MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
On section 6:
The Deputy Chairman: I would like to draw to the attention of all visitors in the galleries that you are visitors in this House and any disturbances or disruptions will be dealt with by having you removed. So I would ask you to respect that this is a House where we are carrying on the business of the province of Ontario. You are our guests and we hope you will respect the fact that you are.
Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Before we resume the contribution from my colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), I just want to bring to your attention standing order 13, which requires the government House leader to announce the business of the House for the following week on each Thursday during the session.
I bring this to your attention in the hope that before we adjourn this evening the government House leader will set out openly, clearly and honestly what the government intends to do after the adjournment of the House today. None of us wants to have a repetition of the charade we had this afternoon.
The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member has made his point of order.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Chairman, as the acting House leader I think I can assure the honourable member that we will be dealing with Bill 127 for the balance of the time.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, that is not an adequate answer. The government House leader, with the co-operation of the two House leaders of the other parties, last week agreed to forego a statement with respect to the business of the House. The standing order of the House requires --
The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honourable member, and I am sure the government House leader will take note of the point that has been made.
Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: If I may say so, I think it is extremely rude of you to cut off an honourable member in the middle of his point of order, and I would ask you to forgo that practice.
The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member had not made a formal point of order. He had stood up and started to speak, and I was just clarifying the whole situation to make it clear to all honourable members that I am sure the government House leader will take note of this. I thank you for bringing it to our attention. Now I call upon the member for Oakwood.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman --
Mr. Breaugh: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman --
The Deputy Chairman: Order. To the member for Oshawa, is this the same point of order?
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, it is just to clarify in my own mind that you have recognized there is something out of order.
The Deputy Chairman: No I have not. I am saying that before we do adjourn, according to standing orders that have been raised by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), the government House leader will make an outline of the coming business in the normal way. I accept the fact that point has been made in a very good way and it is so noted.
Mr. McClellan: You intend to enforce it.
The Deputy Chairman: I am in no position to do anything at this point except to note it, as you have done. There is nothing out of order.
Mr. Breaugh: But you are saying the chair anticipates that prior to adjournment this evening --
The Deputy Chairman: No. The chair only recognizes that a point of order has been made. It is a valid point of order and it has been noted.
Mr. Nixon: What is valid about it'? Nothing is out of order?
The Deputy Chairman: He just made a point. At this point there is nothing out of order.
Interjection.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. I would like very much for this House to continue with the debate on Bill 127 on the amendment before the House. I am sure there is more than one person yet to speak.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue with the comments that I was making this afternoon. However I would like to note, sir, so there will be no problems this evening between yourself and myself, I am speaking to the amendment to subsection 6(2), which talks about the surpluses a particular area board may have.
As I read that clause, if the government intends that a board of education in Metropolitan Toronto should maintain all the surplus it generates at the end of a fiscal or school year, it means it is saying to them, "Here is an incentive for you to cut back programs for children so that you will he able to have a larger surplus at the end of the year." Therefore I intend to speak on concerns and needs of children in the educational system in Metropolitan Toronto.
I want you to know at the beginning the context in which I am speaking, Mr. Chairman, so we will not get into problems over whether or not I am addressing myself to the section. The reason for this incentive to cut back through this clause and for the whole of Bill 127 is that the provincial government has been reducing steadily over the years, ever since 1975 as a matter of fact, the legislative grants that Metropolitan Toronto would normally get.
In 1975 the government was supporting education in the province to the extent that it was providing 61 per cent of the moneys to run the schools. In 1981-82, it provided only 50.08 per cent. This 11 per cent decrease over seven or eight years translates into $200 million.
There was a time when the government was providing 30 per cent to 33 per cent of the funding to Metropolitan Toronto. In other words, 33 cents of every dollar spent in education in Metropolitan Toronto was passed on by the provincial government in legislative grants. In 1982, only 15 cents of the dollar is passed on by the provincial government to Metropolitan Toronto. if projections for this coming year are correct -- I do not know if they are -- people with financial knowledge tell me that perhaps the figure will decrease even more -- from 15 cents on the dollar to somewhere between 12.5 cents and 13.5 cents on the dollar.
In other words, this government is, at a rather fast pace. decreasing the amounts of money the boards of education across Metropolitan Toronto need in order for them to deliver the educational services our students need in Metropolitan Toronto.
8:10 p.m.
As if the decrease in legislative grants was not enough, the people within the ministry -- the mandarins as they are sometimes called -- are concocting an industrial-commercial assessment pooling technique, by which the Ministry of Education changes figures for the school boards all over the place. They will not know where they stand in relation to industrial-commercial assessment pooling. One figure I saw in October or November of last year was that within a five-year period, $305 million would he coming out of Metropolitan Toronto through that process. The latest figure is approximately $90 million will be coming out of Metropolitan Toronto over a five-year period.
The other question of funding, apart from the decrease of funding from the provincial government of course, is who is paying for educational services? The local level continually pays a larger and larger share of funding. Some trustees are put in a very awkward position. Others say, "Thank you very much, Madam Minister, for putting us in that position." Those really concerned about the delivery of educational services to kids -- who are seriously concerned about setting up programs to meet the educational needs of children -- say, "Where is the money going to come from?" They find they will have to go to the local level more and more to increase the mill rate and increase property tax.
Other trustees who are not so concerned about the establishment and delivery of programs to kids, say: "Fine, we cannot raise taxes. We have to keep the taxes low." So the children's programs are in jeopardy. It not only threatens children's programs, it means teacher firing, it means increased class size, it means closure of schools. That is exactly the direction this government wants to take education in this province.
There is nothing the Minister of Education or anybody in that government has said in the last two years that does not move us quickly down the slope towards destruction of educational services in this province. I would like to ask where the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) is, I would like to ask where the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) are, and the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko).
The Deputy Chairman: The member may be straying from the very important subject we are discussing.
Mr. Grande: You are quite right, Mr. Chairman. I am straying from it. But I look across the floor and I find that the people who should be concerned about these matters are not here. Where did they disappear to? Where are they?
The Deputy Chairman: Back to the motion. While I am interrupting, I would just remind the member I have given permission for the lights to be turned up, because some TV crews want to come in, unless someone has a strong objection. I just ask the member for Oakwood to direct his comments to the amendment.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I certainly will. That was an aside, just out of pure interest.
I talked earlier in the afternoon about the need for English as a second language programs in Metropolitan Toronto. The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) might not realize it, but 60 per cent of the children in Metropolitan Toronto come from neither a French-speaking nor an English-speaking background. In other words English or French is not their mother tongue. The parents and teachers across Metro understand that.
Mr. Rotenberg: Sixty per cent; you must be kidding.
Mr. Grande: Sixty per cent, the majority; Does the member understand that? The majority of the kids in the school system.
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Oakwood is speaking to the amendment.
Mr. Grande: As I was saying, since 60 per cent of the children in Metropolitan Toronto do not have English or French in their backgrounds, it is of utmost importance these children be given the opportunity to learn English and learn it well. Unless they learn English well I am sure the members understand they will not be able to find jobs when they get out of school. Forgetting about the jobs, they will not be able to progress through the school system if they do not have fluency in the English language and do not know how to write and read English well.
Through this clause of Bill 127, boards of education across Metropolitan Toronto are given an incentive to cut back. Do the members know the Metropolitan Toronto School Board definition of an immigrant child in need of English as a second language? If the child has been in this country for two years, he needs that course or that class. Once the child has been in Toronto or in Canada for two years plus one day. he can he dropped from those classes because he should do all right in the school system.
The real world does not work that way. The real world does not work according to formula. In the real world, we have children who were born in this country, who were born in Metropolitan Toronto and yet, when they go to school, cannot speak the language of the school. I do not mean they do not speak English, but they do not speak the English necessary to function in a school environment. The language of the school is missing. As a result of that, these children do not learn how to read and write as well as other children. The question is, why is that taking place?
I related earlier in the day, my experience as an immigrant child who came to this country and how I learned English by sitting in the back of a classroom, not understanding anything that was going on. I do not want to look back to 1950-55. Today we have techniques and we know ways to do it. Our teaching profession has learned how those children can best be taught. We have to have the resources to be able to set up the programs for those children to learn by. Bill 127 says, "Cut back on that." It is a crime, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure you will agree.
Mr. Rotenberg: The bill does not say that.
Mr. Kerrio: It's all Bette's fault.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) challenges me that the bill does not say that. Let me explain to the member what the bill does say.
The Deputy Chairman: Do not be distracted by the interruptions. Just stick to the amendment.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to be helpful to the member --
The Deputy Chairman: If he does not understand what has been going on, don't you try to --
Interjections.
8:20 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman: Order, order.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I am not addressing myself to the member for Wilson Heights. I am addressing myself to you. If the member wants to listen to what I have to say, fine. If not he can plug his ears and he as ignorant about these matters as --
Mr. Rotenberg: As you are.
Mr. Grande: -- as possible.
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Grande: On the first day we sat, a government member on the standing committee for general government said: "One could say that the public should have a big show at the hearings. Get all the circus, and the ponies and the dogs around to make sure there is public input."
He was referring to input on this bill. That gentleman stayed as far away from the committee as he possibly could. Every once in a while though, at the door of the committee as we were poring over --
The Deputy Chairman: Again, the member is allowing himself to have been distracted. Speak to the amendment.
Mr. Grande: I am not distracted at all.
The Deputy Chairman: It is not germane to the motion. You were doing so well until those interruptions.
Mr. Grande: The fault lies there. As an aside, it will only take 30 seconds.
