MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Guess what? I do not think we have a quorum.
The Chairman ordered the bells to be rung.
8:08 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: We have a quorum.
On section 10:
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, your friend will recall --
Mr. Chairman: I was listening.
Mr. Bradley: You were listening intently to my remarks on the intercom in the back room. Are you being evicted from the chair? Is Three-Hour Sam going to be evicted?
Mr. Martel: You are being ousted, Sam.
Mr. Foulds: Come on, leave him in. Play it again, Sam.
Mr. Chairman: I am here.
An hon. member: Conspiracies in the making.
Mr. Martel: Stand up for your rights.
Mr. Breaugh: They are bringing in the closure chairperson.
Mr. Sweeney: We want Sam.
Mr. Brandt: You can have him.
Interjections.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, I will continue because I know you will not be interrupted by the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), who is perhaps attempting to counsel you on some of the remarks I made earlier. I do not intend to be very repetitive in my remarks, but I find it necessary from time to time to remind the members on the government side of the deficiencies contained in Bill 127 and specifically of the deficiencies that show themselves in section 10 of the bill.
We have discussed, as I did before the supper break, the potential for the restriction of valuable programs under the jurisdiction of individual boards of education as a result of this bill and specifically of this section of the bill. I will not go into much more detail because many of the people who appeared before the committee were able to do so.
Those on the government side who sat through the committee will remember there were a variety of exhibits before the committee and a variety of people who made representations. We in the opposition wanted to hear more people from Metropolitan Toronto and other parts of the province who had something to say about this bill and section 10 of this bill and through my motion on October 6, 1982, I attempted to achieve this.
We had, for instance, the people from the Toronto Teachers' Federation. I will just touch on a few of these. I will not read the whole list. We had Don Brown of Windsor. We had the School and Community Organization, King George Junior School in York. We had the Board of Education of East York, the Women Teachers' Association of York Borough, the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough.
8:10 p.m.
We also had the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association. One wonders why they would come forward to deal with Bill 127 when it affects the public school system. They recognized some of the problems that could arise from Bill 127 and the eventualities that might come about across the province and they too, looking at their brothers and sisters in the public school system, wanted to indicate their opposition.
There were a number of parent groups as well: Neighbourhood Networks, the High Park Alternative Primary School group, Concerned Scarborough Citizens on Bill 127, Parents Association -- French Module at Jarvis Collegiate Institute, the Hispanic Council of Metropolitan Toronto, the Spanish Speaking Parents' Association and so on.
I promised the Chairman I would be a very reasonable speaker and not simply read every name into the record. What I wanted to indicate to the members was that there were a number of people who were in opposition to all aspects of the bill but most certainly to section 10 of Bill 127.
They were people who were genuinely concerned. I am sure the story the Tory caucus has heard is that these were people who were stirred up by a few radicals in the community. They were not people stirred up by a few radicals in the community; they were parents. They were people interested in education. They were teachers who saw in Bill 127 and section 10 of Bill 127 the potential for disaster in education in Metropolitan Toronto, section 10 being one of the most offensive sections of the bill. I am sure the minister would agree with me.
The Chairman is neutral, but that bill of goods has been sold to the Tory caucus, who view this bill in a slightly different manner from those who have been coming night after night to sit in the public galleries, who have demonstrated in front of this building, who have written letters to their MPPs, who have made telephone calls, who have attempted to get and finally did get a meeting with the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).
A lot of it revolves around the financial aspects of this bill, which are stipulated in section 10. They are there because the minister has insisted throughout this bill that the purse strings be primarily controlled by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board as opposed to the local boards of education that are found within the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto.
We look at this particular model that is used and wonder, in other parts of the province -- and I see some people in the gallery who are from other parts of the province, some who have made representations from Wentworth and Hamilton. I see some people here tonight who are very concerned about the transplanting of this model from one part of the province to another.
Mr. Brandt: You know that is not going to happen.
Mr. Bradley: They said that about regional governments. The members opposite said that about regional government when they implemented it in Metropolitan Toronto in 1953. And now, as a result of the Honourable W. Darcy McKeough, the friend of the members opposite, we are stuck with regional government in Niagara complete with the new regional headquarters about to begin.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: What has that got to do with section 10?
Mr. Chairman: Let us just read this together, just for fun. Section 10: "Subsections 219(3) and (4) of the act relate to the apportionment among the area municipalities of the amount levied by the metropolitan council for public school purposes and secondary school purposes. The subsections are re-enacted to relate to the amendments to section 127 of the act."
Interjection.
Mr. Chairman: But we are dealing with section 10.
Mr. Bradley: I know, but it is also associated with surpluses and deficits. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that we in the opposition were finally able to extract from the minister, after some 10 hours of debate, a circumstance in committee of the whole where she finally had to abandon the amendment she tried to bring in through the back door after the committee hearings were over so she could get section 6 through the House.
Being the parliamentarian and knowledgeable Chairman that you are, you will know that section 6 is directly related to section 10 because it deals with surpluses and deficits. Under the circumstances that existed then, and they exist to a certain extent now, we would have had a situation where boards of education would have benefited tremendously from incurring surpluses.
We are dealing with apportionment. I would suggest that in the best of all worlds in terms of apportionment there would not be an increase in the powers of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board but a diminishing of those powers so that individuals who reside within the electoral boundaries associated with those individual school boards would have better access to their trustees and more influence in the decision-making process as it relates to section 10.
