L242B - Tue 7 Oct 1997 / Mar 7 oct 1997
The House met at 1832.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
FAIR MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE FINANCEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES MUNICIPALITÉS (NO 2)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 149, An Act to continue the reforms begun by the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997 and to make other amendments respecting the financing of local government / Projet de loi 149, Loi continuant les réformes amorcées par la Loi de 1997 sur le financement équitable des municipalités et apportant d'autres modifications relativement au financement des administrations locales.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 2, 1997, I'm now required to put the question. Mr Eves has moved second reading of Bill 149. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1833 to 1838.
The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Arnott, Ted Baird, John R. Bassett, Isabel Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Carr, Gary Chudleigh, Ted Clement, Tony Cunningham, Dianne Danford, Harry DeFaria, Carl Doyle, Ed Elliott, Brenda Eves, Ernie L. Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Froese, Tom Galt, Doug |
Gilchrist, Steve Grimmett, Bill Hardeman, Ernie Harnick, Charles Hastings, John Hudak, Tim Jackson, Cameron Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Kells, Morley Klees, Frank Leach, Al Leadston, Gary L. Martiniuk, Gerry Maves, Bart McLean, Allan K. Munro, Julia Murdoch, Bill |
Newman, Dan O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. Parker, John L. Pettit, Trevor Preston, Peter Rollins, E.J. Douglas Runciman, Robert W. Sampson, Rob Shea, Derwyn Sheehan, Frank Smith, Bruce Sterling, Norman W. Stewart, R. Gary Tascona, Joseph N. Turnbull, David Vankoughnet, Bill Villeneuve, Noble Wood, Bob Young, Terence H. |
1
The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk.
Nays
|
Bartolucci, Rick Bisson, Gilles Boyd, Marion Bradley, James J. Caplan, David Castrilli, Annamarie Christopherson, David Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. Colle, Mike Conway, Sean G. Cordiano, Joseph Crozier, Bruce |
Cullen, Alex Duncan, Dwight Gerretsen, John Grandmaître, Bernard Gravelle, Michael Hoy, Pat Kennedy, Gerard Kormos, Peter Kwinter, Monte Lalonde, Jean-Marc Lankin, Frances Laughren, Floyd Lessard, Wayne |
Martel, Shelley McLeod, Lyn Miclash, Frank Morin, Gilles E. Phillips, Gerry Pouliot, Gilles Pupatello, Sandra Ramsay, David Sergio, Mario Silipo, Tony Wildman, Bud Wood, Len |
2
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 61; the nays are 38.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 2, this bill is referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.
EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 160, An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à réformer le système scolaire, à protéger le financement des classes, à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte et à apporter d'autres améliorations compatibles avec la politique du gouvernement en matière de qualité de l'éducation, y compris l'amélioration du rendement des élèves et la réglementation de l'effectif des classes.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 7, 1997, I am now required to put the question.
Mr Snobelen has moved second reading of Bill 160. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1842 to 1847.
The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Arnott, Ted Baird, John R. Bassett, Isabel Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Carr, Gary Chudleigh, Ted Clement, Tony Cunningham, Dianne Danford, Harry DeFaria, Carl Doyle, Ed Elliott, Brenda Eves, Ernie L. Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Froese, Tom Galt, Doug |
Gilchrist, Steve Grimmett, Bill Hardeman, Ernie Harnick, Charles Hastings, John Hudak, Tim Jackson, Cameron Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Kells, Morley Klees, Frank Leach, Al Leadston, Gary L. Martiniuk, Gerry Maves, Bart McLean, Allan K. Munro, Julia Murdoch, Bill Newman, Dan |
O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. Palladini, Al Parker, John L. Pettit, Trevor Preston, Peter Rollins, E.J. Douglas Runciman, Robert W. Sampson, Rob Shea, Derwyn Sheehan, Frank Smith, Bruce Sterling, Norman W. Stewart, R. Gary Tascona, Joseph N. Turnbull, David Vankoughnet, Bill Villeneuve, Noble Wood, Bob Young, Terence H. |
3
The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
|
Bartolucci, Rick Bisson, Gilles Boyd, Marion Bradley, James J. Caplan, David Castrilli, Annamarie Christopherson, David Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. Colle, Mike Conway, Sean G. Cordiano, Joseph Crozier, Bruce |
Cullen, Alex Duncan, Dwight Gerretsen, John Grandmaître, Bernard Gravelle, Michael Hoy, Pat Kennedy, Gerard Kormos, Peter Kwinter, Monte Lalonde, Jean-Marc Lankin, Frances Laughren, Floyd Lessard, Wayne |
Martel, Shelley McLeod, Lyn Miclash, Frank Morin, Gilles E. Phillips, Gerry Pouliot, Gilles Pupatello, Sandra Ramsay, David Sergio, Mario Silipo, Tony Wildman, Bud Wood, Len |
4
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 62; the nays are 38.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 6, this bill is referred to the standing committee on the administration of justice.
EDUCATION VOTING RIGHTS ACT (COTTAGERS AND OTHERS), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE DROIT DE VOTE LORS DES ÉLECTIONS SCOLAIRES (PROPRIÉTAIRES DE CHALET ET AUTRES)
Mr Smith moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 158, An Act to amend the Education Act to allow non-resident owners or tenants of residential property to vote for members of district school boards and school authorities / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en vue de permettre aux propriétaires ou locataires non résidents d'un bien résidentiel de voter lors de l'élection des membres des conseils scolaires de district et des administrations scolaires.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Mr Speaker, I'll be sharing my time this evening with the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, as well as my colleague from the riding of Peterborough. and I'll be adding a few comments this evening.
I'm certainly pleased to have the opportunity to make a few comments with respect to Bill 158, the Education Voting Rights Act. This bill will amend the Education Act by allowing non-resident owners and tenants of residential or farm properties and their spouses to vote for school board trustees in areas where the owner rents such properties.
Under the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, non-resident ratepayers lost their right to vote for the school boards in the area where they owned a cottage or property. This step was taken to reflect the policy decision to take education off the residential property tax. In subsequent discussions with municipal representatives a decision was made that only 50% of the residential education property tax would be removed. This change provides the basis for restoring the right to vote for this group of residential ratepayers.
The bill itself will affect an estimated 890,000 non-resident farm and residential property ratepayers, primarily cottage owners. It would ensure that they have the opportunity to have their electoral voice heard in the upcoming municipal elections this November. As many will know, these local elections will see trustees elected to serve on Ontario's new district school boards and on school authorities. Obviously the trustees elected next month will play a key role in realizing Ontario's new vision for education. They will represent the public in their communities and work towards setting local policies and priorities to improve the quality of education in this province.
It is the intent of this government to restore these voting rights in time for the November elections. The electoral information is being revised to reflect change proposed in this bill. Should the Legislature approve the bill, the changes to voting rights would be communicated to all municipal clerks and deputy returning officers as soon as possible. The electoral information would be forwarded to municipal clerks to enable them to make the necessary revisions to the voters lists. Recent changes in the Municipal Elections Act allow voters to identify themselves as qualified electors right up to and including polling day. Qualified non-resident ratepayers need only produce proper proof of ownership or tenancy.
With this bill, the government continues its practice of working with our municipal partners to achieve a smooth transition to a more efficient and effective government throughout Ontario. With that, I will conclude my comments.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It certainly is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill and to congratulate the minister and his parliamentary assistant for the sensitivity that they've demonstrated in recognizing that since the passage of the Fewer School Boards Act, the municipalities approached the government and indicated that they were not prepared to support the idea of having the complete residential portion of the education bill lifted and transferred to the province in exchange for the original Who Does What responsibilities.
Once the province had recalibrated the exchange of responsibilities with the municipalities and decided that one half of the education bill would become the responsibility of the province, I certainly began to hear from a number of stakeholders in my riding, particularly members of the board of education, that they felt it was unfair, that Bill 104 had taken away the vote from the seasonal residents, given that they were now going to be responsible for paying for education again.
It took me back to the time I originally decided that I would run for the school board in Muskoka and the interview that was conducted by the Muskoka Lakes Association. The Muskoka Lakes Association represents seasonal residents and year-round residents, but primarily seasonal residents, in Muskoka. In the township of Muskoka Lakes where I reside, there are far more seasonal residents than there are year-round residents. In fact, most of the assessment in that municipality is represented by owners who are seasonal residents. Some people call them cottagers and the year-round residents are usually referred to as the locals.
When you're a local member of either the school board or the municipal council, you have to be sensitive to the fact that there are interests that are represented by the seasonal residents, despite the fact that to a large extent they make no use of the education system. They do to a large extent fund it under the current model and, under the model that's proposed, they will be continuing to participate in the funding.
I asked my staff to do some research to determine approximately how many of the eligible voters in my riding were resident year-round and how many were resident in the summer season. In the township of Muskoka Lakes there are 17,368 eligible voters, 12,978 of those are non-resident. About 75% of the eligible voters in that township are cottagers or seasonal residents and they pay an extraordinary amount of the property tax in that municipality and that of course is transferred to the board of education under the current model.
Both the township of Georgian Bay and the township of Lake of Bays are in the district of Muskoka, and in the Simcoe portion of my riding, there's Tay township and Severn township and the town of Midland also has a very high ratio of seasonal residents. All of those people, I'm sure, were quite concerned when it became obvious that under Bill 104, where they had been deprived of their right to vote for school board representatives, they were, under the newly revised Who Does What process, possibly going to be in a position where they were paying taxes but were unable to vote in the education portion of the election.
1900
The first person who brought this to my attention -- I was in a parade in Gravenhurst and I was marching next to some school board trustees, and they all decided to lobby me while we were walking down the streets of Gravenhurst. They immediately asked me to pursue the idea of restoring the vote to the seasonal residents. I think this is certainly laudable, for local members of the board of education to recognize that they weren't going to take advantage of the seasonal residents, notwithstanding that, to a large extent, the elected people had lived in Muskoka year-round for their whole lives.
In fact, the mix of seasonal residents and year-round residents in the part of the world I live in adds to the richness of life there. Certainly as a person moving there in my early twenties to live in a small community and practise law I was fascinated by the political process that went on municipally and in the board of education, and I was disappointed by the lack of interest from the cottage community in the board of education election races. When I finally decided to run in 1991, I found it quite interesting to attend meetings where the cottage associations would cross-examine me and ask me for my views on the cottagers and how they contributed to the cost of education in Muskoka and how little their contribution appeared to be recognized at the school board level.
Certainly, having gone through that process twice in two elections and having lived in a part of the province where the economy is to a large extent underwritten by seasonal residents, I'm very sensitive to the need to allow people who are paying the freight to have the opportunity to vote for their education representatives.
With the passage of an earlier bill, these seasonal residents will have the opportunity throughout my riding, except in one municipality, to partake in the vote not by attending at the ballot box but by using either mail-in or phone-in voting methods. Certainly I think a lot of people in Simcoe and Muskoka are going to be paying close attention to the vote that's going to be taking place this November, because they will be anticipating that there will be a higher percentage of non-resident voters taking part in both the municipal election and in the election for school board trustees. That certainly is my hope as well, because I think it's important for people who participate in the process by paying taxes to also participate in the process of electing their representatives. That gives them more ownership in the process and perhaps will lead to a better relationship between the people who represent the seasonal residents and their associations.
From the statistics I was able to find, there's a surprisingly low number of voters in cottage county who are seasonal residents who actually participate in the election process locally, despite the fact that they do pay about 80% of the tax in the rural parts of both Muskoka and some parts of Simcoe county.
In the township of Muskoka Lake, 784 of the 3,100 people who voted did so in advance polls. I think that shows that there's a very low turnout of eligible seasonal residents, and it's certainly something we need to concern ourselves with.
The need to recognize the participation of the seasonal residents is very evident when you look at the number of non-resident farm and residential property ratepayers who are actually affected by this legislation. The Ministry of Education and Training estimates that the legislation will affect about 890,000 non-resident voters throughout the province. I think we should all pay close attention, providing this bill carries, to the impact that the new method of voting has on how many of those 890,000 people actually choose to participate.
This bill addresses one of the basic principles in a democracy, that a ratepayer who has the right to elect a trustee -- they'll be spending the property tax dollars -- should have the opportunity to participate in electing those people.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Yes, but who sets the mill rate? Ernie Eves.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Algoma, you'll have your turn. Just be patient.
