, by dribs and drabs, to release information to the media over the weekend that he was unprepared and unwilling to give to this Legislature on Friday.

I do not know whether that is a point of order or not, but it is a point of view and one that will be widely shared by members with regard to the kind of respect being shown by the Attorney General towards this Legislature and the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker: As you suspected, it is not a point of order. However, it is a matter which has been raised before and, if nothing else, it is discourteous but nothing more. It has not breached any privileges of the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the Legislature last week, I have a statement regarding the Hospital for Sick Children.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney General could make sure copies were being delivered, it would be helpful.

Mr. Speaker: Are copies of the statement available?

Mr. Martel: Just now.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) also has a statement in relation to this report.

Both statements are in regard to the report of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. The report was commissioned under the Public Hospitals Act and was requested by the hospital administration. Terms of reference for the study included a review of the mortality rate at the hospital, the pattern of the deaths and the relation to the use of the drug digoxin, any relationship between the use of digoxin and how excess amounts of it were administered.

As well as exploring those matters, the centre made recommendations regarding hospital procedures. The report was presented to the Ministry of Health and was turned over to my ministry on February 16.

My initial review of the report makes it very apparent to me that publication of all of its findings at this time could jeopardize the police investigation which is now in its final stages. Furthermore, publication of the report as a whole might be unfair to those referred to directly and indirectly in the report.

This is particularly so since no decision has been made as to whether or not any criminal proceedings will be instituted as a result of the police investigation and because the report contains analysis, comments and observations about the conduct of certain personnel at the hospital that may or may not be admissible in any future civil, criminal or other proceedings.

Some of the conclusions expressed could undoubtedly lead to adverse inferences being drawn against certain individuals. In my view, this should not be done without affording those individuals the rights that would be available to them in a court or other properly constituted proceeding. However, I believe it is appropriate for me to mention two of the conclusions the study has reached.

The first conclusion is that there was a definite increase in the mortality rates of infants in the cardiology ward of the hospital and in one unit in particular, beginning in July 1980.

Second, the report confirms the conclusions of the police investigation that a number of the deaths in the hospital between July 1980 and March 1981 were as a result of digoxin overdoses.

In its recommendations the report states: "The epidemic clearly ended in March 1981. If it is decided, as the evidence suggests, that the increased occurrence of death from July 1980 through March 1981 resulted from purposeful intravenous overdoses of digoxin on wards 4A and B, then it remains to be decided whether there is sufficient evidence to identify the perpetrator. This matter rests with the law enforcement authorities."

2:10 p.m.

Although it would not be appropriate at this time to speak of precise details, I feel I can advise members that the combined investigations of the police and the centre indicate that of 36 ward-associated deaths which occurred during the epidemic period, there are 28 deaths for which the findings regarding the cause of death are not inconsistent with digoxin overdose.

In seven of these cases, there is significant scientific evidence that death was caused by a deliberate overdose of digoxin. Of these seven deaths, three were the subject of the charges which were found to be murders by the preliminary hearing judge.

The fourth charge which was before the court concerned the death of Janice Estrella. Because of certain scientific evidence which came to the attention of investigators subsequent to the preliminary hearing, it is apparently difficult to accurately interpret the amount of digoxin in the post-mortem sample. The centre concluded, however, that other findings concerning this death are not inconsistent with digoxin overdose.

Officials of my ministry and of the Ministry of Health are determining how appropriate portions of the report may be made available to the hospital and the public without undermining the integrity of the police investigation, and without unfairly affecting the rights of those referred to in it.

At the present time, recommendations which impact directly on patient care or safety have been transmitted to the hospital in order that the hospital may review them along with the recommendations in the report of Mr. Justice Dubin.

Finally, I want to make a couple of observations and a commitment to this Legislature and through this Legislature to the public. First, it is important to keep in mind that we, the government, the investigators and the hospital, are dealing with an extraordinary series of events, a tragedy which all of us have difficulty even comprehending. It is, therefore, totally understandable that the public and the media have a number of ongoing concerns. It is particularly understandable that the parents of the children involved have become frustrated at the lack of a comprehensive explanation so far.

I want to stress to them and to the public generally that every conceivable lead is being followed by the police and by the experts the government has engaged to assist them. I repeat that no decision has yet been made as to whether charges should be laid. If criminal charges are not laid, I will be recommending to the cabinet that further action be taken. This would probably include a public hearing through either an inquest, a judicial inquiry or a royal commission. Whatever the format, we as a government are committed to providing the fullest possible accounting of the events and circumstance that led to this tragedy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has pointed out, the epidemiological study was carried out under the auspices of my ministry for reasons of protocol, but the report deals substantially with matters which are still the subject of the ongoing criminal investigation. However, the specific recommendations of the team which conducted the study apply in their entirety to procedures which impact on patient care and safety in the hospital.

The Attorney General has advised me that he does not believe publication of the recommendations will impinge on the criminal investigation. We agree, therefore, that these recommendations should be shared with the hospital as part of the government's commitment to do everything possible to ensure the safety of all patients entrusted to the care of this outstanding hospital.

I have already sent a copy of the recommendations to the chairman of the board of the hospital and I now wish to table these for the information of the public as well. Members will see that the recommendations deal primarily with the issues of medication and the surveillance of mortality patterns, which have also been dealt with very extensively by Mr. Justice Dubin and his associates in their report.

I also wish to draw attention particularly to the observation of the four epidemiologists that the spate of unusual deaths, which they technically termed an "epidemic," ended in March 1981, a point the Attorney General and I have both stressed on a number of occasions.

Together with the observations of Mr. Justice Dubin's report that "the Hospital for Sick Children has earned an international reputation for the quality of services provided to its patients" and "we are all satisfied that it is still deserving of that reputation and the complete confidence of the public," this is most reassuring.

There are minor variations in the approaches in the recommendations of the two reports. However, they do not affect the substance of the changes which we endorse. I have asked Mr. Gordon, the chairman of the board of trustees, to advise me of the steps the hospital would propose to take to reconcile the variations.

Finally, I would like to express the thanks of all of us to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta for their co-operation and for assigning two most excellent epidemiologists, Dr. Heath and Dr. Beuler, to this very onerous and complex assignment. We are also very grateful to Dr. Evelyn Wallace, a federal government epidemiologist, and Dr. Lesbia Smith of our own ministry who together constituted the entire team.

Dr. Heath has told us they received excellent and unstinted co-operation whenever they sought it. I believe this reflects the commitment of the entire community to ensure that the standards of excellence are maintained and reinforced at the Hospital for Sick Children, which remains one of our most precious health care resources.

HERITAGE DAY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Today is a very important day and, in our view, it is an occasion to be celebrated. Special occasions such as this cause us to reflect upon past pleasures, triumphs and accomplishments. They also revive our pride in our achievements.

This day of reflection and celebration also serves to reassure us that we have the talents, skills and abilities to move confidently into the future and build upon the past, which we shall in our turn pass along to our next generation.

Therefore, I would ask the members of this House to join with me in recognizing February 21, 1983, as Heritage Day and to congratulate all of those who have worked so hard to make this day an occasion of importance and pride.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General arising out of his statement and the statement of the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) today.

Can the minister explain to this House why charges were laid so very quickly almost two years ago and yet now we are in a position, two years after the fact, with a number of thoughtful studies that do not give the Attorney General the ability to make any indication whether or not charges will be laid in these circumstances? What does that speak to in his judgement?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I fully appreciate or understand the question, but I do recognize there has been a great deal of controversy in relation to the laying of charges. Indeed, this is reflected in the fact that Susan Nelles has commenced civil proceedings against the police and my ministry. This is obviously going to continue to be the subject of some degree of debate.

I have my own personal views, which I will have the opportunity of expressing at the appropriate time, in relation to the allegation made that the police acted with an undue degree of haste. At this point I do not agree with those observations. Given the fact that this will be the subject matter of some of the litigation, I do not think I really want to debate the merits of the civil litigation in this Legislature, nor do I think for a moment that the Leader of the Opposition would ask me to do so.

2:20 p.m.

I want to make very clear this is not to reflect adversely on any one individual, let alone the accused who was discharged at the preliminary inquiry, but I must remind the Leader of the Opposition it is a fact, as the Minister of Health just said, that the epidemic of deaths ended coincidentally with the police involvement, decisions and initiatives in this investigation which are now in question. Of course, there could be many explanations for that, not necessarily related to the guilt or innocence of any particular person.

As people continue to debate the role of the police, I think one should not lose sight of that fact. I am not by any means suggesting that ends the matter. I assume this will continue to be the subject of some controversy, litigation and who knows what.

I should also like to remind the Leader of the Opposition there can be no doubt this has to have been one of the most difficult and complex investigations ever entered into by any police force probably anywhere in the world.

When one looks at the study from Atlanta and the deaths that were investigated, which it obviously feels were worthy of investigation and which the police felt were worthy of investigation, there is a remarkable consistency between the police department's approach to the investigation and what the scientists at the Centers for Disease Control have believed to be worthy of investigation. I think that is relevant to the role of the police in this matter. Beyond that, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to say anything further.

Mr. Peterson: It is clear that even after all these studies, the Attorney General is unable to shed much new light on this subject, which is a source of great anguish and concern to a number of people.

As the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Rae) pointed out in his point of privilege today, it has been disconcerting to a number of us who are seeking the truth in this matter, such as parents, legislators and a variety of other people, that the truth, if it is the truth, should be sneaking out in dribs and drabs through various sources, press reports and a variety of other ways over the past little while.

For example, I point out the Toronto Star on February 17 quotes Mr. Bamlett as saying, "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." I point to the Toronto Star of February 18 which, quoting the chief of police as I understand it, said, "There is not enough evidence to lay additional charges."

The Attorney General will recognize that the reports he has today probably will be used in their full detail in court if there is a prosecution. Ultimately, these things have to be made public. Why has he been so parsimonious in the information he has shared with the parents, with the hospital and, indeed, with us? Why can he not reveal all the details of that report at the present time so the various bodies who are concerned about this can make their own determinations?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Obviously, I regret some statements were attributed to the Metropolitan Toronto Police and senior members thereof that unfortunately were simply inaccurate. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition appreciates the need for anybody in my position to be extremely careful as to what I say about any ongoing investigation that could lead, obviously, to serious charges against one or more people.

For us to be discussing the investigation, as he apparently would like us to be discussing it on a week-by-week basis, demonstrates to me a shocking lack of understanding of the criminal justice system of this country and what is generally regarded as crucial and traditional safeguards. That is a shocking lack of understanding as to how the criminal justice system works.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, given the remarks the Attorney General has just made in his answer to the leader of the Liberal Party, can he explain why certain information with respect to this report was released in dribs and drabs by him and his staff to the press over the weekend instead of being told in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the comment that dribs and drabs were released. It is just not factual.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General has made the following statement in this Legislature, and this is very important: "In seven of these cases" -- including three that were in the preliminary hearing into the case of Susan Nelles -- "there is significant scientific evidence that death was caused by a deliberate overdose of digoxin." That is the statement from the Attorney General.

At the same time, hearing in mind that we are then looking at seven murders among the potential that have been studied by the police for almost two years, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta state in the few recommendations that have been tabled in the Legislature:

"The epidemic clearly ended in March 1981. If it is decided, as the evidence suggests, that the increased occurrence of deaths from July 1980 through March 1981 resulted from purposeful intravenous overdoses of digoxin on wards 4A and B, then it remains to be decided whether there is sufficient evidence to identify the perpetrator. This matter rests with the law enforcement authorities."

What new information have the law enforcement authorities -- who as late as last week told us they had no new information to contribute; in fact, the only thing they were awaiting was the report from Atlanta -- tabled with the minister or with the crown attorney that would suggest charges are to be laid?

If there is no new information coming from the law enforcement authorities, as they stated last week, then why will the minister not table the full report in this House so that we as a Legislature can have a look at what has happened during the last two years and why they are not in a position to proceed at this point, almost two years after the fact?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I simply repeat what I said to the honourable member's leader. Any information the law enforcement officers have that may be the subject of or related to criminal proceedings should be revealed and introduced in a courtroom and not in the Legislature. That is the way our system has always functioned.

I think the member can appreciate the wisdom of that, because what may be contained in a report, what may be the view of a particular individual law enforcement officer that I could be discussing in this Legislature, may not be admissible in court for one reason or another.

If we ever got into a system where a person might be tried on serious criminal offences on the basis that the Attorney General makes a statement in the Legislature in advance of a trial as to the nature of the evidence that is going to be introduced against him, it would destroy the very foundations of our criminal justice system. I am totally mystified why the member does not understand that.

ARK EDEN NURSING HOME

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health arising from the recent ministerial statement on the Ark Eden Nursing Home.

Last Friday, the minister seemed to be justifying the closure of the nursing home in the following statement: "The owners have not fulfilled the commitments they made to this ministry when they acquired the licence for the home three years ago, and they have consistently failed to correct identified shortcomings which would affect the health, safety and welfare of residents."

The minister, I am sure, is aware that under subsection 4(6) of the Nursing Homes Act, each licence expires 12 months after the date of its renewal. That means, of course, that presumably the ministry had the question of the renewal of the Ark Eden Nursing Home licence before it for consideration in March 1982, around the same time as the tragic and unfortunate death of Yves Soumelidis.

I fully recognize that some of the commitments by the Bennetts were scheduled for a three-year phase-in period, but if, as the minister states, the owners consistently failed to correct identified shortcomings, could he tell this House what measures, if any, were taken in March 1982 by the ministry to ensure or to enforce compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements? Were any warnings or extraordinary measures of an kind issued or taken by the ministry at this time?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, from time to time, as certain environmental or operational difficulties and shortcomings were identified, my inspection branch required that rectification occur. In some of those instances appropriate steps were taken by the nursing home to make sure those deficiencies were rectified, and they were rectified.

In other cases there was an indication that some time was required in order to do that, and time was provided in some of those cases. A variety of circumstances occurred over the three-year period, which our nursing home branch deemed to be appropriate given the circumstances.

To be fair, I have not completed a review of the events which intervened between 1980 and 1983. We took action last Friday -- and I am sure the member will support that decision -- in order to deal with our first priority, which is to make sure the children are adequately cared for right now.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the team inspection summary report states that between February 1980 and December 1982, a period of some 33 months, 22 inspections were conducted. Could the minister tell us if that number of inspections is considered normal, or if it is above or below average? Will he table those reports?

Presumably, the minister's staff was well aware by March 1982 that there were nutritional, environmental and health problems being posed to the patients and the residents of the nursing home. Did the minister or his staff ever recommend invoking the existing provisions of the act and refuse to renew the licence to the owners unless the health concerns were rectified in March 1982, prior to the expiry of their licence in March of this year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One of the reasons we have to have a complete review of the file and the circumstances is that the full list of shortcomings was not apparent until just recently. Whether that was due to problems in conducting the inspections or the time at which some of the alleged violations were occurring, frankly, I do not know at this particular stage. That is why we are conducting this intensive review. In point of fact, as the member well knows, we have already reorganized that branch fairly thoroughly, although the reorganization has not yet been completed.

I cannot answer the member's questions in simple terms. I do not know whether it was by virtue of things appearing to be okay when our inspectors were there, whether too much time was being given by the inspection branch or whether the ministry policy, for which I take full responsibility, was too lenient and was interpreted in that way by the inspection branch. So I cannot answer very many of those questions, but I can assure the member I am determined to get to the bottom of the problem immediately.