Apportionment has always been a problem. There are those, particularly in the city of Toronto but certainly in other municipalities, who are concerned that the apportionment might not be as fair as it might when the Metropolitan board is able to exercise the power it has been able to exercise under the provisions of this bill.
I know you share my concern about that, Mr. Chairman. The programs could be cut. Poisoning of relations occurs in the context of difficult economic times, and teachers are unnecessarily being laid off by boards of education, not wanting to maintain those positions in a featherbedding sense, but wanting to maintain them because it would have a direct effect on the quality of education available to children within the boards of education across Metropolitan Toronto.
I know my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) shares that particular concept, as do others. There are a few in the government caucus who secretly share that concept.
I make the plea once again that section 10 of this bill not pass. The minister, having recognized the lack of wisdom in proceeding with this bill even at this late stage, instead of applying the guillotine to my friend the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), who will no doubt want to speak next on this, should get up and make a very magnanimous announcement which would be applauded by the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), whose desk would probably fall off from the applause.
The member for St. George (Ms. Fish) would be standing and cheering; the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) would be delighted; and certainly the Bobbsey twins, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), would no doubt be delighted, their shins having been beaten by the minister's feet. They would nevertheless still be in a position to cheer the minister for showing good common sense in withdrawing Bill 127 even at this late date.
Before I sit down, I want to announce that I hope the minister does not cut off this debate, because not only does the member for Parkdale wish to speak but so does the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and others who have a deep interest in the ramifications of this bill. They would like to make their views known if they had the opportunity to do so.
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to introduce an amendment to this section rather than to speak in generalities.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Grande moves that subsection 10(5) read as follows:
"The amount levied under subsection (1) for public school and secondary school purposes shall not be reapportioned until all boards pass by resolution a motion accepting such reapportionment."
Hon. Miss Stephenson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: There is not a subsection 10(5) at the present time. This motion is "that subsection 10(5) read as follows ... "
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, it is clearly a new subsection, if the minister does not understand. Subsections 3 and 4 are there. I am talking about a new subsection 5 to be added to section 10.
Mr. Chairman: Well, you have to give credit to the minister: maybe it should have said that. Anyway, we all know where we are now. Continue with it. We will let the amendment stand.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, my remarks are going to be short, I hope. I do agree with the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who talked on section 9 and talked, I would not say at length, but to the very substance of section 9.
It was really unfortunate that the minister saw fit after one speech on that section to get up and block any further debate on section 9, because sections 9 and 10 are really the heart of this bill. These two sections are where we talk about dollars, where we talk about the flow of money; and it is in this section, of course, if you cut off the dollars, that you cut off programs for children in Metropolitan Toronto.
I want to begin by asking the minister a question, if I may. It is not a rhetorical question; it is a very serious question that I think this ministry and this minister have not as yet answered. Perhaps it is because the question was not put to them.
Let me try to put the question to the minister, and if it does not subvert the rules, I am willing to give the minister an opportunity to answer, provided she will guarantee that I will be allowed to stand up in my place before she calls closure on this section.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No guarantees. You have not given any guarantees; you get none.
Mr. Chairman: The minister has indicated she is not very excited about doing that, so I think you had better just continue with your amendment.
Mr. Grande: She is not prepared to answer the question?
Mr. Chairman: Not until her rotation comes around.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not prepared to give you a guarantee.
An hon. member: Shame.
Mr. Breaugh: Chickening out.
Mr. Chairman: Never mind. Just speak to the amendment. This is not the time to get into a fight.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I always understood that this is debate on clause by clause, and clause-by-clause debate is a give and take; it is a question-and-answer period, if you like. We may be looking for some information, and I may be asking a question of the minister that her ministry has not looked at yet.
Let me ask it. In section 9 we basically were talking about the local levy and the raising of moneys through the local levy. The Minister of Education has been accused in the past of using this bill as a punitive way of getting at the city of Toronto. The minister surely knows that of all the six area boards in Metropolitan Toronto, only the Toronto Board of Education at present uses the local levy, which is not to say the other boards have not used it before.
Should the Toronto Board of Education incur a deficit, section 9 says the Toronto Board of Education has to pay for that deficit out of the local levy portion of the moneys it raises the following year; it has to skim the amount of the deficit off the money that is raised from the local levy. That is clear.
The question is, since only Toronto has the local levy, what if North York, as it has been known to do, the borough of York, as it has been known to do, or any other local board in Metropolitan Toronto happens to have a deficit? Where are they going to get the money to pay for the deficit? They do not have a local levy. They do not raise money through the local levy.
Is the minister saying the deficits of those boards are to be paid by reducing the Metro allocation to those boards either in numbers of teachers or by way of financial resources?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Anybody with any intelligence would know that.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I am giving the minister an opportunity to stand at this point and explain to us how it would work. Unfortunately, she refuses that opportunity. That is too bad.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will answer it.
Mr. Grande: North York has incurred deficits of more than $1 million in two years out of the past four years. With this kind of amendment in sections 9 and 10, should North York incur a deficit this year or next year, where is North York going to get the money to pay for that deficit, and to whom does North York pay that deficit? We need to have that answered, because if the minister does not have an answer to that, the situation becomes very clear: this bill is indeed a punitive measure against the city of Toronto board. Is the minister going to give us an answer?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes. When the member has finished.