Mr Grimmett: This is a housekeeping bill, and this housekeeping bill addresses a concern that came up after the Fewer School Boards Act was passed, and again I think it demonstrates how our government is listening not only to our municipal partners and our partners in education but also to the people who live and pay the taxes in the part of Ontario that is also known as cottage country.
The non-resident ratepayers will continue to pay some education property tax, and they should have the right to vote for school board trustees. Hopefully we will get all three parties to cooperate on this legislation. I think it's important that we do that, so we can ensure when the elections come up in November our seasonal residents in Ontario will have the opportunity to fully participate not only in the municipal portion but also in the education portion.
I thought I'd just take a minute to indicate that there's a considerable amount of support from the cottagers' associations in Ontario. The umbrella organization that represents cottage associations is called the Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations, and one of the leader spokespersons for that organization is John Birnbaum, who is also the executive director of the Georgian Bay Association. I know he spent a lot of time on the phone not only with me and my staff but also with people from the Ministry of Education and people from the Premier's office encouraging them to proceed with this legislation and move it ahead. I'm sure they've also been in touch with members of the opposition to make sure the opposition cooperates to make sure this legislation moves ahead so that we can pave the way for a fall election in which the seasonal residents will be able to fully participate.
I quote Mr Birnbaum in his response to this legislation. "It is reassuring to see the government respond quickly to our concerns, and we encourage all-party support for this initiative. We are delighted that both resident and non-resident taxpayers and electors can now continue to vote and work together for school trustees" --
Interjections.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): The government messed up in the first place.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Take your seat, please. Order. The member for Algoma, the member for Sudbury East, there is a period where you'll be in a position to ask questions. In the meantime, I would ask you to remain patient and wait for your turn.
Mr Grimmett: As Mr Birnbaum said: "It is reassuring to see the government respond quickly to our concerns, and we encourage all-party support for this initiative. We are delighted that both resident and non-resident taxpayers and electors can now continue to vote and work together for school trustees. This legislation respects our long-standing tradition of bringing the entire community together to govern our schools and support our students."
In closing, I'd like to encourage all members of the House to support this legislation, to make sure that those residents who are seasonal in Ontario will have the opportunity to participate in the November elections for school boards.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am pleased also tonight to have the opportunity to share a few of my thoughts regarding Bill 158, the Education Voting Rights Act, 1997. This bill will allow cottagers and non-residential owners and tenants of residential or farm property to vote for school board trustees in the areas where they own or rent property. Bill 158 is not a complex bill. However, it is a very important bill; a bill that represents one more example of legislation that will deal with another controversial issue at the municipal level; a bill that ensures the most fundamental principle of government, the principle that taxation should not occur without the proper representation, something I am confident all parties in this House should support. This bill, I believe, needs absolutely no debate. It should be passed immediately.
Representing the riding of Peterborough means that I represent a number of cottagers and owners of seasonal properties. They have expressed frustration in their not being able to elect local school board trustees, trustees who have the legal authority to establish local tax rates. They have had this concern for years. They believe their fundamental rights have been violated.
Under this proposed legislation, all ratepayers will have the ability to vote for representatives making the decisions that will impact on their local tax bill. I am confident that every member of this House sees this as a good principle and as good legislation. The education component of our tax system represents the largest portion of local taxes, yet some taxpayers and ratepayers do not have a voice as it stands at the moment.
Bill 158 is a result of this government listening to the taxpayers of this province.
Mr Wildman: It's a result of your messing up.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
1910
Mr Stewart: A long time ago I learned something as a very young man, and I guess it is a long time ago now, that if you're going to point a finger, do it while you're looking in the mirror. I would suggest to the opposition here, especially to some of you who have made major mistakes --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was trying to say, it kind of makes me chuckle from time to time that folks have the audacity to suggest that they don't make mistakes. Unfortunately many, certainly in the previous government, did not recognize the mistakes they made and unfortunately we are in the process of having to fix them now.
As I mentioned, Bill 158 is a result of our government listening. Over 890,000 non-resident farm and residential property taxpayers, primarily cottagers, will be permitted to vote for local school board trustees in November under this proposed legislation.
On January 13, 1997, the government announced that residential property taxes would no longer contribute to the financing of education.
Applause.
Mr Stewart: Absolutely, good idea. We've been trying to do that for years and it's unfortunate that you folks did not have that capability.
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Peterborough.
Mr Stewart: For those who use the word "stupid" in this House, as I said, please look in the mirror while you're using those words.
My riding, the Kawartha Lakes area, has a great number of cottagers who contribute large amounts of tax dollars to local municipalities and they did not view this component of Bill 104 as being fair and equitable. They were right, absolutely right, and we will stand up and say that, but we will solve the problem.
After consulting with local municipalities and again with AMO, the decision was made that only 50% of the residential education property tax would be removed. This is the fundamental reason why this government will restore the right of cottagers and other property owners to vote for their school boards. Once again, ratepayers should not be expected to pay for local services which they do not use if they do not have a vote or a say in how these tax dollars are spent and used.
When our government was elected in 1995, we firmly believed that the people of Ontario were overgoverned at the provincial level, overgoverned at the municipal level and overgoverned by local school boards. Bill 104 dealt with that issue. It reduced the number of school boards and recalculated the representation. Let us be clear on this issue: Bill 158 will not make any difference in the number of school board trustees. The restoration of the right to vote will not change the definition of an electoral group and will therefore not affect local electoral data already compiled by the Minister of Finance.
Not only does Bill 158 uphold a treasured principle of taxation with representation, this bill will greatly reduce the animosity that exists between seasonal and permanent residents. There has been a definite division between these two groups for many, many years. Those who were permanent residents felt they had that much more say than those who visited the area only during the summer or during the winter. Bill 158 --
Interjection.
Mr Stewart: That's why I suggested we should pass it without debate.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Shut up.
Mr Stewart: Well, I will when I have finished saying what I think should be said.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not the type of language which is accepted in this House. I would ask you to apologize from your seat, please.
Mr Christopherson: I apologize and withdraw, Speaker.
Mr Stewart: Bill 158 is legislation that I encourage all members of this House to support. It upholds the fundamental principle of democracy. It ensures that taxpayers of this province are treated in a fair and more equitable manner. This legislation is one more example of why the system has to be changed. Cottagers, non-residents, have wanted this legislation for years, and I think it's time to move forward.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I listened to the comments from the member of Peterborough with great interest. It's very clear that we're dealing with a piece of legislation that is the hallmark of this government in so far as it has gone too far, too fast. It came in with a previous piece of legislation that was opposed by the groups that were most affected: the cottagers, the school boards. There was an eventual court challenge and it was only through these groups first of all trying to speak to the government and finding that their words were not being listened to, being forced to go through the legal process, and finally causing the government to realize it had overshot the mark. The government is therefore forced to come in, later in the day, with a bill to correct the error it has made.
But there is a clear message here in so far as this government disregards advice that comes from the people who are most affected, disregards the commonsense advice that's being given by the various groups affected and just carries on until oops, it suddenly realizes, after being forced to go through another process, it has made an error.
We see today further examples of that with other legislation that's being presented before this House, particularly with respect, if I can use the example, of Bill 160 where again the government, in the name of trying to empower citizens, is taking over control for itself, and the mistakes it makes at the end of the day are bigger, far bigger because it's a huge, complex organization trying to make decisions to fit all of Ontario. You just can't have one size fits all.
So here we have a situation of this bill trying to correct a mistake that was made, and unfortunately, as in other pieces of legislation, they just hurry them down the track and make bigger mistakes as they go along. I think the government should think twice about what it's doing.
Mr Christopherson: I want to respond to the comments of the member from Peterborough because I found his the most interesting. It was interesting to listen to the member talk about the fact that -- and he drew on great historical quotes: "Taxation without representation is unacceptable." The "unacceptable" is my paraphrase.
What is so unusual is that they're talking about giving the right of the cottage owners to vote for school board trustees because of all these taxation powers, and they're taking away the right of trustees to set the mill rate in Bill 160. So what is this whole big deal all about? All this is about is fixing up the screwup you made in Bill 104. That's exactly what this is.
Here we go again. The government is saying, "We're listening." Under Bill 136 they picked a fight when their polls told them they couldn't win, and when they had to surrender they said, "We were listening." On this one they're saying they listened to the cottagers' concerns and that's why they made the changes. The reality is that of course they heard from the cottagers. They screwed up in Bill 104, which they rammed through this place with a time allocation, and this is to fix it. It wasn't listening; this is fix-it time.
Earlier, Speaker, I had to apologize and withdraw my comment, my heckle, to the member when he kept saying on a number of occasions, "This bill doesn't need any debate," and he continued to debate it. I then hollered that he ought to shut up. You asked me to withdraw it and I did, and apologized.
Basically, this whole bill is one king-sized withdrawal and one king-sized apology for one king-sized screwup by a government that only believes in governing by kings.
1920
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'd like to congratulate my colleagues the members for Middlesex, Muskoka-Georgian Bay and Peterborough for their excellent, well-prepared remarks. They are obviously very correct that the government took the time to listen, particularly to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and not just to listen but to genuinely hear what they were saying, to consult and then to amend the bill.
Mr Wildman: Did the same people prepare them who prepared Bill 104?
The Deputy Speaker: Order, member for Algoma.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I too want to make some comments in that all three members -- the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, the member for Peterborough and now the member for Nepean -- mentioned how the government listened. They also said -- I think the term was "restore the democratic right." In their largess you would think they would say, "What we also want to do is restore the democratic right in this very Legislature," because on every major piece of legislation that has come along since the change in our rules they've stifled debate. They've brought in time allocation.
My constituents from Essex South elected me to come down here and speak about the issues, to speak on the issues, to tell the government what the constituents of Essex South want said. Yet what do they do? They restore the democratic right to the cottagers which they should not have taken away in the first place, and then they turn around and continue to stifle the democratic right of the members to stand in this place.
We were told during the debate on the rules that they would allow their members more time to speak. What has happened? We've even made comment tonight where they thought about not even getting up and speaking on this. We've had time allocation where their members also don't get the opportunity to speak. So when you get up and talk about democracy and listening and wanting to further the cause of democracy, I think a good place you could start is right in this very room.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, you have two minutes.
Mr Grimmett: I'll respond on behalf of my colleagues the member for Middlesex and the member for Peterborough, and I'd like to thank the members for Ottawa West, Hamilton Centre, Nepean and Essex South for their comments. That's a demonstration of the number of members under the new rules who can participate in debate, and I think the quality of debate is excellent. Despite the fact that some members only have two minutes to comment, I think they find that they can make some very salient comments even in a two-minute period.
I want to address the comments made by the member for Ottawa West. While I don't want to get into the details of the challenge to the Fewer School Boards Act, because I understand it's still under appeal, in the initial appeal of it there was, to my knowledge, no mention of the issue of the voting rights of non-residents. That's not an issue that's under appeal.
Mr Cullen: Certainly you heard that from cottagers.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Ottawa West.
Mr Grimmett: That's not an issue, to my knowledge, under appeal.
However, I wanted to reiterate that on this piece of legislation we look forward to the support of the opposition members and perhaps the independent member and any other members who consider themselves independent.
I think everyone in the province will recognize that we not only listened on the Who Does What process, which led us to rethink the whole idea of the education property tax and who should take responsibility for it, but we also listened when the cottage community came forward and said, "We deserve to have the right to vote now."
Mr Wildman: You messed up.
Mr Grimmett: There was no mess-up here. There was simply a change in ideas and a willingness to accommodate our municipal partners and our cottagers. Those are my comments.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I would like to split my time this evening with the members for Windsor-Walkerville, Windsor-Sandwich and, if time permits, the member for Essex South.
I want to begin in a somewhat surprising position of actually wanting to agree wholeheartedly with one of the statements made by the member for Peterborough. It may be the first time in the history of this debate that I've agreed with one of the members opposite, but the member for Peterborough said, "There's no need to be debating this bill." I agree completely. There's no need to be debating this bill.