The Deputy Chairman: No asides; please just speak to the motion.
Mr. Breaugh: Just to add a little flavour.
The Deputy Chairman: Never mind flavour.
Mr. Grande: I talked about English as a second language programs and how this law will cut back on those programs. I talked a little about French programs in our schools in Metropolitan Toronto -- core French or immersion French -- and how these particular programs are going to he affected by this legislation. They are going to be cut back. Since the minister is here -- she was listening this afternoon for just a brief period, but otherwise she has been here diligently hearing -- hearing but not listening --
Mr. Martel: He is paying you a compliment, Bette.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Thank you for your condescension; just delightful.
Mr. Martel: You are so gracious. Bette.
Mr. McClellan: Are you in a had mood?
Mr. Breaugh: I thought we were under attack here.
The Deputy Chairman: You are not. The member for Oakwood is going to make a point and we wait for it.
Mr. Grande: I am looking at the brief submitted to the Ontario government hearings on Bill 127 by a lady by the name of Louise Thomas, who is a representative of Canadian Parents for French in Metropolitan Toronto. She said to us in committee: "Where is the money for French services?" We cannot tell. We have no accountability regarding where the federal government money goes or of the amount of money the province passes on to Metro. There is no accountability at the Metro level about where the money goes to the area boards. So there is no direct accountability in terms of funding and delivery of service.
I believe it is up to the Minister of Education to make sure this organization of concerned parents who want their children to have French in the school should have an accounting of the funding. They go to Metro, and Metro does not have the figures. They go to the minister and she does not give them the figures.
But the federal government does. Therefore they produced a list, which I am going to put on the record, and I want the minister to make sure she shoots it down but gives us some information anyway. East York consistently has had -- in 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982, according to these figures -- an overpayment of funds when compared with the delivery of services to those children. Why does North York get money from Metro for French when they do not have the services? That is the question the parents want answered. I think the Minister of Education should have an answer and should make it clear and should be accountable for the money spent.
They also have all the other area boards and how accountable the funding is for the other area boards. I am not going to mention all the area boards and the amounts of money. The document is here. I think anybody who wants it can take a look at it. But certainly the Minister of Education of this province should be --
Mr. Nixon: The lights make it a lot better.
Mr. Breaugh: Do you feel born again, George?
Mr. Grande: Boy, how they distract.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Oakwood.
Mr. Grande: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thought members were getting distracted too much.
The Deputy Chairman: Just more light for his speech.
Mr. Grande: Too much light on the scene.
I repeat: I want the Minister of Education to give us a detailed account of the funding for core French and for French immersion starting from the federal level of government right down to the boards and to the services that are delivered to kids. Until that happens none of the people in Metropolitan Toronto who are interested in this area will know whether the delivery of services is consistent with the funding those boards get. I think it is only fair the government should be providing these figures.
The last time I asked for figures the Minister of Education said, "Why don't you ask those figures of Metro?" So I asked Metro, and Metro said: "Put it in writing. Tell us exactly what you want and we will give it to you." I said to the minister: "Look, I do not have to go through Metro. You are the one responsible for education in this province. You are the one who is accountable to me, to the people of the borough of York and to the people of Ontario for education in this province. Get the information from Metro and pass it on to me."
It took four weeks to get very simple information oOut of Metro. The Metro board is not an easy body to deal with at all. When it comes to parents trying to go before the Metro board, trying to make their case about children's needs, it is just a stone wall. That Metro board will not hear deputations, will not hear people.
The reasons are obvious. The Metro board is not accountable to anybody. The Metro board can say to those parents: "You are from Toronto" or "You are from East York" or "You are from the borough of York. I do not happen to come from that area, so I do not have to be accountable to you."
The whole thrust of this section of the bill has to do with giving the Metropolitan Toronto School Board decision-making powers and taking them away from the local level which, in essence, is the level that understands the educational needs of kids. The government has to understand what it is doing.
8:30 p.m.
I go on to the area of school closures. This section deals with a school board trying to save money so that at the end of the year it can keep the money. One of the things the parents, teachers and everybody who has seen or heard anything about this bill feel, is that the local community school is going to be closed because, according to some magic formula devised by the Ministry of Education, there are not enough kids in that school.
As enrolment declines, the school has to he closed. Ministry reports have pegged the magic number at 200. When a school has an enrolment of fewer than 200 children, that school is slated for what is called a review, with the intention to close it down the line.
In terms of Metropolitan Toronto, East York has four schools with populations of fewer than 200 kids, Etobicoke has 22 such schools, North York has 34 such schools, Scarborough has 21 such schools; and the borough of York, the area I represent, has four schools with fewer than 200 in population. I ask the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) what does the closure of schools have to do with this bill?
Mr. Rotenberg: Nothing. This bill has nothing to do with it and you know it.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I am not paying any attention to the member.
Mr. Rotenberg: You asked me the question.
Mr. Grande: That is right.
Mr. Rotenberg: You did not get the answer you wanted. You don't want the truth. If you don't want the truth, that is okay with me, but you know it has nothing to do with Bill 127.
Mr. Grande: According to Bill 127, a master agreement is signed which will determine the number of teachers the Metro school board will pass on to the area board. Since the imperative of the provincial government is to cut back, the school board can keep all its surplus.
Does one not think it would be in the best interests of a school hoard such as Etobicoke, which has 22 schools below 200, to close them down? Does one not think it would be in the best interests of North York, with 34 schools below 200, to close them down because it would keep the money?
That is where the incentive to close schools is. The other incentive is that the number of teachers is reduced because of the Metro formula and the allocation to each area board. Class sizes will increase and therefore, if there are 40 kids in a class-room, of course --
The Deputy Chairman: The level of noise is rising so it is becoming more difficult for me to hear the member. Will honourable members be so kind as to reduce their sounds so that the member for Oakwood can continue without interruption. There are other members who want to speak but the member for Oakwood has the floor.
Mr. Grande: Let me say to the members who are in the Legislature at this time --
Mr. Havrot: The member has a one-track mind anyway.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. I will say to the member for Oakwood that I am trying to get order in this place so he can carry on.
Mr. Grande: Let me say to the members who are in the Legislature at this time that the chatting they do does not bother me, or deter me, from saying the things I feel are important.
Mr. Breaugh: Wait a minute. The member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) spoke.
Mr. Havrot: I made some sense, too.
Mr. Breaugh: About as much as you ever do.
Mr. Havrot: That's more than you can do. Speak for hours and say nothing.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Havrot: Leave me alone. I am doing my income tax.
Mr. Kerr: He is figuring out his losses.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. Will the member for Oakwood please speak a little louder and a little faster while I try to keep these other members under control.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I cannot do anything about the speed of my speech. Some members speak slower than others. Others are able to holler across the floor.
Probably some members have seen the movie about Mahatma Gandhi lately, and heard what that distinguished man said. He said: "It is as much our duty to co-operate with good as it is to be unco-operative with evil." So let me put it to the members this way.
Whether the members in this Legislature want to hear what I have to say or not I am of the strong opinion that this bill is evil to the educational process in Metropolitan Toronto. Therefore, I do get up and speak, and continue speaking against this bill. When the process is over, if the government thinks that the debates and the discussions that have gone on here on Bill 127 and other educational matters across this province are going to come to an end, the government is sadly mistaken because this bill, singlehandedly, has made education an issue in Ontario, and we will go on talking about educational matters for a long time to come.
On the closure of schools, I want the members who are listening to understand that this particular clause is an incentive for area boards to close schools. It is an incentive for area boards to increase class sizes so that they can then cut back on teachers. That does not do justice to educational services to kids.
I want to talk about another matter that is very much related, a matter that I have raised in this Legislature for a long time, that is the inner-city child. It is a child who lives in Metropolitan Toronto; I guess he could live anywhere in Metropolitan Toronto, not in any particular area or borough but it so happens that the city of Toronto has more of that than any other area at this time. However, there is no problem, no question whatsoever that the inner-city child lives across Metropolitan Toronto. He lives or goes to every school in Metropolitan Toronto.
This child is a child who may get up in the morning and not have breakfast but just go to school. This child is a child who just may not have a warm coat to wear to school in the winter. These may be children whose physical needs are not being met because of a lack of income or because they come from families forced to live in poverty in Metropolitan Toronto. These children come to school and are expected to learn.
8:40 p.m.
May I say to the Minister of Education and to anybody else, other needs have to be met before these children can learn. Either the school system meets them or the government has to look after those needs. Through the school system, the government does or does not look after those needs.
We have a larger and larger number of children in the Metropolitan Toronto area who need a hot lunch during the day and who need a breakfast in the morning. If people around here think I am exaggerating, perhaps they should go to some of those schools and see for themselves.
The programs for those children are going to be cut back. When a board of education that intends to do something about these needs does not have the financial wherewithal to do anything about them, those are the first kids who are going to be abandoned. Because their parents do not have any clout, because their parents do not go to the school screaming, because their parents do not go to see the principal or to see other people and talk to them, those kids are the first ones to beat a loss. Those are the --
Mr. Rotenberg: Have you no faith in elected trustees?
Mr. Grande: I have a lot of faith in elected school trustees. My friend has no faith in elected school trustees because he has to switch the power over to unelected and unresponsive people for the local level.
Mr. Rotenberg: Give them credit for keeping those programs going.
Mr. Barlow: Who is not elected over here?
Mr. Kerr: What does Bill 127 have to do with that?
Mr. Breaugh: Listen, George, he is explaining it to you.
