EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT
CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 46, An Act to amend the Education Act.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, before the supper recess, I was talking about the new proposal for committees, as outlined in section 40 of the bill. Committees dealing with the four subjects of education, finance, personnel and property must have nothing but elected members on them, while all other committees may include non-elected persons.
Looking at that section, I realize there is some ambiguity in it, because education presumably covers the entire ambit of what a school board is all about and what it is engaged in; therefore, it would appear that no other committees could be set up, except those in category 1, for which one must have nothing but elected members.
I would ask the minister, whenever she gets here to hear this debate, to clarify this clause and indicate what kind of committees will be permitted by the bill to have non-elected members.
With regard to this committee rule, I am divided as to whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, because it takes away what was a completely untrammelled authority for boards to appoint any kind of committee made up of any number of members from any calling or with no particular specifications as to who should be a member. In place of that wide-open authority under the powers of a board, we now have a restricted authority to appoint committees of board members only in certain areas and of mixed membership in other areas.
Basically, I approve of having mainly elected members on a committee. Certainly they should be a majority on any committee, because it does make them more accountable to the electorate; but we do need some clarification as to what kind of committees the minister has in mind for non-elected members. Perhaps we should also consider adding a clause saying the majority of members of any committee established by the board should be elected members.
As to why I am voting against the bill, I think there are four significant changes hidden among the many housekeeping amendments of this bill which are ample reason for voting against it. The first one is a section relating to the powers of school boards, an amendment to paragraph 150(1)6 of the act. The paragraph says a board may "determine the number and kind of schools to be established and maintained, and the attendance area for each school." That is a direct quotation. Bill 46 slips in a rider to that paragraph. The rider is to the effect that the board may "close schools in accordance with policies established by the board from guidelines issued by the minister."
If there is no other reason for voting against this bill, this proposed change is sufficient. This clause is ministerial dictation in its most naked form; it is dictation in the most sensitive area of public education. The neighbourhood school has been a focal point in our communities from the days of the one-room school with six grades to the modern elementary building serving clusters of houses or whole subdivisions, and the larger but still geographically scattered secondary school serving larger neighbourhoods.
People purchase homes or rent apartments in specific areas because of the nature and closeness of the local schools. The lighted school at night becomes a hub of community activity. The teachers in the local schools are close at hand to meet parents with problems or to discuss pupil progress with parents. The school is close for community input on curriculum and staffing matters.
The decision to close down a community facility of this sort must not be removed from the parents and the community. My colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) has eloquently spelled out the reasons.
The school is a community institution. If school population is declining, community needs may be rising. The kind of community needs I am thinking of are adult education, senior citizens' day programs, special education for the handicapped or for those with special problems, recreation for the whole family and day care for both preschoolers and lunch and after-four programs.
The choice of the kind of community programs that should be available in each school must be made by the community -- the parents, the teachers, the students and all the residents of that community. The choice must be a democratic one. We cannot leave it to the minister to decide what is best for that community.
All the alternative uses for the school plant must be considered, not just existing ones. Declining enrolment can be a great opportunity for a community to develop new programs and new responses to the problems of youth, for example. Young people with too little to do sometimes get involved in vandalism and crime. Declining enrolment also can be an opportunity to involve all age groups in community activities and in the sharing of experiences.
I am gravely disturbed that the minister's guidelines for school closings provided for in this amendment will be based on a bottom-line approach, namely, "Will we save money by closing smaller schools?" I am afraid the guidelines will not take into account the potential uses for the schools and the opportunities for new uses, new community programs and meeting unmet needs in our society.
Perhaps the alarming increase in teenage suicides could be stemmed by making our schools more of a community focal point, with the whole community involved in the development of that program.
This does not mean I am opposed to any school closings. If the community does not respond to the challenge to develop alternative uses, then we may have to look at other uses for the building. But I am definitely opposed to the kind of naked centralization of authority that is in the amended paragraph 150(1)6.
8:10 p.m.
Before any school is considered for closing, the alternative opportunities must be explored. Ministry staff must assist community councils in the exploration process, and only after the possibilities have been examined and found unsatisfactory should closing even be considered.
A second section of this bill which is another strong reason for voting against it is a sneaky little section on page 3. This section also deals with the powers of school boards. Incidentally, there are 32 powers listed in the Education Act for school boards, and this section adds a 33rd.
This 33rd power says, "Notwithstanding paragraph 26 of subsection 150(1), prohibiting or regulating and controlling any program or activity of a board that is or may be in competition with any business or occupation in the private sector." This is actually an amendment to section 10 rather than section 150, but the point is that the ministry may prohibit an activity of any board that may be in competition with any business or occupation in the private sector, and the power of the ministry in this section may "have general application or application to a particular board."
This is a very ambiguous clause. So that the minister can explain it to us and be sure which clause I am referring to, it is section 4(4) of the bill. This clause appears to reflect the government's slavish adherence to the theory that a public body must never compete with private enterprise even if it is clearly apparent that public delivery of a service may be more efficient, even if it may be cheaper and even if it may be a better delivery system than is available in the private sector.
This clause is so ambiguous that one cannot really tell whether it would rule out a school board offering special education because there could be a private school in the area that also offers special education. This clause might rule out all day care activities in an area where there were private day care activities. It might even rule out all academic programs if there were private schools in the area, because it would be competing with a private operation.