Why are we using the preciously limited time of this Legislature to debate a bill that needs no debate, particularly when the first thing we did in this evening session was to give second reading to Bill 160, a bill which brings about sweeping, fundamental changes to the educational system, a bill which has 126,000 teachers in this province on the verge of unprecedented strike action, a bill which in passing second reading tonight the government has given such provocation to those teachers immediately before they meet with the minister at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning to supposedly discuss a resolution to this conflict, a resolution which is premised not only on major changes to this Bill 160 but to withdrawal of the bill, and yet the government is prepared to be so provocative as to force through the second reading of that bill? We had closure on that debate yesterday. We had a time allocation motion that cut off debate on a bill that was fundamentally important to education in this province and the government said: "No, I'm sorry, we have no time for more debate. We can't debate the really significant things, the really meaningful things."
What were they in such a hurry to do? To save a full sessional day. I realize it's an evening, but by this government's rules this is a new day, and we're using a whole sessional day to debate a bill that the member for Peterborough and I agree needs no debate at all.
You have to then ask the next question: What is this bill that we're spending an entire sessional day on when we should be debating important matters like Bill 160 and the destruction of publicly funded education in this province? What is this bill? According to the document that was handed out by the Minister of Education when he told us he was going to give us this good-news bill, he says it will allow cottagers and other non-resident property owners or tenants to vote for school board trustees in the areas where they own or rent. What a novel idea. I'm sure all the members of my caucus, all the members in the House will be struck by the sheer novelty of this idea. Only when was it that they didn't have the right to vote? When did they lose the right to vote for school trustees? I happen to be a cottage owner in an area that I don't live in. I've always had the right to vote for school trustees. That was a given.
Of course they lost that right when the government passed Bill 104. When was that bill passed? We're not talking about ancient history here. We're talking about a bill that was just passed a matter of months ago, a bill that was just introduced a matter of months ago, and yet here we are fixing the bill.
Then let's take it to the next question. We're now in the process of spending a full sessional day on a matter that needs no debate to fix something that wasn't broken until a few months ago, when the government brought in another major piece of legislation, again a bill on which they cut off debate, brought in closure, didn't allow the kinds of public hearings the public was demanding, denied literally hundreds of people the opportunity to make their views heard, not enough time to debate that bill, but here we are debating a bill that now fixes the problems created by that Bill 104.
It might seem like a small error. Bill 26, the original bully bill that the government tried to rush through this House with no debate at all, let alone any public hearings -- I remember there were a number of drafting errors, as they described it, that led to a number of amendments. Maybe this was just a drafting error. Maybe the government just sort of forgot about the cottagers. I think Mr Birnbaum, who was so pleased that the government listened to them and addressed their concerns so expeditiously, might have wondered why the government would forget about all the cottagers' and the non-residents' voting rights, why they would suddenly be so disfranchised.
I don't think the government forgot about them, folks. This was not a small error, this was not a drafting error, and I'm not standing here suggesting for one moment that the government simply overlooked Mr Birnbaum and the cottagers' associations and all the cottagers and non-residents, no, no. What happened in Bill 104 to cottagers and non-residents was very much part of the government's plan. Let's be clear about this. The government knew exactly what it wanted to do. It was in a very big hurry last January to get Bill 104 to restructure the school boards, to get effective local accountability essentially out of their way so they could take total control of education. Of course that's what Bill 160, the one they closed off debate on yesterday, is all about: giving the government total control. The government was in a hurry to get the first part of that control with Bill 104, getting rid of effective school boards, and also to get hold of educational funding. There has been no doubt, from the very beginning, what the game plan of this government has been when it comes to education. They wanted control of the dollars so they could make big cuts.
1930
The only difficulty the government ran into -- they knew what their game plan was, they knew what the end goal was, but they just hadn't take the time to figure out that what they were going to try to do to get there wasn't going to work. That's why we're running into not minor errors but fairly major errors. This government intended, you'll recall, to take education tax entirely off the residential property taxpayer. That's why the cottagers and non-resident owners aren't in Bill 104. That's why they were disfranchised, because they weren't going to pay taxes any longer. None of us who pay residential taxes for education were going to pay those taxes any longer.
We all remember mega-week. I'm sure my colleagues remember mega-week, starting with the Monday of mega-week, the big announcement: "This is the good news that is supposed to get this government re-elected, because haven't we always wanted to get education off the property tax?" The government of course didn't go into a lot of explanation and they still don't like to go into a lot of explanation about the fact that it was never coming off the commercial tax, the business tax. Businesses would still pay for education.
I keep mentioning this because I think it's important that businesses know that they are going to pay their full share of the education property tax as well as all the other costs that the government downloaded to the property tax base on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of mega-week. But Monday was supposed to be the good-news day that was supposed to camouflage all those other downloading announcements that followed for the rest of the week. Monday was the day we were going to take education off the property tax, but if you read the fine print, you knew it was residential property tax. Oh, dear.
I think it's fair to say that it did take the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance a little bit longer to change their minds on this one, to realize their mistake and do their turnaround. It took them a little bit longer on this one, maybe a month or so, if memory serves me, than it did for the Minister of Education to change his mind, as the member for Peterborough says, "to fix his mistakes." The Minister of Education fixed his mistake on extending the school year in a very quick period of time. He announced it Monday and changed his mind on Wednesday. It was good for education on Monday; it was bad for education by Wednesday.
It took them a bit longer to realize that their big mega-week plan -- their revenue-neutral plan that would let them take education off the residential property tax and still not have any increased costs downloaded on to municipalities' property tax base -- just wasn't going to work, that the numbers didn't add up.
It took them a little while longer to acknowledge the fact that it was at least $1 billion short of being revenue-neutral. It took them a little while longer to hear people like David Crombie say: "My God, you cannot put all these social services on to the property tax base. You certainly can't put long-term care on to the property tax base." So they backed off that. Then, of course, what they discovered was: "Gee, if we've made some mistakes about what we're offloading on to the municipalities, if everybody says, `You can't do this,' and we've got to retreat from that, then we're into an even bigger problem trying to take education off the residential property tax. I guess we'll have to retreat on that too."
Then they said: "Okay. We won't take all your taxes for education off your residential property. We'll just take 50% of it off." Then they had a dilemma. It's taken them a few months longer to find out the dilemma they've been creating for themselves, because this cycle of mistakes just compounds itself. It took them a little while longer to realize: "You know, if residential property owners are now paying property tax for education, we've just disfranchised all those cottagers and non-residents. We're going to have to give them back the right to vote for school trustees."
So here we have tonight Bill 158. In case you think I'm exaggerating, let me read again from the minister's statement: "The province and the municipalities have already agreed that starting in 1998, the province will assume half the education costs paid by residential and farm property taxpayers, not all of the costs, as originally proposed. However, since non-resident ratepayers will continue to pay some education property tax, it follows that they and their spouses should be able to vote for local school board trustees."
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Who will have no power.
Mrs McLeod: I'll get to that, I tell my colleague from St Catharines, about whether this is really going to be effective local accountability through their vote.
But I want to note the fact that the members opposite have all talked a great deal and seem to hunt for those rare examples of where they can talk about the government having listened. They are rare examples, so I understand why the members opposite work so hard to try and highlight one if they can find one. They say: "We listened to the cottagers' association. We heard their concerns and we've acted with Bill 158." It was not difficult to find an entire group of people who, through the sheer mismanagement of your entire plan, you had managed to disfranchise. I can't imagine it was so hard to find a group of people to listen to on this particular issue.
The issue that members have talked about tonight is the high principle that there shall be no taxation without representation, and of course we agree. If people are going to be taxed, they must have the vote. That's the whole principle behind our democratic system.
Let me be absolutely clear, then, that there is no doubt that cottagers are going to be taxed. They are going to be taxed for education and they are going to be taxed for all those new costs that have been downloaded on to the municipal property tax base. If we could ever get some numbers from the government, it would be interesting to see just how much tax cottagers are going to pay.
I suspect there are a number of rural areas where there is a lot of cottage country and a lot of those cottage owners who now have the right to vote for school trustees because they are now going to be taxed for education, where we'll find that a lot of those cottagers are going to see very significant cost increases through their tax bill for things like policing. While I certainly agree that the cottagers should have the right to vote for school boards, the cottagers might want to have a great deal of concern about how large the tax bill is going to be now that they have the privilege of paying a portion of their education tax as well as all their downloaded costs.
We also have to raise the question about whether they are really getting taxation with representation. In fact, this is not a question just for the cottagers; this is a question for every individual who is going to be voting for school boards. Quite clearly, although we are going to be paying taxes for education as residential property owners, cottagers or otherwise, the local school board, the people we actually vote for, is not going to be levying those taxes.
There is only one body that is going to be raising the taxes for education, and it isn't the school trustees whom the cottager can now vote for because of this bill; it is the government. In fact, I'll make it a little bit clearer, a little bit narrower. There is only one small group of people that is going to make the decisions about educational tax, because that again is set out in Bill 160, the bill we cut off debate on yesterday. The one small group of people who will decide what our educational taxes are going to be is the cabinet -- not even the members who have spoken tonight on the importance of no taxation without presentation; it's the members who are in the cabinet.
1940
I've been a member of cabinet and I don't think it's breaking any secrets to say it's not usually democratic majority votes that rule decisions in cabinet. It comes down to the Premier of the province, maybe with a little help from the Minister of Finance, but ultimately the buck stops in one place, and the decision about educational taxation will be made exclusively by the Premier. So I would suggest that the only people who have any real representation for education taxation are the people who vote for the man who becomes Premier and sits in that seat, if Bill 160 passes. I question whether there is any real representation for taxation when this Bill 158 is immediately preceded by the vote on Bill 160 that gives those kinds of taxation powers to the Premier of this province.
But I do want to just ask another question, and that's why the government keeps wanting to advertise its mistakes, why it wanted to come in to this session, take time away from big issues that we should be debating, and talk about its mistakes. Are they so desperately anxious to cut off debate on Bill 160 that they wanted to spend a whole evening talking about this major mistake they made, this mega-plan they had that backfired because their numbers didn't add up, this group of people they disfranchised because they weren't able to do what they set out to do in the first place?
I could spend the next hour, if I didn't have colleagues waiting to speak, talking about this government's mistakes that they've had to fix, government in a hurry: the bully bill from a bully government, Bill 26, the original bully bill, the bill that allowed municipalities, in the initial draft, to raise head taxes, a poll tax on every citizen. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, who presented that bill, said: "No, no, the opposition's wrong. There's no way that my bill does that." Then he had to amend the bill because he found, maybe to his dismay and maybe to his surprise, that the bill did indeed allow municipalities to raise poll taxes. I think of other parts of Bill 26, mistakes: the fact that the government had to amend that bill because it was about to take away the confidentiality of people's most personal medical records. Was that a mistake, or was that just something that they got caught trying to do?
I certainly know that the overall Bill 26, that bully bill, was part of the government's big agenda, its big plan, its plan to take control, in that case primarily of health care. We've seen the way this government, in a totally undemocratic way, has taken control of the health care system and the restructuring of health care and invested its authority in this supposedly independent commission.
We saw the way Bill 26 prepared for this downloading that has dumped all these extra costs on to the property tax base. We again saw in Bill 104, which this bill tonight is supposed to fix, the effects of government in a hurry. We saw parents who came to our committee on Bill 104 over and over again say: "Stop. Take time to get it right. You can't do things this sweeping this fast. Step back. Let's look at this. Let's look at what you're doing to local boards. Let's look at what you're doing to local accountability." But the government was in too big a hurry to get it done to hear what those parents said, so they didn't step back, they didn't take time to get it right, and we got Bill 104. We have boards which are basically going to be buffers for government policy, particularly if government now passes Bill 160 and takes over the ability to control not only education taxes but virtually every decision that goes on in a school.
Cottagers and non-residents are being given the opportunity to vote for school trustees. I wonder how many school trustees we're going to get a chance to vote for. We know how many people theoretically, but how many individuals are going to put their names forward for school boards? What we're really giving to cottagers tonight is an equal opportunity to vote for boards of trustees if anybody runs for them.