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: Continue with the amendment.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I would like to ask you a question you might be able to elucidate for me. The barracking about the member for Oakwood's speech is coming from the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) and the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), but I do not see the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry) here. I do not see the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) nor the member for St. George (Ms. Fish). I do not see the member for --
Mr. Chairman: Order. I have bad news for the member for Ottawa Centre. You are out of order and I ask the member for Oakwood to continue.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I would like to point out the leader of the third party is from Metro Toronto. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and some other members from Metropolitan Toronto over there have --
Mr. Chairman: Order. Cut the mike. The member for Oakwood is reminding us all about this amendment to section 6.
Mr. Grande: The question was, what does this have to do with Bill 127? Social class has a lot to do with Bill 127. The children who come from poor families are the ones who do not get a fair shake in the educational system.
When one starves an educational system, those are the first kids who are not going to get the needed service in the system. That is why --
Mr. Chairman: As a result, with this amendment -- I would like the member to work it in.
Mr. Grande: A little while back, in 1980, the Minister of Education was quoted in Hansard as saying in the estimates of the Ministry of Education that, "What we are attempting to do is to carry out the policy of equal opportunity for all children in Ontario and that is an overriding policy which I will defend as long as I have breath."
Regarding equality of educational opportunity, since May of last year the Minister of Education has had a report entitled The Pursuit of Equality, evaluating and monitoring accessibility to post-secondary education in Ontario. I am not going to talk about post-secondary education, even though I could. Bill 127 will definitely affect the aspirations of those kids to go to university or community colleges. This report, written by Paul Anisef, the principal investigator, together with other people, was done under a grant from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. The advice of Dr. Anisef in recommendation 1 was:
"The government should implement compensatory education programs at the provincial level. These programs would be designed to provide economically disadvantaged children with a head start at the prekindergarten level, extending into the elementary and secondary levels if necessary."
I do not know whether I agree totally with this kind of analysis. However, Bill 127 will cut funding to the area boards. The cutting of funding and resources to area boards will force school boards not to establish these compensatory education programs. I am sure the minister is aware that of all her education budget, only $45 million was devoted to compensatory education across this province last year.
Mr. Rotenberg: What does that have to do with Bill 127?
Mr. Grande: I will tell the member what it has to do with Bill 127 again.
Mr. Chairman: No, the amendment, please.
Mr. Breaugh: He is tutoring the member for Wilson Heights. Somebody has to do it.
Mr. Chairman: He cannot answer back. It is not question period.
Mr. Grande: For some people in this Legislature who do not understand how a child develops linguistically, socially and in terms of mental processes, that question is a valid one.
Mr. Rotenberg: I understand much better than the member for Oakwood does.
Mr. Grande: The member does not understand that without compensatory forms of education these children will not be able to develop either socially or linguistically. We are cutting off equality of educational opportunity in this province. The government is saying, "The children of the poor will remain poor," because those kids will not be able to get a proper education.
Mr. Rotenberg: I have said four times it has nothing to do with the bill.
Mr. Chairman: Will the member for Wilson Heights come to order?
Mr. Rotenberg: The member is playing to the galleries. Why does he not speak to the bill and the amendment? If he would tell the truth we would not have any trouble, would we?
Mr. Martel: If he would tell what?
Mr. Rotenberg: The truth. If he told the truth --
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman --
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I heard him.
8:50 p.m.
Mr. McClellan: Name the member or tell him to be quiet during the debate after he has withdrawn that remark.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Wilson Heights, you have made life very difficult for me. I think it would be most appropriate if you withdrew the last comment.
Mr. Rotenberg: In no way did I say he was misleading the House, nor did I say he was not telling the truth. I said, "If he did tell the truth," and I do not think he is telling the whole truth. That is not unparliamentary language.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Wilson Heights. I think we all have a flavour of what your real meaning is.
Mr. Rotenberg: If it is not parliamentary to indicate that a member is not telling the whole truth, then I withdraw it.
Mr. Chairman: Fine.
Mr. Grande: Rarely do I bring American research into this Legislature. I think the research we do here should win the day. Therefore, that is why I am talking about Paul Anisef. This gentleman is at the Ontario institute for Studies in Education and these are the recommendations that he makes to the Minister of Education. He says we cannot have equality of educational opportunity in this province until the resources are spent and funding is appropriate to establish good programs in the early years of children's education. If one does not have those kind of programs in the early years, no matter what on earth one does, one will end up spending a pile of money in later years, and this course of action would he a better one.
In the United States, approximately $3.5 billion is spent on a yearly basis in terms of compensatory education. The minister says they are wrong, that money should not be spent. We do not want to spend that kind of money in compensatory education. By the way, there are many different kinds of compensatory education programs. For those children who have participated, those programs do indeed make a difference to the development of that child.
I sometimes feel that the Minister of Education has all this research. Is the Die Cast, by Paul Anisef again. The research done on who goes to the University of Toronto, by John Buttricks. All these people say there is a structural inequality of social class. Once one begins to address that problem, then one understands why financial and other kinds of resources are necessary in order to do the work necessary for those kids. This government perhaps does not subscribe to that. It wants to leave those kids where they are and perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
Mr. Chairman: That is why we have the amendment before us. I am just helping out.
Mr. Martel: Now he is getting closer.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have read it all.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Oakwood has the floor and not the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) or the Minister of Education.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I want to spend the next few minutes on special education. Now that the Minister of Education has Bill 82 in place and has developed expectations across the province, the money is not there to bring them about.
The Minister of Education should know that these particular boards who have said, 'Yes, we will support you on Bill 127," have waiting lists galore of children who need special education services.
In the presentations before the standing committee on general government, there was one by a fellow named Michael Kinani, I believe, who pointed out that in Etobicoke there are 300 to 400 children who are on waiting lists for special education services and special education programs. The brief submitted by lntercomm Parents of North York talked about 7,000 children in North York who need special education programs.
East York board said in committee: "Look, we really do not need any more money to look after our needs. We may need resources, some kind of resources, but not necessarily money." I do not know what kind of resources they were talking about, frankly. That particular board, which does not need extra money, in its services and programs for educating exceptional pupils, talked about -- I want the minister to listen, because I want the minister to do something about these matters --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have read it all.
Mr. Grande: She has read it all; good. What is she doing about it? Does she understand that this particular board was saying they have no waiting lists for special education kids in their board? Does she understand their services and program for educating exceptional children, the activity plan and the costing plan that they supplied to the minister as of May of last year? They say on page 62, "Special education program. behavioural, self-contained: presently there are enough children on waiting lists for behavioural classes to establish immediately two self-contained classes at the primary junior level." They said the total cost for that would be $58,000.
"Special education programs, specific learning disability: -- "on page 63: " -- presently there are enough students on waiting lists for specific learning disability classroom to establish four new classes -- one at the primary level, two at the junior level and one at the intermediate level." They need $17,000 to establish those classes.
Where is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie)? Why is he not doing anything to --
Mr. Chairman: Before supper, we got on to that topic and I called the member to order and said it was not on the amendment, and it is not.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I recall that after I spoke about the Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations he did appear in the Legislature and then disappeared again. I am sure if I talk to him a little while longer, and if the chairman permits me to, he will come back.
Mr. Chairman: I will not permit you.
Mr. Grande: The point is that while the Minister of Education and this government are saying Bill 127 is needed for equality of educational opportunity -- that is the phrase she uses all the time -- none the less, in East York there are children on the waiting list for special education services, and East York supports Bill 127. They say they support Bill 127 because: "Hurray; we will keep our surplus and we will make a bigger and bigger surplus if we can keep it here in East York. while special education kids go unattended."
It is a shame, and this government should be thoroughly disgusted and ashamed of itself for having brought in this bill and for contemplating this bill.
9 p.m.
I will enter the debate on this amendment again. I just want to give other colleagues of mine the opportunity to express their understanding of this bill, the opportunity to express the needs and the wishes of the parents, and the needs and wishes of children in the education system in Metropolitan Toronto.
In summary, if the government moves this section and wins, it will win only because it has a majority in this House. But even though they will win it, they know it is wrong. They know this amendment is there solely for the purpose of those boards of education that want to cut back on programs to kids so that those hoards can keep this money within their confines.
There is no other reason this section is in here, because if there were another reason the minister would never have agreed in committee to change this section and accept my amendment to it. But once the minister reported back to John Tolton and to Charlie Brown, they said to her: "Bette, you had better get this clause back. Otherwise there is not going to be any support for this bill."
Mr. Chairman: No, they said "honourable minister."
Mr. Grande: The minister is obeying them, but in the process she is destroying services to children and she is destroying an education system in Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with that section of the legislation which specifically speaks to the way in which surpluses will be dealt with. My remarks are also going to touch briefly on the fact that deficits, which is the next section, must be considered in the same vein. It is really all part of the same package.
I want to speak on this particular section because it presents such a contradiction. It presents a contradiction in what I have always thought I understood to be the purpose of this government and of this ministry in setting up the Metro board. It presents even an internal contradiction in the legislation itself, and I will touch on that.
We have to understand how this section of the bill affects the whole issue we are talking about. Why did the government of Ontario arrange to set up the Metropolitan Toronto School Board? It was because they believed, and they have continued to say they believe, they wanted a broad base to meet the needs of all the children in Metro, in the city of Toronto, in the city of North York and in the other boroughs.
What does that mean? It means a recognition of the fact that we cannot take any one of those boards in isolation. We do not want to deal with them in a petty, parochial way; rather, we want to consider the needs of the entire area.