Mr. Grande: Would the minister like the opportunity at this point? I think it would be nice if she could clear that up.
Mr. Chairman: The minister need not --
Mr. Breaugh: Let her answer it. We do not want to muzzle the minister.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I realize the minister does not have to answer. Nobody is forcing the minister to answer, but I would think she would take the opportunity I am willing to give her to explain that question.
Interjection.
Mr. Grande: Let the minister wait until somebody from the side provides her with an answer.
I would like to read section 10 for the record.
"Subsections 219(3) and (4) of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"'(3) The amount levied under subsection (1) for public school purposes shall be apportioned among the area municipalities in the amounts determined by the school board under section 127.
"'(4) The amount levied under subsection (1) for secondary school purposes shall be apportioned among the area municipalities in the amounts determined by the school board under section 127.'"
8:30 p.m.
Basically both those subsections are the same, with a change from elementary to secondary schools. If we take a look at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act under section 219, where this amendment tells us to go because certain parts of 219 are being repealed, I have not been able to find anywhere in that section, especially under clauses 219(1)(a) and (b) and subsections 219(2), (3) and (4), where it says the Metropolitan Toronto School Board will determine, or the amount levied under subsection 1 shall be determined by the school board.
I never understood that the school board had the power to make such a determination. I always understood that the Ministry of Education and the government of this province -- if we take a look at Bill 127 as introduced in this Legislature in May last year, subsection 6(7) talked about "total rateable property" and the (B) paragraph of that was the portion obtained by dividing commercial assessment by 0.85. I had understood the minister had said we were dropping that section altogether.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: We did.
Mr. Grande: The minister says, "We did." This was supposed to be one of the sections on which the minister heard delegations and heard people who came to talk to her, and she said, "I have listened to you intently and I am making the change."
In section 10, the minister gives the Metropolitan Toronto School Board power to make the determination about the apportionment. If we take a look at the brief that was presented to us by the borough of Etohicoke in the general government committee, that borough said that the way it is now the percentage of apportionment from the city of Toronto to the Metro level is 39.81 per cent, from York it is 3.73, from Scarborough 14.99, from North York 23.35, from Etobicoke 14.59 and from East York 3.53, for a 100 per cent total of $889.8 million.
The amendment the minister wanted as Bill 127 was introduced for first reading would have changed the apportionment from the city of Toronto to 40.48 per cent. That is clear. The borough of Etobicoke, supposedly a strong supporter of Bill 127, gave us this information. I am actually quoting from that report.
While the minister says she dropped the section that would change the apportionment for the city of Toronto, basically giving people the impression she would leave it as it is, the Minister of Education gives the power to the Metropolitan Toronto hoard to determine the apportionment in section 10. Was this her fallback position? If she was forced to change one aspect, she could fall back and use the other section to do exactly the same thing she wanted to do before.
My next point is on the provincial contribution to education. Let us not forget that this whole exercise of Bill 127 is taking place because the provincial government wants to give less and less money to Metropolitan Toronto for educational services. This is basically the whole exercise.
I have a memorandum from Donald G. Timmins, superintendent of finance for the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, February 22, 1982. It says in paragraph 2: "A more detailed calculation is now being made by the school board staff, from which it appears that the total grants to be received by the school board in 1982 will amount to $166.1 million, a decline of $28.3 million or 14.6 per cent from 1981."
This government is giving less and less money to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board to run its schools and to run its programs and, at the same time, in Bill 127 it allows the Metropolitan Toronto School Board to determine the apportionment.
In other words, in this coming year this government can give back to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board $40 million. It says to the Metro board: "Take a look at your apportionment and break it down evenly within the municipalities and raise some money if you want to protect programs. If you don't want to protect programs, don't raise the taxes." The situation is very clear. It is the way this government has found to underfund education in Metropolitan Toronto and, at the same time, increase property taxes in Metropolitan Toronto.
The other point I want to make on this particular section is on industrial and commercial assessment pooling. I understand when the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) was talking about industrial and commercial assessment pooling, the minister stood up in her place and said, "But you know in Metropolitan Toronto it is already pooled."
The minister can tell that to the member, and there is a certain amount of pooling -- as a matter of fact, about 90 per cent is pooled. Those percentages of apportionment I was reading before, namely, 40 per cent in Toronto and a declining percentage from the other area boards, mean that there is a certain amount of pooling, that Toronto, where the rich assessment is, pays a larger share to Metropolitan Toronto for running the schools in Metropolitan Toronto. That is pooling.
The industrial and commercial assessment pooling I am talking about is in the area of the unapproved expenditure, that percentage of the area where school boards, by virtue of the minister's underfunding, have been forced to go and spend above the ceilings the minister says they should be spending. At that particular time, the school board has to pay 100 cents to the dollar to deliver educational services.
What the minister is saying through the industrial and commercial assessment pooling is: "Board, if you want to do that, we are going to penalize you. We are going to take away from you the industrial and commercial assessment pooling part of the increase in the mill rate." That means, and I have said it once and it will come up again for sure, that approximately $90 million of educational services will be taken out of the province and put into the provincial coffers for the government's own use.
8:40 p.m.
The minister cannot go on underfunding education, forcing up the mill rate and property taxes in areas where board trustees are conscientious in delivering the educational services their children need and, at the same time, turn around and say, "I am going to take money away from you."