Mr. McClellan: I do not understand the minister's statement to the effect that the full range of violations at this home "was not known to us" -- presumably to the head office of the Ministry of Health -- until recently, which I assume means until the date of the inquest.

We have been all through the period from spring 1980 until the inquest in 1983 in the estimates of the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development. Let me just ask the minister again: how can he say the ministry, at a reasonably high level, was not aware of the full extent of the violations at the Ark Eden Nursing Home when on February 16, 1982, Mr. Rivera, who is the regional supervisor of the nursing home inspection service located here in Metropolitan Toronto, a reasonably high official, wrote to Mr. Bennett, the owner of the Ark Eden Nursing Home, and ordered him to remedy violations with respect to nutritional care standards, the lack of annual physical examinations, the matter of inadequate size of the beds -- that is, the adult-sized residents in infant-sized cribs -- the lack of in-service training programs for staff and, as well, at least 10 fire safety violations?

What is the minister telling us? How can he say that he did not know about the extent of the violations until recently? That was in February 1982.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can say that because it happens to be true. The fact that our inspection branch operating in good faith as it believed ministry policy would have it, resulted in a situation where the senior levels -- by that I mean myself, my deputy and the assistant deputy minister -- were not aware of the extent of the violations is something I am dealing with. Whether it was, as I said earlier, a matter of interpretation of policy, a liberal interpretation of policy or a wrong interpretation of policy, the fact is it occurred.

If the member wants to know why it occurred, whether the definition of the ministry policy was well understood by the branch or whether the branch was not able to comprehend and understand fully what was going on there, I do not have the answers to those questions. I can assure the member I am searching for those as quickly as possible.

Mr. McClellan: The branch knew exactly what was going on.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As the member well knows, we have already made some senior changes at the top end of the nursing home inspection branch, and those are continuing. The party's health critic knows that; he has known it for some time.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we respect the minister's desire to clean up this situation and prevent it from happening in the future, but the reality is we are seeing a very disturbing regulatory failure in his ministry. Granted, he is a new minister, but we are seeing 22 inspection reports. We are seeing a number of things that have been chronicled, such as undersized cribs. This is not just a question of one month as opposed to the next month, presumably they were there for some period of time.

We are seeing a failure of his regulators to regulate or a failure of the regulatees to respond to those regulations. That has to be most disturbing. That is the first part of my question. Is the minister now prepared to make those 22 inspection reports public so we can know clearly who is responsible for the failure of the regulation system?

The second part of my second supplementary is this: when we are talking about the shortcomings of the existing legislation, it appears that one of the failures is the lack of provision, under the act, to move during the time of a licence, to give the minister the power to do something between the periods of renewal for that licence. Will the minister immediately consider, perhaps prior to a general review of the act, an amendment to allow the minister to intervene during the currency of the licence to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On the second matter, I already have legislation of that nature approved by my cabinet colleagues. When we have completed the drafting of the legislation, I will have it before the assembly. From the members remarks, I trust it will get speedy and appropriate attention and consideration by the opposition.

It is inappropriate for this minister or any minister to stand behind the fact that he or she is a new minister. I am not a new minister, it being over a year now, and I have never purported to stand behind that. I do not think it is appropriate to say that. I take full responsibility, as I must, for all events that have occurred during that period of time, and my predecessors do as well.

In fairness, we have 340 nursing homes. All of the ministers of this ministry since 1972 have governed this ministry and 340 nursing homes very well. Many members contact me from time to time on behalf of their constituents who own and operate nursing homes asking for more beds, telling me what a fine institution it is, and that is accurate in almost every case.

The fact that in the 340 nursing homes which are inspected on a regular basis by the ministry's pretty good team there are occurrences from time to time that the regulatory system does not catch does not mean the entire regulatory system is in collapse or does not work. The reality is that when it does occur, one hopes and tries very hard so that there are not tragic circumstances like this which bring attention to the problem. In fairness to Mr. Bennett, my nursing home inspection branch and the ministry, the inquest did not find any connection between the circumstances in the home and the tragic death that occurred several months ago.

I wish to emphasize the fact that an event occurs in one of 340 homes -- let me be honest, I suspect there may be a few others -- does not mean there is a regulatory breakdown. It means the system has to be fine-tuned and that a responsible administration must find out how that happened and how we can take steps to make sure it will happen less often than in the past, that is homes being in operation that do not meet the standards from time to time.

2:40 p.m.

The member well knows, whether we are talking about enforcing the Criminal Code or enforcing legislation in my ministry or any ministry, we will not ever achieve 100 per cent surveillance or efficiency in terms of those people who wish to break regulations. I am willing to take responsibility for it and I will make all the information available I can make available at the appropriate time. I undertake to this House not only to have new legislation in front of members at some time in the next session, but also to make sure the inspection procedure is as good and as appropriate as it can be. Neither the member nor I can seek anything more.

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of Health. The fact is that the ministry knew about the problem at this home since the spring of 1980, and we have had to have this kind of a tragedy occur before the ministry was able to act and before the minister was able to act. That is exactly what the problem is.

The minister volunteered, not to the Legislature, I understand, but to the media outside, that inspectors will be looking at another 18 of the province's 340 nursing homes where ministry officials have reasons to suspect there are problems with the care of residents. I wonder if the minister could do two things: first, tell us the names of these 18 homes that are being inspected; and second, make available to the public and to the parents and relatives of those people who are in those homes precisely what the inspection reports say, so this climate of secrecy and of coverup can finally be brought to an end.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, let me make it clear that I was asked outside last Friday whether or not we were going to be checking any other nursing homes in the province. I was not asked that in this House last Friday. I am not prepared to say to the media outside: "I am sorry. I will not answer that question until I am asked that question in the assembly."

Mr. McClellan: Did the minister make a statement about it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: That does not mean any member of this House failed to ask a question he should have asked, nor does it mean the ministry failed to disclose any information it ought to have disclosed. I can think of another 40 or 50 questions that could be asked in these circumstances. Many of those questions, as is always the case, are asked outside this assembly of the member, of the Leader of the Opposition and of government members, since there are only three or four questions there is time for in this assembly.

I do not apologize for providing the media, and through the media the public, with the information they require. I am not prepared to say: "I am sorry. You will have to wait till Monday when the leader of the third party may ask that question."

With regard to the other 18 homes, the simple fact is that I have asked the ministry to list those homes which particularly have children under our care. Those are the ones we have decided to go and look at. It is because we have children in this particular category that I am most concerned.

There will be other homes from time to time into which we will want to send inspection teams, as opposed to one or two inspectors, and we will be doing that as well. In the meantime, I want to be satisfied that the situation in those nursing homes which are caring for youngsters is satisfactory. Therefore, the other 18 homes will be those that have our youngsters in their care. That will be done shortly.

With respect to the nursing home reports, I know the member and his colleague did not think they would see the day when we would be in a position and be willing to release nursing home inspection reports. That day has now arrived. To the extent that any previous reports have been asked for and not been able to be released, it is because the format of those reports has been such that it is impossible to release them without disclosing something about the health status of the children or the adult residents involved. I am not prepared to compromise the confidentiality, nor released, it is because the format of those reports has been such that it is impossible to release them without disclosing something about the health status of the children or the adult residents involved. I am not prepared to compromise the confidentiality, nor ought I, of their health status in order to satisfy demands that old nursing home inspection reports be made public.

I share with the member the wish that those reports were in a state in which I could make them public. Our job of inspecting nursing homes would be much easier if those reports were made public. That is one of the reasons I heartily agree with that suggestion and why they will be made public shortly.

Mr. Rae: In dealing with the question of inspection, I wonder if the minister can confirm that there are three fire inspectors in the ministry division dealing with nursing homes for the whole of the province, that there are three environmental health inspectors, that there are 14 nursing home inspectors, plus a current vacancy of one, and three regional supervisors, making a grand total of 24, which means there is one inspector for every 1,195 beds.

Can the minister confirm that, as a result of this, there are no random spot checks conducted by the ministry, simply responses to individual complaints plus a routine review done at the time of renewal? Does the minister not think this kind of problem with respect to inspection and investigation does not give rise to very much confidence, particularly when one considers that the reports have not been made public until the present time?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Those are really ill-researched and ill-informed allegations. I resent the leader of the third party making those allegations. Much as he might shake his head, his health critic, the Liberal health critic and my members have asked this question in the estimates committee many times. They have been told very directly by us that inspections in the nursing homes are unannounced, random inspections, and that from time to time, after a random inspection, when there is a necessity to call back within two weeks to see that rectification has occurred, that is obviously predicted because it is two weeks down the road.

I have told the third party's health critic and members of the standing committee on many occasions, as have my predecessors, that those inspections are surprise inspections done on a random basis. I clearly resent his repeating an allegation that has been answered. If he wants to accuse this minister and this government of lying, he should be a man and stand up and do that, but he should not repeat an allegation so he can get it out in the media when that allegation has been clearly and specifically answered by a minister of this government, whether by myself or any of my colleagues here. He should have the courage to stand up and say he does not believe it. He should not stand up and repeat an allegation because he wants to get on the six o'clock news, when he knows that allegation is not accurate.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister is seeing the situation at Ark Eden Nursing Home in the greater context of what is happening in nursing homes all over Ontario, but I am very disturbed if the minister feels the only reason he is going into the other 17 facilities is that they are facilities that deal with children. I believe it is not only extremely important that the minister consider the safety of children who are forced to live in nursing homes on a regular basis, but also critical that he look after older people who also happen to be helpless. In many cases, they are unable to speak out for themselves in the same way as children are unable.

Will the minister extend his review to include a review of licensing procedures in general that would apply to all nursing homes across Ontario and not simply those nursing homes that accommodate children on a regular basis? Admittedly, the minister has stated in the House that he does not see a regulatory breakdown. Yet by his own statement his ministry was responsible for 22 inspections at the Ark Eden Nursing Home over a period of 33 months.

Would he admit in this House that there has been a regulatory breakdown at Ark Eden, that there are potential regulatory breakdowns in other areas, and that the only way he can actually clear the air is to have a review of licensing procedures, as well as a review of all conditions facing all patients in all nursing homes in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Very quickly and simply, let me say that is what we are doing. I thought I had indicated that earlier. We have had a complete review of all the methods being used in licensing and inspecting all nursing homes. The only sense in which I indicated there were 18 was that we have put together a special team that will go and supplement the usual random investigations and inspections. That inspection team is beginning this round by going to the nursing homes that house our young people.

Last year, because of our concern, we not only put together a special team, we increased the complement from 24 to a higher number by retaining outside inspectors on contract for a short period of time with the ministry to look at all the other nursing homes the member is talking about -- not all the others but it included the 18 we are talking about now -- in order to give me a quick assurance that at least the fire safety aspects were satisfactory. That has now been done and completed.

We have ascertained there is also a need in the homes for special care, a point the member has raised on several occasions, and we have put together a team to review that entire sector. Again, it is supplemented by outside contracted inspectors.

To give the member a very clear answer to the question, all of that is already under review by the ministry to address all of her concerns.

2:50 p.m.

On the question of regulatory breakdown, it is unfair to say that because in one instance there was a failure to take whatever steps might have been appropriate in earlier stages, it indicates a total breakdown of a system that covers 339 other nursing homes.

I did not deal with the number of inspectors in the previous question, but the member has addressed the numbers. There are 24 inspectors to cover 340 nursing homes. It makes each of them responsible for 12, 14 or 15 nursing homes. That is quite an acceptable number considering that two or three times a year is all that is required in the vast majority of nursing homes. Supplementary to those 24 inspectors, there is our willingness to go out and retain others when we need them. That has been done.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, first, I should say that the information that still upsets the Minister of Health comes from officials in the nursing home services branch. It may well be that the minister has not yet got a handle on the practices and procedures of his own department.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh yes.

Mr. McClellan: It comes from his own officials. If he does not know what his own officials do, that is his problem and not ours.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Can the minister cast his memory back to May 12, 1981, when his predecessor announced in the Legislature virtually the same policy that he announced last Friday? Does he remember that the candidate for the leadership announced to us that he was working out a new inspection form that is basically a numerical rating? He stated that when those forms were completed and were put into use they would be made available to whomever wanted to see them.

Is that very different from the policy the minister announced on Friday? Is he still trying to implement the policy of the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell)? Can he specifically tell us whether he would be good enough to table the nursing home inspection reports on the following nursing homes: Good Samaritan Nursing Homes Ltd. in Alliston, Barton Place Nursing Home in Toronto, Country Place Nursing Homes Ltd. in Richmond Hill and Lakewood Nursing Home in the Huntsville area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Might I say that one of the reasons I shall be able to change a lot of the procedures and the licensing arrangements in the next few months is the excellent groundwork laid by my predecessor, who had an extraordinary degree of concern for these particular residents; let me make that clear.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, the minister is supporting his campaign.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is only three less rounds of applause than the member got a minute ago from his own party.

Let me also say that the nursing home system in this province was built from scratch. There are up to 340 homes, about which a lot of the various members and their constituents speak to me. I am not speaking of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), but his friends over there speak to me about them to encourage providing more beds for their particular nursing homes from time to time.

That system was built under the firm, important, cautious, careful and considerate guidance of all of my predecessors. Let us not suggest that this situation deteriorated until recently. They built the system and they then began to do what was necessary to inspect and supervise that system. We are now able to take it one step farther because of the infrastructure that is in place.

Let me also deal with the reports. The member can ask as many times as he wants for more nursing home reports, but he knows as well as I -- the Speaker quite properly gets impatient with these things being repeated, but the members continue to ask the question again -- not surprisingly, the answer is always the same because the answer has not changed.

Those reports have been written for many years in such a way that we cannot release them without disclosing the health status of the residents. The member would be the first to rise and complain that that matter ought to be sent to Mr. Justice Krever because confidential health information had been made available to the public. I am not about to do that. I will be able to do that in the next few months.

Let me say, finally, if the member believes that the system of inspections is different to what this minister has stated, then he should stand up, as I said, and suggest that I am misleading the House or that I am lying. I am not. I am giving the ministry policy. That is the way it is implemented and it is not about to change. There are surprise random inspections. It does not matter how many times the member asks.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the fact remains the minister did not answer with respect to specific violations.

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Rae: My second question has to do with the Attorney General. I would like to ask him, with respect to the statement he made today, how he can explain the events of last week with respect to the statements made by Chief Ackroyd and Superintendent Bamlett. How can he explain those two statements which are in direct contradiction to the statements he made last week and today?

How does he respond to the question as to why Superintendent Bamlett, after years of service to the department, would have left the investigation before it was completed? Does that not raise certain questions in the minister's mind? Does he not see the public itself is raising questions about whether the investigation is over or is not over and why the results of that investigation are being held up?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is the role of the Attorney General to speak about or explain statements made by any senior police officer in this province. I said earlier the statements attributed to those distinguished officers were obviously inaccurate. I spoke to Chief Ackroyd briefly on the weekend, or I should say he communicated with me, and he regretted the fact there was some degree of confusion.

He was clearly of the view, as I have repeated in this House, that the investigation was not at an end. The officers who have had most to do with the day-to-day investigation and who have accepted almost entirely the responsibility for the day-to-day investigation are still actively involved in the case.

It may be Superintendent Bamlett had some overall supervisory responsibility, but his retirement, which I gather had been planned for some time, really has little to do with the ongoing investigation. He just was not involved in the day-to-day investigation other than in some general supervisory role that has little impact on where the investigation is going from this point. That happens to be the fact.