The former way of dealing with surpluses and deficits did just that. What it said was that from time to time, from year to year, different parts of Metro had different needs. Sometimes it was the downtown part of the city of Toronto; sometimes the quickly growing portions of North York or sometimes -- as has been expressed by two or three other people before -- it is an area in one of the other boroughs with particular problems. and that was recognized. Therefore, we had a common pot. The understanding was -- and I think very effectively so -- that from time to time some of these boards would generate surpluses, some of them would generate deficits; but if it were all put into the common pot, as the need changed from year to year we could look after those.
Those needs did change from year to year. Since 1967, for example, the city of North York has had a deficit five times, the city of Toronto has had a deficit four times, York borough has had one three times and Scarborough twice. The range across this whole Metro area has indicated those changing needs. They have all benefited at one time or another in having their needs met from the common pot that we saw as Metro. That made sense. It went along with the whole purpose of setting up the Metro board and yet now we are faced with this legislation.
What is the contradiction I talked about? The fact that this particular section in the legislation is totally and completely contrary to the principle I just described. What does it say? It says: "Oh no, we are not going to consider the wide range of Metro. We not going to consider the fact that from time to time different groups of students in different parts of the Metro area are going to have different needs."
Like the broad community spirit that we have in this area, those who had more than they needed would help those who had less than they needed. That is not what this says. This says, "Beggar thy neighbour." Clearly it is narrow, petty parochialism with respect to the needs of children in this area, parents of those children and the boards of education that are trying to meet the needs of those children. This says to each and every board of education: "If you have a deficit, you look after it. If you have a surplus, your taxpayers are going to benefit from it next year. What about some other board of education next to you north, east or west of you? What if they have a need this year that they cannot meet? Tough luck, buddy. We are not concerned about that." That is the contradiction here.
We have to ask ourselves, why would a government and a ministry set up an educational organization structure that was meeting needs very effectively? It was not neat and tidy and not always administratively easy, but it did meet the needs. One of the things many of us in this House have long ago learned is that when one is talking about human needs, including educational needs, they are not always administratively efficient. They are not always neat and tidy, but they have to he met. They have to he met in human terms.
I would strongly suggest that is what we were doing and should continue to do, but that is not what this legislation will do. That is why I for one am opposing it and that is why my colleagues in this party are opposing it. That is why we want this particular section withdrawn.
[Interruption]
The Deputy Chairman: Order, order. There will be no further warnings to the gallery. At the next sign of that the public galleries will be cleared.
Mr. Roy: Easy, Mr. Chairman, easy. It was spontaneous.
The Deputy Chairman: There is no need for it and I ask for no support of that kind of action at all and I have made this ruling. I have given the word before and I give this word now. The next time, this hammer comes down and the galleries will be cleared. I am sorry about the interruption to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I want to take the analysis just a couple of steps further, and I will admit at this point that what I am going to suggest is not likely to happen. Nevertheless, I want the Chairman and my colleagues on the government side of the House to understand why we are opposed to this. What kind of thinking goes behind it'?
If we say that in this broad Metro area we are not going to have a common pot and we are not going to meet needs as they arise from time to time in various areas, then let us carry that thinking a little bit further. We know, for example, that within the city of Toronto itself there are different parts that have needs greater than others. We know there are different parts of the city of Toronto where the socioeconomic grouping is such that different kinds of needs have to be met.
So what is the logical consequence of this kind of thinking? Are we one day going to reach the point -- and the more I think of it, the more I think maybe it is not so silly after all -- where we say that if a certain section of Toronto generates deficits because it is meeting the needs of the children in that area, we are going to put extra taxes on the people living in that area, and if other parts of the city of Toronto, because they do not have the same kinds of needs, generate surpluses with respect to the actual cost of meeting the educational needs of their children, we are going to reduce the taxes of that area?
A silly analogy? In practical terms, maybe, but in terms of the principle of what we are talking about here, no. This is exactly what we are saying. It is this kind of thinking that concerns us every bit as much as this legislation, because if the government of Ontario thinks that way and we do not stand up and object to that kind of thinking, then God only knows what it is going to do next.
It has been suggested that we are concerned unnecessarily. It is all so clear what the minister wants to do, and I assume what the government wants to do, otherwise this bill would not be here. But is it really so clear?
Let me point something out to the Chairman. On May 28, when this bill received first reading before this Legislature, this section read this way with respect to the allocation of those surpluses. It said they will "reduce the apportionment . . . to the area municipality by a portion of the surplus that . . . is not less than" -- please hear those words -- "the amount of the surplus that was raised" by that local municipality. That was May 28.
What happens next? We go into committee. On June 28 we talk about this, and the minister says: "That has implications, maybe, that we really do not want. If it says 'not less than,' that means in fact that it could be more than." That is logical. It could be more than. You could assess to a municipality a reduction in apportionment "more than."
We do not want to do that. So what do we say next? In the June 28 reading of the bill all the other words are the same, but it changes the "not less than" to "is equal to the portion of the surplus." That seems a little fairer. Whatever they happen to generate, they have to pay back or get back. So we have gone from "is less than" to "is equal to." Finally, we have solved the problem.
No, not quite; because on November 16 the Minister of Education introduced in this Legislature another amendment. You know what it says this time? Those same words, "an amount that does not exceed the amount of the surplus."
Wait a minute. Let us follow that through. The first thing the minister asked us to accept was an amount that was not less than. I do not like that. Then she comes along and says. "No, we will change that to an amount equal to." I do not like that one either. Now she has changed it to an amount that does not exceed, or that is greater than.
Mr. Nixon: There is not much left to try.
Mr. Sweeney: As my honourable colleague said, what other option is left? It is either less than, or equal to, or greater than. We have had all of them. The same minister has brought all three amendments and asked us to support them.
We did not support the first or the second one; and I will say right now we are not going to support the third one, because she can change the wording and tell us she is giving more, less or the same, but it all means the same.
Mr. Bradley: If we wait one more month maybe they will change it back again.
Mr. Sweeney: Yes, one of the reasons we want to talk about this is that we figure if we wait long enough the minister will have another version. I cannot quite figure out what it will be, but I think it is almost worth our time, effort and energy just to wait and see what her next version is going to be.
Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do there is a ferment among many parents with respect to education in this province. There are many parents, not just in the Metropolitan Toronto area, not just in the city of Toronto, but across Ontario who are very concerned that the special, unique needs of their children are not being met by this province's public school system.
I am not laying that on any single board and that is why I want to specify that it is true across Ontario. Those parents are concerned for a number of reasons. They are concerned for academic, cultural, linguistic, religious and moral reasons. All across this province we have groups of parents who have stated loudly and clearly: "We are concerned. We are not satisfied. We want an alternative."
How has that alternative been expressed? It has been expressed in two ways. First, a number of school boards in this province -- the city of Toronto has been one in the forefront -- have tried within their own jurisdictions to set up alternative forms of education; yes, even to set up alternative schools in an attempt, albeit in a small way but nevertheless in an honest attempt, to meet those different kinds of needs. They still have a long way to go but at least an attempt was made. That is one way.
The other way is that a number of parents have banded together and set up their own alternative school totally at their own expense. There is not a member in this Legislature who does not know this particular pattern has grown very significantly over the last eight to nine years. What does it tell us? Surely it tells us there is a need to provide for differences. There is a need to meet the expectations of parents in different ways.
I had the opportunity on Monday and Tuesday of this week, along with colleagues from the government party and the New Democratic Party, to meet with a group of people in Mississauga and to look at this whole question. We were gratified and pleased that among those who joined us was the current chairman of the Toronto Board of Education. We discussed this whole question. That chairman made it very clear to us that she and her board wanted to do far more than they were able to do now to meet those different kinds of needs.
9:20 p.m.
It was also notable at the conference that the majority of people, including those who at present are operating alternative and independent schools, stated clearly that they would much prefer, if they could, to operate them with the co-operation of the local public board of education. That was a rare sense of commonality. Here was the chairman of, I believe, the largest public school board in Ontario saying, "We want to meet your needs." Here were a group of parents who, for any number of reasons, have gone away from the public school and set up their own alternative schools, saying, "We would prefer to work with you."
Yet what are we doing? What are we doing in this Legislature if we allow this legislation to pass? We are saying. "A pox on both of you." That is how much respect we really have for the wishes and the expectations of those parents when we mouth, through other ministries of this government, that the family comes first, the parent is the first educator and the parent has the right to decide the needs of his or her child.
We say that through one ministry of this government, and the minister knows which one I am referring to. On the other hand, we bring in this kind of legislation that makes it impossible for that to happen. We say, very clearly, and this government has said clearly over the years, "We will not provide any financial assistance to those parents who choose to set up their own alternative form of education."
All right. I recognize that is the political and philosophical position of the government. It has the right to hold that position. At the same time, what it is saying by this to public school boards, such as the Toronto Board of Education, that want to meet those special kinds of needs and are willing to work with those kinds of parents, is, "You shall not do it." I do not know what the legal term is. My colleague the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) may be able to tell me. but I think it is called double jeopardy.
What the government is saying to the parents of this province is: "If you keep your kids in the public school and try to meet their special needs we are going to interfere with that. If you pull them out of the public school and try to meet them that way, do not expect a penny from us." Is that not just great? Does that not make the parents of the kids of this province feel just great? Should we be surprised, my colleagues and friends in this Legislature? No, I do not think so, because that is the Tory way. The Tory way is to level. The Tory way is to say that everybody shall be treated the same.