The minister cannot undermine the public education system in this province in that way. People will not allow her to do that. Parents and trustees will not allow her to do that. Those boards of education that are hand in hand with the minister now in supporting Bill 127 will not allow her to do that. I do not know how many different words one can use to describe a simple fact of life. If she wants to underfund education, we say no to that.
However, she is in the government. She has been elected to govern. She will make that determination. She will make those decisions. However, she should not turn around in section 10 of this bill and give the Metropolitan Toronto School Board the power to determine the apportionment for the local area boards to make up for her underfunding.
Mr. Lupusella: It would be a disaster.
Mr. Grande: So it has been said. I am not going to attribute that epithet to the minister. This government is playing a dishonest game. It cannot underfund the educational institutions in Metropolitan Toronto and then turn around and say, "For the good of you all, we are going to make sure the Metropolitan Toronto School Board has the strength and the power to determine the apportionment."
We will continue to debate Bill 127 and education issues in this province for a long time to come. The stage is set. Parents in Metropolitan Toronto are on the watch. They will not allow the minister or this government to undermine public education in Metropolitan Toronto. They will not allow the Metropolitan Toronto School Board to destroy programs their children require.
The teachers will not allow her to do that either. The teachers have made a clear determination. I said to the minister the other night --
Mr. Chairman: Speaking to section 10.
Mr. Grande: I am, Mr. Chairman. I am talking about the funding and about the amendment I put before you. The boards should have to make the decision and pass by resolution motions accepting the reapportionment. All boards in Metropolitan Toronto should have resolutions which say either, "Yes, we accept this apportionment by the Metro board," or, "We do not." The minister and this government say they believe in local autonomy, and the line of this government is that through this bill it is strengthening local autonomy. What nonsense.
If that is its line, the government should clearly allow school boards in Metropolitan Toronto to make conscious decisions and determinations about the apportionment that is foisted on them from on high by the buffer zone of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. That board should not and will not be allowed to do the dirty work of this government. It is as simple as that.
Parents will not allow the Minister of Education or this government to do that. Teachers will not allow this government and this minister to do that. I predict that in the months ahead the minister will be hearing a lot from parents and teachers in this province regarding the destructive effect of this piece of legislation which is before us.
I would urge the minister not to take her glasses off, stand up and impose closure right now. She is getting set for it. I would urge her, as the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and I have done on many occasions, even though I know it is virtually fruitless -- her ears are plugged, they are full of wax by now, she cannot hear any more --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: At least my head is clear.
Mr. Grande: It is clear because she does not allow facts to confuse her.
Anyway, the fact is the best thing the government can do right now is to say: "Let us abandon this bill. Let us give it up." Because after all, if educational services to children in the area boards do not have the support of the teachers -- that person, as the minister has said on many occasions, is the pivotal point of the educational system -- and do not have the support of the parents, and if the parents feel she is undermining the public educational system, does the minister know what they will do? They will withdraw their children from the public educational system. The trend is clear and the minister is pushing parents to do exactly that, to abandon the public educational system.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I am constrained to rise to respond to the questions raised by the member for Oakwood. I would have thought the honourable member would have recognized the content of section 10. The content of section 10 is relatively simple.
In section 127 of the act, it states quite clearly that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board will be responsible for the determination of, for example, an unavoidable deficit. It will determine whether there were factors involved in a deficit which is incurred by a board. Those factors have been worked out jointly by all the boards in Metropolitan Toronto, including the Toronto Board of Education, and have been agreed to by all of those boards.
That responsibility lies with the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and if it has that responsibility then quite logically, instead of Metro council being responsible for the apportionment, as it currently is in the act, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board should be responsible for that apportionment. That, of course, is why these amendments or these sections are in the bill.
In addition to that, the member asked a very interesting question and that is: what would happen to North York if it incurred a deficit of $1 million? Obviously, if that deficit were perceived by all of the boards jointly together deciding that there was a foreseeable deficit which could have been avoided by the North York Board of Education, then that board is going to be responsible for that deficit. It would have to levy the discretionary levy in order to account for it, in order to cover that deficit. That was one of the reasons, obviously, that the discretionary levy was put there in the first place.
This is a very simple amendment which does none of the kinds of things the devious mind of the delightful member for Oakwood was suggesting related to education. In Metropolitan Toronto, since 1974 there has been an increase in support for public education which has doubled. It has gone from $524 million in 1974 to $1,100 million in 1982.
Mr. Rae: How much has property tax gone up?
8:50 p.m.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will tell the honourable member, in Metropolitan Toronto there has been a tremendous increase in assessment. In the past decade the assessment in Metropolitan Toronto has increased by 500 per cent [see correction, page 7928] and Metropolitan Toronto is unhappily suffering from its own riches at the present time as a result of the fact these general legislative grants relate to the level of assessment within a local area.
The Lake Superior Board of Education has a significantly larger provincial grant than Metropolitan Toronto. Why? Because the Lake Superior board does not have the same kind of assessment base as Metropolitan Toronto.
In order to try to distribute the funds more equitably across the province the increases have gone to the boards where the assessment base is not so high. The member knows this because about six months ago we gave him a four-hour lecture on the way the general legislative grant worked -- as we did for the member for St. Catharines -- in order that he would understand all of this.
In the past decade the cost of education in this province has risen by 227 per cent. It is significantly higher than the consumer price index increases by about 70 to 80 per cent. The provincial grant has increased by 225 per cent and the local assessment has increased by 227 per cent.