Mr. Rae: Is the Attorney General saying the police officer in charge of the investigation, and presumably in charge of drawing up a report which would then be presented to the crown attorney, was not involved in any way in the day-to-day investigation, and that his leaving the case has no impact at all on the evidence and no impact at all on the process? Is that what he is saying to this Legislature?

It would seem rather surprising that someone praised as highly as Superintendent Bamlett was last week by all those who knew him would leave in the middle of the investigation. Now we have the Attorney General saying the person in charge of the investigation really had nothing to do with it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Those are the member's words, not mine. He may like to play his little boy antics and pursue them by parading all sorts of silly little smokescreens. One of these days we know he will reach some degree of maturity that will not make this necessary. I do not know whether we will ever see it, but we are looking forward to that day.

I am just repeating, the fact of the matter is Superintendent Bamlett's day-to-day involvement in this investigation is and has been of a very peripheral nature.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Mitchell: Look who's here; and it is not Tuesday, it's Monday.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, is the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) going to be okay?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It is the first time we have seen him on a Monday in about a year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: I apologize for waking him up; I am sorry. I will not do it again.

3 p.m.

Considering that all of us here appreciate the seriousness of this whole sorry situation at the hospital, considering the fact that charges have been laid, the accused was discharged and the minister decided not to appeal, and considering that we have had a report from the Dubin inquiry and a report from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, part of which the Attorney General has released here today and another part of which he has refused to release, does the Attorney General not understand there is some concern that the whole system, the whole apparatus, hardly inspires confidence in the administration of justice?

Can he tell us when this investigation, which has been going on for so long, will finally terminate? When will we know whether other charges are to be laid? When will the Attorney General proceed with a full inquiry?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, if we had the pleasure of the honourable member's company a little more often, he would know the answers to some of these questions.

Mr. Rae: He's here more than you are.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I said on Friday -- and I realize Friday is a bad day for the member in Toronto -- I had every reasonable expectation I would have the final report from the investigators in my hands in early March. To the best of my knowledge that is the answer I gave, I think, on Thursday and Friday.

I want to make one further observation. Given the enormous complexity of this case, I do not think members opposite really intend to undermine the confidence of the public of Metropolitan Toronto in one of the world's very finest police forces. I realize the members of that party do not have much representation from the Metropolitan Toronto area --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- or they would get a little better advice in relation to some of the innuendoes and aspersions they are trying to cast in the direction of what is really a very fine police force.

Mr. Rae: If anybody has undermined confidence in the police investigation, it is the Attorney General. It is the Attorney General who has come into this Legislature and said that the person in charge of it was not involved with it on a day-to-day basis. If that does not undermine confidence, I do not know what does.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: My question for the Attorney General concerns a statement that was made on January 28 by his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), who said the Atlanta report would be made public "at the appropriate time."

Given the number of things that have been said today by the Attorney General with respect to the report of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, can he tell us whether in his judgement this report will ever be made available at the appropriate time or at some other time? Is he now reneging on the commitment made by the Minister of Health, or is he going to go ahead with it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not reneging on any commitment made by the Minister of Health.

NORCEN-HANNA MINING CO.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Attorney General relating to the administration of justice in regard to an article in Maclean's magazine on one of the people who I am sure will be known to the Attorney General.

Is the Attorney General not concerned that the events surrounding his meeting on May 13 with Conrad Black and his lawyers relating to the Norcen-Hanna Mining Co. situation may have brought the administration of justice in Ontario into some disrepute? Is he not concerned that he should have made a statement concerning the article in Maclean's? Can he explain the situation at the moment with the apparent conflict between the police and the ministry in this case? What has the special focus been since his meeting on May 13 with Mr. Black and his lawyers?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I regret, particularly because of my very high regard for the member for Rainy River, that he has not shown much interest in recent years in the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General. If we had had the pleasure of his company during those estimates, he would know this issue was discussed in great detail by his colleagues. As a matter of fact, the then director of the criminal law branch of the ministry, Mr. Roderick McLeod, now the Deputy Solicitor General of this province, gave a very lengthy outline of what had happened, as well as statements made by myself.

The honourable member has raised a question that was of some interest to some of the members before the end of the year and that obviously has attracted the interest of Maclean's magazine. I do not want to go on at great length, but I am afraid the question he asked was a very general question. I am not quarrelling with him for asking a general question, but I want to take a moment or two to briefly repeat some of the statements that were made in estimates.

First, a very unusual allegation was being made by Mr. Black's lawyers, a very respected Toronto law firm, the firm of Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt, to the effect that a trial that was in its critical stages in Cleveland, Ohio, was being improperly influenced by some unstated activity within the government and, more specifically, within the Ministry of the Attorney General.

At the time of our only meeting it was outlined that what had been injected into that trial was the fact of ongoing police or criminal investigation in Toronto. At the time of the meeting, which involved Mr. Rendall Dick, the Deputy Attorney General, and Mr. Blenus Wright, who is in charge of the civil branch of the ministry -- because I knew this was a civil action -- we were advised not only that the fact of the criminal investigation had been introduced into the trial in Cleveland, Ohio, which was a civil action, but also that the judge in that trial had actually telephoned one of our law officers to inquire about the criminal investigation, and that was confirmed.

I did and still do regard that as an incredibly unusual initiative for a trial judge to take in the middle of civil trial, to seek information on his own with respect to a criminal investigation in another jurisdiction. I felt it was unusual enough that my senior law officers should be asked to pursue the matter and find out in effect what had happened. The matter was left with Mr. Rendall Dick, and then Mr. McLeod was brought into the matter. As far as I am concerned, absolutely nothing happened that should in any way undermine anybody's confidence in the administration of justice in this province.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the minister is spending too much time on the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I suggest to the Attorney General that perhaps he would like to make a detailed statement at a more appropriate time.

Mr. Bradley: Add five minutes.

Mr. Martel: Add five minutes to the question period.

Mr. Speaker: No. In all fairness, the honourable member asked four questions of a very general nature.

Mr. T. P. Reid: None of which the Attorney General answered, but I will put a brief supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One specific one.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Right.

I have read the estimates carefully, but they took place on December 15, 1982, while the Maclean's article has been published recently. Can the Attorney General explain and clarify what happened to Mr. Johnston, because Mr. Rendall Dick, then Deputy Attorney General, gave one explanation for his removal, Mr. McLeod gave another, and Mr. Morton, director of the commercial crimes branch, gave another; and now Mr. McLeod finds himself directing the police. Can he clarify why Mr. Johnston was removed from the case?

Second, did the Attorney General give direction to the police to change the charges or the criminal investigation from what the police had originally embarked on to a lesser fine or a lesser charge?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First, I would like to say that Maclean's magazine would have demonstrated some higher degree of journalistic integrity if it had referred to the fact that these issues were debated at some length in the standing committee on administration of justice.

I have to take issue with the member. I do not agree with his interpretation that these three distinguished law officers of the crown gave different explanations; not at all. They made it clear as to why they required more experienced criminal counsel on this matter.

I want to make it clear that at no time was any direction or other pressure brought to bear on the Metropolitan Toronto police in relation to downgrading this investigation from a criminal investigation, which it still is, to an investigation under the Securities Act. Any suggestion otherwise is simply without foundation.

I have also discussed this matter recently with the chief of police for Toronto because of the attention it has been given and voiced my concern that a cloud has been created that some sort of pressure was perhaps improperly applied to downgrade this investigation. The chief of police, who of course is very familiar with these details, simply stated it was an irresponsible suggestion.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, will the Attorney General advise the House when he expects the criminal investigation into this matter will be completed and when a decision will be made as to whether charges will be laid?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help the member for Riverdale on that. I will inquire as to whether any date can be given. The last time I inquired it was not possible for an estimated time frame to be given to me. I will make further inquiries and will inform him at least by letter if the House is not sitting.

ONTARIO INDIAN POLICE COMMISSION

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). I know the provincial secretary is familiar with these matters.

I refer to the Ontario Indian constable program and specifically to the agreement between the government of Canada, the government of Ontario and the duly recognized Indian associations of Ontario, namely, the Grand Council of Treaty 3, the Grand Council of Treaty 9, the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians and the Union of Ontario Indians, and to the evaluation made specifically pursuant to section 27 of that report on the whole of the program.

Is the government prepared to enter into formal negotiations as requested by the Indian associations of Ontario to ensure that the Ontario Indian police agreement can be renegotiated on a comprehensive basis following the 33 recommendations for improving the program which have been proposed by the independent evaluation, having regard to the fact that the agreement will expire on March 31?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been involved in negotiations. We are ready to negotiate on behalf of the native people. I am sure the honourable member realizes this agreement is carried out. The Ontario Provincial Police make recommendations for constables on the reserves. It is our hope to be able to represent all the native people and to continue with the present program.

Mr. Renwick: It is passing strange that the Solicitor General or the government itself has refused to pay its portion of the costs of the evaluation study called for by the agreement. My supplementary question is, and I refer to the provisions with respect to the establishment of an advisory body to be called the Ontario Indian police commission, whether the government is prepared to support the immediate establishment of the Ontario Indian police commission as mandated in the present policing agreement and in line with the proposals which Mr. Justice Hartt has received in connection with those terms of reference.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In this case we are left in a position similar to the one we are in with many other contracts with the government of Canada where they are trying to put their responsibilities on to the government of Ontario. In this case we are --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We are continuing to represent the native peoples and yet make Ottawa pay their portion of it.

KICKBOXING AND FULL CONTACT KARATE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations pertaining to his statement last week about kickboxing. Perhaps he can just hang on to his colleague to his right and keep him under some control.

Subsequent to the minister's statement, can he provide us with any evidence of serious injury or death that would have compelled him to ban these sports, kickboxing and what he calls full contact karate, pending an investigation? If he does have any evidence, will he provide it to the House?

Second, if the minister does not have any evidence, why would he ban these sports and not ban boxing, for instance, where there is overwhelming evidence of injury and death? Where is the consistency? How does he react to people who have been working with the athletic commission in his ministry for the past two years or so and have drafted some 30 or 40 pages of regulations with his ministry, and now feel they have been betrayed by the minister's decision in the matter?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good question the never-here-on-Monday member for Ottawa East has asked, and I think we should answer it seriously.

Many questions are being asked in society today about boxing but, as the honourable member knows, a federal task force on boxing was conducted in 1980. It went through this country and made certain recommendations with respect to regulating a sport that apparently has become a norm in society. There are Olympic boxers, it is part of centuries and centuries of this type of sport being accepted.

Whether I happen to like it, or whether the member opposite or some members do not like it is another issue, but as a sport it still is in question. As a matter of fact, the British Medical Association working party will be coming out in two weeks with an extensive review of the whole issue of boxing.

The issue of kickboxing is relatively new. It is a sport that has been banned in some states in the United States. It is a sport that I do not have any statistics on with respect to serious injuries, although I have heard of one indirectly; but I would want to verify it before I mentioned it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Hang on. The potential for injury is what has alarmed the American Medical Association and physicians in this country, a concern that goes beyond the force that can be applied with a fist.

I acknowledge that the children who are doing it in the schoolyards today may not have the skill, the expertise and the strength in their legs to apply a kick to the head that can produce the injury we all fear.

Mr. Boudria: That is not true and you know it. It is the force of the foot.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time for oral questions has expired.

[Later]

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, why would you not allow the minister to complete his statement in the question period --

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

Mr. Roy: You allowed the statement that went on for half an hour from other ministers, including the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman). Why would you not allow --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention standing order 81(d), which gives a time limit for ministers to answer written questions. I draw to your attention question 535, which I asked on October 12. Surprisingly, the ministry said the information would be available on the approximate date of November 29, 1982.

I would like to know why the ministry is suppressing the answer to this question.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the ministry will take note of your request and will reply instantaneously, perhaps.

3:20 p.m.

CLOSURE OF DYLEX PLANT

Mr. Wrye: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On February 9 of this year, I asked a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), who, unfortunately, has just left. I wanted to draw to his attention that in his answer he said, "The matter is being investigated by the employment standards section" -- this was a question on Dylex Ltd. -- "and I should have a complete report on it in the very near future." My point is that the very near future is now some 12 days later, I wonder whether we are going to get an answer to that question before --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you could ask that at oral question time tomorrow.

PETITIONS

KICKBOXING AND FULL CONTACT KARATE

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition in response to the statement on kickboxing and full contact karate made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) on February 15. In the same form as the petition presented on Friday last, which had 4,838 names, this petition has a further 3,595 names and is accompanied by 254 letters on this matter, for a grand total of 8,687 persons, which I presume is more than will attend the Conservative national convention, although they would see more blood there than they would see in kickboxing.

I will not read again the three areas for relief but would just encourage the minister to allow the events planned for London and Ottawa to proceed and to have his review committee, including a person knowledgeable about kick-boxing, attend those events and use them as the basis for their hearings and for a review of these sports.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition on the same subject as that just raised by the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). This petition is signed by 17 of the good constituents of Huron-Middlesex riding, who fail to understand why the minister is banning a sport before the investigation team has had a chance to report on it. We bring that to his attention.

CLOSURE OF AUDIO LIBRARY

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) from 155 citizens residing in Toronto, the Lakehead area, Orangeville and area, Cambridge, Agincourt and Oshawa and area, on the subject of the Trent audio library. The last paragraph of the petition reads: "Surely access to a public educational institution, paid for by all taxpayers, is a basic right for all able students, print-handicapped or not. This access will be denied if the Trent audio library closes on April 30, 1983, as announced."

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the answers to questions 684, 687, 691, 692, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700 and 706 on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for final sitting day of session].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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 7:

Mr. Chairman: If memory serves me correctly, we were moving right along with great speed to section 7, and here we are.

Mr. Bradley: Here we are indeed, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding that we have the opportunity to speak on the entire section 7 before dealing with any specific amendments. Both the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) and I have amendments to this section that were put in committee, and we announced they would be put in the House. I have a strong suspicion, although I have no proof of it, that getting to deal with each of our amendments in the detailed way we would like might not be possible. So I want to address my remarks to the entire section and the concept that is brought forward through Bill 127.

From the evidence I heard presented to the committee by various people, both proponents and opponents of this legislation, representations were made as to the wisdom of changing the process from an essentially voluntary process of collective bargaining in Metropolitan Toronto between the teachers and the boards of education to a compulsory joint bargaining process by panel. Initially, when reviewing this legislation, I came to the conclusion it would have been to greater advantage to leave well enough alone, not to fix something that is not already broken. That statement has been repeated by many of those who made representations to the committee and by us in the House.

It is contended that the present setup in Metropolitan Toronto is not working. For instance, we heard the word ''whipsawing" used on many occasions. This is supposedly a method by which teachers' federations in one part of Metropolitan Toronto dealing with one board of education are able to secure a favourable contract, then to use that contract, along with their colleagues, to extract an equally favourable contract in another part of Metropolitan Toronto. Those who made representations on the part of the teachers' federations suggested this simply was not the case. Any fair-minded and objective person can understand in 1983 this certainly cannot be the case.

At one time the power might have been in the hands of the teachers' federations, when we were relatively short of teachers and there were a lot of students in the system. Teachers at that time might well have had a better hand to play than they do in 1983. With declining enrolment and the tremendous downturn we have experienced in the economy, and the attitudes of resentment that have built up against members of the teaching profession, they certainly have not been in a position in recent years to whipsaw and thereby extract better contracts because of a contract won with another board. In any case, even if a lucrative contract were won in one municipality under the jurisdiction of one board of education, other boards of education would be able to resist the implementation of this kind of contract if they saw fit to do so.