That is the great equality principle of the governing party of Ontario. That is exactly what it is doing here, so why should we be surprised? The government practices what it preaches I will give it credit for that -- not that it helps very much, but at least it is consistent with the political philosophy of this party.
We know there are many parents outside the metropolitan area who are concerned about this legislation almost as much, and in some cases perhaps just as much, as the parents within Metropolitan Toronto and within the city of Toronto. The minister seems to be at a loss to understand why. She keeps saying over and over again: "It does not affect anyone else or anywhere except Metropolitan Toronto. Why are parents in Kitchener, Ottawa, Windsor, London, North Bay, Sudbury, St. Catharines, concerned about this? I am not talking to them." I will tell her why.
Interjection.
Mr. Sweeney: Darned right they are. Did the minister see the number of petitions we presented in this House? Did she see the petitions coming from every single member in these benches? Darned right they are concerned. They are concerned because they see through the minister's veil. They see what she is really trying to do with this legislation. They see what she is really saying with this legislation. They see she is saying: "We are not going to pay attention to those special needs. We are going to level everybody down. Everybody is going to be treated the same, no matter what their needs are. That is the principle and the philosophy behind this. That is why the minister is getting objections to it, not just from Metro but also from the rest of this province.
Mr. Riddell: I won a by-election based on the government's imposition of regional government. That is what this is. It is the first step to regional government in education.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The honourable member is speaking to the motion.
Mr. Sweeney: The government may also say: "Trust us. We would not do a thing like that to you. Trust us." Let us go back and take a look at the record. In addition to the principle, this also means dollars and cents. That is also what is behind this, the fact that this government has not funded education in this province at the elementary and secondary levels in the way it promised it would.
Back in 1968 and 1969, this government and the Minister of Education of the day made a commitment to the parents, the students, the school boards and the teachers of this province. The commitment was that it would fund 60 per cent of the cost of elementary and secondary education on a provincial average and that the local tax base would fund 40 per cent. That commitment was kept up to 1975. And then what happened? Every single year since then that commitment has dropped, from 61 per cent, to 58 per cent, to 55 per cent, to 53 per cent; and most recently to 51 per cent.
Is it any wonder we have a problem in this province with education? No, it is no wonder. Do we know what the cause of that problem is? Darned right we know, and everyone else outside knows as well. They know the second reason this was brought in is because the government cannot keep that commitment. No, let me put it another way: it will not keep that commitment. and this is the way it is going to partially solve that problem. We have indicated very clearly why we are opposed to this legislation and why we are opposed to subsection 6(4). It contains the heart and kernel of what it is all about. If the minister is prepared to do that, she is prepared to do anything. That is what we are concerned about.
We are telling the minister right now we are going to oppose this in every way we can. That is why we are here. That is why we are speaking to it. We are concerned about education in this province. We are not concerned about administrative efficiency. We are quite prepared to take education that is not neat and tidy. What we want is education that is human, meets human needs, meets children's needs, and this legislation does not do it.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I want to take the minister back to the speech she gave to the St. David Progressive Conservative Association on June 22, 1982. This speech, entitled Bill 127 and Heritage Languages, was published by the Ministry of Education, but was delivered to the St. David Progressive Conservative Association with the note that additional copies of the reprint were available from the communications services of the Ontario Ministry of Education. That is the kind of service we have come to expect from this government a mix of the partisan with the governmental, which apparently is now par for the course.
9:30 p.m.
I want to take the minister back to that speech. because there are some things she says in it which indicate the total contradiction of what she is doing. It reveals that what is happening here, particularly with this section, is fundamentally a partisan attack on the Toronto Board of Education. It is an attempt by the minister to force the quality of education and educational funding down and to reduce the level to the lowest common denominator. That is the purpose of this bill. That is what the bill is all about.
First of all, the minister says: "Quite simply, Bill 127 is designed to bring the community together. rather than permit it to continue to drift apart." I think the galleries tonight indicate just how well the minister has succeeded in this task. Bill 127 has indeed brought the community together, perhaps in a way that the minister did not quite anticipate, but, nevertheless, she has managed to accomplish what a great many other people have tried to do but failed.
She then goes on to say that she wants to tell the nonpartisan audience that was gathered in the Rosedale Public School to listen to the minister talk about the quality of education in Toronto --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: They were not all members of the St. David PC Association, I can tell you.
Mr. Rae: Well, it is the Rosedale Public School and St. David Progressive Conservative Association.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: There were a lot of other people there.
Mr. Rae: I do not know what other people were there. I am sure they were there just out of interest.
The minister said: "First, however, let me tell you something about the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. As you know, it was established to distribute financial resources in order to provide all young people in Metro with equal access and opportunity in education."
She said unless the Legislature passes the amendments which have been proposed and which are incorporated in Bill 127, "this is why the Metro and area boards have asked for amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, and without these amendments, I believe we might as well wave goodbye to the Metro school board."
There are a great many people here who would far rather wave goodbye to the Metro school board and have real local autonomy in education than have the kind of two-tiered monstrosity, with the worst of both worlds, which the minister is going to be imposing on the citizens of Metro Toronto with Bill 127.
I would rather stand with John Robarts and the position he took in the royal commission on Metro Toronto in 1977. Even the late former Premier recognized that the two-tiered monstrosity had the worst of both worlds, combining the inefficiency and unfairness of a large bureaucracy without any of the democratic accountability that goes to small boards. That is why, in the 1977 report, Premier Robarts called for an end to the Metro system and an increase in local autonomy.
Instead of that this government has done the exact opposite in terms of local autonomy. They have taken away local autonomy with respect to the local levy and local bargaining in this legislation. The one sop they say they have thrown to local autonomy is the sections of the bill we are considering tonight and the amendments we are considering tonight on surpluses and deficits.
I want people to hear exactly what the minister had to say about surpluses and deficits, and why there was a crisis in Metropolitan Toronto, to get a sense of just how partial is her account of the events of the last 10 years. For example, she said the reason there has to be a major change, the reason the government feels it has to move Bill 127 in order to increase the power of the Metro board, to increase the centralization and the amount of bureaucracy, is that relations between the different boroughs have deteriorated.
She blames that entirely on the Toronto Board of Education. They are the villain in the piece. Why are they the villain in the piece? According to the minister, it is because there is a number of New Democrats who are on the school board. That is the extent of her vision and point of view.
When one cuts out all the malarkey around this bill and takes out all the contradictory justifications that have been made: for example, she says she is in favour of local autonomy, that is why she is getting rid of local bargaining; she says she wants to increase local autonomy, that is why she is getting rid of the local levy. It does not make any sense. Then she says, "We want to increase access and fairness throughout the system." As the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) quite rightly pointed out, the major contradiction is there. If that is true, then why have this nonsense with respect to surpluses and deficits which set borough against borough and the city of Toronto against other boroughs? That is one of the most divisive things one can stick into this legislation.
The fact of the matter is, as she says, "The reason for this is because in recent years the Toronto Board of Education has discovered a bright side to deficit financing. The way it is worked is that the Toronto board accumulates the deficits and the other boards have collectively picked up the tab."
I thought the minister had a sense of history and a modicum of fairness in terms of her analysis and ability to understand what the history of the last few years in Metro Toronto has been. I want to point out, for example, in 1974 there were four boroughs which ran up a deficit -- the boroughs of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York. Did Toronto run up a deficit in 1974? No. Did the government introduce legislation that would have taken away the right to run up local surpluses and deficits? No.
Then we go into 1976: North York and Scarborough that year joined by Toronto; 1977, nobody ran a deficit; 1978, nobody ran a deficit; 1979 -- look at this -- the borough of North York a deficit of more than $2 million, the borough of York a deficit of $112,000, the city of Toronto a surplus of $37,000.
Where was the minister or her predecessor in 1979, marching down into this Legislature and saying. "Come on, it is time for a change. North York has been getting off easy for too long and living high off the hog for too long." Why did the minister not come in and say there was a political party that had gained control of the North York Board of Education and it was time to bring them to heel? I will tell members why. It was because they were all Tories up there at that time. That is the long and short of it. That is all it comes down to.
In 1980, North York again was the villain, $869,000, joined I admit by the city of Toronto; in 1981, the city of Toronto had a deficit of $1.6 million and the borough of York $1.2 million.
It is completely false for the minister to portray, as she did to the St. David riding association, that there is somehow one villain in the piece which for the last 10 years has been responsible for completely unbalancing surpluses, deficits and relative expenditures in Metropolitan Toronto. It is a completely and totally wrong impression to leave with the listeners at the St. David riding association.
I hope very much she will take the message back the next time she visits the St. David Progressive Conservative Association and clear up that misunderstanding. I know she would not want to misrepresent the full facts to that group of worthy individuals. We certainly do not want to see them wandering the streets of Toronto with false ideas in their heads of any kind whatsoever.
Mr. Breaugh: Wending their way down to the park.
Mr. Rae: Wending their way down wherever they may go.
I think it is worth pointing out again, as my colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) has pointed out, that we went quite a long way in the committee, as did the Liberal Party, on the question of surpluses and deficits. I and my party are prepared to be consistent. If we believe in local autonomy, greater accountability, a steady phasing out of the Metro school boards bureaucratic, centralizing and inefficient power and its lack of accountability as we do believe it to be, then we are prepared to say fine, there should be some accountability for surpluses and deficits.
9:40 p.m.
That is the kind of amendment moved by my colleague, the member for Oakwood. That is the kind of amendment we thought we had agreement from the government on. We thought it would allow some recognition of surpluses and deficits, but at the same time allow a recognition of the relative contribution in terms of taxes of each of the municipalities to the Metropolitan area.