It seems to me this added clause puts forth an ideology that is too often adopted in a paranoid sort of way by the members opposite; but is completely impractical and really renders the bill a laughing-stock. Therefore, this is a clause that particularly should be struck out. In fact, I wonder what its genesis is and what the minister really had in mind. I am sure the minister did not contemplate closing down every school where there was a private school operating or prohibiting the activity of that school.
It is the sort of clause that we find this government slipping into housekeeping bills. I think the only way to deal with them is to delete them. We intend to move deletion when we get into the committee stage.
A third section in this bill which disturbs me is the one saying that when a municipality is granting a tax exemption to any group or body it wishes to assist by means of a tax exemption, it may not make that tax exemption apply to school taxes. School boards may think this is preventing municipalities from eroding their tax base, but in the last analysis the municipality is eroding its own tax base by making such concessions. It may have decided that it is better to erode its tax base than to subject the group receiving tax exemptions to coming cap in hand for a grant every year.
In the long run, it is the municipal council that has to collect the taxes. One might suggest that a way of meeting this problem, and of the school board not having its tax base eroded without its consent, would be for any group requesting a tax exemption to have to get approval from both the municipal council and the school board before the tax exemption could go through. I certainly think that would be something that might be considered.
The disadvantage is that an organization such as the Young Men's Christian Association, which one of the members of the Liberal Party mentioned, would then have to make two applications for a tax exemption, one to the municipal council and one to the school board. This would be very time-consuming and it would put forth the same arguments. If it were a worthwhile community organization, I am sure that both the municipal council and school board would agree in most cases that they should have the tax exemption.
I think this is an undesirable clause, to have separate treatment when a tax exemption is given between the two different kinds of property tax levied.
One other section in the new bill concerns me particularly. It is the one regarding the fees which a school board may charge foreign students. In effect, the new bill says visa students, as they are called -- people who come in as a visitor or student under the Immigration Act -- must be charged the maximum fee calculated in accordance with the regulations. That means the ministry has the power to set how the fee for a non-resident student shall be calculated. School boards may not charge less than the maximum fee according to the calculations.
8:20 p.m.
In the past, school boards had the opportunity to charge nothing if they wished, or to charge any level up to the maximum provided in the regulation. I think this is another example of the minister acting as Big Brother and taking away local autonomy. There may be all sorts of reasons that a particular visa or visitor student should receive special consideration from the school board, which knows the circumstances better than the minister does; there are cases where a school board may wish to encourage people from particular Third World countries or people of certain income levels. The board should be allowed to encourage those particular people to share in our educational system if it feels it is beneficial to both Canada and the visitor or foreign student.
It is true that the amendment exempts participants in educational exchange programs from such a requirement regarding fees; but, of course, we are sending one of our students to the country that is sending one of its students to us under an exchange program. Naturally we would not charge fees in such a case. I think the withdrawal of local autonomy in this particular field is another thing that should not be tolerated.
The minister should consider chopping this omnibus bill up into several parts so that we could vote separately on some of these major changes in policy and, in addition, vote on the many housekeeping amendments, some of which are quite useful, by separate votes. The minister has not done that yet, although she may do it in committee; or perhaps the government will withdraw the bill and bring in two or three separate bills.
Until that happens, I can see no alternative but to vote against the bill and to hope that the clauses I find extremely objectionable perhaps will be removed. I then might be able to consider voting for the bill on third reading.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly because there are two or three matters in the bill that are of some concern to me.
I suppose it does not really matter how we vote on second reading, because it is a grab-bag of many amendments. Normally these come forward in this form, although I do not recall one with quite this many sections, and we give approval in principle on the basis that the ministry is coming to grips with problems as they arise and that it is our responsibility to assist in ironing out the problems that have occurred during the previous year.
I believe that in committee of the whole House we have an opportunity to do what the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has said she would like to do, to talk about the various sections in detail and to vote against them if she chooses. Actually to take the time of the House for a formal division against the bill does not make much sense to me, but then I never really did understand democratic socialism in its entirety.
I want to mention the reference to Indian bands and Indian residents. I was interested to see that one section allows the ministry to enter into agreements with Indian bands for the education of non-Indians in Indian schools.
I could spend a good deal of time, and I would like to some time, to describe the sort of excellence of education at the Six Nations reserve, which, as I have told the members many times, is the most populous in Canada and the one I have the honour to represent. In my previous occupation as a teacher, many of the students from the Indian reserve came into the secondary school where I was a science teacher; so I had a chance to meet them and to realize that their grounding in the basics in education was as good or better than that of the students who came from the schools in the non-Indian community, which also channelled into the secondary school where I taught.
I want to point out that far from having no influence or part to play in the life of the Indian community, this is a further example of how this Legislature and the facilities of Ontario are to be used almost on a reciprocal basis, since by agreement we can now send non-Indian children to Indian schools where we have this exchange of responsibility of which we must be aware.
I also wish to speak briefly on the powers granted under this bill to establish and control the awards of bursaries, scholarships and other prizes.
It has come to my attention, particularly since Bill 82 was passed in the Legislature, that the school boards now have full responsibility to educate all the people in the community, whatever their abilities or handicaps. It is up to us to see that recognition of accomplishment is extended to include those young people in our school system, particularly under Bill 82, who can be designated as special students, those with learning disabilities, some retarded to a greater or lesser degree or with other types of disabilities.