I just saw a story from Hamilton that said five of 36 incumbent trustees are seeking re-election. At this point in my home town, only three people have indicated they are going to run for the school board. I think in Ottawa it's something similar. So this may be a somewhat dubious franchise that cottagers and non-residents are getting tonight. It will be dubious if there are not people putting their names forward to run for school board, to have the chance to vote for them. I think it's going to be a rather dubious franchise too that what we're giving cottagers is an equal opportunity to vote for local boards that will have no local accountability, none whatsoever, between Bill 104, which creates huge mega-boards, and Bill 160, which takes away any power those boards once had.
But I don't think any of this is a mistake. I think it is all part of the government's mega-agenda. The fact that there are parts of it that don't work is a reflection of a government in too big a hurry to get on with its real agenda. It's real agenda is a massive power grab, particularly in education, a power grab in terms of control, a power grab in terms of total takeover of the funding so they can make the cuts they need and then ultimately turn over the control of education to charter schools, turn over the control of education through vouchers and essentially privatize public education. Those are huge issues today, the agenda of this government for education. Those are the issues we should be debating tonight, not a bill that, in the words of the member for Peterborough, "needs no debate at all."
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm glad to have the opportunity to join this debate. I see this bill as another fix-it bill, another bill designed to correct an error that was made, a bill that substantively doesn't impact a lot on education in this province, but when taken in the context of the broader education debate going on today, when we look at Bills 104, 158 and 160, we see not a government committed to improving education but rather a government that has no sense of education, a government that has no understanding of what is going on in the classroom, let alone what goes on with children.
I too would rather have used the time tonight to discuss things in other pieces of legislation. I too would like to talk about illiteracy in this province. I would like to talk about the pupil-teacher ratio, a ratio that in far too many classes is too high. I would like to talk about standardized report cards. I'd like to talk about making our education system better. I'd like to talk to the teachers about that, because the teachers in my riding and the teachers right across this province probably care more than most about those issues.
Yes, there will be points of departure, there will be issues upon which you don't agree, but we ought to open the process. We ought not to shut out the professionals who have given their lives to educating our children, just as we ought not to shut out parents and students from this debate and the debates around the other pieces of education legislation that are so important.
Earlier today we received literally hundreds and hundreds of letters from teachers in our ridings in Windsor. I have letters here from Michelle Norman at St Angela school, from Phil Gava of the Windsor Roman Catholic Separate School Board, from Chris Adam at Catholic Central, from Fran Hall at Our Lady of Perpetual Help, and hundreds of others. The common theme, the common message is: "Let's talk about education. Let's make our system better. Let's make it serve our students better, but let's talk about it together, and let's work through the problems together. Let's not force solutions that aren't aimed at improving classroom education but, rather, are aimed at cutting money out of schools' budgets and at taking money out of our classrooms."
I found it ironic last year when the government put its capital freeze on spending in schools, terribly ironic that at precisely the time this government was freezing capital to Ontario schools, in the United States they were committing to a program of capital expenditure, in western Europe they were committing to programs of capital expenditure, bringing schools into the latter part of the 20th century, making sure that our students have the tools to learn, to become prepared for the new century.
This government's narrow education agenda, which has nothing whatsoever to do with quality of education and has everything to do with cutting expenditures, cutting budgets, has to be put to an end. This bill is testimony to the tomfoolery of this government, a government that could pass a bill with such a glaring error. Why? It's that whole too far, too fast, "Gotta get it done" thing.
Earlier today we talked about Bill 136, we talked about the retreat. We talked earlier in the House today about court rulings around Bill 26, the bully bill, and what that has meant. We see a government that's less committed to good public policy than it is committed to jamming its will through without the opportunity for meaningful discussion.
1950
You know, I've had the opportunity in the last week to meet with the heads of student councils of all the schools in my riding. This weekend I will be meeting with the parents' councils from all the schools in my riding. I will be meeting this Friday with the teachers' federations from my community. I can tell you that the one thing that parents, students, teachers agree with is that this government has no vision of education, no sense of responsibility to our students and no idea of how we will provide for a quality education, not only this year but in the years to come.
I challenge the government, as you're reviewing Bill 158, as you're fixing a huge mistake that you made in 104: Consider fixing the biggest mistake of all -- consider withdrawing 160. Consider putting money back into our schools so that when I go to my son's school in the morning, I don't see classrooms with 40 students or 44 students. Consider investing in the technology that poorer students don't have access to today.
You know, there's a real disadvantage that none of us has addressed in this Legislature because we've been too busy talking about tax cuts, we've been too busy bullying teachers, too busy bullying educators. Let's talk about illiteracy, let's talk about the issues that are important, and most of all, let's give up a backward agenda in education and look to the future and not only not cut, but let's be prepared to spend more money on education and not say that we're afraid to. Because if we fall further behind, and this government's been pushing us behind, if we get pushed further behind, I fear we'll have trouble catching up.
Your education agenda won't work. You're going to lose the next election because you don't have a comprehension of the importance of education to everybody in this province. Don't withdraw this bill, don't just amend 104. Withdraw 160, do it quickly, and let's talk about really making Ontario's education system the best in the world. Let's involve teachers, students and parents right across the province.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Tonight I find it ironic that we would be speaking about a bill that does in fact impact on education, but Bill 158 and not Bill 160. This government brings in Bill 160, what they call massive reforms to education -- and we agree -- the largest changes that have been made in one fell swoop such as Bill 160. But we don't have the opportunity to discuss it as we'd like because the government insists on shutting the system down. We're busy voting on time allocation instead of being able to speak about the kind of effects that we see in Bill 160.
My colleague from Windsor-Walkerville was right when he said all of us have been receiving literally hundreds and hundreds of letters, from teachers in my riding, people who are truly concerned, who took the time to write and say, "We're amazed at the kind of changes that are being brought forward that we haven't had a part in, that we've been left out of." I will be able to read just a couple of those examples of comments from teachers, people who I believe, when you work your whole career and, for most, your vocation, in the area of educating our young, are very expert and should be brought into the discussion about how to make the system better.
But as we've said, the Liberal caucus position is clear: We are opposed to this government's destruction of a good, quality, publicly funded education system.
Bill 158 is nothing but one more example of governments running amok. You have tried to move so quickly, so fast without thought, that this is just an "oops" bill, as the member from St Catharines calls it, because you made mistakes and now you have to come in and try to fix it.
We don't know from one week to the next what this government is going to come up with. Starting in January of this year, your big downloading week, it was all education tax off property because you said you were going to do that, even if it didn't make sense. But then a week or more later you decided to change that and only take half of the education off the property tax. Because, what, you listened to AMO? If in fact you had truly listened to the municipalities out there, they would have said, "Don't make the kind of swaps you're proposing." But you went ahead and did that anyway, and now we're looking at the dumping of public health, of social housing, of welfare on to property taxes.
They all told you, "Don't do that." Your own Minister of Housing said publicly that he is opposed to putting social programs on the property tax bill. He says that's not the place for them. Then the interviewer of the day said, "What on earth are you doing?" "Well, you know, we've got to do something."
Quite frankly, you're moving in completely the wrong direction. When you go back home to your ridings, Conservative MPPs, your own civic leaders are telling you you've done the wrong thing. Your own civic leaders are saying, "You know, while the going is good, we won't notice it, but boy, when things start to turn, and they surely will, as they have over decades, your local municipalities aren't going to be able to cover those social costs." Coming from a city like Windsor that sees that kind of cycle far more rapidly than anywhere else, we are very much aware of that, and we in Windsor always knew that this was the wrong thing to do.
The kind of education changes you're making really are all just a façade for the gutting of a public education system. That's what you're truly after. We know all those right-wing reformers over there: Your intent is to privatize the education system. We see you for what you really are. I just wish you'd have the nerve to stand up and say that in fact is your mission here. We know you want to introduce some kind of voucher system. You want to so gut the public education system that all your middle-class voters are going to say: "Jeez, that public system won't be for our kid. No, no. We're going to privately fund our kids and send them to those private schools." What do you leave for the rest of us, a ghettoized public education system just like happened after 1976 in that famous referenda legislation in California? It was the birth of charter schools.
Teachers out there understand. I've gone out of my way to explain this link between what seems to be an innocuous piece of information concerning referenda and the demise of public education. Is it fully your intent to come forward with referenda legislation so that you can ask the people of Ontario, so that you won't raise provincial taxes unless the people of Ontario give you the permission? You know they won't because you, as the government, are going to institute it in such a way that you will control the question? All the research tells us that when you control the question, you control the outcome of the question too. So when they don't give you permission to raise taxes, you have the perfect excuse: "We can't properly fund education because you, the people, won't let us," and hence we have fertile ground for the development of a privatized charter school system in Ontario, one to which I am completely opposed.
So here we are today talking about a cottage tax bill on education, and members of the other side have already said why we would spend an entire sessional day, which this evening now is, discussing this bill when we could be talking about real issues of real concern in education, about Bill 160. When, in the history of Ontario governments, have you had 24,000 people marching to the Gardens in Toronto, telling you, "We don't think you're doing education change the right way"?
I want to take you to the letter from Mary Jane Finn, who says very clearly: "Working with our young people is becoming more demanding, but I'm a professional who cares deeply for my charges. The changes being contemplated will only make my job more difficult, without providing any benefits for the boys and girls in my classroom." I agree with Mary Jane.
We have a letter from John Couvillon, and --
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Is that written on board letterhead?
Mrs Pupatello: No, actually it isn't. It's not written on board letterhead. It's written in their handwriting, because they took the time to write it. I wish you would show the people who take the time to give you their opinions at least some level of respect for taking the time to speak to us.
John Couvillon tells us, very interestingly, "Before undertaking such massive change in education, I still do not see that your changes are significant educational changes as much as they are structural and systematic." He goes on to say, "Instead, all of your actions have been threatening, degrading and dismissive of teachers and the teaching profession." This is to the Minister of Education: "It appears that you are bringing your negative feelings towards your own former teachers into your mandate as education minister. This is unfair to all education and makes a farce of the position of Minister of Education of Ontario."
2000
I always did have some level of respect for a minister of the crown. When you see this kind of behaviour, that a minister would stand up and lay blame at the teachers' feet, the people who have been out there in the trenches -- I don't know how many MPPs remember the Take Your MPP to School Day. When I went into my riding, I had to start at 7:30 in the morning and attend breakfast programs, not run by volunteers in the community but run by teachers, because that school in inner-city Windsor didn't have volunteers to come in at 7:30 am and run a breakfast program. You had to stay until 6 o'clock at night because that's how long the coaches were there.
This government wants to talk about cutting preparation time, without recognizing what the real role of a teacher is, not just in the classroom but in the life of a student, in the life of the school and in the entire school community. Not one committee is run without a teacher-adviser, whether that's student council, whether that's girls' athletic association or boys' athletics, whether it's your Kumon math. Whatever it is in the school, every one of those activities is matched with a teacher. They simply wouldn't happen if you didn't have teachers who were prepared to be there for those kids because they know it makes a difference in the school life of that child.
To date, this government has cut $533 million from public education. What have we seen in the child task force that we've taken around Ontario? The effects of your education cuts on children because all those so-called soft supports in the system are gone. You want to cut preparation time for these same teachers, preparation time that was used in many instances to try to recoup the loss of other supports no longer available in the education system, like the speech pathologists. We brought people in the House here just last week, young children diagnosed with autism no longer getting speech pathology from the board of education. Why is that? Because the position was cut, because the school board had no more room inside the education mandate to fund it. This government cut those services and those children simply aren't getting the kind of supports they need -- real children in real need.
It may be okay when we say we've got really smart kids and they don't need special attention. That just isn't the reality any more. Children who are special and need special attention -- it's not according to income levels any more; it's according to the level of support they get at home. Abused children come from families of all income levels. Broken families are at all income levels. Children bring these dynamics into the classroom. That makes the teacher not just a teacher; it makes the teacher a psychologist, a speech pathologist, a family counsellor. These kinds of things deeply affect a classroom.
You want to take away the special aids for kids with disabilities. You want to take away all those special supports in the school board, but you're going to do it with a face that says, "But our classroom sizes will be smaller." That is a farce. No one believes it. Parents who call me don't believe you, because they've already seen what you've done to education.
You've been a government for two years. You have not made a commitment to quality education. You cannot go in the back room, some boys' club somewhere, and talk about what you're really going to do to those teachers, boy, and then get your minister on his feet in this House to talk about the fact that he respects teachers. You can't have it both ways. You're either for the education system or you're not. Everything you have done to date proves to me that you are interested in one thing, and that is privatizing the system.