We thought it would provide some level of fairness, not simply an incentive to cut back, not simply an incentive to be cheap about programs, not simply an incentive to provide less for those children who need more and who are not getting more and who will be getting even less as a result of this government's programs and policies. They will be getting less particularly as a result of Bill 127.
That was accepted originally. In fact, it was incorporated even by the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean), who was acting as part of what he described as the "dog and pony act." I do not know what part he thought he was playing in the dog and pony act; I am sure we could all ascribe some particular role to him but I would not want to do that.
From my reading of the committee minutes, as to what was said and what was agreed to, there was some understanding from all parties that people were prepared to compromise and to indicate their understanding and their support for the basic position we were trying to take in that regard. But not even that was recognized by the minister, because she simply does not want to listen. She does not want to give an inch, does not want to budge a centimetre from the direction she is determined to take.
It is not a direction that has anything to do with the quality of education. It is not a direction that has anything to do with fairness in Metropolitan Toronto. It is a direction that has to do with increasing political control, which her department and the bureaucrats at the Metro school board will now be able to exercise over all the children in all of education in Metropolitan Toronto. That is what this bill is all about.
I had occasion, together with the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), and have had occasions since then in a number of other ways, to not only visit schools but to talk to teachers and parents and to see what the reality is in terms of programs. All of this question of surplus and deficit has very much to do with one's attitude to program.
I do not think we are out of step with the majority of people in this province. In fact, if one looks at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education survey and reads through it very carefully, one will see just how much we are in step with the people of this province.
We do not think teachers should be fired. We do not think funding should be cut. We do not think classes in English as a second language should be cut. We do not think class sizes should be enlarged. We do not think reading clinics should be cut out. But this is exactly what is going to happen as a result of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman: We are speaking to the amendment.
Mr. Rae: As a result of the amendment, Mr. Chairman --
Mr. Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Rae: -- which as I am sure you realize, sir, is very much part of the legislative program of this government.
The minister says: "No, no."
It is too had the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) has gone. Under the circumstances, I am sorry he has gone; in other senses, of course, one would feel slightly differently; but in one sense alone I am sorry he is gone, because I would like him to hear.
The Tories want to have the best of both worlds. They want to be able to bring in a program that is going to strangle funding for education, that is going to put extraordinary pressure on the property tax in many parts of Metro. It is going to have a major impact I and many others believe, certainly those who are affected -- on the rights of local autonomy. In the words of the minister, it is going to have the effect of closing schools. She has said that on the floor of this Legislature, that it is going to have the effect of closing schools.
The Chairman: Never mind that.
Mr. Rae: The Tories do not want to listen to that, Mr. Chairman. They do not want to listen to all the unpleasant things. They believe nothing unpleasant is going to follow from this; they believe we can have the kind of neo-Conservative nonsense that takes away from services and that simply cuts back on services and cuts back on education; but we are not allowed to say that is what they are doing.
In fact, if some body like the Toronto School Board starts talking about it, they say: "Oh, now you are turning this into a political issue." Good heavens, what a terrible thing for people to do -- to turn the underfunding of education into a political issue. What else does it become when the Minister of Education makes this a political and a partisan issue in terms of --
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the member to try to stay within the realm of the amendment.
Mr. Rae: I would like to return very directly to the amendment. There is the critical background, the backdrop against which this shift by the minister has to be understood in terms of programs and in terms of the completely contradictory approach. She says they are in favour of local autonomy, but they are not because we know the major impact this is going to have is a centralizing one. One has to go beyond Metro to understand why there is this fight between the boroughs and the city of Toronto.
It is being encouraged and played to by the Conservative government. The reason is simply that the level of funding from the province to education in Metropolitan Toronto, as to education throughout the province, has been dwindling in real terms, in relative terms and in absolute terms. That has been pointed out by my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot.
In 1975, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board had gross expenditures of $593 million, of which provincial grants made up $197 million, the Metro tax levy made up $379,933,000, and other $16 million. Remember that figure, Mr. Chairman, $197 million. Write it down because it is an important figure.
Mr. Chairman: I have it.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I want you to remember the inflationary years that followed. I want you to remember what happened to the price of bread and the price of milk. I want you to remember what happened to the price of services and what happened to salaries. Let us go through and look at them: 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981. Are you listening, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Rae: We go from provincial grants worth $197 million in 1975 to provincial grants worth $194,400,000 in 1981.
Mr. Chairman: Do you mean it has gone down?
Mr. Rae: You have it, Mr. Chairman. You hit it right on the head. You got it right the first time. Go to the front of the class. There is no need for you to take mathematics as a second language, Mr. Chairman; you have done very well.
At the same time, the Metro tax levy rose from $379,933,000 to $752,340,000. Did you get that?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Rae: That is a substantial increase, nearly double. At the same time the provincial grant was going down by over $2 million, the Metro tax levy was nearly doubling, increasing by nearly $400 million. That is the background. That is the true history. That is the story. That is the Hamlet of this piece. That is what the play is all about.
This is not an issue simply of setting boroughs against cities and cities against boroughs. This is not simply a question of local surpluses and local deficits. This is a story about a government which has lost a commitment to education and which is setting every local municipality against other local municipalities as they compete for scarce tax dollars. It is a government which has lost its commitment to raising taxes fairly, to spending taxes fairly and to providing quality.
I put those figures into the record because I am convinced one can only understand what Bill 127 is all about if one understands two things. First, this government is not committed, and the record shows it is not committed, to providing the really fair funding that is going to guarantee equality of access. How can the minister give a speech talking about equality of access to education and quality of education and the need to provide for equality for all our children?
How could she say that on the one hand when, on the other hand, the till has been closed? There is no money coming from the province in increasing terms as far as Metropolitan Toronto is concerned over the last six years. How can she say that? She cannot say it. That is what makes the government's position, if I may use the word, so dishonest.
9:50 p.m.
But the other thing that is happening here -- and I want simply to repeat it -- is that we are now getting the worst of both worlds in all of Metropolitan Toronto. You know, I find it ironic coming from a minister whom I always thought of as having some sort of small-l liberal beliefs in local autonomy, some kind of neoconservative sense of wanting to give more responsibility to individuals and to small groups of people, somebody whom I always associated -- obviously mistakenly -- with that sense of wanting to restore individual autonomy and responsibility.
I say these things because when I was called to the bar a few short years ago, the Minister of Education was the person who spoke at that ceremony. I remember her words very well about the importance of maintaining individual autonomy in a world that is becoming increasingly impersonal. I find it passing ironic that this minister would be responsible for more centralizing and more bureaucratizing of education than one can imagine.
If one puts Bill 127 next to --
Mr. Chairman: Wait a minute. Order.
Mr. Rae: I am talking about the amendment.
Mr. Chairman: Well, convince me a little bit.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is central to the bill; the question of surpluses and deficits is central to the bill. I believe you cannot understand Bill 127 without coming to grips with this amendment and you cannot understand this amendment without coming to grips with Bill 127. I know that is hard for you.
Interjections.
Mr. Rae: I think it is understandable. Logic 100, Mr. Chairman. I think you could get through it. You did very well on the math; there is no reason you could not score on the logic.
There is this irony that what the minister is doing is combining the worst of two worlds. She is combining the world of cutbacks, where wealthier boroughs and other boroughs will be encouraged to save money at the expense of programs and where those boroughs in those cities that want to spend will not he encouraged to spend, and she is doing this at the same time as she is centralizing control, increasing bureaucracy and decreasing the amount of accountability that people have in education.
Hon. Mr. Norton: Following your call to the bar, you want to get a little practical experience in the real world or you would not say that.
Mr. Rae: I can understand why the Minister of the Environment is excited.
Hon. Mr. Norton: Excited? I am not excited.
Mr. Rae: Well, you sounded awfully excited. I could be wrong, but when somebody shouts over at me --
Mr. Norton: I am just shocked at your naiveté.
Mr. Rae: Those are very tough words.
Hon. Mr. Norton: You live in a fantasy world.
Mr. Rae: The world of 127 should be a fantasy world, and it is a fantasy that should come to an end very quickly indeed.
Mr. Chairman: All right, all right.
Mr. Rae: But the hard fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman --
Hon. Mr. Norton: You have no confidence in local politicians at all. That is what you are telling this Legislature: that you do not believe in local autonomy.
Mr. Rae: Control yourself. Take some toxaphene; you will feel much better in the morning. I will tell you what it is in a while.
That is what the story of this bill is all about. The story of this bill is about cutbacks and about rewarding those who cut back. That is what this amendment is all about: rewarding those who cut back at the expense of providing for those who are in need.
I say that if the minister is going to do that, she should at least do it fairly, as has been proposed by my colleague the member for Oakwood. If she is going to do that with respect to surpluses or deficits, let her go whole hog with respect to local autonomy and restore the integrity of the local levy and of local bargaining. Then we might be back to a place that was fairer and provided for accountability and autonomy, rather than the kind of inefficient, bureaucratic, unfair monstrosity that is going to be created by this bill.
Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, as I am my party's representative for Toronto, I would like to compliment the parents and the school trustees who are here today. They have been here day after day because they object to the minister's bill and that is something to be said.
I wonder whether the minister really understands what has taken place here, especially when she stepped into the world of Bill 127 and the amendment which might prove to be her banana peel. If the smoke clears and when everything is said and done, this abomination might come to light. The question really is whether in Metro Toronto there will be a sharing of surpluses and deficits, or whether the historic relationship in Metro will be destroyed. That speaks directly to this amendment and I, like the member for York South (Mr. Rae), think this is very central to the argument.