I know this is not on section 10 of the bill, but I need to instruct the member opposite in the facts of life.
During that time there has been an increase in assessment right across the province of approximately 114 per cent, so that the local taxpayer has not borne an unduly large increase in the cost of education. But the cost of education has increased very dramatically. The member should understand that. I am trying to give him the facts.
In Metropolitan Toronto that increase has been just as significant, obviously, and the assessment base of Metropolitan Toronto has increased dramatically over that time as well. In this amendment, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board takes over the responsibility for apportionment that was in the hands of Metro council previously. That is a rational thing to do, given the sections in section 6 of this bill.
Unless the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) insists on having some participation in this rather technical debate, I would move under section 36 that the previous question be now put.
Mr. Chairman: I would like to point out at this time that last night I spoke to my concerns of time on a particular section. In regard to section 10, considering the balance of debate, the time of debate and the indication of participation, I will rule the minister's motion on this section is in order.
Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that the question be now put.
9:25 p.m.
The committee divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion that the question be now put, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 53; nays 36.
The committee divided on whether section 10 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 53; nays 36.
On section 11:
Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, before I commence my remarks I would like to ask you to tell me how I thank the minister for her gracious remarks permitting me to speak.
We know that section 11 empowers the minister to apply this terrible bill to the city of Toronto, to the school board and to all the children in Toronto. The most relevant sections are section 127 of the act, especially subsection 127(6), which deals with surpluses and deficits; section 133 of the act, which deals with compulsory joint bargaining; and section 9 of the bill. which touches on the ceilings on the number of teachers who can be hired.
In short, all these sections point to one thing: to cut, restrict and stifle education in Toronto. That is what is so terrible about this pernicious bill. It shows the minister's attitude, the attitude of restriction, cutting teachers, cutting programs and wreaking havoc in the schools of Toronto. All the sections I have just mentioned indicate very clearly that the minister is out of touch with what is happening in the city of Toronto, out of touch with trustees in the city of Toronto, out of touch with parents here and certainly out of touch with the children.
We know that without adequate numbers of teachers, to which section 9 addresses itself, there are no special programs; without adequate special programs classes will be cut. It even means that some schools are going to be closed. Above all, what this restrictive attitude of the minister indicates is that she has her hands on the education of our children.
She has her hands on the necks of our children in Toronto; she is holding those hands tightly around those necks and squeezing them. The minister should look at her hands, those nice hands that look to most people as if they are well-kept and well-intentioned, but I hope the minister will not leave with Bill 127 intact and get the name of the modern Lady Macbeth of Ontario. Why do people say when they look at section 11 that she could be the modern Lady Macbeth? Because she could say, "I see the dagger before me."
The Deputy Chairman: There is conversation going on among members. I ask you to lower the number of decibels so that we can all hear the member for Parkdale. He was speaking to section 11.
Mr. Ruprecht: That is right. I think most members can hear me, including the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who may not have a direct interest in this legislation. I know what that member and some others on his side sent me on a piece of paper. That is the interest of the members opposite. Look at it, Mr. Chairman. Look at this bill. This is what I received from the members opposite.
Interjections.
Mr. Ruprecht: That shows the interest the member for Brantford has in the bill.
The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps the honourable member would not allow himself to be distracted by these interruptions. I will try to control them.
Mr. Ruprecht: Distracted? Why do I get these notes? This deals with education in Toronto. I have just said our Lady Macbeth is destroying education in Toronto because she is destroying teachers, classrooms and special programs and, consequently, creating chaos in educational policies in this city which in the past has prided itself in supplying one of the best educational institutions in the whole North American continent.
Can we continue with these policies, with section 11, section 127 of the act, and sections 6 and 9? With this section, she is not letting Toronto and the board of education and children breathe the fresh air of good solid education. How can we accept that? We cannot.
Look at section 133 of the act. This section brings expenditures under the purview of the Metro board. How sensitive will the Metro board be to the demands, desires and needs of the city of Toronto? The minister may well know how sensitive the Metro board is going to be, but members know the Metro board is not going to be sensitive.
When requests are being made to supply teachers and more money, the relationship will be the same as that which presently exists between the city of Toronto and the Metropolitan council. On one hand, we have the city saying, "Look at the specific needs of the Island residents." On the other hand, we have Metro saying: "Forget the Island people and forget the needs. Let us just bulldoze them out of there and create parks."
That same kind of attitude and the same kind of insensitivity are what we can expect from the Metro board when the city of Toronto and its board of education will go to the Metro board and say: "We need more finances. We need more money. We need special programs." The answer is going to be beyond a shadow of a doubt, "No, go somewhere else."
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It has never been that way. It has never been no.
Mr. Ruprecht: Oh, of course, it has never been that way. According to the minister, we are all wrong over here. None of us has an idea about education in Toronto and none of us has an idea of how educational policies in this area should be structured, according to that minister.
l am happy to see the back-benchers clapping. They are clapping for the wrong reasons because they do not understand what is taking place.
When the city of Toronto and the board of education go to the Metro board, they lose. They will always lose. We can understand why, in this section, the city of Toronto is not even mentioned and the Toronto Board of Education is not even mentioned. It is done in a nice surgical fashion.