Another factor that emerged was that although some people, even those who opposed the bill, had said some minor problems had cropped up from time to time, by and large these could be overcome voluntarily. We know the experience in collective bargaining, in Metropolitan Toronto anyway, has been that there has been joint collective bargaining on a voluntary basis; but there was always the safety valve that if one federation or one branch of a federation was unhappy with a particular clause in a contract or the way in which a negotiation process was going, or if one board of education was unhappy, either could withdraw from that process. That was a safety valve which allowed the kind of flexibility which many of us feel is desirable.

3:30 p.m.

Whenever we impose compulsory items upon people there is resentment. I cannot help but feel that when we have collective bargaining at the local level it works best. I will give an example in my own part of the province, which is the Lincoln County Board of Education, in terms of boards of education. The teachers who negotiate with the board of education in that case have never resorted to strike tactics to this time. Indeed, I do not think anyone would ever consider that there had been a serious threat of any kind of work stoppage as a result of the collective bargaining that took place and has taken place in Lincoln.

Both sides bargain in a very tough manner. There are sometimes heated exchanges, no doubt, but there is a good deal of respect for those on the management side by those on the federation side and vice versa. Because of the knowledge of one another, because of the respect that they have, because of the knowledge they have of what is important to one side and to the other, the collective bargaining process has worked well.

On the other hand, if we had implemented in Niagara, as this bill will have implemented in Metropolitan Toronto, compulsory joint bargaining throughout the Niagara Peninsula -- let us say we put the Niagara South Board of Education together with Lincoln: the minister will indicate that is not the case and she has no plans of doing that, although many fear that, of course, could happen -- but if that were the case, one would find that the teachers in Niagara South Board of Education have different points of view of what is important than the teachers in Lincoln have. I am sure the boards of education would place a different emphasis on those things that could be included in the contract. We would find this applies across the province.

In so many cases where there is an opportunity to sit down with the people one knows in one's own community under one's own jurisdiction and make all of the major decisions, that works best. In Metropolitan Toronto, as I have indicated, on some occasions -- I think most occasions -- we have had joint collective bargaining because both sides have felt it was desirable. That would continue to be the case if the minister would not interfere by implementing Bill 127 and the provisions found in section 7.

I would like to share with members of the House some thoughts that were expressed to the committee by those who made representations. When the minister first introduced the bill on May 28, 1982, in the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation Update, the then president, David Hughes, expressed concerns at the very beginning. I quote:

"In an immediate press release, OSSTF president David Hughes charged that the province had just taken the first step towards making province-wide bargaining compulsory for all teachers in Ontario." There already we see many viewing Metropolitan Toronto as being only the first until we see it implemented across the province.

"'That is an unavoidable conclusion,' he said, 'when the province introduces legislation that will compel regional bargaining by teachers in six boards that represent one quarter of the population in Ontario. It is a backward step, in our opinion, for many reasons.

"'It is plain common sense,' he added, 'that one bargains with the employer who hired you. The amendments to the Metropolitan Toronto Act say that there will be a Metro-wide negotiating unit, seriously weakening the ability of the individual school boards to deal with their teachers on local issues.'

"But the real losers, David Hughes emphasized, may be parents. 'Their wishes for special programs or special services for their children will have to take second place to Metro-wide negotiations under the new legislation. If individual boards are having difficulty providing special programs that their communities now wish, how much more difficult will it be under a new Metro-wide structure?

"'The accountability of locally elected school boards to their taxpayers will be seriously diluted, because results of joint bargaining can always be blamed upon the Metro grouping. Or, to put it in a different way, the desire of parents for a special program will always have to be balanced against whether that fits into a Metro formula.'

"The Ontario Teachers' Federation has also spoken up about the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Toronto Act -- and with good reason, according to David Hughes. 'What the new legislation says in a nutshell is that 25 per cent of the teachers in the province of Ontario have lost the right to deal directly with their employers. That is a negative step backwards, if I have ever heard of one.'

"The priority of the moment is to ensure that there must be 'a thorough examination of the amendments to the Metropolitan Toronto Act and their implications for education in all parts of Ontario. There must be ample opportunity for concerned parents, teachers and other citizen to express their views, preferably through a committee of the Ontario Legislature.'"

Those views, indeed, were expressed, but not to the extent that we in the opposition felt was desirable, because on October 6, 1982, I moved in committee that we should hear more people who wanted to be heard. There were a number of people who were not able to be heard before that committee.

We had several people come from the federations. I will not read in great detail the representations which were made, but I thought the representations made, for instance, by the teachers in York, East York, North York, Scarborough, ,Etobicoke and Toronto were quite good in that those who had direct responsibility for negotiating could not say there had been a specific problem in the negotiating process.

Almost to a person, they indicated this response to any of the smaller problems that might have arisen was overkill. Many had thought that while the collective bargaining process had been tough with many of the boards, it had nevertheless been quite successful.

The Ontario Teachers' Federation dealt with the bill as it existed in June 1982 in a newsletter which I thought stated their case well. One has to always watch this, because one cannot always accept everything a particular group which has a direct interest in a piece of legislation says.

To be fair, I think it would be unwise for any of us in this House to automatically assume that is correct. We had to look carefully at it to determine whether that was the case, to ask questions of the representatives of the boards of education who came before us and to ask questions of the representatives of the teachers' federations to determine whether a real problem did exist.

It was my view, upon hearing those people make the representations, that the problem was not of such an extent as to militate in favour of the passage of this legislation.

The Ontario Teachers' Federation Interaction, June 1982, capsulized the potential solutions and the problem with the legislation in quite a concise and reasonable manner. I am going to quote from this to allow members of the Legislature to know exactly the way they thought.

Mr. Chairman: But not extensively.

Mr. Bradley: Not extensively; you will be happy to know that it is condensed quite a bit, but it is very good.

Mr. Chairman: You are not going to read the whole thing?

Mr. Bradley: Not the whole thing, but I could if I wanted to. I know the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) would want me to, but I really do not feel I should.

It says: "The collective bargaining process between teachers and school boards has been under review since October 30, 1979, when the Minister of Education, Dr. Bette Stephenson, announced the creation of the 'Matthews commission.' OTF and the affiliates have been attempting and will continue to attempt to influence the outcome. Your assistance and that of your branch affiliate will be required if we are to be successful." The writer is speaking to members of the teachers' federation.

"Two issues, compulsory joint bargaining by panel and compulsory regional bargaining, have emerged from the review process. These have been embodied in proposed legislation to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, introduced for first reading in the Legislature on Friday, May 28, 1982.

"Interestingly enough, both of these issues were examined by the Matthews commission which concluded, 'We are dubious about enshrining this principle 'joint bargaining in law.'

3:40 p.m.

"At first glance, the prospect of compulsory regional bargaining in the Metropolitan Toronto area would seem to be an issue of concern only to teachers employed within the area. This is not the case. It would be impossible to implement compulsory regional bargaining in the Toronto area without also imposing some form of compulsory joint bargaining by panel.

"The proposed abrogation of a teacher's right to negotiate through the local branch affiliate with his or her employer must be opposed before a precedent is established. Failure to do so is to invite the application, through the amendment of Bill 100, of compulsory joint bargaining by panel to all jurisdictions. Further, once compulsory regional bargaining has been established in Metropolitan Toronto it can easily be extended to other areas."

We know the minister disagrees, and the Premier (Mr. Davis), in answer to my question in the House, when he became quite exercised at this suggestion, stated that as long as he was Premier this would not happen. Of course, we do not know how long he is going to be the Premier. Events in the city of Ottawa in June might militate in favour of his leaving this place for the other place. We would certainly wish him well in his efforts, no doubt. That has nothing to do with the bill so I will continue.

They talked specifically about compulsory joint bargaining by panel. The OTF Interaction goes on to say as follows:

"Since 1975, teacher-trustee negotiations have been governed by the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. Section 4 of this act was designed to permit the flexibility in negotiating that was part of the process prior to 1975. It allows two or more boards or two or more branch affiliates to choose to negotiate as a single party.

"Inherent in the provision is the right of the individual teacher through his or her branch affiliate to bargain collectively with the employer, and recognition of the autonomy of each board of education.

'Traditionally, members of the francophone and English Catholic affiliates who teach for the same school board have bargained together, as have members of the francophone and secondary affiliates and the two elementary affiliates. In only a handful of situations have members of different branch affiliates employed by the same board bargained separately, and in these cases representation of minority concerns has been a major issue.

"The strength of the current arrangement is its flexibility. Any voluntary arrangement for joint negotiations by autonomous entities depends on the continuing co-operation and goodwill of the participants, and is therefore by its very nature ad hoc. As the needs and priorities of the party shift, the structure is capable of evolving to a new and more responsive form. When such an arrangement is replaced with a mandatory structure, the behavioural obligations are removed; increased conflict is the likely result.

"If collective bargaining is to be effective, the employee must retain the right to negotiate directly with the employer. When a joint bargaining structure is mandated, the autonomy of the component parts is compromised and local needs and priorities easily jeopardized."

Looking specifically at the compulsory regional bargaining in Metropolitan Toronto, it says:

"The imposition of compulsory regional bargaining will serve only to compound the problems created by compulsory joint panel bargaining. In Toronto, 16 elementary branch affiliates and eight secondary branch affiliates will be moulded into two bargaining units. They will be forced to negotiate salaries, other financial benefits and the method by which the number of teachers to be employed by an area board with a trustee negotiating committee comprised of representatives of the six area boards.

"Other matters may be negotiated directly with area boards. A double majority will be required for ratification of a collective agreement by each of the boards and the teachers. Terms and conditions of employment applying to teachers on September 1, 1983, and thereafter must be negotiated under the new provisions; existing agreements will expire on this date.

"The imposition of compulsory regional bargaining may mean ultimately that the education system is a little less effective and a little less responsive than it would otherwise have been. Smaller branch affiliates and smaller boards will be confronted with a system that is less sensitive and less responsive to their needs and priorities. New funding arrangements will impose program and staffing uniformity that may or may not be in the best interests of education. Relationships between teachers and the employing boards will become less personal and more bureaucratic.

"The imposition of a new bargaining structure in Metropolitan Toronto could not have come at a worse time. Public education is under enormous pressure to improve services to its clientele. A major retrenchment necessitated by declining enrolments has been only partially completed. While retrenchment is never easy, the ground rules have been established through the collective bargaining process. To arbitrarily terminate such agreements and to impose altered structures for the determination of new arrangements is to invite confusion, insecurity and disruption at a time when the schools and teachers can least afford it."

That was signed by all the representatives of the Ontario teachers' federations: George Meek, who at that time was president of OTF; Serge Plouffe, the president of l'Association des enseignants franco-ontariens; Ann Thomson, at that time president of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario; George Saranchuk, president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association; Duncan Jewell, then president of the Ontario Public School Men Teachers' Federation; and Malcolm Buchanan, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. They put the case very well,

We could go through the considerable testimony that took place in the committee. To see the frustration in the faces and to hear it in the voices of those who had been in the front line in negotiations when they saw slipping away from them the opportunity to negotiate freely and on a flexible basis was something to behold. Certainly there were those from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board who feel it is desirable to have this movement away from individual negotiating processes to one joint negotiating team. I do not think it really benefits anybody, and I go along with David Hughes in his comments that it is not going to help the student in the classroom eventually.

Many of the people who made representations, even on section 7 of the bill, were not teachers but were parents who were concerned that their board of education, democratically elected, directly elected, would not have the powers they hoped it would have. That is important because the Metropolitan Toronto School Board is not directly elected. Yes, it has elected representatives on it, but they are indirectly elected. If I reside in Etobicoke, I am not in a position to vote for somebody I know is going to be on the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. To place further powers in a board that is indirectly elected and take them away from a board that is directly elected is a step backwards.

I would guess there are many back-bench members of the Progressive Conservative government, and perhaps some in the cabinet, who would be philosophically opposed to this. There are a number of people on the other side, although there are some centralizers within the cabinet, who have a great belief in local autonomy. I am sure I can count the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton), who sits in the House at present, among them. The member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), who also sits in the House at present, listening in rapt attention to my remarks, no doubt feels the same thing, as he is a person who has long cherished local autonomy in his part of the province. Indeed, the chairman could be placed in the same category. So I make that kind of special plea.

The member for Oakwood in the amendments he placed in the committee suggested the word "may" be substituted for "shall" in a number of different cases. That would have the effect of emasculating that section of the bill, and that is a desirable goal to have. It is obvious the minister was not moved by the arguments made in committee, because the six Progressive Conservative members dutifully raised their hands in opposition to each of the amendments proposed by members of the opposition. That is unfortunate.

In looking at the total bill -- and I am not speaking to the total bill, but in my arguments in total about the bill -- I have indicated I understand to a certain extent why the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities wants this bill to go through. It has become a battle. She has come this far and no doubt she feels she must push on. Having come this far she would not want to retreat now. It is understandable in human nature that any of us having a project we wish to push forward, having come way down the line and fought many battles --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member is imputing motives again.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: It is a rather kind motive in this case as opposed to an unkind motive.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is erroneous.

Mr. Bradley: I am not imputing motives. I am offering an opinion that the minister, having come this far, is certainly not going to retreat on this piece of legislation.

However, I wonder why the government would proceed with this section of the bill knowing the great opposition to it. From time to time, we get telephone calls from people who are proponents of the bill as well as from those who are not. They say: "This is great stuff. It is time somebody stepped on the teachers. It is time their wings were clipped. It is great to see the Toronto Board of Education put in its place."

While they are a distinct minority of the calls or representations I have received, that factor remains as one which would militate in favour of the minister continuing her battle to get this piece of legislation through the House.

However, I cannot for the life of me understand why the other members of the cabinet and all the other members of the caucus would feel it necessary to drag the Legislature through this legislation knowing it is not essential, knowing it is attempting to rectify a situation that does not require fixing up, if I can use that terminology, by the provisions of this bill.

I do not like the terminology that was used in committee, but let me give an example of the kind of flexibility I would like to see in negotiations. It is a process known as bodies for bucks. It is an awful thing. It sounds as though one might be talking about Yonge Street in its old days or referring to a cemetery. That is not the case in either event.

What we are talking about is a provision in a contract freely negotiated with the Toronto Board of Education and the teachers who are represented by the branch affiliates dealing with that board whereby they said: "Look, our priority is job security and class size for a couple of reasons. Obviously we want to retain as many positions as possible, that is logical; but also, the effect on the classroom is quite pronounced and we feel the children in the system would be better served with more teachers available to the system. We are prepared to take less money than might have been anticipated in favour of allowing more teachers."

I think this is a good kind of contract to negotiate, particularly at a time of declining enrolment and high unemployment, when the education system is being asked to meet more and more social needs of children as opposed to straight academic needs. This kind of contract is desirable, I think, when the board of education and the specific members of the teaching profession, through their branch affiliates, deem it to be desirable.

Therefore I concluded, from what I heard in committee, that that had worked to a certain extent. It needed some refinement, but it had worked and there were two sides that were pleased; namely, the teachers and the board of education representing the ratepayers.

I go back to the fact, as we all must, that those people elected at the local level are responsible to the electorate. Every three years, and it used to be every two years, those people must face the music. In the provincial Legislature, we get up to five years, but those people must face the music every three years on the second Monday of November.

They must come to the electorate and say: "This is what we have done over the past three years. This is how we have spent your tax dollars. This is how we have allocated the funds. Make your judgement on whether we shall be returned or whether someone else will come in, someone who wants to spend more money, less money or has an entirely different philosophy of education." That choice is presented.