All these discussions are for naught, because it is not your intention to provide every child in Ontario with an equal playing field, and that, friends, is absolutely dead wrong.
Mr Crozier: I welcome the opportunity we have this evening to speak to Bill 158, the Education Voting Rights Act. The reason I appreciate the opportunity is one that I alluded to earlier this evening, and that is the right to stand up in this place and debate, the right to express the opinions that are expressed to me by the constituents in Essex South.
I think back to earlier this year and Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act. If at that time the government had listened to the debate, if they had listened to what we were telling them our constituents wanted related, they would have understood at that time that it wasn't the right thing to do to take the rights of certain property owners away from them. Why were they doing that? The reason given at that time was that the provincial government was going to take all education tax off property.
I think back to the by-election in 1993 that I was in and the subsequent general election in 1995. Time and time again, people at the door have agreed that education tax should not be on property. There was a move to do that. The government found, for whatever reason, that it was not able to, so after having first said they were going to and promising people they were going to take all the education tax off property, they then had to turn around and go back and say, "We're only going to take 50% of the education tax off property."
In a twisted way I'm surprised this government didn't say, in its logic, "If we're only going to take 50% of the education tax on property, perhaps we should then only give people half a vote." That's the kind of thinking that it appears to me has gone into some of the legislation this government has put before us. It's the way they just steamroll ahead, not thinking what the consequences are, and then when they find out what the consequences really are, they say, "Whoa, we've got to back up and correct this."
I still think the basis of some of the problem is the fact that they don't take time to listen. When you take time, you have that opportunity to avoid some of these mistakes. Frankly, we all know that's what debate is all about.
We come to this Legislature as the official opposition or Her Majesty's loyal opposition in order to hold the government accountable. I know that bothers some of the members opposite. Probably it bothers some of the members who are newer to this Legislature, like I am. They think: "We have the majority. We don't have to listen. We'll just tolerate the time that we give those on the opposite side of the House."
But frankly, in a democracy, I think it's just as important to have an opposition that holds governments accountable as it is to have majority governments in the first place. The basis of all that is the time to debate. I think those rights of debate, that advantage of democracy, has been challenged in this Legislature. It's been challenged because the rules have now been made so tight that we don't really have the opportunity to express the feelings of our constituents in the way we should, as I mentioned earlier this evening in a very short two minutes of comments.
When the rule changes came in, one of the excuses given, one of the reasons given, was that it would give more members more opportunity to debate. They emphasized the "more members"; what they didn't say was, "But we're going to give you a lot less time to say it." Then we come along on a bill like this, where really, had they listened in the first place, we wouldn't even be here this evening debating this particular bill. Rather than limiting debate on Bill 160, rather than cutting off any debate on Bill 160, we could have been here this evening debating much more important issues.
I, for one, agree that this particular bill is necessary. I agree that it goes almost without saying that if you pay, if you're taxed for an important part of our provincial responsibility like education, of course you should have that opportunity to vote. So I agree with the government in restoring this.
But I did have to chuckle just a little bit when a couple of the members said, "We listened; that's why we're restoring it." For God's sake, it's their democratic right. Nobody should have needed to tell you that this is the right thing to do.
2010
The right thing to do extends even beyond an innocuous bill like this; it goes to the very heart of what we've been talking about over the past few weeks. As a matter of fact, this evening, as you well know, Mr Speaker, under a time allocation motion we voted on third reading of Bill 136. I can't recall, in the municipalities I represent, having seen in the past lawn signs pop up for anything but yard sales and elections. But I've seen all across the riding lawn signs saying, "Stop Bill 136." It's the first time I can recall seeing it in the time I've lived in Essex South, and, as one of my colleagues said earlier, that has been a long time. Why are they putting those up? Because they understand that because of the time allocation, because of the limiting of debate in this Legislature and the limiting of the time that you go out across the province to listen, the only way to emphasize that democratic right is to say simply, "Stop Bill 136."
Then we dealt with another time allocation, Bill 160.
One of the hallmarks of a government is how they listen, how democratic they are, how they treat minorities. By minorities, I mean as much those smaller groups of people who don't agree with them. I'm concerned that this bill is not so much a restoration of democracy as we might think. As I said, it's just the right thing to do.
Bill 160 was about education as well. In fact, there was the original Bill 104 about the reduction of school boards, which caused this, and we have Bill 160 and this Bill 158, all tied into education. The education minister gets up and stands here day after day and says: "I'm listening. I think that on one hand we have the best teachers in the world" -- although we've had to force him to say that, literally, because there have been other things said by the Premier, for example, that he didn't trust teachers, he didn't trust school boards. We had to almost force him to say we have the best teachers in the world. We all knew that. They didn't have to berate teachers time and time again.
Mr Bradley: It's a wonder he didn't call them hula hoops. That's what he called the nurses.
Mr Crozier: Yes. The nurses were called hula hoops because hula hoops go out of style. I'm glad he didn't call the teachers that, because they certainly deserve a great deal more respect than that.
But the point is, Teacher -- oops -- Speaker. I'm trying to read notes and think at the same time.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's pretty tough, isn't it?
Mr Crozier: It is tough. There; now I'm back at the right place.
He didn't have to tell us that we have the best teachers in the world; we know that. Then why it is that on the other hand he has to go out and beat up on all these teachers, I have no idea. There has been ample opportunity to speak with the teachers, to meet with the teachers, to get some consensus in all of this debate. He didn't have to bring them to the brink, and that's where we are tonight with the passage of second reading of Bill 160: We are at the brink.
Teachers don't want to strike; teachers want to teach kids. I was in Queen of Peace school last week reading to the grade 1 and kindergarten children. They're dedicated teachers. You just have to look at the school room, the way the material is on the walls and the way the rooms are decorated, you just have to listen to the teachers, the way they communicate with the kids, you just have to look at the students themselves, to know we have the best teachers in the world. Why we would bring them to the point we have, I can't understand.
But this Bill 158 is at least a bill that's going to fix something that's wrong, and it's for that reason that we can certainly support the bill.
I'm just going to take a few minutes. I got a note from across the way signed, "A friend," when I was talking about lawn signs going up. It says, "I understand that after you were elected a lot of For Sale signs went up." Well, no, that wasn't the case. Actually, people in Essex South begged me to stay, because we have to do something about this government.
Enough said. I support this bill because it fixes a wrong. I just wish this government would listen more in other areas to correct some wrongs.
Mr Ramsay: I'm pleased to offer a very small contribution to this debate tonight. I must be frank with people watching the members in the House. We all have varying degrees of interest in different topics, as we represent very different constituencies. Up until tonight, I hadn't been that familiar with Bill 158, and I can see why.
It says here in the order paper today that the bill is "An Act to amend the Education Act...." But as many of my colleagues have said -- there have been some great speeches from the members for Windsor-Sandwich, Windsor-Walkerville, Essex South and Fort William before me, and I'm pleased to be able to be in that company -- it goes on to say what these amendments are: "to allow for non-resident owners or tenants of residential property to vote for members of district school boards and school authorities."
This government likes to put the titles of its bills in plain language, and really the plain-language title of this bill would be "An Act to correct all the stupid stuff they passed in Bill 104," because that's really what it is. We shouldn't even be here tonight to have to do this at all. This is the latest legislation correcting legislation that we just passed a few weeks ago. The reason for this is that in just about everything the Harris government touches, they're dropping the ball.
The reason -- and many township officials in my area have explained it this way, especially with regard to the restructuring, and that's what this is, another type of restructuring bill -- is that the government is trying to restructure the whole province of Ontario and they don't even have a blueprint. They don't even have a plan. They don't know where they're going. Woe betide the poor officials who are representing us at the local level, who are working hard trying to keep our school boards together and our schools running, to keep our municipalities together and running. They don't know from week to week and day to day what the latest missive is coming down from Queen's Park as to how they are to run their particular organization in the next year.
Supposedly today, I believe through courier, all the municipal clerk-treasurers and administrators in the province got the very latest financial figures from the Minister of Municipal Affairs as to exactly what the new offloaded costs are going to be to all our municipalities. Now we're just three months away from year-end. Most municipalities today prepare their budgets way before the new year, and only now do they have these figures. We haven't really heard confirmation or any verification that they have these figures as of this time, but supposedly they're on the way and we're finally going to know what percentage our local property taxes are going to go up.
It has been a real challenge for our local officials; the same with the school boards that are trying to restructure themselves under the very hurried deadline of January 1 of next year. Again, it's less than three months before all this is going to happen, and here we are again throwing another bill at them to correct some of the errors the Harris government made in Bill 104.
Education has certainly been the topic of the week. As was mentioned by some of my colleagues, at 6:30 this evening we voted on second reading of Bill 160, the education amendment act that is going to really affect classrooms. I know the people out there watching are very aware of how upset our teachers and principals are, and to some degree school board trustees, about the changes happening in Bill 160, so they should be alarmed, because what this is really about -- I'm not sure it has been articulated in this way, because most of us say this has been about money and about controlling the money that goes to education, but what that boils down to is that this is about power. This is about who runs the education system.
2020
Traditionally, our education system has been the most democratic form of any governance we've had in this province. As our pioneers cleared their way through this country and this province and cleared the land, one of the first things they built with those logs was a schoolhouse, because they knew if their children were to prosper they had to build a school and they had to have some governance of that. They had to pool their resources and hire a teacher; the teacher would come into the area and usually live right in the basement of that house. It was a very frugal operation and it was local people who ran that school. It was really the first democracy we had.
We've come a long way from that; some people would say in some cases very well and some good has come of that, and in some cases maybe we lost some of that original essence of that very closely localized governance of those schools.
But now we've done a 360-degree turn, a complete about-face, in that this government, the provincial government, is taking total responsibility for education out of the hands of local people. It was going to fund it totally also and then decided, mid-course, not to do that. That's why this bill is necessary, because now there is supposedly going to be some local taxation power from the new local super-boards.
Of course that is all going to be dictated from Queen's Park. Mike Harris, with maybe some consultation with cabinet, is going to set the mill rate for half the revenues raised on the property tax for education. That's going to be set for the province on our property taxes, which up till now have only been in the jurisdiction and the control of our locally elected politicians. So they should be, because it's the locally elected politicians who run our municipalities and school board that really are the closest to us all. They really understand the saying that all politics are local. They deal with local issues. They live in the locality. They don't travel out of the locality to come to the capital seat of the province and work, as we do. They really are part of the community; they live and work there and they really understand the importance and the great responsibility they have when they levy a mill rate against the value of our property.
Mike Harris is taking away quite a bit of that and is going to levy at least half of that on our property right from Queen's Park, right across this province. That's a big change, without any consultation.
Getting back to my analogy that the government has done this without a blueprint, not only has it done it without a blueprint, it didn't even talk about its plans with the municipalities and the school boards. Yes, they said in the last campaign that they were going to restructure government, but they didn't say they were going to download many of the responsibilities that up till now had been under the control of the provincial government, that they would download those responsibilities to our municipalities so that those municipalities now have to scramble around to raise extra revenue from our property taxes to pay for those services.
The real objection I have to that is that property taxes don't necessarily reflect the ability to pay. Unlike an income tax, which really is a progressive taxation system based on the income a person generates and therefore one could say it is fair, the property tax system is not necessarily fair, depending on people's idea of how much value they want to put in their home or how much they can afford to put in their home, or maybe, in the case of a widow who finds herself in the family home, unable to sell that home but having to carry the expense through local property taxes.
It's really not the way to go. In fact, all the experts the Harris government put together on the Who Does What committee said that was not the way to go, that you should not be taxing property for education and for social services. But that is the way this government has gone, and we find, because of their great haste and speed, that tonight we have to correct one of the previous pieces of legislation, which was only passed two months ago. Here we go again, and I don't doubt at all that this will not be the last piece of legislation we will need with which to repair much of the damage the Harris government has done to the fabric of this province.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Questions and comments?
Mr Wildman: I want to congratulate the Liberal members for the presentation they made with regard to Bill 158. As they indicated, we are now having to rectify errors made by a government that is bulldozing through and moving forward at great haste very complex pieces of legislation and as a result making very serious mistakes.