At the top of our secondary system we have the Ontario scholarship, the significance of which has been somewhat diluted in recent years, both in its monetary value and in its overall significance, when we see the numbers awarded compared with the total number of graduates involved.
I say to the parliamentary assistant, who as usual is paying careful attention in the House, we ought to be making plans to see that all the students in our system are recognized for their achievements. Although their achievements do not lead them through grade 13, or even to the non-academic side, we should be sure those students who have special handicaps, and who are doing their best to overcome them in our system, are recognized.
I know it is important, not only for the young people themselves but also for their parents. If we think about it, I am sure we would all agree that is so. We think of our many friends, some them members of this House, who have with great enthusiasm given up a good deal of their personal freedom to assist in the education and in the lives of their children and those close to them who are handicapped. The recognition of their achievement is something we must not overlook.
I support the guidelines for school closings. I am glad to have a chance in this House to influence the establishment of guidelines, even though it seems to me the great glut of school closings may have passed us by. In my own community there have been a good many acrimonious arguments about school closings. Members of school boards have suffered greatly in their popularity in certain areas of the community when they decided to close certain schools.
It always offended me that in our large county school jurisdictions, when it was decided a certain school in some rural area in a corner of the county was redundant, one local representative would speak and vote against it, while all his or her colleagues would take the high, broad view and vote for the closing. One would find that pattern repeated when another school was closed in another corner.
I thought it was slightly weaselly. That is not to say that I blame the individuals who voted against the closing of the schools in their own communities, that it is understandable; we are not all as strong as various representatives of the Liberal Party who only recognize and support truth and justice.
Mr. Wildman: MacEachen is certainly strong in changing his position.
Mr. Nixon: It takes a strong man to recognize a certain degree of room for improvement, let us put it that way.
The parliamentary assistant might be more sympathetic to this view than his minister. I can never understand, particularly in rural areas where there is a relatively new rural school with four or five rooms built in a good location with a playground and everything modern, the decision that is made by the school board to close that school and bus the kids into a nearby town where there is room in an urban school.
Why not bus the urban kids to the redundant facilities in the rural area? It would be cheaper, because the school bus could pick up the kids in one central place and take them to another central place. There seems to be some idea in the minds of urban dwellers that their kids have the right to go to the school down the street, whereas the kids who live in the farm community have to face the trauma -- and I believe that is the right word -- of sometimes hours on a school bus joggling around with all the stuff that goes on in the buses and with all the tiresome aspects of it.
I ask the parliamentary assistant, when he is involved in some of the arguments in the interministerial business of establishing these guidelines, not to assume that it is always the rural school that should be closed. Quite often the facilities are finer than the facilities in town.
8:30 p.m.
I also believe the decision taken over the years to close the schools so that rural kids can go to an urban school with all the supposedly essential facilities like a resource centre and a playground is baloney. That is the word that leaps to my mind.
This is probably a rather conservative view of sociological pressures, but they learn all sorts of things there. We see them leaning against the fence in front of the school pulling away on some kind of a weed or other at the age of 11, 12 or 13. While this may happen behind the fence in a rural school, it is not the sort of thing that happens openly and is tolerated there.
When we pull the rural people out of the smaller school communities, one of the things I regret is they lose their community roots and their ability to communicate in a special way that people in rural areas have always considered gives them special sensitivity. I am sure you have noticed that in this very chamber, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the antecedents of the members. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, but I do feel strongly that to uproot kids from a rural community and dump them into an urban community is definitely not the best thing in the world to do.
I also feel we have gone too far in the provision of school bus transportation. When I come out of my lane in the morning to drive to Queen's Park, I can sometimes see four or five yellow buses going past the farm up the side road. I believe the commitment of capital dollars and the regular maintenance and expense of running these buses would balance a decision that might have been taken previously to keep some rural schools in operation, rather than closing them all up and shipping these kids to towns that cannot always be described by the adjective "nearby."
The last point I want to mention has to do with the annual report of the chief executive officer of the school board. I found that section quite interesting. As in most instances, the director of education is expected to make a written report to his own school board. Now the bill requires the report be made to the minister as well.
I would say to the parliamentary assistant, and this might appeal to his orderly mind, that some rather simple statistics ought to be established and published in each community that would give the overall cost per pupil for various services, not the least of which would be the cost of transportation per pupil in rural areas.
It may be done by law, I am not sure, but many school boards will buy a full-page ad in the Woodstock-Ingersoll Sentinel Review, the Brantford Expositor, the Paris Star or the Ayr News and give all these numbers about the cost of education. None of them are interesting because we really do not know what the teachers are getting, we do not know what the average salary is and we cannot find out what they are paying the principals or the director of education. None of the really interesting information is there.
One looks at the bottom line and says, "My God, look at the millions of dollars being spent to educate the kids." Even if they gave the total number of students so one could see the cost per student in the community, it would be worthwhile. More than that, it would be worthwhile for the people in Brant county to see the cost per student for various services, plus the all-in cost, and compare it with Wentworth, Norfolk, Waterloo and Oxford. It would have a good effect, not only on the school boards but on the teaching staff and others. There is nothing like the light of day to put a little controlled pressure on the people who have the pleasant job of spending other people's money.
I feel these are some areas where we might apply some of the powers given in this act in a way that would appeal to me. Certainly, we do not hesitate to support this bill. I know when it goes to committee of the whole House there will be areas where we will not be quite so supportive, but under our system that is where we can indicate by our vote our lack of pleasure with certain initiatives the government has taken.
Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the large measure of support from all sides of the House for the principal features of the bill --
Mr. Wildman: I beg your pardon? What did you say?
Mr. Nixon: You are not a side, you are a corner.
Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Do we have to have the debate over again? Has the parliamentary assistant not understood that we are voting against the bill?
Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.
Mr. Dean: I am also pleased to note that, as should be the case in any healthy democracy, there are some minor points of divergence on detail.
I would like to make a few general responses to the general comments made by several of the members before going specifically to each person in particular detail.
The bill is mainly a housekeeping bill, as is said in the compendium, but there was never any statement made or intention to let anybody understand that it was entirely housekeeping. I take a little bit of umbrage at the comments of the member for Beaches-Woodbine that there were some sneaky sections put in here and there. There is nothing sneaky. They are all in the same language and can be read equally well by anybody who understands the language.
The comment by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) that it seemed to be a little longer than some similar bills is well taken. That is due to the fact that it has been eight years since there was any comprehensive update of the Education Act, which was last done in 1974.
Mr. Nixon: It just seems like last year.
Mr. Dean: Time does go quickly when you are having fun.
Mr. Sweeney: Fun?
Mr. Dean: That is the most that we have here.
Naturally, there were reasons why it was not brought forth sooner, but since it was before my time here I am not able to comment on those.
I would like to respond specifically to the comments made by the different speakers. The first item the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) mentioned was section 57. As he indicated, the government has reflected on this provision and we have prepared an amendment which will delete that provision when we come to committee. That should also respond to the concerns of the member for Beaches-Woodbine on the same topic.
The reason for the amendment is not that the principle of the section was wrong, because as a former municipal person I believe the principle of the section which would have restored full power to the local council to decide when or if and on what terms such exemptions would be given, is proper. I believe it is proper that it be vested in the local council.
There was concern expressed, however by many members from our side of the House as well as otherwise. I might say it was the very strong submissions of the members from this side that persuaded the minister it should be looked at. There was concern that this would work some hardship on some very worthwhile organizations from the standpoint of the ability of those worthwhile organizations to plan their fiscal future without knowing for certain whether they were going to get that sort of consideration from the municipality in succeeding years.
I still believe there is nothing like fiscal accountability to the local council whereby the exemption, or whatever other form it might take, would have to be considered by the council each year or each term so one could see the conditions were still the same. However, the fact that the minister has determined this will be deleted means that the situation will continue to be the same as it is now where such bylaws may be passed upon receiving permission by legislation.
There was another general concern several people expressed that this bill represents a trend towards centralization. I want to say categorically that is not the trend in the bill. There is no tendency towards centralization. If anything, there is more opportunity for autonomy, for the boards to operate on their own. An example which has been supported by everyone who spoke is the authority of the trustees to determine their own remuneration, which is certainly anything but centralization; it is decentralization, it is putting the responsibility at the local level where it should be.
8:40 p.m.
The mild concern that the member for St. Catharines expressed, or perhaps quoted from the submission of the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario, was that there could be a kind of free ride or getting away with too much of a salary increase on the part of some trustees. That concern is there, of course, wherever one is able to make the decision about one's own salary. It applies to this House, it applies to municipal councils, it applies to the federal government. The only control one has there is that this is still a democratic country, so there is still an opportunity for the voters to turf out those whom they see as having feathered their own nest too freely.
Mr. Riddell: Which is soon to happen to that side over there.
Mr. Dean: Fortunately, in this setup, if one nest is feathered, they are all feathered the same. In short, the electorate should be the judge of that.
Although he was basically in support of the provision, concern was also expressed by the member for St. Catharines, as well as by some of the other speakers, about subsection 3(5), the guidelines respecting the closing of schools. There has also been some concern expressed by members of separate school boards, who felt that the wording in the bill gives the impression that the minister might take it upon himself or herself to exercise the right to close schools.
I want to make it very clear that if one reads the section the way it is written, one sees that is not what it says. It says that the minister will have the power to issue guidelines respecting the closing of schools. Because of the concerns that I mentioned which were referred to us by some members of the separate school board, I am proposing to put forth an amendment in committee which would clarify the meaning of this. I can say it better by reading what the amendment will likely contain.
My amendment is that clause 8(1)(z), referred to in subsection 3(5), would read, "(z) in respect of schools under the jurisdiction of a board, issue guidelines respecting the closing of schools, and require that boards develop policies therefrom with respect to procedures to be followed prior to the closing of a school by decision of the board."
That makes it unequivocally clear that the closing of the school is an act of the board. The minister will issue guidelines which will assist schools in setting out, where all can see, the policies which a board expects to be followed and the policy it will follow before schools are closed.
Some of the honourable members may have gone through the experience, as I have done, of schools in their areas having to be closed. With respect to my own board, it had developed procedures in connection with the guidelines in the memorandum which the minister issued. There were three schools involved, and I would like to illustrate, briefly, how it worked in each case.
In one case no one objected. The guidelines were there but everyone in the community agreed that was the logical school to be closed in view of declining enrolment.
Mr. Haggerty: It would be nice if they sent out notices to the ratepayers.
Mr. Dean: The member for Erie made a good comment and that is exactly what the board in my jurisdiction did. It was amply advertised. Everyone concerned had an opportunity to know that this proposal was going on and there was ample opportunity for people to express their concern.