When the government starts eroding the power of the local board of education, these people cannot really be held to account. One of the publications I have read on the subject picked out that point. We have the same thing as you do, Mr. Chairman, and your local and regional councils in Durham. I think regional government is for the birds, but that is another issue. Members do not want to hear about it in this debate.

In our system, the people at the local level can point the finger and say, "We would like to do this and have these services available -- it is the region's fault. They point at some body which is more distant from them. In your area, I think they are indirectly elected, Mr. Chairman; in ours they are directly elected. In our area, they are not on both councils and in yours they are. We are unique in the province. As I said, a senior level of government is blamed.

That could happen with the members of local boards of education. They could simply say, "We would like to do all these things and bring in these kind of programs, but that Metro board will not allow us to do so," and I guess there would be some justification for their saying that. We have a circumstance where this Minister of Education feels it is desirable for the Metro board to have that power in collective bargaining.

Do you have a question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: I was just wondering when you were going to tie this back to the amendment.

Mr. Bradley: Are you being prompted?

Mr. Chairman: No. I was consulting with the clerk whether I was right that the amendment had to do with negotiations. He confirmed that with me. Before I spoke up, I wanted to make sure I was on good ground.

Mr. Bradley: I am speaking on the entire section. It certainly does have to do with the collective bargaining process. That is what it is all about.

To go back to the bodies for bucks proposal, I see emerging from this legislation a situation in which one would never have a bodies for bucks proposal accepted. It would not be acceptable to others because of the problems it would cause with the ratification process.

My colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) is going to speak in some detail to that aspect, as he did in the standing committee. I must say I appreciate his contribution. As a former director of education in Kitchener, he understands the detail of administration far better than I and perhaps others do.

As some of us did in the committee to a lesser extent, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot expressed concern over the veto. The minister denied that there was a veto. She said, "No, there is no veto." Her advisers in the Ministry of Education refused to accept that word, but we in the opposition could not call it anything else.

In effect, the negotiating process is such that eventually, if a reasonable provision within a contract at the local level were agreed to, in the ratification process there would be a veto of that by a certain group representing a minority in Metropolitan Toronto. That is one of the dangers of this section of the hill.

My comment to the minister, which will not do any good because she is determined, remains what it has been all along: I wish she would withdraw that section and go back to the consulting process with the boards of education and teachers to see how any problems there may be with the collective bargaining process can best be overcome by those people who must deal on a day-to-day basis with those problems.

If they perceive that the minister is going to implement at some future date Bill 127 as it exists now, I think we will see those people who heretofore might not have been at all flexible perhaps willing to recognize some of the problems the minister sees coming forward, and to deal with those in a reasonable fashion. If she just bulldozes this through the House as it is being bulldozed through, because the threat of closure is always there --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Eight months is bulldozing?

Mr. Bradley: The minister bulldozed it through cabinet and her caucus. When it comes to the crunch, she has bulldozed it through the House.

4 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You have a strange definition of bulldozing.

Mr. Bradley: The minister tried to impose a time allocation motion. She got outfoxed by the opposition on that. She tried to get her way on section 6 by undoing what she had agreed to in committee. That was the proposal by the member for Oakwood which was agreed to by all members of the committee. She found she could not get her way on that one, so it had to slip through. If she were compromising on all aspects of this bill, she might even find there would be less strident opposition from those of us in the opposition.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, really; there have been major amendments.

Mr. Bradley: They are not major amendments. Name one major amendment. I do not think the minister could name one amendment that either the opposition or the Chairman would consider to be a major amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Are you speaking to section 7 right now?

Mr. Bradley: Absolutely.

The Deputy Chairman: I think you are getting into other interesting subjects.

Mr. McClellan: He is just starting to get interesting.

Mr. Bradley: That is a great compliment by the health critic, that I am only getting interesting now.

I promised I would not take the entire afternoon on this. I have outlined some of the problems. If one were to go through the briefs presented by the various teachers' federations, the Ontario Teachers' Federation and its affiliates and branches in Metropolitan Toronto, one would find total opposition to what the minister is doing.

There are even some on boards of education that foresee problems. There are even many parents who see problems arising from the lack of ability to negotiate those items which are important to local boards of education. This should not be surprising, although it is to some, because parents are now more and more involved in education.

As I have indicated, my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot will be speaking on this. He has some interesting and more detailed comments to make on specific provisions. If we have the opportunity, I have a number of amendments that can be moved to this section. I have seen the amendments presented by the member for Oakwood, both in committee and introduced once again in the House, which essentially do to the bill what I think should be done to the bill, that is, to make voluntary what is mandated to be compulsory in the minister's amendments.

As I say, I will be pleased to place these amendments if we have the opportunity to do so when the time comes. I hope to secure the support of members of the government. I know the members of the New Democratic Party will be in support of them, just as we will be in support of the amendments put forward by the member for Oakwood. They are reasonable, good and well thought out amendments. I hope the government will use its logic, reason, compassion and common sense to accept what those of us in the opposition have been saying on this section of Bill 127.

I implore the minister to be open-minded. I implore the minister perhaps to take the course of action taken in section 6 in a modified form, that is to accept what the opposition says and to make voluntary what is compulsory in her bill.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the whole section, unlike the Liberal member, I will begin by putting my amendment to that section. Therefore, the amendment will be debated in view of the whole section.

The Deputy Chairman: I commend the honourable member.

Mr. Grande moves that Bill 127 be amended by striking out section 7 and substituting the following therefor:

"7. The said act is amended by adding thereto the following section:

"130a. (1) The boards, or any combination of them, and the branch affiliates that represent the elementary school teachers employed by the relevant boards may negotiate together and make or renew one agreement respecting teachers' salaries and financial benefits, the method by which the number of teachers to be employed by a board is determined, or any other term or condition of employment."

Is the member moving the next part of that or is that his amendment right now?

Mr. Grande: Yes. I would like to begin the debate on this amendment by saying how astonished, surprised and flabbergasted I was, frankly, in listening to the Liberal member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley). I think it is the first time in this Legislature that I have heard any Liberal get up to support the collective bargaining process in this province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Their party wanted to remove the right to strike.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: That's right. She was right on there.

Mr. Bradley: I would think that after Bill 179 the minister would be the last one to talk about collective bargaining.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. You have had your say. You should be wound down by now. The member for Oakwood has the floor.

Mr. Grande: I do not have to remind the people in this Legislature -- 1979 and Stuart Smith -- that every time there was concern, a problem in Ontario regarding teachers' withdrawal of services, it was the members of that particular party who rose in this Legislature to call for back-to-work legislation.

Be that as it may, I welcome their support in opposing Bill 127. I have said, and I am on record as having said back at the Holiday Inn, as the minister will recall, that I welcomed the support of anybody in the province, the Liberal Party included, in opposing Bill 127.

Let me say as my next point that I do seriously hope the minister is not going to be standing up in this Legislature and invoking standing order 36 to close debate on this section or this amendment. While on Friday last she invoked closure of debate on section 6, we had debated that section for a good deal of time. After a certain amount of time one may understand, although some of us do not like closure at any time, the Minister of Education getting up and invoking closure on that section, especially since the invocation of closure on that section totally negated the amendment the minister wanted to put forward.

The Deputy Chairman: The member should be speaking to his amendment.

Mr. Grande: I certainly am, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: You are working up to it.

Mr. Grande: I am saying to the minister that I certainly hope she will not invoke closure on this section before a lot of members, as many as may want to get up in this Legislature to speak and represent their constituents, be they parents or teachers, have been able to get up and so speak. I was just giving the minister a reason why she should not think of that course of action, the reason being that everybody should have a right to speak in this Legislature and to put forth his concerns, the concerns of parents outside this place.

The 23 hours of debate on a previous section of this bill were for nothing because the Minister of Education, while complaining about all the time it had taken to debate that section, none the less, after 23 hours of debate returned us to exactly the same point we had reached in the general government committee back in October. If anybody has wasted the time of this Legislature it is the government, which has been wasting all the time in the world.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Your logic astonishes me.

Mr. Grande: If 23 hours of debate to return us to where we had been in October is not a waste of time and if it is logical, then it is the minister's logic that somehow does not function.

4:10 p.m.

Let me say with respect to this particular section that after all the briefs that have been presented, after all the 209 groups that have come before the general government committee, after 144 briefs that were submitted and a good number of briefs we did not have time to hear, the Minister of Education should certainly have understood the point of those briefs. The point of those briefs was -- speaking specifically to this particular clause and this amendment -- that by tampering with the collective bargaining process for teachers in this province she is tampering with and destroying the quality of education.

If the minister does not make the equation, that collective bargaining guarantees quality education in this province, then she does not understand the collective bargaining process.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You don't understand professionalism either.

Mr. Grande: I am suggesting to the minister that my opinion is that the collective bargaining process for teachers in this province guarantees quality of education. The minister, through this particular amendment and section, is attempting to divorce the collective bargaining process of teachers in this province from the quality of education. Of course, parents, people and teachers will not allow her to do that. She may do it -- she has the majority but let me tell her, people are not going to be very happy about that. This action on Bill 127 will come back to haunt the minister and this government.

Mr. Lane: That should help you.

Mr. Grande: It certainly will help. Politically, my friend, it will help, but in terms of proper education delivered to kids, it does not help one iota. My concern in this Legislature ever since I came here in 1975 has been children's education and the delivery of services to those kids.

Mr. Lane: This isn't going to change it a bit.

Mr. Ruprecht: That's the tragedy of it.

Mr. Mackenzie: That is your view of it. A lot of people don't agree with you.

Mr. Grande: It is not a matter of a lot of people not agreeing with him but of his not understanding what is going on. That is not unusual. When the minister speaks, she will speak for the member who will obediently follow.

Mr. Kennedy: Because it's right; it is easy to follow something that is right.

Mr. Mackenzie: Get up and speak on it and tell us all these pearls of wisdom.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Oakwood does not need all this assistance right now; he is trying to speak to his amendment.

Mr. Lane: He needs a lot of assistance.

The Deputy Chairman: I am trying to get both of you to stop.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, this particular section of the bill can be entitled, Shoot the Teacher. This section is the gun that is used to shoot the teacher.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You have more fictional flights of fancy than anybody I know.

Mr. Grande: This particular section is scheduled to do nothing else but undermine and emasculate the collective bargaining process for teachers in Metropolitan Toronto and, in due course, the collective bargaining process of every teacher in the province -- 103,000 teachers.

I want to say briefly that this particular section does not belong in this bill. This has been said over and over again but the minister and the government do not seem to want to understand. If the minister wants to amend the collective bargaining process for teachers, amend it in the proper legislation that we have -- Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act for teachers in this province.

One does not do it through the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. That will change the collective bargaining process for only 25 per cent of the teachers of this province. It will discriminate between the teachers of Metropolitan Toronto and those outside of it.

In Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, one of the sections states very clearly that any item that is brought before the bargaining table is to be negotiated. The amendment we are talking about today, this section, says no such thing. This amendment says only certain items are going to be debated at the collective bargaining table --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: At the joint table.

Mr. Grande: -- and after the master agreement is signed, sealed and delivered, one may bargain at the local level.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, simultaneously; read it.

Mr. Grande: The minister points out that it says it could be done simultaneously. Yes, it could be done simultaneously, but the fact is that one has to be signed before the other. What this amendment does is to divorce, to separate in the collective bargaining process itself, teachers' salaries, benefits and the formula by which the teachers are appointed or given to a board, from the local concerns and the quality of education. The collective bargaining process cannot be undermined in this fashion. I and members in this party will stand up at any time in this Legislature in defence of the collective bargaining process.

This legislation is shooting the teacher. The Minister of Education does not understand how that happens, so I will try to be as blunt as I can and put it forward in as clear a way as I can in terms of how the shooting of the teacher occurs in this province through this bill. On Thursday, September 23, 1982, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Minister of Economics, stood up in this Legislature and made a statement regarding the introduction of Bill 179, the wage control bill that we took a little time in debating.

On page 4 of that statement, the Treasurer said: "In the last year the Ontario public sector saw an employment increase of over 15,000, almost entirely in the education and health sectors. During that same period, private sector employment dropped by 82,000 jobs." The Treasurer pointed out this was the reason the Davis government made the determination that Bill 179 controlling public sector workers should be brought in.

The motivation is clear in that paragraph. We have too many teachers in this province; we have too many people involved in the educational sector. I am suggesting that through Bill 127 this government is attempting to get rid of teachers, and the beginning point is Metropolitan Toronto.

Interjections.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Grande: Let me say to the minister that the firing of teachers in Metropolitan Toronto is not a new phenomenon; it has been going on for the past three or four years. Boards of education have attempted, each in its own way, to fire teachers and to let teachers go. We have heard of the North York Board of Education, the Etobicoke Board of Education and the Scarborough Board of Education firing some of their teachers.

Two boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto have made the determination they do not want to fire teachers. They have made the determination that although these are difficult times, they want to work with the teachers they have to decrease the class size in the classrooms and thereby maintain teachers.

Bill 127 says to those two boards, which happen to be the Toronto Board of Education and the York Board of Education: "Absolutely not. You cannot do that. If you want to reduce class size, what you have to do is make sure that is negotiated at the Metro level." Those two boards know darned well that at the Metro board level they are in a minority.

Therefore, it is this legislation and this section which take away and undermine the priorities a local board of education has decided upon, the priorities the trustees of those boards of education, who are the representatives of the public, have decided to have. This government and this minister say: "If you fight for your priorities and if you persuade the majority of members of the Metropolitan Toronto board that they are good priorities, okay; but if not, that is too bad. They are gone and you lose them."

That is exactly the problem with this bill. It takes away the decisions a local board is empowered to make. As I said before, it destroys the historic situation in Ontario in terms of provincial responsibility and local responsibility for the delivery of educational services to children.

One can go back to the time of Egerton Ryerson if one wants, but at any time in the past when this government attempted to erode local autonomy, the local level fought hard to protect local autonomy, to protect the decision-making powers that, through legislation, they have had since the time we have had a public education system in this province.

Bill 127 is one of those bills. This section, in particular, undermines local autonomy and undermines the responsibility of the trustees to make decisions regarding the delivery of education services to children. From that point of view, this legislation is bad legislation. As I said before, and I will repeat it again, this government is going to pay dearly for drafting this bad piece of legislation.

While the government's intent is to make sure those 15,000 people in the education and health sectors are let go, released or fired, let the minister remember the public is not on the side of the government. In a recent Gallup poll by the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, it was found that 80 per cent of those surveyed said school spending should keep up with inflation, while 68 per cent were opposed to teacher layoffs. In other words, this government, which wants to rule by Gallup polls, is not heeding the advice of the Gallup poll. This government knows it is making a mistake.

I want to say to the minister as well, through this section, in terms of the experience they are having currently in Quebec vis-à-vis the teachers' federation in that province over Bill 111 of the Quebec Legislature -- the counterpart of our Bill 179 -- the teachers in that province are gathering more support as the days go by. The government of Premier Lévesque is backpedalling as fast as it can possibly backpedal by saying: "We are not going to impose those restrictions and those sanctions we said we would impose upon the teachers who are not going to go back to their schools at whatever time the legislation took effect. What we are going to do is bargain again." The government can only push and shove a group of people in this province so long until that group begins, surprised as the government may be, to shove right back.

While the teachers in this province may not have been brought to the point to which the Lévesque government has brought its teachers at this time, the government, by going the route it has decided to go and by deciding to put into effect its plans for the next couple of years, may be very surprised, as may the minister, that the teaching profession and the teachers across this province are going to be doing a little bit of pushing of their own.