I find it a little bit odd that the government members who have spoken in this debate would go to great lengths to argue that they have listened to the public and are responding to the concerns and defending the principle of no taxation without representation, when what they're really doing here is trying to fix a problem that they themselves caused. It is something like the Minister of Education telling the teachers: "Look, you shouldn't be upset with Bill 160 because I threatened to take away the right to strike, I threatened to remove principals and vice-principals from the bargaining units, I threatened to make it possible for people to teach who are not members of the teachers' union. I didn't do those things, so therefore you should be happy." It's like telling someone, "I'm going to destroy your home, I'm going to bomb your place," and then afterwards, when you decide not to throw a bomb but just to break a window, you say: "You should be happy. It's okay. I only broke a window; I didn't destroy your home, so don't be unhappy." This is a government that screws up and then doesn't admit it.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I stand here today to respond to the comments of the opposition party with respect to Bill 158. I would say to start off is that what we're dealing with here is the right of non-resident taxpayers to vote, primarily cottage owners. In my riding of Simcoe Centre, that's a welcome feature. We have all kinds of cottagers in the area: Big Bay Point, Alcona Beach, LeFroy and Gilford. When you listen to the points the opposition was trying to make, it was a lot of -- well, I wouldn't say gobbledegook, but it was a little bit off the point.
We're talking about Bill 158, and the bill essentially is Education Voting Rights Act (Cottagers and Others), 1997. It's allowing non-resident ratepayers, primarily cottage owners, to vote for trustees in a November school board election. What's objectionable about that?
The member for Windsor-Walkerville said, "It was a mistake to take education off residential property tax." The member for Fort William said, "It's a mistake to give the province responsibility to fund education." The member for Windsor-Sandwich made the comment, "It's a cottage tax bill on education." What do these comments have to do with Bill 158?
The bottom line is that the province is responsible for funding education. The bottom line is that this is not a tax bill; this is a voting bill. These people also have the right to vote with respect to school board trustees in their principal residence. They're being allowed an opportunity to vote in their cottage area and also in the area of their principal residence. I think this is a fair bill. There are no mistakes in this; this is strictly a bill about fairness.
2030
Mr Bradley: What everybody is concerned about this evening is the fact that the government had a sneak vote on Bill 160 tonight. Most people were anticipating that that would come either in the afternoon, when normally we have the Orders of the Day, or I think most people were probably anticipating that we would have had that vote after the Minister of Education met with the teachers.
So here we have a situation tomorrow where representatives of the teaching profession will be meeting with the Minister of Education to discuss the provisions of Bill 160, the mammoth education bill which is designed to remove over $1 billion more from the education system, to allow people without qualification to teach in the system, and to tamper with many of the rights which have been part of the collective bargaining process over the years. That's what we have.
We had that vote tonight at approximately 6:40 to 6:45. I don't know anybody in the province who knew it was coming except members of the Legislature midafternoon this afternoon. Here the government goes again, involved in a sneak attack. I think that is not going to be well received. I hope people overlook that as a slap in the face to the people with whom you're going to negotiate.
But here we have a meeting taking place tomorrow. We hope there's goodwill on the side of the government. We know there's going to be goodwill on the side of the representatives of the teaching profession at this meeting, but they're going to be confronted with a situation where the government, with a closure motion choking off debate, has already rammed through second reading of Bill 130. I think most of them would have preferred us to be debating that legislation this evening, as my colleagues have pointed out.
Ms Martel: I want to begin by saying that I appreciate the comments being made by the Liberal members who said this Bill 158 restores -- "restores" is the key word -- the right of cottage owners to have a vote for school trustees in the next election. I have to ask the government members who are here tonight, do the government members understand the words, "bungled," "messed up," "screwed up," "blundered," "botched"? Because that's the position you folks find yourselves in here this evening. This is what this bill is all about. In your haste to ram through Bill 104, the Conservative government took away the right of cottage owners to vote for municipal trustees. That's what you did a few short months ago, and we find ourselves in the assembly tonight putting through a bill, second and third readings, to allow people to continue to have the right you took away.
I find it a little bit insulting for the government members to call on the rest of us to vote in favour of this bill. We were always in favour of allowing these folks the right to vote. You were the people who took that right away. You were the people who disfranchised cottage owners because of your rapid changes to Bill 104 which were not thought through, and clearly here are the consequences. It reminds me of Bill 26 and a whole host of other bills that you people are so intent on ramming through. Afterwards we find all of the mistakes and here we are tonight trying to fix it.
Some of the members have also said, "The government listened." Well, folks, you didn't have a choice, did you? You were the ones who took away cottage owners' right to vote. We're here tonight trying to fix your mess. If anything, the whole lot of you should have got up and apologized. You sure should be embarrassed about the position you find yourselves in tonight.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Who's going to sum up for the Liberals? The member fort Fort William.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The clock is stopped. Order, please. Member for Fort William.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the comments of all the members. The member for Sudbury East ends where I began with my comments, which is that this bill is here simply to restore a right which the government did indeed take away. As the member for Sudbury East emphasizes, it was a blunder, a mistake. I want to re-emphasize the fact that this was not a minor mistake, this was not a casual overlooking of cottagers. This was a major mistake on the government's mega-plan which was fated not to work from the very beginning.
The member for Simcoe Centre has asked what our comments about taxation and educational funding control have to do with this bill. This whole bill is here because you have to restore representation because you've got taxation. "No taxation without representation" is what your minister and your members have said. I would suggest that it's equally important that we establish a principle of no taxation by regulation because this same government has another bill, Bill 160, that establishes a principle which is so anti-democratic, that all taxation for education will be determined by cabinet. There is no taxation with representation when you've got taxation by regulation. It is unprecedented.
The members have said, "This is a bill, after all, about local accountability." As the member for Timiskaming has said, this bill does nothing to fix the major mess that was created by Bill 104 and the restructuring of local school boards, which essentially, combined with Bill 160, takes away all real local accountability and disfranchises every one of us when it comes to voting for the local school board.
The members of the government caucus have also said, "This bill is about democracy," so we addressed the issue of democracy. As the member for Essex South said, if you're going to address the issue of democracy, let's begin by getting more democratic in this place and not bringing in legislation which denies us the right to debate education from now on.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Wildman: I want to rise to participate in this debate and indicate that I will be sharing my time with my friends from Cochrane South, Sudbury East, Hamilton Centre and Dovercourt -- cottagers all.
Bill 158 is entitled An Act to amend the Education Act to allow non-resident owners or tenants of residential property to vote for members of district school boards and school authorities. I suggest that this is a misnomer. The bill actually should be entitled "An Act to amend the Education Act to restore to non-resident owners or tenants of residential property the right to vote for members of district school boards and school authorities, a right which was removed by the Harris government."
Mr Christopherson: What's the short title of that bill?
Mr Wildman: The short title is "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa."
The government of course has messed up and we're here this evening to help them fix it up, to resolve a problem. As usual, the opposition has to come together to assist the citizens of this province to rectify the problems that the government has visited upon them.
The government rushed through a bill called Bill 104. Under that bill, they changed the school board boundaries in the province and significantly reduced the number of school boards so that we now have, particularly in northern and rural Ontario, enormous geographic boards which are completely unworkable and which will mean that many, many communities will not have any representation at all on school boards. Of course now with Bill 160 the government is finishing the process in which they have taken essentially all power, all control, all authority and all accountability away from local school boards, so that these large school boards for which these non-resident property owners will now again be able to vote will not be able to do anything. They will not have any power, any control or any influence over the education in the local communities
I found it a bit much, though, as I listened to the government party members who participated in this debate -- I think the member for Middlesex, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, the member for Peterborough and the member for Simcoe Centre -- who at one time or another all got up and defend this legislation as if it were a great democratic move on the part of the government --
Mr Baird: So did I, Bud.
Mr Wildman: Oh, the member for Nepean just thanked everybody for their cogent comments, as I recall. But these other members all defended the legislation on the basis that it was a great act of democratic generosity by the government because they were extending a new right. Any of us who understand history understand that the right to vote related to property ownership is older than the general franchise. Originally, in order to vote, people had to own property. It's only later that each individual member of the public got the right to vote. This is one of the oldest rights we have had in this system. This government chose to deny it to people, to take it away, to remove it, to disfranchise cottage owners who, as I understand from the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, actually pay 80% of the cost of education in his area.
2040
The justification the government used in Bill 104 for removing this right from these seasonal homeowners was that they were going to take over all of the cost of education, 100% of the cost of education, and therefore, since the people didn't live in the community and they would no longer be paying property taxes for education, the argument was that they didn't need the right to vote.
The other thing I found interesting was that the government has tried to blame the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for this. They said it's their fault, that they asked for this. Of course, what happened was that when the municipalities saw the magnitude of the download that this government is dumping on them with regard to all the other services that are being transferred to the municipal level of government, all the costs involved, they said: "Hey, wait a minute. This isn't acceptable. You've got to keep some of these at the provincial level." So when they had to go back into negotiations with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the government had to back off and back up. They said: "Wait a minute. Okay, we will not now transfer all the cost of education to the provincial government. We will only transfer 50%."
Mr Baird: We're listening too much.
Mr Wildman: The member says they're listening, but the interesting thing is that when they took 50% of the cost of education back to the provincial level, did they restore any power to the local authorities? The members I mentioned have defended this on the basis of no taxation without representation, but the point is this: If these property owners were really to have the right through the ballot box to influence the amount of taxes they are going to pay, they would have to be given the right to vote directly for the Treasurer, for the Minister of Finance, because it is the Treasurer who from now on, thanks to Bill 160, is going to determine how much tax they pay. It's not going to be the local school board. They're being given the right to vote for the school board, but the school board won't have the right to set the mill rate. The school board is not going to have any say over how much tax they pay.
This is a hollow right that is being restored. This government is centralizing control over the cost and expenditure for education at Queen's Park. Interestingly enough, it's not even the Minister of Education and Training who is going to control it; it is the Minister of Finance. Why? We know why. The Minister of Finance -- I've used this analogy before -- is like the guy in the Hollywood movie Jerry Maguire who's an athlete. He keeps yelling at all his other colleagues in the cabinet: "Show me the money. Give me the money. I want the money. I want to give a tax break and you've got to give me billions of dollars in order to do it." The Minister of Education and Training, Mr Snobelen, is I guess Jerry Maguire in this analogy. He says: "I'll get you the money. Just don't drop me as your agent."
The Minister of Education and Training has tried to justify his moves in education in Bill 104, Bill 158 and Bill 160 on the basis that he wants to improve the quality of education for students. It's not true. I think he's mistaken. I think he actually believes that's what he's going to do, but I'm not certain he actually believes it, because it's hard to tell with Mr Snobelen.
The fact is this: The government is taking complete control over education. They're trying to do this because they want to get as much money out as possible. These taxpayers are going to be paying taxes, 50% of the cost of education, but they're not going to be getting very much of anything out of this. They're not going to get any say over how much they're going to be paying in taxes, because the Minister of Finance is going to set the mill rate.
They're not going to have much influence over how school boards spend the money they have, because most of the control over questions around the organization of schools, who teaches in the classroom, what they teach, how they teach and when they teach will be set by regulation under Bill 160. The teachers, who are central to providing quality education to students, and the school boards will not be able to negotiate the learning conditions for students, they won't be able to make decisions around how money is expended, because most of those decisions will be made centrally.
It is beyond my understanding how a party that claims to be in favour of local autonomy, that claims to be interested in having as much accountability at the local level as possible, would be moving forward on this agenda in education. They are centralizing control throughout the system. They are taking control away from the trustees; they are taking control away from the parents; they are taking influence and bargaining rights away from the teachers. With this bill and the others, they're even taking away control from the group they tend to argue they listen to the most, the taxpayers, because no matter how they try to cut it, this bill is not going to give cottage owners any influence over how much tax they pay on their properties towards education. That's all going to be decided here at Queen's Park by the great Pooh-Bah of finance.
It's unfortunate. I think this government is on a completely wrongheaded course with regard to education and education finance and governance. This bill does not rectify it. It simply tries to get around an embarrassment that this government has caused itself without doing anything for the property owners it purports to assist and without doing anything for the students who are central and the main reason for education.