The second case was in an area where there was an older school in the middle of a settled part and a newer school which was not really in a defined settlement area. The proposal of the board was that one of those schools should be considered for closing. The committees were set up. The local input was obtained and ample opportunity was given. Believe it or not --
Mr. Haggerty: You went out and hired more buses.
Mr. Dean: No, as a matter of fact, there would be fewer buses used.
Mr. Haggerty: That has been the trend: more buses and fewer schools.
Mr. Dean: What happened was the school that the board's administration had suggested was suitable for closing was not the one the community committee determined should be closed. The board accepted the recommendation of the community committee. The school which is in the older established area, rather than the one in the newer but more formless area, is the one that is going to stay open. It worked well. There was no backbiting or anything else, because the people had the opportunity to express their concerns. It is an example of that working well.
The third example within the board I am familiar with involved a secondary school. There the fur flew a little farther, because the question of which of the two schools would be the most suitable one was not quite so clear cut. However, the process was still followed. There was still advance notice, a committee established and lots of opportunity for input. Believe me, some briefs I received copies of were 100 pages long and well put together. The board made a decision that did not satisfy everyone, but still it was done by the board. This is the fact I want to especially emphasize to --
Mr. Haggerty: Perhaps all schools boards do not operate like you want --
Mr. Dean: I am not quite as familiar with that.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dean: The solution to a school board that is not operating the way someone wants it to is to get somebody to run for the school board who will do it the way it should be done. There is still a democratic system working in this country.
There was another question from the member for St. Catharines. This is one of the concerns he relayed from the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario regarding the acquisition of a natural science centre and the question of why there should be any difference between the way a separate school board and a public school board was treated. The separate school boards, as I am sure the member realizes, have certain constitutional rights under the British North America Acts that are continued in the new constitution; therefore, they do have the right to some property holdings, which right is not necessarily always granted to the other boards.
A further question several members raised was the matter of fees for visa students. As far as the application of section 2 is concerned, the wording is fairly clear as to who are exempted. The students who are covered by this are: first, those here on visas on their own because they feel this is a better way to secure admission to a post-secondary institution, that is, to receive in Ontario a grade 12 or 13 education. Second, there are a small number here on visitors' visas. I understand they would usually be seasonal visitors, normally from adjoining American states, where the student's parents might happen to have a cottage or other recreational home in Ontario. Third, some are children of working parents who, because of immigration regulations, were not admitted on the working parent's work visa.
I get the impression from the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine that they think there should not be a fee charged to any of these students. Maybe I am oversimplifying it, but that is the way it seemed to come to me.
Ms. Bryden: I didn't say that.
Mr. Dean: All right, I am oversimplifying it, but it was something of that nature, that some of these students should not be charged. There are some exemptions given, as I just mentioned. The principle behind this section is that the taxpayers of Ontario should not be subsidizing to a tremendous extent, as they have been in some cases in the past, the education of students from other countries.
Ms. Bryden: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to correct the record. The parliamentary assistant said it sounds as though I am in favour of visa students not paying any fees. I did not say that. I said the decision should be left to the local school boards to decide what fee, if any, they should pay.
8:50 p.m.
Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, several speakers mentioned the clause regarding competition with the private sector. I want to assure all members that this certainly does not apply to the circumstances that were mentioned by the member for Oakwood and the member for Beaches-Woodbine: namely, that it could possibly eliminate a board's ability to provide special education and all those other things. For one thing, that would directly contradict another section in the act requiring that boards do provide special education, that is subsection 149(7); so there is no concern about that.
The reason subsection 4(4) is being added in the first place is that there have been some examples where boards got a little overzealous in the kind of work experience they were giving. They actually did set up what were basically good programs, but they tended to get a little too commercial and did compete with existing businesses in the community.
For example, in one case a market garden setup was competing with local produce growers because they were offering goods for sale at a lower price. I am sure we would all agree this should not happen, because we are sort of biting the hand that feeds the system.
In another instance, ceramics classes, no doubt set up with goodwill, were offering a program that undercut a private enterprise that was offering the same sort of thing but could not offer it at the reduced fee the board was offering.
In another instance a board proposed to refurbish and rent out a portion of a school as commercial office space, and we really do not think the education system should be in direct competition with private enterprise in that way. It does not restrict the freedom of boards to start up their other education programs, as was suggested might be a concern by some members.
Another item that the member for St. Catharines raised was the mandated filing of a copy of the director's report at the end of the year. The suggestion made by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, which paralleled this, was a good one, and I think it should be pursued further. That is, not only should a complete statistical report be available but there should also be an executive summary kind of report that would contain some useful but not too complicated statistics so that the average citizen reading it would know something about the annual operation of the system. Certainly I support this very strongly, and I think it is something that should be considered by the ministry in determining what might be in such a report.
Of course, there is a difference between the annual report of the board, which I think is really what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was talking about, and the report by the director of the board, which is really a report on the educational activities and other things the director was charged with doing during the preceding year. This is something that needs to be available to ministry officials, and you would think it might be very simple for that to happen; but there have been times when it has been difficult. This is just to make sure those officials of the ministry who are out in the field do not have to rely just on their ingenuity and persuasiveness to get the report, which they need. You might say it is a sort of sunshine provision, because I think everyone believes that public business should be out in the sunshine, which the government is moving to do in many areas.