Subsection 6(4) is designed really to confuse and obfuscate the fact that cutbacks have taken place and will take place. The historic significance is that from 33.9 per cent in 1975 to 19.7 per cent in 1981 and now to less than about 16 per cent is what this bill is going to promulgate.
I am very happy to see that some other members opposite from the city of Toronto have come in. I have a question for them. Where were the backbones of the members opposite who represent Toronto ridings in the inner sanctums of cabinet when this decision was made and this discussion took place?
Mr. Chairman: And we would like to know where they are in the amendment, remember?
Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to know where they are on this amendment and I would also like to know where they are on Bill 127. We know there are some members, not only on this side but even on the government side, who speak up and write and say to their constituents --
Interjection.
Mr. Ruprecht: That is right. How did the Chairman know that? It is very interesting. But that is precisely what happened. I am very happy he is informed but I am not sure some of the other members are informed of this. They are not only unhappy about this amendment, they are not happy about Bill 127.
What I would like to know is, if they had written this to their constituents -- and we all know they have done so -- then is there not something to be said for honesty, integrity, truth and backbone stability to support their decision? What happened to those members opposite when the crunch came, when decisions were being made and when the minister decided to change her mind? The letters were sent to their constituents on this very subject, since it is central to the argument, but went by the wayside and the promises were not kept.
I could give the minister a whole litany of what kinds of promises have not been kept. The biggest promise was made by the minister herself. The promise we all know she made to the whole city of Toronto, to the school boards and to all the people who have come in good faith to the hearings when this was discussed, was that she would take back subsection 6(4) that we find today. She said, and I have the quote here: "If we amend" -- this is a quote directly to this subject --
Interjection.
Mr. Ruprecht: I know the minister does not like to hear that. I know the members opposite do not like to be reminded of the promises they make that are not kept.
10 p.m.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I could not care less. It was not a promise.
Mr. Ruprecht: If it was not a promise, then what was it?
Mr. Chairman: I think even I can remember you repeating that. You are becoming repetitive.
Mr. Ruprecht: It is a very good thing you remember. I only wish the minister would remember the kinds of things she has said and promised. That is precisely my point; she went back on this promise. She said, "If we amend that portion that has already been amended by the change of the wording in the last three lines:
'has jurisdiction by an amount that, in the opinion of the school board, is equal to the portion of the surplus that was raised by local taxation in the area municipality'. Then the member for Oakwood said: "I am satisfied. That deals with the concerns and the arguments I have presented."
That promise she made was passed by everyone at the committee stage. The people presenting their arguments were a cross-section of the people of Toronto. They were not simply teachers or members of the school board. They were parents and those directly affected by the abomination of this bill. When the smoke cleared and everyone had left, when we were among ourselves to discuss this very matter, the promises that had been made in front of all these people and all the different committees were changed.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: We were among ourselves when we did it.
Mr. Ruprecht: The minister knows precisely what happened on this specific point of surpluses and deficits. What happened was that, like a bolt of lightning in the night, she did not really inform us, but after everyone had gone, happy with the amendments and the promises she had made, we suddenly had thrown at our feet that the minister had changed her mind again and was back again, as stubborn as ever, to her old concept of not sharing deficits and surpluses.
Mr. Chairman, I call to your attention that promise was not kept. We all realize the reason she should have kept the promise is because she should know the needs of Toronto are different. She knows that when I went on a tour with the member for York South, we saw at first hand what the needs really were when we went to the classrooms.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry I was not there.
Mr. Bradley: Where was the minister then?
Mr. Ruprecht: She has never gone there. She went to Ryerson school and she went to Parkdale school in my riding. She did not even inform me that she went into the school in my own riding. That would have been very nice.
The Deputy Chairman: The member will speak to the motion.
Mr. Ruprecht: It would have been very nice if the minister had given me the courtesy of saying she was going into my riding.
The Deputy Chairman: The member is getting himself off track. Do not be distracted.
Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, I thought --
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: The member will address his remarks to the motion on the floor.
Interjection.
Mr. Ruprecht: The member thinks that is funny and he knows it is not true. Obviously that is not the point at stake here.
The Deputy Chairman: The member will quickly address himself to the motion.
Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to contain myself when I hear these kinds of remarks.
The Deputy Chairman: Do not be diverted.
Mr. Ruprecht: The point really has to be made, and I think most of us would agree, that the needs in the city of Toronto are different. When the minister understands the needs of Toronto are different, there is only one way for her to go and that is to withdraw this amendment and this whole nonsense of Bill 127.
If she had indeed gone, as she says, to schools and talked to teachers, students and principals and to parents who are affected, there is only one way out for her in an honourable way, and that is to withdraw this bill. We are asking her to do that tonight. If she cannot do that and she withdraws this amendment which is essential to the bill, then I can only say, and I do not wish to use unparliamentary language, she does not understand the full flavour of what she is proposing.
If she were to go to those schools and talk to all those people, I do not see how she could come away from those places without having a red face, because that is what she ought to have. She should be ashamed to introduce that kind of situation when she knows what some of the basic needs are, some of the basic and different problems in the city of Toronto.
When the minister says she has grandchildren in school, I would like to know whether she is sending those grandchildren of hers to Toronto schools or to schools in other boroughs. I would like to find out if she sends her grandchildren to schools in the city of Toronto. I would really understand her point of view then. If they are in another school and if she does not pay much attention to some of the schools in the city of Toronto, and especially the special needs, I can only shake my head and say she should withdraw the bill.
The minister says this is not the case when this section is introduced. Every member on this side of the House has said the introduction of this amendment and the introduction of Bill 127 mean a cutback in programs, but she says they do not. Every member on this side of the House is saying the introduction of Bill 127 and this specific amendment mean cutbacks in funding. Her answer is "No." We maintain the introduction of Bill 127 means some of the schools will be closed. What is her answer? Her answer is "No."
I cannot for the life of me understand why, when every member on this side of the House says the answer is "Yes," she still maintains the answer is "No." On top of that, there are some members in her own party who represent the city of Toronto and some state publicly that the answer is "Yes," but the minister still maintains the answer is "No."
We can only come to one conclusion, that this minister is battling and maintaining a vendetta against the city of Toronto and its school board for maintaining excellent programs and a good educational policy. I know the minister does not want to listen to this. I know she pretty well stands alone.
Mr. Brandt: No, she does not and you know it.
Mr. Ruprecht: I maintain she pretty well stands alone. I do not see the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) here. I know the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) does not represent the city of Toronto.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member is becoming a little repetitious, although he is speaking primarily to the motion.
Mr. Ruprecht: It can stand repetition. The member for Sarnia only has to turn around two places to his right and he can find the answer to my question.
Mr. Gillies: That is not true.
Mr. Ruprecht: He can turn two places to the left and find another answer which is "Yes."
The Deputy Chairman: The member will speak to the motion.
Interjections.
Mr. Ruprecht: That is the point. The point is this bill is being railroaded and this section is being railroaded. What we want to know is, what is the cost their own members have to maintain? What is the cost of this railroading that their members will have to pay?
I know what this cost is. The cost will be to the Progressive Conservative Party in the next election because this bill, and this specific section which is central to the bill, absolutely stands by itself. It maintains the minister is wrong. The minister is wrong because every person I have talked to in the city of Toronto --
Hon. Mr. Drea: All two of them.
Mr. Ruprecht: Every person.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
10:10 p.m.
Mr. Ruprecht: I want to say that every person who has come before the committee that I was sitting on -- and the minister was not there -- every person from the city of Toronto without one exception, every member, every parent, every representative, every school board trustee who has appeared on this bill from the city of Toronto has said unanimously that he or she disagrees with this bill and their answer is yes, they are being adversely affected by this bill.
If some of the members opposite were listening to what some of the parents had to say when they appeared on Bill 127, and on this section as well, they would find that to a man this was the case. We would like to knew where the minister gets her advice on this section. Where does she get the advice when she made the promise that changes a section, and then she comes back and changes her mind again? We would like to know where she gets the advice.
Hon. Mr. Norton: I'll bet you haven't even read the amendment.
Mr. Ruprecht: Perhaps the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) gives her the advice.
This is Bill 127, and this is subsection 6(4) and it speaks specifically to the central point of this bill, which is whether sharing deficits and surpluses is going to take place in Toronto. That is the basic issue in this question.
Interjection.
The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member has raised a question and the minister wants to answer it.
Mr. Ruprecht: If the Minister of the Environment read the section instead of interrupting on a consistent basis, and if he were to listen to some of his own members he would change his mind and so would the minister.
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Parkdale has the floor and is allowing himself to listen to these interruptions and now is going to address himself to the amendment. I ask that these interruptions cease.
Mr. Ruprecht: The Minister of the Environment has heard from me before about the Junction triangle. He is trying to intimidate me on this specific bill, but he knows we have truth and justice on our side. By his obfuscating on this bill, by confusing everyone with his interjections. we are not getting any closer to the truth.
The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member who has the floor will speak to the motion.
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
I do not know how many times the Chairman has to say "Order," or how loudly he has to do it to cause this honourable House to give the member for Parkdale the attention he deserves. He has the floor.
Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to find out where this honourable minister is getting advice. Is she getting advice from the member for High Park- Swansea (Mr. Shymko)?
The Deputy Chairman: I am asking you, as an honourable member, to speak to the motion.
Mr. Ruprecht: Let me point out that this particular section is quite exact when on the side it says, "Reduction of apportionment." That is precisely the point: it is a reduction, it is a cutback.