I just want to close by explaining one of the problems boards find themselves in now. The Durham Board of Education, which has been congratulated around the world as one of the best boards of education in the world, is one of the first boards to approve its budget for next year. It's very difficult for boards to approve budgets, because they don't know what the funding formula is yet. The government hasn't told them what the funding formula is. But the Durham Board of Education moved forward, and because they don't know what the funding formula is for next year, they had to do it on the basis of what they did last year.
The problem that Durham had, though, was that they were moving forward on the minister's announcement in January. The minister announced in January that the provincial government was taking over 100% of the cost of education funding. At that time, the Durham board believed they would still be able to set the mill rate, but they decided not to impose a mill rate increase on local taxpayers but rather to use their reserves. What did they want to use their reserves for? They decided to use the reserves, which they had built up over the years on the basis of the taxes they had collected from the property owners in their area, to save junior kindergarten.
Ms Martel: Why did they have to do that?
2050
Mr Wildman: They had to use those reserves because this government had cut the funding for junior kindergarten.
As a responsible group of trustees, serving on what has been deemed by a German foundation that has surveyed boards around the world to be the best in the world, in serving their students and their ratepayers, they decided to save junior kindergarten. But because of that, the ratepayers in Durham are suffering. They are losing because this government doesn't want boards to use their reserves, so they're being penalized by this government for doing that. They will probably see -- I don't know this for certain -- a situation where they are going to have to see an increase in the mill rate now because they cannot fund junior kindergarten along with enrolment growth.
This is what this government is visiting upon the ratepayers. This is a government that doesn't really know what it wants except money out of education. This is a government that says one thing one day and does something else the next in the education of our students. This is a government that wants to centralize all of the control over education governance and finance at Queen's Park, wants to make it possible for the government to make regulations on things that have always been under the purview of school boards or subject to school board-teacher negotiations in the past on the basis of what's good for their students. This is a government that does not believe in education; all it's interested in is getting the money out.
It's about time the Minister of Finance stopped shouting at Mr Snobelen, "Show me the money." It's about time Mr Snobelen, the Minister of Education, and the Minister of Finance and all of the government ministers rethought the education direction they're involved in, sat down with the teachers, the trustees, the parents, the students and all those interested in education and designed an agenda which will properly serve the students and ensure them a quality education.
We're willing to help the government out to rectify the problems they caused by hurrying Bill 104 through without proper thought. We're prepared to restore to people the basic right to vote that this government took away, but the government members shouldn't have the gall to get up here and try to claim that they're doing something that is worthwhile and useful and good. What they're doing is simply trying to rectify an error they made because they were prepared to bulldoze things through simply to get as much money out of education as possible.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rather enjoyed the comments by the member for Algoma, our House leader, because I'm going to pick up from where he left off, and that is that the government quite frankly made a mistake. I'll tell you this is about the third or fourth occasion in the last two weeks that we as opposition members have had to come back in this House and help the government yet again fix another one of their blunders. I don't mind doing it; that's the job we're paid for. But I think the use of the House and our time here as legislators could be better spent if the government were to get its act together and if the government would just for once try to do things right.
I hear the line that they're going too far, too fast, yet another example. It's not too far, too fast; this government yet again went in the wrong direction. They took away the rights of cottage owners to vote in a municipal election when it came to their school trustees. Why? Because they had a thought at the beginning. It was a novel thought. They said, "We're going to remove property taxes altogether from the municipal rolls." They made a mistake. I don't think they really ever had the intention to do so but they ended up making changes in Bill 104 that would have taken away people's right to vote, because they wouldn't have had to pay municipal taxes, and whoops, they slipped up again. They've had to charge people taxes, when it comes to property tax, for education, and here we are once again having to come back into this House as members of the opposition and help the government fix yet another mistake.
I just want to make sure the Minister of Education has a bit of a lesson here, because I think the Minister of Education needs to get a bit of a lesson on a couple of things. It was very clear yesterday when we were at the rally at the Maple Leaf Gardens and here yesterday in front of Queen's Park that a lot of people in Ontario are really beginning to believe that John has got problems, that the minister needs a bit of a lesson. So I want to share with the minister today that there's a thing called a thesaurus. If he's not sure how it's spelled, it's t-h-e-s-a-u-r-u-s, and it's Roget's second edition Thesaurus. If you take a look at it on page 642 --
Mr Wildman: Beauchesne.
Mr Bisson: Beauchesne. Good one, Bud. Roget's. Anyway, touché, as they might say.
If you take a look at page 642, it talks about the word "mistake" and it basically has some other pretty interesting words you can use to replace it. Some of these were mentioned earlier by the member from Algoma. The word "error," "miscue," "slipup," "blunder," "stumble," "trip-up," "ball-up," and I'll let your imagination wander from there.
Interjection: Did you say "screwup"?
Mr Bisson: Oh no, I didn't say that. I couldn't say that in the Legislature. It is not in keeping with the decorum of the House.
I finished looking at the Thesaurus and I though that maybe it's a problem of the ministers of the crown that they don't understand what a mistake is. Maybe we should try to tell them there are other words that maybe they do understand, in their limited vocabulary, and we can use those words here in the House to point out that maybe they're having problems. If you don't understand the word "mistake," you probably know what the word "error" means: "Miscue, to slip or to slip up, to stumble, to trip up, blunder, snafu," all of them mean the same thing. You messed it up.
If you pick up the dictionary -- now a dictionary, John, you know what that is? They have them in classrooms all around Ontario.
Ms Martel: Not any more.
Mr Bisson: I have to be corrected yet again.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, take your seat a moment. I have to remind you that you cannot refer to the members by their first name or even their name. You must refer to them by their seat.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Minister Johnny. Very good. Thank you very much. The Minister of Education --
The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, no, you can't do that, please.
Mr Bisson: Minister Mr Snobelen. Anyway, as it was pointed out, there are not very many more dictionaries in classrooms around Ontario because of the $800 million the government has already pulled out of our public and Catholic separate school system of education, and yet another billion dollars. Can you imagine, Minister Snobelen, how few dictionaries we're going to have in Ontario? But I found one. There is one here in the assembly. We're fortunate because we have books, the things with words in them. Just go around the corner. There is whole bunch of them and you can read them.
It's an interesting thing: I picked up the dictionary and I found that there is quite an interesting dialogue on the word "mistake," because it really comes down to four different categories. The first category of "mistake" reads as follows in the dictionary, page 779: "A mistake, grave or trivial, is caused by bad judgement or disregard of rules of principle." Is that what happened here? Is this bad judgement and a bad rule of principle? We'll get back to that, but there's another one.
You can use the word "blunder" for "mistake" and it is defined, on page 779 of the dictionary, as: "A blunder is a careless, stupid or gross mistake in action suggesting awkwardness, headlessness or ignorance." I wonder which one Minister Snobelen falls under when it comes to this particular definition.
You can go further, again on page 779, and under the word "mistake" it says: "An error. A mistake is an unintentional wandering or deviation from accuracy or the right conduct." Do you think maybe that's what it was? Do you think it was a deviation or wandering? We do know that the minister tends to wander in blaming teachers all the time.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): When it comes to big words.
Mr Bisson: Yes, words. Those are those things with more than three letters that you learn in books and you put them together and they make words.
The last one on page 779 under "mistake" says: "A slip is usually a minor mistake made through haste or carelessness." The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Which of the four definitions do we want to take?
Ms Lankin: I vote on both "slipup" and "blunder."
Mr Bisson: We have votes on "slipup" and "blunder." There are four categories. These are your choices, and I'll end on this point because we have other members who want to speak: We have "mistake," which is bad judgement or disregard for principle. We know the Tories are supposed to have principles, so can we see hands? Yes, Minister, you're on the "bad principle" one. We have you duly noted. Then there is "blunder: a mistake because of ignorance." Premier, no? You're not with me? Not "ignorance." Okay. Then we go on to "blunder" -- oh, I already did "blunder." That was our favourite here in the caucus. The other one is "error: wandering or deviation from accuracy," because it's an error in judgement or it's a slipup because they moved too fast.
The point is, you guys made a mistake and we're having to come back into this assembly one more time to fix your mistakes because you cannot get it right the first time, the second time and every time.
We are pleased to be here in this assembly tonight, as members of the New Democratic Party, yet again to help this government fix up yet another one of their mistakes. We will assist the government to make sure the people's right to vote, when it comes to property owners who own seasonal lands and seasonal cottages or buildings, are able to vote again in municipal elections for their school board trustees.
I leave it up to you: Which one of the mistakes is it?
2100
Mr Christopherson: It's actually a rather fascinating evening to sit and watch this majority government, a group of people who take such delight in using their majority to ram things through at lightning speed, listening to no one other than themselves and their own key advisers at the end of a rope, twisting as you are.
I have to confess that were you not trying to offer up this feeble argument, which I don't hear being heckled across the floor nearly as much any more -- you started out the evening talking about: "We made this change because we were listening. We made this change because we care. We care about making sure people have the rights they deserve under the democratic system." The reality is --
Interjections.
Mr Christopherson: It's got to be working. We're hearing "Yabba dabba doo" finally this evening.
The reason, of course, that you had to offer up this excuse is because you couldn't bring yourself to say, "We did screw up." This happened as a result of a change in policy, a flip-flop we would call it, but you could straight up call it a change in policy, and as a result of that change you've got to go back and make another change.
But no, you didn't do that. You had to come in here and talk about this glorious thing you're doing for democracy. Meanwhile, it's been in the law and on the books for, I don't know, decades. The only time this right that's being restored tonight was threatened was when you took it away under Bill 104. That's the only time it was ever threatened.
You can appreciate that we find it a little galling that you come in and try to cover off where your polls are showing you clearly that you've got some soft spots in terms of listening -- because you aren't -- that you want to say you're making this change because you're listening to people. The only thing you're listening to is the roar of outrage from cottage owners who had a right that you took away, and as a result of your policy flip-flop, they're left out in the cold.
Mr Bisson: They're not happy campers.
Mr Christopherson: My colleague from Cochrane South says they're not happy campers. They're not happy cottagers, this is true. They're very upset.
What is truly ironic in all this is that the rights you're restoring are already gone, because the power to tax that trustees once had is about to be eliminated under Bill 160, the other bill you're ramming through under a time allocation the same way you did Bill 104 that took away this right in the first place. These trustees whom you're restoring the right of cottage owners to elect can't set the mill rate any more. You've taken that power away from the trustees.
Politically, you've still got to respond to the roar that's out there, but it will occur to people at some point that they really lost everything, not just under 104 but more importantly 160, because there is no longer any taxation with representation in terms of trustees. That power is now all vested in the cabinet. Therein lies a fundamental shift.
If I can be a little more serious for a moment, it's interesting -- it's been mentioned by others and I find it particularly fascinating, having served municipally -- to see a group of people come to power who have steadfastly said, "The government that's best for the people is the government that's the closest to the people." On every single measure where you've been downloading, your cover for that has been, "We want the local elected people to make the decisions." You've done that in numerous cases. Yet on this issue, a fundamental, large part of the responsibility of provincial governments, education, you are involved in Bill 160 in a massive shift of power, almost total, away from local elected trustees to you; centralizing it, back to the larger government, the senior level of government.
You even go on to insult the trustees by saying that trustees and teachers can't be trusted to manage the education system. I want to tell you that yes, they've made mistakes locally. What government hasn't, as you've proven so fully this evening? But I will say this much on behalf of the citizens in my community and in my riding: They trust the teachers and the elected school board trustees a hell of a lot more than they trust you to make sure there is proper funding for our education system. They trust them a lot more than they will ever trust you. That's assuming, of course, that we're not back here in a couple of months amending something else that involves the education system that you've screwed up because you rushed it through so quickly.
I'm going to end on this note, two quick points: One is that it is true that we are helping you fix it. I'd be surprised -- pleasantly, I might say -- to hear any of you admit that. The fact of the matter is, at a time when relations between the opposition and the government couldn't be any worse -- discussion at the House leaders' meeting level is all but in the ditch; there is no negotiation of how this place manages any more -- as a result of your changes, your shutting down a lot of the rights we had previously in this House as opposition, under your rules changes, has left us no choice. As a result of that, there isn't the kind of cooperation that would give the people the kind of Legislature they're entitled to because you denied yourselves any right to that kind of cooperation when you did what you did to the opposition.