Mr. Breaugh: After 40 years.
Mr. Dean: A similar aspect to that is the access to the board's records. There again it is not that most boards have given any problems, but there are some that have been a little bit sticky about it. I reject the suggestion which someone made that this is a creeping intrusion into the board's affairs. It is simply a requirement that these reports be readily available to the education officers when so much provincial money goes into the system.
To respond to other concerns that were mentioned by the member for Oakwood, the minister, contrary to what he alleged, did not make any commitment at any time to bring in a new Education Act. He went on from there to say, "It is typical of this government to bring in reform a bit at a time." I take that to be a compliment because I think that is the way reform should go.
Cataclysmic change usually produces a cataclysmic disaster. Everyone who really believes in the British tradition of parliamentary government knows that, in the words of the poem, "Freedom slowly broadens down from precedent to precedent." I take it, although I do not think it was intended this way, as a compliment that this government believes in the orderly improvement of the surroundings and of the legislation.
Mr. Wildman: It is an interesting theory.
Mr. Dean: Yes. As far as some members are concerned, I guess that is the way it always stays; on this side of the House we practise it.
An expression was used that there is a disguise in this bill of the menacing powers of the minister. I think I have dealt with this before as it refers to the closure of schools. There certainly has been no such provision enacted and no such intention; simply the provision of some kinds of guidelines that will assist.
It is interesting to note in that connection that in the debates of the Legislature on December 13, 1979, someone who is more familiar to some of the members of the House than he is to me, a Mr. Bounsall, actually proposed guidelines very similar to those being proposed now. I would recommend, especially to the member for Oakwood --
Mr. Nixon: You mean the NDP have changed their policy again.
Mr. Dean: I would think so.
I would recommend to the member for Oakwood that he not be too shrill in saying that the minister is taking too many powers, because very similar ones were recommended by one of his predecessors as critic for this ministry.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Speak to the principle of the bill, please.
Mr. Dean: Yes, definitely. Always a matter of principle, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Grande: As usual, you missed the point.
Mr. Dean: I guess that is the kind of flexibility they think means broadmindedness, whereas some of us might think it means something else.
I think I have covered most of the things that were raised by the member for Oakwood.
The member for Kitchener-Wilmot had a couple of other things to say that I should mention. One was with regard to section 45 and the clarification of the meaning of "adult basic education." We think the definition is quite clear, and it really means a comprehensive, noncontradictory, nonoverlapping program that we have instituted in the government for the provision of the basic literacy and numeracy that adults require.
There was a further question about why there is a proposal to change the phrase "the third year of the intermediate division" to "grade 9." It is for the simple reason that everybody calls it grade 9 except, perhaps, a few academic theorists.
The member for Beaches-Woodbine made a couple of points I have not covered so far. One was on the provision in section 40 for the establishment of certain committees. The ones that are set forth as committees that should have only trustees on them -- personnel, finance, education and property -- are the main committees of the board that have to do with the carrying out of the principal responsibilities under the act. In this case, "education" refers to the programs that refer to education. I recognize, as the member said, that one could say everything the board does has to do with education, but that is not the intention of the sort of education we are talking about here.
9 p.m.
The other committees which many boards have would be for things like children's services, transportation and curriculum where it is more fitting, since they are more in the nature of subcommittees reporting back to committees or the board, that they are the ones that should have nontrustees to get the local input. It is more rational to have the nonelected persons there.
I think I have covered the other matters the member for Beaches-Woodbine expressed concern about.
I am pleased to note that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk put in a good word for the treatment of native people in this bill. We think it is very desirable, and I am sure that out of his experience he knows there can be just as high an excellence of education in boards that are on Indian reservations as there can be any place else. This certainly permits the ministry to have an agreement for non-Indian people to attend in places where the school operated by the Indian band is the only one or the best one in the area.
I think that covers the answers.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Dean, on behalf of Miss Stephenson, has moved second reading of Bill 46.
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Vote stacked.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Miss Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill for second reading, I think it is important that we recall the structure, function and purpose of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.
Approximately 25 years ago, when the Metropolitan Toronto form of government was established in the two-tiered mechanism, it was decided that it would be appropriate to ensure equal access to equal opportunity for education for all the children in Metropolitan Toronto. As a result, the two-tiered system was introduced for governance of schools in Metropolitan Toronto.
For many years, that system of governance functioned effectively and it has been of great benefit to children in a number of the areas that make up Metropolitan Toronto. There is no doubt in my mind that small municipalities such as York and East York could not have achieved the quality of educational program that has been reached in their areas without the support of this kind of governance.
For many years as well, there was voluntary co-operation on the part of all the boards functioning within Metropolitan Toronto in the establishment of the various criteria which were important in the delivery of educational program. Indeed, there had been joint bargaining by the boards with the teachers on all matters related to the negotiations and contracts for teachers functioning within Metropolitan Toronto.
Unfortunately, within the past several years, that voluntary co-operation has dissipated considerably. As a result, over the past four years there have been repeated requests from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, and from five of the six area boards, for some modification of the structure. At times, there were calls by individual boards for the dissolution of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board because they believed that at that point it would be more appropriate if they were to take matters totally within their own hands.