What I said about the Quebec situation is happening as well in British Columbia.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Are we doing an Ontario bill?

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, through you, not to respond to the minister directly, what is happening right now in Ontario through this bill is happening in Quebec and British Columbia, because basically the three governments in these provinces have very little respect for the collective bargaining process.

In British Columbia, a minister by the name of Mr. Vander Zalm who is --

The Deputy Chairman: I know the honourable member is bringing out the point as to the optional nature of it, but he should deal specifically with his amendment in Ontario unless the analogy really counts.

Mr. Breaugh: Let him finish his sentence.

The Deputy Chairman: I am leaving it open. I am just asking the member to speak to the amendment.

Mr. Di Santo: What is that? Preventive censorship? Let him talk.

The Deputy Chairman: I am trying to give the member as much opportunity to speak as I can.

Mr. Grande: I am sorry to say the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) is not quite right. Mr. Chairman, I want to preserve your good humour. I understand that your trip to Quebec has done wonders for you and, therefore, I do want to preserve your good humour. Any time you make a suggestion to me in the course of my comments, I will do my best to return to the matter at hand.

Through this amendment to the collective bargaining process in this province for teachers and through this amendment to the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, I am suggesting that the Minister of Education and this government are talking about regional bargaining in this province. The minister does not like to hear that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Because it isn't true, that's why.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Grande: The minister has been repeating it over and over again. The minister has been embarrassed. The minister knows nobody believes a word she says in these matters. The minister knows it is regional bargaining she is imposing.

The Minister of Education knows that in the previous incarnation of these amendments, in the proper amendments to the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, whose legal wording was passed around in consultation with teachers and groups of teachers, she wanted to bring in regional bargaining by panel across the province, but she decided: "This route is too dangerous. We'll have 103,000 teachers coming down to Queen's Park, and we cannot have that. So let's tackle it through Metropolitan Toronto. Let's do it with only 25 per cent and say to the others continuously that it has no effect whatsoever on other people across this province."

No one believes the minister and no one believes this government. The intent is clear. It is not a matter of believing; it is not a matter of opinion. The facts are on the record. The government wants to change the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, and I am sure it will do it after it disposes of this bill, to bring in joint regional bargaining by panel.

If the minister says this is incorrect, then I do not understand what these amendments to the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, which her ministry was passing around back in January 1982, were all about.

The minister says: "That isn't true. It's only in Metropolitan Toronto. We have no intention of bringing Hamilton-Wentworth, Windsor or Ottawa-Carleton into this." But the fact remains that the amendments they wanted to table back in February 1982 dealt exactly with joint regional bargaining by panel. Therefore, let the minister save her breath when she talks about it not being true.

Anyway, I am sure the minister will not use that line any longer. I hope she will not use that line any longer.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I most certainly will.

Mr. Grande: Let me say, as the Liberal critic was saying, that this legislation is not needed. No one in this province has called for this type of legislation. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Minister of Education or this government can call upon to say that someone -- a report, a study, anyone other than her cronies on the Metro school board -- suggested to us that we should have joint mandatory bargaining.

There is no indication whatsoever in the Matthews commission report about joint mandatory bargaining. As a matter of fact, I previously put on the record that the Matthews commission report says bargaining in Metropolitan Toronto should be left optional. If the boards of education and the teacher affiliates want to bargain collectively and want to bargain as one body, so be it; but it is optional, not mandated. In other words, it allowed a tremendous amount of flexibility. North York would dearly love to have that flexibility -- North York, the board that supported Bill 127 -- because in the last round of negotiations --

The minister is leaving. We will see her soon, I hope.

Mr. Breaugh: Why? Let her go.

Mr. Grande: In the last round of negotiations at the secondary panel, North York and some of the trustees at the North York level were saying: "We really have to go separate. We cannot take this any more. Bargaining at the Metro level simply does not work." Those trustees were saying, and the teachers were agreeing: "You, madam minister, had Bill 82, the special education bill, but you told us through Bill 179 that the most we can give our teachers is nine per cent this year and five per cent next year. The teachers want to talk about staffing, about teachers who are going to be in the classroom to teach special education." But the Metro board was saying: "Let us talk about money. We will talk about staffing after we have signed the agreement." What kind of collective bargaining process is that?

North York at least realized it might have to go separate or, in the term that is used, "separate separate." They were saying, "While we want to bargain jointly, none the less if the joint bargaining does not seem to work we should have the opportunity to bargain with our own teachers and find a settlement that reflects the local conditions in our municipality and in our school board."

Once this bill is done, there is no such flexibility possible. That is why we have suggested over and over again -- and I thank the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) for being here, because he understands these processes --

Mr. Breaugh: He is not supportive of the bill, but he understands it.

Mr. Grande: He is not supportive of the bill, but he understands the process.

We have been saying that by the government's imposing, mandating and forcing the teachers and the board to bargain together, it makes the bargaining process longer than it should be, with a lot of hurdles and problems to solve. I ask the minister to leave it optional; it has been working well.

I do not want to use my own words. I will go back to the Minister of Education's words, "The bargaining in the educational sector has been working well and there is no need to tamper with it."

I have mentioned before, and the minister cries "foul" every time I have done so, that the Matthews commission, which was set up by this government to look at the collective bargaining process for teachers in this province, has said in its report that joint mandatory bargaining is not needed.

I want to make a very simple remark about the Education Relations Commission. The Chairman may recall that this report, from 1980-81, is the report my party forced -- I guess that is the right word -- to be sent to the standing committee on social development for study and to have people from the Education Relations Commission come before us to give us the benefit of their expertise in terms of whether the collective bargaining process was working. The reason we did that was that this report is in total contradiction to what the government is doing in this bill.

I want to read into the record the points made in this report. It says:

"1. The length of negotiation declined in every panel, elementary, secondary and separate" -- that is for 1980-81, admittedly.

"2. There was a significant reduction in the number of dispute resolution stages provided under Bill 100 which were utilized for the parties.

"3. There was a significant reduction in the number of third parties which had to be appointed by the Educational Relations Commission.

"4. The number of fact-finding appointments required under the act showed a large drop from 1979 to 1980." A good sign, Mr. Chairman. "At the same time, there was an increasing appointment of mediators prior to fact-finding, a strategy recommended by the Matthews commission.

"5. There was a large reduction from 1979 to 1980 in the number of last-offer and strike votes supervised by the commission. Indeed, the number of such votes was the lowest since the enactment of Bill 100." That takes us back to 1975.

"6. There were only four strikes during the reporting year. Two of those were a carryover from the previous negotiating round."

4:40 p.m.

If anybody is trying to tell me that teachers' negotiations are in disarray in this province, the Education Relations Commission talks about only two strikes in 1980-81. I say the collective bargaining process is working well and does not need to be undermined by this government and by the Minister of Education in particular.

"7. The trend to multi-year agreements continues despite the existence of a high and rising inflation rate and a great uncertainty in the economy in general.

"8. The commission was successful in attracting new individuals with very high qualifications as third-party neutrals.

"9. The commission formally mounted preventive mediation and grievance mediation programs to assist the parties in their day-to-day and collective bargaining relationships."

Let me quote one paragraph on page 3: "Although the above is not meant to imply that there will not be ups and downs in teacher-board bargaining in the province, the 1980-81 experience does constitute the first reversal of some troublesome trends and tends to validate the ERC's view that the collective bargaining process in Ontario education is functioning well and is in a fairly healthy state."

With that background, the Matthews commission report and the 1980-81 report of the Education Relations Commission, we have the Minister of Education bringing in a bill to do nothing but undermine and increase the acrimony in terms of teacher-board bargaining. I do not want to read motives into it, but sometimes it is to the benefit of this government for teachers' collective bargaining processes in this province not to proceed well and be in a healthy state.

Therefore, I suggest that unless the minister accepts the amendment I put on the floor, the collective bargaining process is going to be jeopardized.

I am sure no one in this province wants to see teachers withdraw their services. We want our students in the classrooms. We want our teachers in the classrooms, teaching and doing the job they know how to do best. Let us not put obstacles in front of these people, in front of teachers and boards, to do the job they have gained expertise in doing in terms of teaching in the classroom and having a collective bargaining contract.

The minister is trying to put -- the only thing that comes to my mind is an Italian expression I will not be able to use here, the minister will not be able to understand it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Try me.

Mr. Bradley: She may understand. She has probably heard it in public meetings.

Mr. Grande: Then I will say it in Italian.

[Remarks in Italian]

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.

Mr. Grande: The minister does not understand it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, but I don't agree with you.

Mr. Grande: In other words, she is trying to put obstacles in the process. I will give her a literal translation: She is trying to put a bat between the spokes of the wheel. I know there is an idiom, but it does not come to mind.

I want to talk briefly about the consultation process, because I know the minister feels embarrassed by the consultation process between teachers and the Ministry of Education. Some time in December there was an article in the Globe and Mail in which the minister said: "Well, there are all the consultations we do with teachers in this province. We are forever in consultations. We talk informally all the time." That left the impression in people's minds that somehow consultation is at its best with all the time the minister and the ministry spend on consultation with teachers.

Referring to this section of the bill, the fact remains that there was absolutely no consultation with the relevant teachers' groups in this province, the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation and the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario. When the minister says, "Yes, we consulted," she consulted only on the amendments I was talking about before in regard to Bill 100. There was no consultation on Bill 127.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Were you there?

Mr. Grande: I do not have to be there to know what is going on in the ministry. Some people do speak to me and I have certain information. The fact is, there was no consultation on Bill 127. The record actually presented by Mr. McKay, the acting director of the policy analysis and legislation branch, says basically there was no consultation.

The minister said in a letter, dated January 19, 1982, and sent to Mr. MacArthur, who is or was the acting secretary-treasurer -- I am not up to date on that -- of the Ontario Teachers' Federation: "No decision has been made as to which of these routes will be followed. Proposed legal wording for the proposal is included in this package for the sake of completeness."

In other words, she says, "We will either bring in these amendments to Bill 1000 or we will bring these amendments in through the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act." All the people knew was it was going to be one or the other. Nobody knew about the details of the legislation until she introduced it in the Legislature in May 1982.

I read with considerable interest an article in the Globe and Mail today, written by Alden Baker, with the headline, "Support Runs High for Direct Election in Metro Toronto." The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) is quoted in this article. The article says, "Mr. Bennett said he is aware that 'some people fear that if we go this route it is a step toward one form of government' -- the disappearance of the local municipalities." However, he did say, "We are willing to look at such an arrangement," meaning direct election at the Metro level.

If the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is talking about looking at an arrangement for direct elections in Metro, why is the Minister of Education strengthening the Metro board? Why does she not withdraw this bill until they decide what to do in terms of direct elections in Metro? Once we do that, at least this bill says there is a direct accountability between the people who make the decisions and the electorate.

4:50 p.m.

Right now, as it stands, there is no such beast as direct accountability. By the very nature of that election, the chairman of the Metro board, who is a trustee in Etobicoke, cannot be a representative of the people in East York, in the city of Toronto or in North York. Therefore, the question is: if the government is thinking about and willing to look at the arrangement of direct elections at the Metro level, I repeat, why does the minister not withdraw this bill until that becomes a reality? Then we can look at it again.

But, of course, as the member for St. Catharines said, the minister's reputation is on the line with this bill. The minister has gone so far, she has locked herself in this issue for such a long time, that it is impossible to achieve even a modicum of political flexibility. There is no political flexibility there.

I want to refer to one aspect of this amendment and talk about the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the imposition this bill puts on the area boards in Metropolitan Toronto in the sense that they will be forced to jointly bargain at the Metro level. The assumption that the formula by which the Metro board passes on teachers to the area boards, and the formula by which resources flow from the Metro board to the area boards, are sensitive, has to be questioned; that assumption is false, it is incorrect.

I am not going to go back to the remarks I made the other evening on this area. I am not going to talk about the needs of children, although I can talk about that for hours and hours on end. However, the minister should understand that when the Metropolitan Toronto School Board makes the determination that the borough of York will have X teachers, the borough of York will have to drop some of those programs if the number of teachers the Metro board says they could use is less than the number of teachers they currently have. If it is the same, what it means is that the York Board of Education cannot institute new programs for kids. In other words, either the status quo is retained in terms of teachers for that board or else the number of teachers drops.

The minister has to appreciate that when the number of teachers drops -- no, I do not want to talk about pupil-teacher ratio -- the class size has to increase. If these boards are going to put Bill 82 in effect and are going to be responding to the needs of the exceptional children in their communities, then more and more teachers have to go into the special education area, which means more teachers are going to have low class sizes, because by its very nature special education means a class size of eight, nine, 12 or 16 kids, depending on what kind of special education class it is.

The more special education teachers are needed, and the more the Metro board does not produce such teachers for an area board, the more there are going to be increases in the size of classes. The normal children, so to speak, are going to be in a class that is much larger than the class they were in the year before. This is one effect of this bill.

The other effect I want to address myself to -- and probably later on at another time I will have other things to contribute -- is school closures. Again, if the number of teachers an area board has is going to decrease, and the class size is going to increase, then schools on the borderline, schools that are at the 200 level, as the Ministry of Education reports have been talking about since 1969, are going to be up for review with the possibility of closure.

I mentioned the other night that a lot of schools in Metropolitan Toronto are up for review and closure. East York has four, Etobicoke has 22, North York has 34, Scarborough has 21 and York has four with less than 200 enrolment.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: And Toronto?

Mr. Grande: I have no idea. I do not have that information.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was given to the member by the chairman or the director.

Mr. Grande: Was it 20, 25, 30? I just do not have that information with me.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Thirty.

Mr. Grande: Toronto has 30. Rosedale Public School is one of those that is slotted for closure, and West Preparatory is another. Maybe the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) should take comfort in the fact that community is going to have its school closed.

The concern about school closure, and it has been shown as one of the direct effects of Bill 127, is that neighbourhoods deteriorate. Basically neighbourhoods go down the drain because the school serves as the core of a community. The school serves as the core around which activities within the community revolve. Let me put it to members the way David Lewis Stein put it in the Sunday Star. He said, "Bill 127 will affect the quality of education, the closing of schools and, I think, even the value of property." I am quoting from the article in the Sunday Star of February 20, 1983, entitled "Bill 127 is Bad for Everybody":

"Stephenson argues that joint bargaining concerns only salaries and the number of teachers to be employed in Metro. Once a local board has received its allotment of teachers, it can 'spend' this allotment any way it chooses." The minister says that is local accountability. That is accountability to the local level. "If, for instance, it wants to have more special educations teachers and fewer gym teachers, it is free to do so. This is supposed to preserve local autonomy.

"It won't. The principle of parliamentary democracy is that parliament is supreme because parliament controls the flow of money. The team of trustees doing the Metro-wide bargaining will be supreme here because it will control the flow of money to the teachers. That means local boards will be limited in the number of special classes for kids who need special help, no matter what Stephenson says.

"Even if you don't have children in the schools now, you will be affected by Bill 127. With the size of staff being dictated by Metro-wide negotiations, local boards will find it tougher to keep schools open when enrolment starts to drop.'

5 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Is this on the amendment?

Mr. Grande: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that joint bargaining at the Metro level will decrease the number of teachers each area board will have and consequently that decrease in the number of teachers will increase class size and, as a result, some schools that have a low enrolment will be closing their doors.

Let me give the minister some basic information and research. I will not be long. My colleagues --

Mr. Chairman: You said it all in that one statement.