We believe this has to be fixed too. We could have forced this government, as you well know, into a much longer process had we wanted to, but that would have made the wrong people pay the price. So this evening we have agreed that we will do second reading tonight and third reading. By the designated time of the House adjourning, we will have second and third reading under our belt, and other than the rubber stamp of the LG, de facto this is passed and your mistake is fixed. Not one of you to this moment has been big enough even once to say, "Yes, we created this problem when we took it out of Bill 104 because we changed our policy, and on behalf of the people whose rights are being restored, we thank the opposition for their cooperation." It wouldn't have taken much more than that, but a little bit of honesty and a little bit of humility would have gone an awful long way, especially from a government as arrogant as you've been. Believe me, for every twist of the knife you're getting on this screwup of yours, you've earned every bit of it and that much more.
2110
The last thing I want to say is it's interesting that when the government wants to talk about how long the House goes on, and sometimes about how much it costs when we've fought for democracy, not one of you stood up and talked about how much it's costing the taxpayers -- we haven't either because we don't see it that way -- to run this House to fix your screwup, one you haven't even got the decency to stand up and admit was yours in the first place.
Ms Martel: I'm going to start by following up on a point that was raised by my colleague from Algoma, who is the critic, who talked about what the title of the bill should really be. If you look at the explanatory note that outlines what this bill is about, my sense would be that should be changed. It says, "The purpose of the bill is to allow a person" -- allow a person, as if a person didn't have this right already -- "and the spouse of that person, to vote for members of a district school board or school authority for an area in which the person owns or is a tenant of residential property even though the person or spouse does not reside in the area."
If you read that note, you would be left to assume that somehow we are granting some brave, new, democratic right to cottage owners here this evening and, my, oh, my, shouldn't we commend the government for being so progressive? We are here tonight, and this is the irony of why we are sitting here tonight, to restore the right of cottage owners to vote for school trustees because you took that away.
Three government members this evening stood up and read speeches that were probably written by the same person who wrote Bill 104 and took the right away in the first place and tried to tell the rest of us how pleased they were to participate in the debate, as if they were extending some new thing to people across the province. For goodness' sake, be big enough to admit we're here tonight trying to fix your mess.
That's why we're sitting here at 10 after 9 on the night of October 7, because we're trying to fix the blunder, the mess, the screwup, the mistake, the error, which you made. The reason this government made the mistake in the first place, and the reason we're here fixing it tonight for you so that people might have some semblance of a vote again but I'm going to speak about the irony of that too, is because, as always, this group was in a big hurry to ram Bill 104 through this House. You were in a big hurry to ram through the bill so you could find some savings from education to help finance your tax cut.
In the process of ramming the bill through, like usual, you forgot some of the very important details, some of the very important items. This is not a minor mistake. Because of your blunder, because of your haste, because you don't pay attention to details, you folks took away the right to vote for thousands and thousands of cottage owners across the province. That's what you did. That's the irony about what we're doing here tonight. We're spending precious House time trying to fix a major mistake where you folks disfranchised thousands and thousands of Ontarians from having what should be a legitimate, long-respected, historical right to vote for trustees.
The second irony is that, even though we're here tonight trying to help you restore the rights you took away through Bill 104, at the end of the day, even after we do that, this government, through another piece of legislation, which you're trying to ram through this House too, will in essence make that both null and void.
I heard government here this evening talk about the principle of no taxation without representation. What a joke, because Bill 160 does not allow for no taxation without representation. What we will have when Bill 160 is passed by this government is the Treasurer of the province now setting the mill rate so that local trustees, local taxpayers -- be they residential, be they seasonal property cottage owners -- will have absolutely no say whatsoever in terms of the taxes that are paid for education.
This Treasurer, behind closed doors, through regulations, in a centralized office here in downtown Toronto, is going to have all the authority, all the power to set that mill rate. While we are here trying to fix your mess, we also very clearly recognize, and I hope that people who are watching tonight recognize too, that it's a false promise, a false hope, and frankly a false vote that we're here tonight trying to restore, because you folks are still intent on trying to take away people's right to vote, on trying to take away people's right to have some say over the taxes they're going to pay.
Bill 160 effectively nullifies everything we are trying to do here tonight because people will have no representation; they will not have a say in terms of the mill rate. Local politicians, local trustees, parents who are concerned, teachers who are concerned, will have absolutely no say in terms of what that mill rate will be. Not only that, given all the other changes in Bill 160, many of those groups will have virtually no say in how education is run in this province. That too is being centralized behind closed doors, this time in the office of the Minister of Education.
We're here because we're dealing with the consequences of a government that in its haste, because they were trying to take money out of the system, didn't pay attention to the details, didn't pay attention to the important points, didn't listen to people, barged ahead, rammed forward, stomped on people, and stomped in essence on their right to vote, took that away, disfranchised them. We're here trying to fix that.
But we're here also dealing with the government's flip-flop when it came to education, because this group went out in January and announced to the public that they were going to cover 100% of the cost of education raised via the property taxes. This group was going to cover that in exchange for any number of other costs around social services and soft services and some hard services to be downloaded onto municipalities.
Then the government, as the government has been wont to do over the last couple of months, found that was not going to work, that they hadn't paid attention to a lot of the details of that or the important points of that either, and the government had to come back to this place and then announce that, oh, no, they were only going to pay for 50% of the cost of education. Still a large number of services, hard services, soft services, new social services were going to be downloaded on to the local property taxpayer. We're dealing with their mistakes, we're dealing with their flip-flops and we're trying to fix some of that tonight.
What was so interesting was to listen to the government members this evening try and tell the rest of us that they hoped we would support this bill. That's an insult. Do you think we don't understand what's happening here tonight? Do you think the public doesn't understand that we're here trying to fix your mess? Don't insult us, don't insult the intelligence of the public by trying to suggest that we should do the noble and proper thing here this evening and vote in favour.
We're going to help you by passing this bill tonight, second and third reading. But it would've been nice to hear at least one of you say: "You know what? Oops, we made a mistake; we messed up, we screwed up; we made an error; we botched this; we bungled this. We're going to do the right thing for a change and we're going to fix it." No, instead I heard tonight, of all things, government members trying to say that they listened to the public, and as a consequence of listening to the public we are here tonight and we're going to respond.
Let's face it folks, you didn't have a choice, did you? You had no choice but to respond because you were the ones who took away the rights in the first place. Of course you had to listen to what cottage owners told you and give them back that right to vote. This had nothing to do with listening and being open-minded. This has nothing to do with trying to ensure that the fundamentals of no taxation without representation are respected. This has nothing to do whatsoever with trying to encourage the rest of us in making us see your point of view and voting in favour tonight.
It has everything to do with us spending time here tonight, once again trying to fix one of your mistakes, because you were in such a hurry to grab money through Bill 104 that you forgot the important details. We're living with the consequences tonight and are going to fix it for you.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'd just like to indicate at the outset that our colleague from Beaches-Woodbine will also be sharing in the balance of the time because, as my colleagues have said, we are trying to be cooperative this evening.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Do we have a choice in that?
Mr Silipo: Yes, you have a choice. The choice is, either we do that or she speaks in the next round of debate; that's the choice, I say to my colleague opposite.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Speak now.
2120
Mr Silipo: I hear, "Speak now." We will try and do that in the next 15 minutes. As I was saying, and as my colleagues before me have said very, very clearly, we are trying to be helpful this evening because we recognize that the government has really screwed up royally on this one.
I think it bears repeating that we would've expected a little bit of humility -- I think my colleague from Hamilton used that phrase -- from the government members opposite, instead of the kind of ongoing macho attitude that we see: coming in here pretending they're giving people a right. Technically they are, because right now these people don't have that right. The reason they don't have that right, as has been ably demonstrated by my colleagues tonight, is because the government took it away.
Mr Preston: Over and over.
Mr Silipo: My colleague says, "Over and over." Of course. That's what happens when you bungle like this: You need to be reminded of it. Tonight we're the ones who have the opportunity to do that. More importantly, the public out there is doing it day in and day out.
I just hope the government will also come to the realization that they are screwing up big time when it comes to the broader issue of education, let alone the rest of the agenda they are embarked on. Because we know that in Bill 160 -- which, by the way, we voted on on second reading earlier tonight -- lies the new vision for education that John Snobelen and Mike Harris have for this province: one in which the control will be in the hands of the Minister of Finance; one in which school boards will have virtually no right to make decisions locally, to cater to the needs of local communities; and one in which the whole object is for the government to take $1 billion out of the system.
We know the minister is meeting tomorrow with representatives of the teachers' federations. I only hope, for the sake of our school system, that the smugness, the intransigence, the rigidity, the arrogance that we have seen so far from this minister and this government has some room left for some change.
Mr Wildman: The way they've acted tonight is not encouraging.
Mr Silipo: I would agree with my colleague from Algoma when he said that the way they have acted tonight doesn't particularly encourage us, because if they can come in so smug on this issue, then God help us, and more importantly God help our school system, when it comes to the broader issues of funding and how decisions are going to be made.
Time will tell, but time will also ensure that people understand fully the agenda of this government, an agenda that is based on keeping the one and only fundamental promise that Mike Harris seems intent on keeping, and that is the 30% tax cut, for the sake of which everything, including destroying our school system, seems to be fair game for this government.
That's what this is about, because in the haste that they have made decisions and in the haste that they continue to make decisions, they will make mistakes like they have made on this one, of taking away a basic right to vote for a group of citizens across the province. So we're here tonight having to pass a bill, which as we've indicated we'll cooperate in passing, to restore a right that people have had in this province for generations. That's the lesson that is in this, but so far I don't hear the government learning that lesson.
We can only hope that somewhere in the realms of the government some realization is beginning that they can't keep making decisions in this way, because when you do, one of the things you end up doing is exactly what you've done in this instance, which is to take away people's basic rights, the rights that are at the heart of our democratic system -- the right to vote. Can you believe that? The right to vote was taken away because of the decision this government made for thousands of people across the province. Here we are tonight reinstating that right.
It's our job to remind the government of the mistakes they are making, but more importantly, it's our hope that the government comes to the realization that they can't keep governing in this fashion because in the process people get hurt, services get dismembered and the basic structure of our society gets altered, to the point where we don't recognize any more the good things that we have managed to build in this province and in this society. That's what's at the heart of what the government is doing. They need to fundamentally understand that what they're doing is wrong and that people out there, more and more, are understanding and are saying to them, "What you're doing is wrong."
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I am going to keep my remarks unusually short because we have committed that we are going to pass this bill on second and third reading tonight in order to correct the mistake of the government. This government, on a continuous basis, uses everything to do with the legislative process here in the most, I think, objectionable way as part of a communication spin for their government. Thus the name of the bill tonight: An Act to amend the Education Act to allow cottagers to vote. You note that it doesn't say "to restore" the right to vote.
I want to point out another bill though, Bill 7, which repealed previous labour legislation that gave rights to workers. That bill that repealed and took away those rights, introduced by this government, was an act to restore balance and stability to labour relations and promote --
Interjections.
Ms Lankin: You can take a spin on these things when it suits your purposes, but the worst spin that I've heard is what I've heard from the Premier and the Minister of Education in the last number of weeks that has led to this confrontation which has provoked a situation in this province where we are, for the first time in two decades, on the brink of a province-wide shutdown of our schools that will affect over two million students. I can only say to you, please back off, allow the meeting tomorrow to get rid of the rhetoric, to deal with the issues, to bring some sanity to this.
The one thing that I will finish by saying is that I see very little common sense in the way in which you're handling the education system of this province. What I do see is your revolution. People get hurt in revolutions.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Smith has moved Bill 158. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent to complete third reading of Bill 158 this evening.
The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed? Agreed.
Mr Smith moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 158, An Act to amend the Education Act to allow non-resident owners or tenants of residential property to vote for members of district school boards and school authorities / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en vue de permettre aux propriétaires ou locataires non résidents d'un bien résidentiel de voter lors de l'élection des membres des conseils scolaires de district et des administrations scolaires.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Middlesex has moved third reading of Bill 158. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
It now being almost 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2129.