Approximately 18 months ago I received a resolution from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, which was carried by a majority of the members of that board, asking that we modify the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act to provide for some mechanism that would encourage prudent educational spending within those boards and ensure that there was a measure of joint bargaining carried on with the teachers at both the elementary and secondary school levels. In addition, the Metropolitan Toronto board asked for amendments to the size of the board as a result of the changes in registration within the various boards in Metropolitan Toronto.
Over the past year and a half we have had discussions with the component boards of Metropolitan Toronto, and in the past several months we have had strong support from five of the six area boards for the amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act which have been introduced as Bill 127.
The significant components of that act are these:
The first, and probably the most important in the view of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and five of the six area boards, is the mechanism that ensures there will be joint bargaining with elementary and secondary teachers by representatives of all the component boards, with one representative from the Metro school board on two items. The items are salaries and financial benefits, and the formula developed for staff allocation.
The act also ensures there will be local bargaining by local boards using whatever mechanism they choose for all other matters which make up the bulk of the teachers' contracts related to teacher-board negotiations.
We were convinced that there was a need for flexibility beyond that which could be established as a result of that local bargaining mechanism, which I think is clearly permitted in the act -- although there are some members opposite who seem not to be able to read accurately and to determine that is so.
Therefore, we also determined that the discretionary levy which the Metropolitan Toronto boards are permitted to assess their taxpayers should or could be used for the purposes of hiring additional teachers over and above those provided by the staff allocation formula negotiated by the teachers and the boards at the Metro level.
In addition, that formula can provide for additional function, or structure or organizational pattern within the area of responsibility of an individual area board.
It was felt very strongly, even by several members of the Toronto Board of Education, that there really did need to be a provision in the act to encourage some care in terms of spending related to education. It has been suggested by at least two of the trustees of the Toronto board that the original Metropolitan Toronto act, as I suggested to the members earlier, encouraged boards to spend to the limit rather than to be careful about the way in which they used taxpayers' money.
The provisions within the act ensure that a surplus realized by a board in its management of its area of responsibility is to be returned to that board for the purpose of permitting the taxpayers in that area to realize the benefits in the next taxation year. Provision is also made for a deficit which a board accrues, and which could have been reasonably foreseen, to be charged to the board that incurred the deficit.
9:10 p.m.
The basis of apportionment of the industrial- commercial portion of taxes as opposed to the residential taxes is modified in this act to bring it into line with the apportionment which applies throughout all the rest of Ontario and has for some time. This amendment should have been introduced some time ago, because there has been some disparity within the region of Metropolitan Toronto as a result of the fact that it was not complying with the same kinds of rules that apply to all the rest of Ontario; that is, the commercial-industrial assessment is weighted by dividing by a factor of 0.85.
The discretionary levy in the Metropolitan Toronto area traditionally has been 1.5 mills elementary and one mill secondary. We have discussed, rather broadly, the application of that discretionary levy and the permission to utilize the discretionary levy. There has been a strong position made by the Metro board, and supported by five of the six area boards, that the discretionary levy should be eliminated completely within Metropolitan Toronto since the boards within Metropolitan Toronto now enjoy a level of support from assessment which is almost unequalled throughout the rest of the province.
To allow for local accountability, local accessibility and the kind of flexibility that would ensure the board was responsive to the local needs as established in that board's jurisdiction, we felt strongly that the discretionary levy should be left in place and that there should be direction about the way in which it could be used, such as specifically towards the use for additional teachers.
The term of office of trustees on the Metro board in this act is amended to bring it into line with the amendments to the Municipal Act and the amendments which permit local trustees to serve for three years rather than two. This allows the appointment to be parallel to the provisions of Bill 146.
The bill also allows for alternate members, who are not elected to the board but are elected as alternates, to participate in board meetings, something they have not been able to do until now. They are not permitted to vote through the amendment, but I think the board will benefit from the participation in debate of those alternates who do attend.
The size of the quorum for the Metropolitan Toronto board is updated, and the method of determining trustee remuneration is to be changed as it is in Bill 46; that is, the trustees are to set salaries for the succeeding board.
Concern has been expressed by some of the trustees and by some of those with specific responsibilities in this area about some of the provisions within the act which would require an individual elected to the Metro board, who for whatever reason must resign or leave the Metro board, automatically to leave his or her role as a trustee in an area board.
With some amendments which I shall introduce, we are attempting to ensure that an individual who feels, for one reason or another, that he or she cannot carry out his service at Metro board will not be required to resign from the area board if that is not necessary for reasons of health. We believe that an individual may find it is reasonable to serve on the Metro board for a period of one or two years, but three years may be overwhelming or somewhat oppressive for some of those who are elected to that level.
We also will be clarifying one or two sections that seem to have produced confusion in the minds of some. We shall be including in the act the provision of the discretionary levy of 1.5 mills at the elementary level and one mill at the secondary level.
There has been a great deal of misinformation publicized and distributed about this bill. It has been suggested by some that local accountability has been eliminated completely, that parents would not be able to deal directly with the trustee whom they elected so as to have their concerns about their local school dealt with, and that the local trustees would have no responsibility for any area of activity related to the function of the schools within the jurisdiction in which they are elected.
That is quite untrue. The local trustees will have all the responsibilities they have had traditionally. It seems to me they will have additional responsibilities to ensure that their accountability is even more exquisite than it has been in the past in that they will have to account for whatever has occurred in either the achieving of a surplus or the accruing of a deficit.