Hon. Mr. Norton: Do you know what you are talking about?
Mr. Ruprecht: Sure, we do not know what we are talking about. When has the minister ever said any one of us here knows what we are talking about?
Hon. Mr. Norton: The honourable member is out to lunch.
Mr. Ruprecht: Of course we are out to lunch.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Ruprecht: The section is easy to understand. Even the Minister of the Environment can understand. He may not get through it to find out what the section really means because he does not have any kids here in Toronto. He is not sending anybody to school here; he is not cutting any classes; he is not increasing class sues; he is not closing any schools. That is precisely the point: he does not want to know what this bill means for the city of Toronto: he does not what to know that.
When we went on our tour, we found out what this means. If the Minister of Education says schools do not have to be closed, classes do not have to be cut and programs do not have to be reduced, if none of these has to take place, why is it that every single person in the school, from the principal to the students, believes differently? Why is it that every member who speaks on this side of the House disagrees with her? Is it because we are all wrong? Is it because we are brainwashed and do not understand? Is it because we do not read? Of course not; it is because the government does not want to know the truth about how this bill affects Toronto.
What it means is that one class I was visiting in Toronto will have to be cut at Ryerson. English as a second language programs will be reduced. People who have reading disabilities will have their classes reduced. That is precisely what we are talking to. That is what sharing deficits and surpluses really means: it means programs are going to be cut. The minister says "No." I cannot for the life of me understand why she says that.
Let me continue. We all know that subsection 6(4) is a blunder. It restricts education, provides for no imagination and basically destroys our future because it destroys the future of our kids.
Mr. Chairman, you may remember that we in this province go outside the country to Britain and other places to hire people because we cannot find workers to man our machines and do contracting work. We have to go abroad because our own kids are not trained properly. This bill is adding to the demise of the future of Ontario because it adds to the demise of the kids of Ontario.
This government has gone abroad to hire people to work in this province. It is about time the Minister of Education instituted programs here, not cutbacks, that will maintain these facilities so our own people can find work in this province.
The Robarts commission said in 1977 that the Metro board should be closed. Yet, as we have heard before, this minister has done the exact opposite by strengthening the Metro board. The government has strengthened those people in the boroughs who see themselves as representatives of taxpayers. There are city trustees who see themselves as representatives of parents. We are on the side of the parents and the city trustees. The result is that in the city of Toronto we have excellent education. That is proved by the member for Oakwood, who is a product of the Toronto school board.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Are you?
Mr. Ruprecht: The minister is getting personal. This minister really aggravates me. She is also aggravating --
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: when the member for Parkdale told the minister that the member for Oakwood is a product of the Toronto school board, the minister replied. "Are you?" Is that not a slur, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is asking a question a slur?
Mr. Foulds: It was not meant that way.
Mr. Breaugh: It is marginal.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) says it is marginal. I will fall on the side of its not being a point of order.
10:20 p.m.
Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, we are now being taught in our own schools some of the finer Shakespearian lines. As this minister --
Mr. Grande: On a point or order, Mr. Chairman: I did not hear what the member for Parkdale said, but do I understand he said that I am a product of the educational system here in Toronto?
Interjection.
Mr. Grande: Partially.
Mr. Chairman: Wait a minute. It is not question period, but let us straighten it out.
The member for Parkdale, are we in trouble with this guy? What is the problem?
Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, if the member --
Interjections.
Mr. Ruprecht: No, I mean if the member for Oakwood takes exception to the point, and the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) as well, then I think the member can tell us very well what system he is a product of. That is fine with me. I just thought it was the city of Toronto.
Mr. Grande: I would be more than happy to, Mr. Chairman. I am a product of both the Italian and the Canadian systems.
Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, there is one thing we should realize. The constant interruption by the Minister of Education really plays right into the hands of one Shakespearian line. Given a little brief authority, she "plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven as make the angels weep." But she does not understand the very product she is making by this bill. She is not only making the angels weep, she is making me weep because she does not seem to understand the implications of Bill 127.
When we were before the standing committee on general government, we heard from a lot of people. I want to give an example of the kind of people who appeared before the general government committee just from my own riding, of how many people are upset and concerned about this bill. I want to mention who appeared and the kind of representations they made when they came to speak before the committee.
We had the Area West Parents' Council from my riding, the Parkdale Parents' Association --
Mr. Chairman: With great respect, I see you could read all the organizations into the record, but you are not speaking to the amendment.
Mr. Ruprecht: I am. These people have objected to this bill and this particular section.
Mr. Chairman: It makes for interesting conversation --
Interjections.
Mr. Ruprecht: The point is simply this. I am going to keep on reading who appeared from my own area of Parkdale.
We had the Parkdale Parents' Association and the Howard School Parent Teacher Association. We had objecting to this section of the bill, the Shirley Public School Parent-Teacher Association --
Hon. Mr. Norton: Come on, back to the amendment.
Mr. Ruprecht: That is part of the amendment. We had the Perth Avenue Public School Parents Association, the Brock Avenue Public School Parent-Teacher Association, the Hughes Public School Parent Teacher Association, and spokespeople from every walk of life. They all objected to this particular section of the bill and the bill itself.
It is clear, when one has this broad spectrum of the population from my very own riding of Parkdale represented, that at least you, Mr. Chairman, will get an idea, as will the members opposite, because it is they who finally have to make a decision -- and you too, Mr. Chairman, will have to make a decision -- when we come to vote tomorrow on this very bill. I want to indicate --
Interjection.
Mr. Ruprecht: That is right, tomorrow.
I want to indicate that this is really our last chance to persuade anyone on the other side to break ranks from this steamroller that is pushing people into voting for Bill 127. I think it is time for the government members to understand they should have enough backbone not to back this minister, not to back this steamroller or this specific amendment.
This amendment is central to the argument. Those people have a right to defeat this amendment and this bill and that is why they should listen carefully, because we only have a few hours to convince them. They laugh, show derision and think it is funny. That is the kind of thing people in Toronto do not expect of them. They expect them to take this seriously.
Those people expect those members to listen not only to the minister but to the members of their own party who represent this area, and especially to that member who comes from outside Toronto. He should also know we not only have people in Toronto objecting to Bill 127, but we have people even from Sarnia and from every other part of Ontario. Does he know that? He did not know that. Let me convince him.
Mr. Brandt: Name one person.
Mr. Ruprecht: Let me convince him -- Liberal background notes. I want him to know people came to object to this amendment. They came from his riding; they came from Ottawa, from Windsor and from almost every part of Ontario. They came and they objected.
Interjection.
Mr. Ruprecht: I know. That is right. I know he would not like me to say this, because he wants to shut his ears and put his blinkers on and only listen and believe what the minister may tell him. I do not know what promises she has made to him to vote for this bill, what promises the minister has made to other members of caucus and what promises she has made to the members from Metropolitan Toronto who will have to take the brunt. They will have to face the people of Toronto. We would like to know what promises were made to the member for High Park-Swansea and the member for St. George (Ms. Fish).
Mr. Chairman: Wrap it up. Let us go back to the amendment, Come on, finish in snappy style.
Mr. Ruprecht: We only have a short time to convince them and to convince the Chairman when he goes back to his seat to vote for this specific amendment.
I want the member for Sarnia to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we had people here from all over Ontario, even from his riding. I want him to get in contact with some of those people. Has he never received any correspondence from people in his riding about this? I have. I remember when people objected to this very amendment, to the whole process of sharing deficits and surpluses. I remember the many petitions that were received, not only from Toronto but from all over the place.
The member may not want to know there were thousands and thousands of petitions. We want him to know the exception, the objection and the opposition to this bill comes not only from Toronto; we want him to know that. It is broad across Ontario and it affects every person living in Toronto. That is why we are upset.
He may say, "Forget the amendment because it is just one of many"; he may say, "Forget the whole bill; let us go home," because his plane is waiting, his taxi is out there or his limousine is waiting to take him away into the never-never land of holiday fever. That is not the point.
We want him to know we are upset and disagree totally with this section and with the whole of Bill 127. The more we can convince him of the opposition that has taken place, from his riding and from every riding in Ontario, the better chance there is he might change his mind.
Tonight and tomorrow are most important days. This section is probably one of the most important sections of Bill 127. This bill as a whole is probably one of the most important bills that will break historic tradition in Toronto. It will break the backbone of the educational system in Toronto and the minister keeps on denying it. I wish she had enough guts, enough fortitude, to tell us the truth about how this bill affects Toronto.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman --
Mr. Chairman: I was all set to put the question.
Mr. Nixon: Do you want to adjourn the debate?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I do not wish to adjourn the debate --
Mr. Chairman: Is this a point of order?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- but there are questions that have been put that need to be answered, because there is a whole range of either quarter-truths or total nonrectitude that has been mouthed this evening.
Mr. Chairman: But now is not the time.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: All right.
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: I guess we are not going to put the question to the amendment.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Nixon: Move that the committee rise, somebody.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported progress.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as provided in the standing orders, I would like to give a business statement for tomorrow and the remaining time. However, since we are sort of moving from day to day, let me just say that tomorrow we will deal with Bill 127 in committee of the whole. Of course, we will adjourn at one o'clock and the House will resume on Monday -- that is, resume on Monday if the bill is not passed tomorrow. We will have a further statement before the House adjourns tomorrow.
I should just make it very clear to members, though, that there really is only one order of business remaining for this session of the Legislature, and that is the passage of Bill 127.
The House adjourned at 10:33 p.m.