Mr. Grande: Yes. My colleagues are anxious to involve themselves in this debate. Therefore, I want to give them the opportunity. Since 1974, not here in Canada but in the United States, there have been studies of the effect of school closures on communities. A fellow by the name Richard L. Andrews, PhD, associate professor of educational administration, University of Washington, did this study. I just want to quote the conclusions, if I may. The studies show that:

"1. Neighbourhoods quickly diminished in viability after the elementary schools were closed. Some neighbourhoods, depending on the area, were completely destroyed.

"2. Support for public education diminished in the districts as a result of the closure decision.

"3. Extreme care must be taken in order to avoid turning the school district towards further racial isolation of its pupils.

"4. In some cases the wrong schools have been closed and new schools will have to be built in those areas.

"5. Property values declined in areas where schools were closed.

"6. Crime rates increased in the areas where schools were closed.

"7. Young families did more selective buying of houses in areas where schools were closed and there was a sharp decline in students residing in those areas."

The consequences of this bill are really astronomical. We are talking about deterioration of neighbourhoods. We are talking about crime and violence increasing as a result of an elementary school being closed. These are statistics and conclusions that come from the American experience. The Minister of Education rightly says: "Hey look, we are different. We are in Canada." I agree, we are in Canada. So, therefore, let me put aside the American research and let me go to some Canadian research in terms of schools closures and their effects.

I am referring to a study that was done in 1980 by the Bureau of Municipal Research, by Mary Lynch, executive director, and Linda Mulhull, research associate, where these researchers said:

"The bureau believes that a school closure should be viewed as a last resort and not be accepted as inevitable. By boards accepting closure as a fact of life, they are also accepting that the question of closure is beyond their control. It is not. If boards make a commitment to keeping schools open and use innovative ways to redistribute the resources available, many schools which have been threatened with closure can remain open. It takes a change in philosophy and a broadening of the basic thinking.

"Automatic closure is not a long-term solution, but many times it is an incremental one. In fact, closures can create many more problems than they solve. Financial ones are not solved since there are real indications the costs are ultimately not saved by closing of schools.

"Enrolment is worsened since with every closure there is a switch to separate and private schools, resulting in even fewer pupils. The effects on neighbourhood and children are only now being discovered. These and other factors reinforce the fact the boards in Ontario must widen their perceptions."

We have two boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto which say. "We do not want to close our schools" --

Mr. Bradley: Dooney Gibson in the Toronto Star agrees.

Mr. Grande: In terms of the closure of schools, there are two boards in Metropolitan Toronto, the Toronto and York boards of education, which say: 'We do not want to close schools. We do not want our teachers fired."

What this bill does is take power away from those two boards who want no part of Bill 127, and the Metropolitan Toronto board says: "Yes, you will have to close your schools. You will have to increase the class size because we are going to give you fewer teachers." The collective bargaining process is undermined and the result of this section is going to be the destruction of neighbourhoods and public education in Metropolitan Toronto.

The minister is shaking her head. I do not want to prove her wrong. I just want her to withdraw this bill so that we will not have to pick up the pieces three, four or five years down the line.

Mr. Chairman: Just getting caught up, you put the amendment to section 7, dealing with 130a(1) of the act. How are we doing this? Are we going to vote on each amendment or just carry on?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot has decided he wants to speak.

Mr. Chairman: All right. We are speaking to the amendment to 130a(1).

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I think you would probably agree that the nature of the amendment is really at the heart of what this section is all about. Basically, what this section says is that there shall be compulsory joint negotiations. The amendment, on the other hand, says there may be optional joint negotiations. I do not see how much further apart we can get than that. Consequently, it leaves a lot of room for discussion.

I want to go on record as saying that we would certainly support this amendment if the minister is open to reconsidering her position. I think she will appreciate from the remarks made in committee and those of my colleague our education critic and a few I will make, that we believe we should return to the position of voluntary or optional joint negotiations. We should return to the position from whence we came or from which we are quickly and rather drastically coming.

We are quite supportive of the concept that the various teacher affiliates and boards within the Metropolitan Toronto complex should have the right to decide among themselves whether or not it is in the best interests of the pupils they serve -- I would like to emphasize that because I hope any comments I make will reflect that -- it is in the best interests of the pupils who are being served that teachers and boards of trustees and the Ministry of Education try to come to decisions. That is what is at the base of the whole thing. Therefore, we would most certainly support the concept of optional joint negotiations.

5:10 p.m.

There are many times when boards and teacher affiliates in the Metropolitan Toronto area have decided it is in the best interests of their pupils and in the best interests of their ability to serve those pupil needs that they have engaged in joint negotiations. Really, at the heart of the whole thing is where we are now and where the minister and her ministry would like to take us, and that is from a position -- I knew the Chairman would appreciate that -- of optionality, from a position of having local decisions as to what is best for the students, to a position of compulsory activity and towards a position which we believe is not necessarily -- and that is really the key -- in the best interests of the students I hope we are all trying to serve.

Surely when one has that kind of a choice, that which is best, which has been demonstrated to be in the best interests of the students, and second that which is highly unlikely to be; and I would certainly invite the minister, when she chooses to get up to respond to our comments or to make her own observations, to indicate to us just how this legislation, and in particular this section, is going to be in the better interests of the students we are trying to serve than what we now have in place, that is really what I would like to hear the minister tell us.

If she can demonstrate to me that the needs of students in the Metropolitan Toronto area and under the jurisdiction of the local school boards, are going to be better served by this legislation and in particular by this section of the legislation, then I would seriously reconsider my position in opposing it. I really would, but I have listened to the minister, I sat through the committee hearings, I listened to the various points that have been made up to this time, and I can honestly say I have not yet heard an argument which would convince me.

I am trying to be open about it, but nothing yet has convinced me that the needs of children, the needs of students, are going to be better served under this legislation, under this section of the legislation, than under the practice which is currently in place. When one comes down to it, that is really what it is all about.

If that does not happen, then I do not know why we are here. I do not know why we are engaging in this debate. I do not know why this legislation is on the floor of this assembly if we cannot demonstrate that. I have to challenge this minister and this government to demonstrate that; not only to me but to the other members of the Legislature, including the members of her own governing party, to the parents who are concerned about the quality of education which their children are going to get, and certainly to the teachers who are concerned about their ability to provide quality education, granted within the limits of our financial ability.

Let us get that out of the way. No one is saying there is a bottomless pit or a bottomless bucket to spend on any public service in Ontario, whether social services, health services or educational services. We all realize that. That is not really the issue here. The issue is how do we best deal with what we have? How do we make the proper allocations? How do we spread the resources that are available so that they best meet the needs of the people whom we are committed to serve?

When we were discussing the previous section, section 6, I made the observation that when one looks at section 6 and then at section 7 which we are debating now, one has this terrible sense of internal contradiction, one has this terrible sense of, if I may, schizophrenia; and I suspect that is something the minister would understand perhaps even better than I, given her medical background. I do not pretend to be any expert in that area.

I really cannot understand how we have already passed section 6 and the principle which is behind that and now move into section 7 and the principle which is behind that, and not have this terrible sense of contradiction, this terrible sense of schizophrenia. What section 6 said was that the Metro board was not responsible, that individual boards were responsible for their surpluses and their deficits.

But here we come to this section, which says: "Wait a minute now: Toronto, North York, East York, York, Scarborough and Etobicoke, you are not going to be responsible any more. We are going to take it away from you now. We have loaded you up with the responsibility for our funding mechanism in terms of raising your money and your surpluses and deficits, you are blooming well going to be responsible for that.

"But when it comes to making the decisions as to how you are going to use that money, how you are going to pay your teachers, what kinds of benefits you are going to give those teachers, how many teachers you are going to hire; oh no, you are not going to be responsible for that, the Metro board is going to be responsible for that. They are going to decide how many teachers there are going to be, how much the teachers are going to get and what various benefits the teachers are going to get; that will not be done through individual boards."

I do not know how else the minister looks at it. Quite frankly, I am tempted to go so far as to say it is politically dishonest to, on the one hand, load up the individual local boards with the kinds of responsibilities we did, such as fiscal responsibilities under section 6, and now to come along to section 7 and say, "But you are not going to have the responsibility of making those kinds of critical decisions upon which the quality of education really depends."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member is having a schizophrenic hallucination.

Mr. Sweeney: Not at all. As a matter of fact, I could not help but notice as I was reading back through the minutes of the standing committee on general government of Wednesday, October 20 -- and Mr. Chairman will appreciate this, because one of the words the minister used was "discombobulate." If I understand that, it means to throw a certain amount of confusion.

Mr. Chairman, I notice you are looking it up in the book. As a matter of fact, two of my colleagues thought it might be unparliamentary language. The member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) and the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) challenged the minister, on page 20 of the minutes, saying: "Gee, Madam Minister, we do not know whether that is proper parliamentary language or not." The member for Wentworth North even went so far as to say, "We think you should use a word more in the vernacular."

I think most of us know that the word "discombobulate" simply means to throw confusion; to try to mix things up; to put a smokescreen up, so that we are not really sure what is going on.

I think that was an excellent word. Discombobulate really does describe what is happening here when we compare section 6 of this bill and the principle behind it, the kind of responsibility the minister gives to the local board, with the principle behind section 7 that the Metro board is going to have the ability and the decision-making powers to decide with respect to the numbers, wages and benefits of those teachers. She really is introducing the concept of discombobulation. I am assuming there is such a word as discombobulate.

That is really what ii is all about. Am I right?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is a perfectly legitimate word.

Mr. Sweeney: Thank you very much. I am not arguing that it is not.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: And it is not discombobulation, it is irrationality.

Mr. Sweeney: That is where we disagree. I suspect we have had our disagreements all the way along and we are going to continue to have our disagreements, but I really think if the minister wants to be -- and I am not using this term in any pejorative sense, I want to make that very clear; I am not imputing motive -- politically honest about this legislation, and I say this in all openness and being as fair as I can, then she can have either section 6 or section 7, but she cannot have both.

5:20 p.m.

I do not happen to agree with Bill 127, but I fully appreciate the fact that it is here, that we are going to debate it and that ultimately it will probably be passed with the majority the government has. I accept that. It is the reality the minister speaks of. It is the reality the Premier often speaks of when he tells us not to forget March 19, 1981.

Mr. Bradley: The realities of March 19.

Mr. Sweeney: The Premier keeps telling us to remember the realities of March 19, 1981, and there are a few people in the back benches of the government who will remember it very clearly. It is the only reason they are here. I do not know how much longer they are going to be here, but that is the reality of why they are here.

Mr. Bradley: Overnight guests.

Mr. Sweeney: Of course, the Premier is telling us very clearly that the government has the majority and is going to do what it likes with it. I accept that. I accept that that is the parliamentary process. I accept the fact that it is the democratic way of doing things. We had our chance the same as they did. We used different tactics from theirs. They were successful and we were not to the same extent.

Mr. Bradley: But all they got was 44 per cent of the vote.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: And what did you get?

Mr. Bradley: You got 44 per cent and you got 70 seats.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You got 33.

Mr. Sweeney: I would suggest that even the realities of March 19, 1981, do not relieve the members, the minister or the government of Ontario of their responsibilities to be consistent and to be politically honest with respect to legislation, and I am stating that this legislation does not do that. You can have section 6 or 7 but not both, because there is an internal contradiction when you look at the two of them.

Let me move on. The point I have to disagree with very strongly in this particular section, and it is highlighted very clearly with the amendment our colleague the member for Oakwood has put to us, is the inevitable conflict between the Metro-wide agreement -- I know the minister is very sensitive to the term "master agreement" so we will use the term "Metro-wide agreement" -- and the local board agreement.

There are inevitable conflicts there, and this is the second reason I have grave reservations about this particular section of the legislation. The minister is surely aware of the fact that we have existing conflicts within the education system of Ontario; we have natural existing tensions, if she does not like the word "conflicts," between teachers and trustees, and between the boards of trustees and the taxpayers.

There are all kinds of them that I could mention: students and teachers, and on and on the list goes. In other words, they are inevitable. They are part of the human process by which we conduct an education system in this province, by which we conduct an education system in this Metro Toronto area, but while we must, to a limited extent anyway, accept some of those inevitable tensions because they are a part of the process, why do we introduce at this time additional conflicts and tensions that are not necessary?

Mr. Chairman, I do not think you were at the committee hearings, and you probably will not recall a particular point I raised at that time. It was another conflict, by the way: the conflict between two particular subsections of section 7. It was the whole question of whether or not a local agreement could have something that was at variance with the general Metro-wide agreement.

I think the minister and her advisers will very clearly recall that an attempt was made to persuade me that there was no conflict, that it was all very well to say, as a particular section of the act still says, that in order to get a final Metro-wide agreement, a majority of the boards representing a majority of the teachers had to agree to that section. That is in there.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Double majority.

Mr. Sweeney: That's right, but then there was at that time another section in the act, which has since been removed but I need to mention it to make the point that will follow, Mr. Chairman. I am sure you will permit me to do that.

Mr. Foulds: Of course.

Mr. Sweeney: If a variance was introduced at the local level and there was no unanimity at the Metro level, that variance could not stay. In other words, we were saying that, on the one hand, one needed a majority and, on the other hand, one needed unanimity. What one could do is give the smallest board in the entire Metro area a veto over a decision or a variance in approach which the largest board could have put forth.

There was quite a bit of discussion about whether this was appropriate. Both the minister and a couple of her advisers happened to be present and they attempted to persuade me this was consistent. Without going on much longer about that point, the long and the short of it was that after we came back from the noon recess that section was removed. The minister was well aware that was not my intent in bringing it to her attention.

I accept the concept of variance. I think it is essential. As we go on, we are going to draw to the minister's attention more times than once that we have to allow for a greater degree of local option, particularly in an area such as Metro Toronto where there are great differences of needs and different ways of meeting those needs. If one goes from Etobicoke, on the one hand, to certain sections of North York or of the city of Toronto itself, on the other hand, those needs still have to be met.

The minister will argue, when she has the opportunity, that the legislation provides for those options. We argue it does not provide for those options to the same degree that our alternatives would, or to the same degree we think It could so easily do. We think the minister is throwing up unnecessary roadblocks to providing those options that are necessary really to meet the needs of children. That is what I mean when I say there are unnecessary tensions and conflicts built into this legislation.

Another subsection of this section that ties in with the amendment, because it flows naturally from it, is the introduction of two new bodies into the whole operation of teacher negotiations with the local boards of trustees. To the best of my knowledge, and I am quite prepared to stand corrected, it was not possible before to have the Ontario Labour Relations Board brought into the negotiations or what would flow from the negotiations between teachers and trustees. I do not think that was possible at all.

We are introducing that under this section. I have grave reservations about doing that. It is not a good idea to get the whole question of a broader type of labour relations brought into the teacher-trustee relationship. I do not think it is good. I have to ask the minister whether it is necessary.

It then goes one step further and brings in the Supreme Court. I think it is possible for an individual person to take an action before the Supreme Court that might have something to do with education, but I do not think it was ever possible before for a teacher-trustee negotiation process to end up before the Supreme Court.

We start using terms such as "filing in the office," "the Supreme Court," "enforceable" and "judgements," and we bring in a sense of legalism and jurisprudence that was never there before. I have to ask the minister why. I would be happy to hear what she says to that because I genuinely believe it is bringing in an element of conflict and tension we do not need.

The minister will realize at this point that I am referring to various elements and aspects of that tension. We should be trying to pass legislation here that reduces tension and conflict, not increases it. That is why we are so unhappy with this legislation and with this section of the legislation in particular.

5:30 p.m.