We know the numbers that will sit on the Metropolitan board. We know these numbers will be lost. We know the arguments will be lost; the arguments sometimes will not even be able to be made. When the residents and the parents of some of these children appear there, we know what kind of treatment they will get before the Metro board. That, the chairman will admit, is not in the best interests of the residents of the Metropolitan area, especially the residents of the city of Toronto, and the minister knows that too.
When the city board of education approaches Metropolitan Toronto for more teachers, the answer will be, "No, go somewhere else." Then the trustees will say: "Where are we going to go to get more teachers? Where are we going to go to get more finances? We can't get more finances because the special levy is cut down. We can't get more teachers simply because we can't accept the mill rate." "Go somewhere else" will be the answer. Where will they go?
"What we will do," the city of Toronto says, "simply is to get the minister to change her mind on the mill rate." But the mill rate will not permit the city of Toronto to raise extra funds.
That is another reason, another question in my mind as to whether the minister understands the implications of this bill. If the city of Toronto taxpayers are ready and able to pay for more education, pay for quality education in this city, then why is the minister so adamantly opposed to letting the city of Toronto be taxed a little more so its children will become competitive?
What we are basically talking about in principle in this bill is whether children who have come from other countries and our own downtown children are going to be able to compete with the rest of the children in Ontario. With the programs cut, with class sizes increased, with the mill rate staying at 1.5, there is simply no way the children in this city are going to be competitive across the board on an equality basis or are going to be equally trained and equally educated to compete with other people in Ontario. The Chairman has to admit that is the very basic crux.
If the mill rate cannot be changed, according to this section, if the teachers cannot be hired, if the schools have to close down, and some of them no doubt will, what can we do? What we can do is simply watch the deterioration of education in this city, and we will not be in cahoots with this minister in that. In fact, what we are going to do is to propose, one more time, and I hope the minister is listening, that before this evening is over, she will turn around and understand the chaos she is creating here with this specific bill in this specific section, will see the light, will accept that this has been a failure, will accept the fact that she has been misinformed, that she has been advised wrongly by some of the people who advise her, and will give us the legislation we deserve and that the children in this city deserve. For a final time, I ask the minister to turn around and reject this bill.
Mr. Di Santo: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman, before the member for Oakwood speaks.
The Deputy Chairman: I recognize the member for Downsview.
9:40 p.m.
Mr. D Santo: Just to reinforce what the member for Parkdale said, can I introduce Mrs. Elizabeth Smith, who is a trustee for North York and president of the Conservative association for York Centre, who came to support the opposition and tried to persuade the minister to withdraw the bill.
[Applause]
The Deputy Chairman: Now the member for Oakwood, and please speak to the section.
Mr. Nikon: Bette, take her name.
Mr. Rae: She took her name a long time ago, I think.
Mr. Foulds: Bette's KGB will be on the warpath now.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Grande moves that subsection 11(1) of the bill be amended to read, "The following apply only in respect of estimates and apportionment in 1985." and that paragraph 11(1)(1) be amended to read, "Subsections 127(3) and (4) of the said act, as enacted in section 6."
Mr. Grande: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the reason for moving this amendment is that, as we found out in the Globe and Mail of Monday, February 21 --
Interjections.
Mr. Grande: It says, "Support Runs High for Direct Election in Metro Toronto," and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) is quoted as saying, "We are willing to look at such an arrangement."
In other words, the reason I am changing the date from 1983 to 1985 is to give this government an opportunity before they introduce this bill and before they give the powers to the Metro board, since there is no election to the Metro board, that the Minister of Education --
Mr. Rotenberg: It is giving no powers to the Metro board, so what are you worried about? You know they are giving no powers to the Metro board.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Grande: The Minister of Education and the government --
Mr. Rotenberg: He's not reporting the facts.
The Deputy Chairman: Do not interrupt. You will have a chance to speak.
Mr. Grande: The member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) has been gagged more than the opposition is being gagged on this bill in discussing the amendments.
I very simply want to give the Minister of Education and the government the opportunity to make the decision about direct elections so that then the people of Metropolitan Toronto will have direct elections to Metro and the responsibility will be a direct responsibility through their elected representatives.
The second part of this amendment basically says that subsections 127(5), (6) and (7) of the act should not be part of section 6 of the bill for the simple reason that this government did not allow any debate in this Legislature on those sections. As you recall, Mr. Chairman, on subsection 6(4) the minister stood in her place, called on standing order 36 and closed off the debate. Therefore, those three sections that were not debated in this Legislature should not be considered part of the bill.
The Deputy Chairman: I will call the question. All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
An hon. member: The minister's?
The Deputy Chairman: No. We are dealing with an amendment. Shall I read the amendment?
"I move that subsection 11(1) of the bill be amended to read, 'The following apply only'" --
Mr. Stokes: You can't move it.
The Deputy Chairman: No. There are people who did not understand it.
"'The following apply only in respect of estimates and apportionment in 1985'" and "'Subsections 127(3) and (4) of the said act, as enacted in section 6.'"
9:57 p.m.
The committee divided on Mr. Grande's amendment to section 11, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 36; nays 55.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, as you know from your own study of this legislation, section 11 refers to the enactment of sections 6, 9 and 10. I simply would like to say I regret very deeply that the government has decided to reject our amendment which would have delayed the implementation of these sections.