The previous two speakers have referred to Bill 100, which is the proper place to deal with negotiations between teachers and boards of trustees. I have to ask this again. I really am at a loss once more to know why this kind of legislation was put in this form. I do not see why it could not have been done through Bill 100. The minister has made some attempt to give us some reasons, but once again we have not heard a reason which is satisfying.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I can only give the member the reasons that legal counsel give me. I am not a lawyer and neither is the member.

Mr. Sweeney: No, I certainly am not. I do not pretend to be one. I do not think I have ever pretended to be one. The point I am concerned about is the focusing in on one part of this province, on one particular group of teachers and trustees in dealing with this kind of legislation.

The minister should not be surprised if there is a great deal of agitation outside the geographical bounds of Metropolitan Toronto. We talked about that in connection with the other sections and I think she should not be surprised here. The people I have spoken to in my area -- and the minister knows I get around to many other areas of the province just as she does; I get a chance to talk to quite a few people in the teaching profession -- give me the sense that the minister is using a divide-and-conquer tactic. I am not sure if the minister has that intent.

I will not impute motives, but I think the minister has to recognize what the perception is and take cognizance of that perception. When people in educational circles oppose what she is doing, the minister has to understand whence her opposition comes. That perception of divide and conquer, of using one specific piece of legislation applicable at least for the moment only to Metro Toronto -- instead of using a more general piece of legislation, really gives weight to that particular concern and perception.

If the minister does not want that, she has a lot of explaining to do. As yet, she obviously has not explained it to the satisfaction of the people concerned.

We have spoken before of the need for variety, of the need to meet need in different ways. Quite frankly, that is what we have had in this area. We have had the mechanisms, the processes, the procedures in place that allowed for variety and that allowed, yes, for dissent. Perhaps the minister would just look back and ask herself under what kind of conditions the joint negotiations, which were at one time voluntary and optional but nevertheless taking place, broke down.

The minister will recall that in the case of the city of Toronto they broke down, as my colleague the member for St. Catharines said when he spoke earlier, when the city wanted to make a tradeoff with its particular group of teachers so there would be fewer dollars flowing to each individual teacher and there would be more teachers --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: For one year.

Mr. Sweeney: -- but with the same amount of money.

I have said it so often to the minister. I really have difficulty understanding why that should concern her. They were prepared to agree on a certain sum of money, a total pot of money that they were going to distribute in ways suitable to the trustees, the parents and the teachers. If it was suitable in the eyes of those three groups of adults, so significant in the lives of children, and therefore suitable to the children, then why not? Why should we oppose that kind of thing? Are we concerned that some other board in Metro might pick up the idea? Hallelujah. If they are prepared to make the same kind of tradeoff, why not? What are we so all-fired concerned about? I think that is what we really have to look at.

What this particular section of the legislation says is that we are afraid of variety and dissent; therefore, we are going to bring in legislation which makes it impossible to introduce that kind of variety and that kind of dissent.

I am not really sure whether the government members fully appreciate the significance and implications of this legislation. If they do, then fine. If they vote as they believe they should vote, then that is their decision. I have a real concern that there are members over there who are going to vote in support of this legislation without being fully cognizant of the implications, the consequences and what flows from it, without being fully aware of how one day -- and maybe a day that is not so far away -- it is going to affect their ridings, their constituents and the quality of education in their areas. That is my concern. All I ask is that they take that factor into consideration.

In the short time I have been referring to this section -- I think it is almost half an hour now -- I would ask carefully if the minister would consider reintroducing the section that was in originally and allow some form of variance from the Metro-wide agreement or master agreement, whatever it is called.

Interjection.

Mr. Sweeney: The section that was there before said if a local agreement contained a clause or section that was at variance with the general agreement, then that particular section could stand if there was unanimous consent, I agree.

Mr. Bradley: That meant a veto.

Mr. Sweeney: That meant a veto.

The minister will recall the proposal I made to her was that she make this consistent by allowing a majority decision. I even recall very clearly -- I cannot remember the words I used -- saying I was quite prepared to accept the principle of a majority decision on a variance the same as there was a majority decision, or a double majority as the minister refers to it, with respect to the agreement itself. I accept that. That is democracy, representative government and fairness; I buy that. Instead, the minister chose to eliminate the possibility of any variance whatsoever.

Let us come back to the point we start out with. The general Metro-wide agreement says there is going to be a decision made on the amount of money each teacher will make and the number of teachers. Let us go back to the issue that set off an awful lot of this, that an individual board can then meet with their teachers and say, "That is the decision that has been made that affects all of Metropolitan Toronto. Are there ways in which you and we can work within this decision in different ways? Is that possible?"

An agreement is made. Let us say we come back to the same kind of agreement that was made in Toronto. With that common pot of X number of dollars times X number of teachers arriving at common figure, if we take that and divide it up in different ways --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is the wrong example to use.

Mr. Sweeney: You think of another one when it is your turn.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Don't use that one because you know what happened to that one.

Mr. Sweeney: All right.

Mr. Bradley: Don't let her intimidate you the way she intimidates the cabinet.

Mr. Sweeney: No. I concur with the minister that may not be the best example, but I believe the minister understands the principle I am trying to get at.

It is entirely possible that once the Metro agreement is set, one then goes back to the local boards, they sit down and begin to realize the ramifications of that Metro agreement on them and they have to make some local decisions. As long as they are operating within a particular limitation, framework or whatever it happens to be, then I really do not understand why we cannot permit the option of a variance.

5:40 p.m.

If it is not the minister's intent, the minister leaves me no other conclusion but that she is fearful of that kind of variety, she is fearful of that kind of dissent because it is going to spread. It is like a disease she is concerned about, some kind of virulence that is going to spread, and my God we have to stop that from happening.

I come back to a point that has been made earlier. What is it the minister is so concerned about in terms of diversity, pluralism in its broadest sense, variety? What is it? She says she does not want it outside the system. Why not allow it inside the system? She is sowing the seeds for internal discomfort. That's not the word I want either -- confusion, confrontation, strife; give me a couple more.

Mr. Bradley: Discombobulation.

Mr. Sweeney: Discombobulation? No, that word does not fit here, at least not what I am trying to say anyway.

Mr. Ruston: You almost said "internal combustion" at one point.

Mr. Sweeney: Internal combustion? No, that does not fit either; yes, maybe it might, it just might.

The Deputy Chairman: Just use words the Chairman can understand.

Mr. Sweeney: I am sorry. All I am trying to do is convince the minister, and I guess maybe I am not too successful, but it needs to be put on the record so that when we come back and look at this some day we will know the warning signs were put up, the red flags were raised a little bit, saying, "Be careful." We want to be sure that is there.

Mr. McClellan: Red flags?

Mr. Sweeney: Yes, I think red is an excellent colour.

The Deputy Chairman: Speak to the motion.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but recall, when I hear the kinds of interjections from my friends on the socialist left --

Mr. Breaugh: You can't call us friends.

Mr. Sweeney: When the member for Oakwood was speaking he started talking about other governments in Canada. He failed to mention that it was the socialist government of British Columbia that acted against their working people. It was the socialist government in Saskatchewan that acted against their people.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member is carrying himself away with a divergence.

Mr. Sweeney: It is a socialist government in Quebec that is taking the action. I think they really have to be careful about the kind of comments they make, they really do.

The Deputy Chairman: I ask the honourable member to speak to the motion on the floor. Please, speak to the motion.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of personal privilege, since my name was mentioned in vain, basically. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot talked about British Columbia under a Bennett government, a Social Credit government. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot spoke about the Quebec government under Lévesque.

The Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of personal privilege. I ask the honourable member to speak to the motion; that would really help matters in the chair.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the member engages in what we call selective memory.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, and that is discombobulation.

Mr. Sweeney: Is that discombobulation? Okay, I am advised there is a good reason.

The Deputy Chairman: All I ask is that you speak to the motion.

Mr. Sweeney: I accept your comment, sir. We have made it very clear why we are concerned about this section. We are concerned with respect to the conflict that is going to result from it. We are concerned about the internal contradictions that it results in. We are concerned about the inability to have the kind of variance that some of the boards want. We are concerned with taking the decision farther and farther away from the people who really have to work with the kids, that is the teachers and the parents.

The minister is very much aware that these are the two bodies that are objecting the most to what she is doing. These are the two groups of people closest to the children, closest to the students. In my judgement, they have a good sense of what is happening here. That should give the minister pause to stop and think seriously about what she has done.

I ask her at the very least to reintroduce the concept of optionality rather than compulsion, to reintroduce the concept of variance rather than no variance and to be very aware of the potential for more conflict, for more internal dissent that we just do not need in education in Ontario today.

The Deputy Chairman: I will recognize the member for Beaches-Woodbine. I remind the members we are speaking on a motion presented by the member for Oakwood on optional joint agreement for elementary schools.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I must say I am disappointed the government is continuing to push ahead with Bill 127 rather than withdrawing it, particularly in view of the fact that something like 119 deputations came to the public hearings and 60 more could not be accommodated. There were 4,000 people at a mass rally last October, and about 10,000 people have signed petitions against the bill. However, we still have Bill 127 before us, and we have an amendment to it by my colleague the member for Oakwood.

I feel this amendment would remove one of the largest elements of discontent with this bill, and I urge all members to support it. The amendment simply changes the word "shall" to "may" with regard to collective bargaining in the Metropolitan Toronto area, permitting the boards of education to decide whether they wish to engage in joint bargaining.

This would retain the flexibility of the present system. The system is working at present with this kind of flexibility, and it seems very questionable why anybody would suggest changing the present system when it is working.

It seems to me what is happening with this bill and in the section we are dealing with is an unresponsiveness to the electorate. Other governments, even in this province, when faced with strong opposition to a bill ultimately withdrew it. I recall the notorious police bill and Bill 19 to amalgamate the two ministries, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

If we continue to go ahead with this legislation and with the word "shall" instead of "may" in the present section, there will be great disillusionment with the democratic process among the electorate. After so much opposition has been expressed to this bill, people will feel the government is not listening and there will be an alienation of the electorate.

To concentrate on section 7, I want to suggest there should have been a subtitle before section 7 was printed. That title should have been, The Collective Bargaining Straitjacket. My colleague had another title for it, Shoot the Teacher, which is a play on the title of a famous movie about teachers in the early days out on the Prairies.

This kind of bill, which I call The Collective Bargaining Straitjacket, is in the tradition of the bills this government has been bringing in lately which restrict rights and freedoms. We know Bill 179 affected literally hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed some of their rights. That legislation attacks the right of freedom of association which is guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights. It denies teachers the right to bargain collectively with their own employer.

I want to read one paragraph regarding the right to bargain collectively which was contained in a brief prepared by the Canadian Association of University Teachers on Bill 179.

"The right to bargain collectively is fundamental in a democratic society and has been secured, like so many of our other fundamental rights, only after a long and persistent struggle. It is based upon the right of association recently enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights. If this right can be treated so cavalierly, there is no assurance that other basic rights will be respected. The real test of our democratic system is its ability to preserve fundamental rights in times of difficulty."

5:50 p.m.

Section 7 does restrict freedom of association and the right of teachers to bargain with their own employer, if they so choose, or to engage in joint-bargaining, if they so choose. By this amendment, we are simply suggesting they should have the right of choice.

I want to quote the Ontario Teachers' Federation regarding the present system in an open letter appearing in volume 8, number 5 of their special issues edition of Interaction.

"The strength of the current arrangement is its flexibility. Any voluntary arrangement for joint negotiations by autonomous entities depends on the continuing co-operation and goodwill of the participants, and is therefore by its very nature ad hoc. As the needs and the priorities of the parties shift, the structure is capable of evolving to a new and more responsive form. When such an arrangement is replaced with a mandatory structure, the behavioural obligations are removed; increased conflict is the likely result."

That is a very important statement and does suggest that rather than promote harmony between teachers and boards, it will lead to unrest and disharmony; it could even lead to delays and disruptions in bargaining. In recent years we have had relatively peaceful bargaining, but there is a danger with this kind of straitjacket that the tensions will be increased and the possibility of trouble will increase.

One of the important reasons I oppose the collective bargaining straitjacket is that it shifts all the important decisions from the local boards to a nonelected Metro board. The decisions in the areas of financial matters, including salaries and benefits and the numbers of teachers to be employed by each area board, are specified as subject to joint bargaining.

In a recent letter to members of the Legislature, the chairman of the Metro board described the bill by saying it "preserves local issues for negotiation and self-determination at the local level." What local issues will be left if all financial matters and staffing decisions are removed from the local level? What incentive is there for area boards to sit down with their teachers if the Metro board has already determined the basic financial framework and staffing numbers?

This framework effectively will block any local initiatives beyond the lowest common denominator adopted by the Metro board regardless of the need for special programs in special areas. Just to nail down the block on local initiatives, new subsection 130i(1) states: "No board shall implement a term or condition of employment that is at variance from or inconsistent with an agreement mentioned in section 130a," which is the clause giving the Metro board jurisdiction over all financial matters and staffing numbers.

Who is going to determine what is inconsistent or at variance from the master agreement? Presumably it will be the negotiators who attempt to use that nebulous power to negotiate on local issues with their board, but it makes the Ontario Labour Relations Board the court of appeal for final determination of the question of what is a local variance or inconsistent.

Not only that, the Ontario Labour Relations Board is made the enforcer. It can issue a direction to any board which attempts to implement a term found at variance with the master agreement, and the direction is enforceable in the same way that a judgement or order of the Supreme Court is enforceable.

This kind of straitjacket will not promote good collective bargaining. It will lead to arguments about jurisdiction and interpretation. It will lead to delays. It will lead to frustration of local bargaining committees.

One area that concerns me is the effect of this legislation on women. Women do receive, from most boards, equal pay if they have the same qualifications as men, but the statistics on the percentage of women in the ranks of principals, vice-principals and heads of departments indicate that women are not achieving representation in these areas proportional to their numbers in the profession.

Some of the barriers to women moving up the scale have been a subject of collective bargaining in some boards in the past. The provision of day care, adequate maternity leave and encouragement and assistance in upgrading their qualifications are areas where collective bargaining can play a role. But section 7 will put this kind of bargaining in the same straitjacket as wages and benefits. These programs will probably be considered benefit programs and therefore will have to receive the consent of all seven boards or those employing a majority of the teachers before they can be included in any collective agreement.

Different boards may have different needs and different appreciations of the needs in these areas. It will be very difficult under unified bargaining for women to get the assistance they need to overcome the inequality that has been demonstrated in their representation in the higher ranks of the profession.

Another reason I oppose this legislation is that it destroys local autonomy. Not only will the collective bargaining straitjacket affect teachers and the collective bargaining process adversely, but also it will destroy the power of the area boards to tailor their educational system to their own needs. Some areas may need extra teachers, smaller classes or more special programs just to ensure equality of educational opportunity. This is what the Minister of Education says is the goal of Bill 127: to ensure equality of educational opportunity. By this collective bargaining straitjacket, she will ensure the opposite.

She will destroy the opportunities for inner-city kids to receive extra assistance and for immigrant children to have more classes in English as a second language. She will destroy the opportunities for developing special education services adequate to the requirements and expectations raised by Bill 82.

This legislation will also destroy the opportunity for parent input into staffing levels and the allocation of staff to different courses and options. The Toronto board has developed a very good system, which involves parents in staffing decisions. Bill 127 will throw this out the window or seriously restrict its operation and flexibility.

Mr. Chairman, I notice by the clock that it is very close to 6 p.m. I have somewhat more to contribute to this debate.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

21 février 1983