I would like to indicate to this House and to the minister that the Tory government will deeply regret the day it decided to enact and pass Bill 127. It will regret that day because it will mean poorer education for all the people of Metropolitan Toronto and harder times for those citizens who look to public education as their route and their road to opportunity.
This is a bill that diminishes opportunity, that strangles opportunity and that will make it far more difficult for our young people to be able to compete and thrive in the world of the 21st century. That is what the legislation means and that is why the implementation of it is so unsound.
10 p.m.
With respect to what this government is doing to teachers, I simply want to say that if one looks at those jurisdictions which have started to centralize bargaining, that process has not helped education or labour relations and, if I may say to the government, it has simply contributed to the politicization of bargaining which is going to cause problems far more to that government than it is to members on this side.
I want the minister to know that it is her own fanaticism, rigidity and ideological straitjacket that is going to cause serious problems for that entire party with respect to the future of education in Metropolitan Toronto.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric of the leader of the third party is not worth responding to since he has not made an accurate statement in all of this. I would move that the question be now put.
The committee divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion that the question be now put, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 56; nays 36.
The committee divided on whether section 11 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
On section 12:
The Deputy Chairman: Speaking to section 12; we are proceeding quickly.
Mr. Bradley: Speaking to section 12 of the bill: Section 12 deals with --
Hon. Mr. Bennett: That's the one that follows 11.
Mr. Bradley: Pardon?
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Bradley: Subsection 12(2) indicates that section 8 comes into force on January 1, 1983, and the first part indicates that, except section 8, the act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent. I am speaking in opposition to that, because after having reached this stage of the bill at this late hour on the evening of Tuesday, February 22, I am still in the position --
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. Carry on, please. Do not allow these distractions to interrupt your train of thought.
Mr. Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. They are distracting.
I do not think this bill should come into effect right away, because it is a bill on which there has not been adequate consultation with the various groups in the community, and not enough debate either, which is necessary before implementing legislation of this kind.
Back in June 1982, when I had a chance to make a few remarks on second reading of this bill, I quoted the now Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), who oft-times quoted Will Rogers -- he did not want to take the credit himself -- by saying, "You don't fix something that ain't broke," or words to that effect. Those words have been oft repeated in this debate, not only by members of this assembly but also by the many people who have come here night after night to indicate their very strong opposition to this bill. That strong opposition is obvious.
Because it has taken so long for this bill to proceed this far in the debate, it should not come into effect immediately but should be held in abeyance until such time as the kind of meaningful consultation we in the opposition have called for can take place.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Hogwash.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Even the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) cannot keep a straight face.
Mr. Bradley: I can say that. I smile only at the barking that is coming from the government benches; I smile only at the interjections.
Mr. Nixon: My God, what is this coming?
Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, does this come with salad?
lnterjections.
Mr. Bradley: The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) has just arrived. Some say he will not be on the scene much longer, that he will be going to a greater reward.
The Deputy Chairman: Please speak to section 12.
Mr. Bradley: He certainly would not want to be part of a piece of legislation which can be held in abeyance and which does not have to be implemented on the dates suggested in the bill. In that case, perhaps we would see a significantly different bill.
If the Minister of Education were to go back to the Workgroup of Metro Parents, for instance, and say, "I am prepared to be direct in my negotiations with you; I am prepared to listen to what you have to say and to respond in a meaningful fashion to what you have to say," those people certainly would be willing to have additional input into this legislation.
If she went to the various affiliates of the teachers' federations in Metropolitan Toronto and across the province, and said: "We want to begin anew some negotiations over this piece of legislation. We want to know how we can address the problems that we perceive to be there," I am certain all those people would happily come forward to assist the minister in developing a different kind of legislation.
I get the impression from the facial expressions of the minister and from the kind of support she appears to have this evening that it is unlikely she is going to follow my counsel in this case, wise as it may be. However, I leave that opportunity open to her this evening, to rise after the representative of the New Democratic Party has finished, to indicate that she is prepared to do exactly that: to leave the bill in abeyance and not proceed further.
10:10 p.m.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to the section as a whole. As you know, I have two amendments to it. I do not think it is necessary for them to be put on the floor. I can speak to the section as a whole.
I am going to give the Minister of Education one of my amendments, that section 8 should come into force on January 1, 2000.
The Deputy Chairman: Is that your amendment?
Mr. Grande: No, I am not moving it.
The Deputy Chairman: Will you please move your amendment?
Mr. Grande: No, Mr. Chairman.
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: I cannot hear the honourable member, that is my problem.
Mr. Grande moves that subsection 12(2) be amended to read that section 8 comes into force on January 1, 2000.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman --
The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have asked the members to give attention to other members when they have the floor. I have warned all members, and I caution each one that certain action will be taken by the chair should the interruptions continue.
Mr. Grande: I have in the amendment the year 2000. The member for Riverdale said, "What a lousy way to start the century." However, let me point out that section 8 deals with the hiring and firing of additional teachers as the minister and this bill talk about additional teachers.
I want to give the minister plenty of opportunity between now and the year 2000 to make sure she will speak to John Tolton from Etobicoke and the members for Scarborough, East York and perhaps North York, and find out how happy they are about subsection 6(4) of this bill as amended in this Legislature.
I want to give the minister the opportunity to table in the Legislature in her own sweet time the document which she says is available in terms of what is an unavoidable deficit. I want to give the minister the time because we know how slow government moves. Definitely she needs until the year 2000 to accomplish those very simple facts.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman --
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Tony has got to have his say first.
The Deputy Chairman: I recognized the Minister of Education first.
Mr. Wrye: No, no.
The Deputy Chairman: We are in committee and there can be different people speaking at different times. The Minister of Education has the floor.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, it is unutterably ludicrous to suggest that the amendment suggested by the member for Oakwood is a reasonable amendment. To suggest that it would take any period of time to provide information he knows is not factually correct because we have provided him with almost unlimited amounts of information in all areas he has requested over the past several months and years.
In standing committee, we armed him with sheaves of paper and tons of documentation. He has had ample opportunity to peruse all of this, so I think it would be nonsensical to propose that there should be an amendment of this sort. Indeed, to suggest there should be proclamation three years from the date the bill receives royal assent is unheard of in parliamentary procedure.
I would therefore move the question be now put.
The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that the question be now put.
10:16 p.m.
The committee divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion that the question be now put, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 58; nays 37.
The committee divided on whether section 12 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
On section 13:
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, no more sections are left in the bill after section 13. This has been a long process for the government. I should save this speech for tomorrow, but I want to say briefly that I hope the members of the government recognize, as a result of the length of time it has taken this legislation to pass the House, how much opposition there has been to this bill and how much opposition there is on this side of the House to the trampling of the rights of the Legislature when the government attempts to impose closure.
Having said that and speaking specifically to section 13 of the act where it indicates --
Hon. Mr. Sterling: Do you remember the Re-Mor committee?
Mr. Bradley: I well remember the Re-Mor committee. Who could forget it when those people trampled on the rights of Parliament?
Mr. Nixon: They even called an election to get out of it.
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. Section 13 is the subject of debate.
Mr. Bradley: With the former Attorney General on the stand, they called an election.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for St. Catharines will speak to the bill.
10:20 p.m.
Mr. Bradley: I have too much respect for the Chairman to reply to the interjections.
It indicates here that the short title of this act is the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act, 1982. We could make many suggestions for better titles for this act. Because of the concerns expressed outside of Metropolitan Toronto and the experience we had with Darcy McKeough, the former Minister of Treasury, Economic and Intergovernmental Affairs and the former member for Chatham-Kent, with the implementation and imposition of regional government across this province, I suppose we could call the short title of this act the Prelude to Regional Government in Education across Ontario Act, or something of that nature. There would be many who would recognize the pattern.
We could call it the Lack of Consultation with the Appropriate People in the Field of Education Act. We could call it the Diminishing of Quality in Education through Financial Manipulation on the part of the Government Act. There are many things.
Mr. Nixon: How about the Embarrassed Larry Grossman Act.
Mr. Bradley: There is another one. As the member for Oakwood has suggested in his amendment, we could call it the Reduction of Quality Education and School Closure Act of Metropolitan Toronto. Any one of these would be more appropriate short titles of this act than the one we find in section 13.
We know the minister will not change that. We leave it for the consideration of the government caucus.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, the member for St. Catharines pre-empted --
The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have difficulty hearing the member for Oakwood. Carry on, please.
Mr. Grande: I would like to put an amendment to this section, which is that the short title of this act should be the Reduction of Quality Education and School Closure Act and the Bette Stephenson Memorial Act of Metropolitan Toronto.
The Deputy Chairman: I rule that out of order. It is not a legitimate amendment. Does the member still wish to have the floor to speak to section 13?
I was reading directly from Erskine May. I was so grateful that the member did give me advance notice of the amendment to change the title. This very clearly says that, "Except in the circumstances described in the following paragraph, the title can only be amended if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment." It goes on to explain my ruling. Unless such a change were made, I would not allow such an amendment to stand. The member will now speak to section 13.
Mr. Grande: I will speak to section 13, Mr. Chairman. I accept your ruling. That will not diminish the fact that this bill is nothing but a reduction of quality education in Metropolitan Toronto. It is nothing but an encouragement to boards of education to cut programs for children in Metropolitan Toronto. It is nothing but an encouragement to boards of education to close schools in Metropolitan Toronto.
This bill is a bad bill. This government, at the very least, should accept, even though they reject this amendment, that this is the true name of the bill.
The committee divided on whether section 13 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 58; nays 37.
The committee divided on whether Bill 127, as amended, should be reported, which was agreed to on the same vote.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions?
Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?
Agreed to.
MOTION
HOUSE SITTINGS
Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding any previous order, the House sit in the chamber on Wednesday, February 23.
Mr. Speaker: Are you all familiar with the motion?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Wells: What this motion means is that we would resume sitting tomorrow at two o'clock with the regular routine proceedings and then proceed to third reading of Bill 127.
Mr. Breithaupt: Afternoon and evening?
Hon. Mr. Wells: I hope just in the afternoon, followed by royal assents and a very uplifting prorogation speech from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
[Later; February 23, 1983]
Hon. Miss Stephenson: May I please correct the record? In the debate last evening, there is on page 2050-1 of the Instant Hansard, page 19, in the third line of the first paragraph the statement, "has increased by 500 per cent." That should be $500 million, not per cent. In the sixth paragraph it should read, "an increase in assessment of approximately 70 per cent, so that the local taxpayer has not borne an unduly large increase." In fact, the average mill rate increase during the past decade has been of the order of 114 per cent for the taxpayers across the province.
Mr. Foulds: Were those the minister's own statements she was correcting?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.