The thought and concern expressed by five sixths of the members of the Metropolitan Toronto board, by the Metro board itself, and by a very large number of people who have communicated with us in support of Bill 127 and who believe firmly that there is a strong rationale for moving in the direction of attempting to provide, even more clearly, equal educational opportunity for all the children in Metropolitan Toronto, gives me a strong belief that the members of this House will see the wisdom of supporting this bill. It is indeed for the benefit of all the children in Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill 127, which certainly is one of the most controversial bills to face the Ontario Legislature in this session and which has great ramifications in the field of education, according to those who will be most directly affected.
The history of this bill dates back sometime, I guess, but the rumours have been flying, as they do in the education community from time to time. As the minister indicated in her remarks during estimates, rumours in education often begin to circulate in Metropolitan Toronto and move out to the hinterlands. The rumours have been rampant for some time that this legislation was going to be introduced. Indeed, I think it was well known, and the knowledge was not discouraged by the Ministry of Education, that a bill would be forthcoming some time in this session to deal with this matter.
There were some, and among those were members of the teachers' federations, who felt that any changes of this kind, particularly in the negotiation process, would take place through Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. At least some were surprised when ultimately it emerged as part of a bill to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
On Friday, May 28, near the end of the question period, I asked the Minister of Education a question -- coincidentally, I had no idea she was going to introduce the bill on that particular day -- in which in effect I urged her not to introduce legislation that would require compulsory regional bargaining and compulsory joint panel bargaining in Metropolitan Toronto. In her answer the minister indicated she was not prepared to give that assurance, and a short time later on that same day, May 28, she introduced the bill.
9:20 p.m.
In our view, many of the amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act probably would have been dealt with better through Bill 100, except that the minister would suggest this is just for Metropolitan Toronto and that is why she wanted to place it in that bill. I have some other opinions on whether it is just for Metropolitan Toronto in the long run.
As I did on May 28, once again I indicated during the discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Education, specifically on June 7, at the beginning of those estimates, and in the subsequent week, the very strong opposition of the Ontario Liberal caucus to Bill 127.
On that committee, my colleagues and I voted in favour of a resolution designed to have public hearings. I admit this was a different approach that would have had public hearings before second reading of Bill 127. This would have given the minister the opportunity to have the kind of input necessary before proceeding with the many stages of a bill of this kind. I thought it was a rather reasonable suggestion made to the committee, and certainly my colleagues did as well. Unfortunately, the Tory majority that rules in committees these days prevented this exercise in democracy from taking place.
Also in committee, ultimately because we recognized after the vote in the committee that we were going to have second reading of this bill before the House, I asked for an undertaking from the minister at that time, which she did give -- I do not know whether it was a reluctant undertaking on her part, but it was an undertaking nevertheless -- to allow this bill to go to committee. Of course, the opposition has the opportunity to force the bill to committee simply by having 20 of our members stand up and forcing it to a standing committee of the Legislature.
She did give an undertaking that there would be public hearings. It was our suggestion that these public hearings should take place in the month of September and that at least some of the sessions should be held in the evenings so that those who do not have access to the Ontario Legislature in the daytime would have the opportunity to make representations.
Mr. Foulds: That was our suggestion.
Mr Bradley: Certainly we were among those who made that suggestion. I know the members of the New Democratic Party would like to claim full credit for this, but we recognize in this case that they are on side with us and we welcome their support for our initiative.
Mr. Grande: We accepted your support at the time.
Mr. Bradley: Having accepted the fact that we have the support of the New Democratic Party, and my friend the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) will indicate this very clearly in his remarks, we have extracted from the government a promise that these hearings will be in the month of September. I think they will be held during the first, second and third full weeks of September. There will be some hearings at night, and I believe the bill will be going before the general government committee.
At the time of her estimates, the minister stated that one of the problems with having the hearings in September would be that she has some long-standing commitments and would find it impossible to be present. As the opposition, we decided to push this matter to the hilt, regardless of whether the minister would be there. We hope she will take every opportunity to be at as many of the sessions as possible.
We also recognize that by insisting that the hearings be in September, we are not going to be favoured with her presence on at least some of those occasions. That is something we will have to accept. We recognize that the minister would have preferred to have these hearings in July, which would have been more convenient for her. I know if the Minister of Education can possibly be there, she will be present in person to hear all the representations that will be made.
Be that as it may, as the lawyers would say, we have the September hearings. The House leaders have agreed to this. We have extracted this promise and, once again, the opposition has been triumphant in the field of securing justice for the citizens of this province.
Our vehement opposition to Bill 127 stems largely from our belief in local autonomy and our view that this bill represents an assault on local autonomy and teacher-board negotiations in Ontario and on certain aspects of the financing of education at the local level in Metropolitan Toronto.
It is our view that this is at the very least an experiment in regional negotiations, and at worst a prelude to regional negotiations throughout Ontario and even, perish the thought, to province-wide negotiations. The minister on many occasions has said this is not the case, that we are not moving in this direction. But she will forgive us if we and many in the education community do not have at least a suspicion that this is merely a prelude to regional negotiation across the province. This is something we would oppose rather strenuously in this House and in other forums.
I am glad the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) is here tonight -- and I emphasize the word "trade," because they did not let him go to Japan and I wanted to see him go to Japan since he is the Minister of Industry and Trade -- because I want to use one of his favourite sayings which I have used before. He has said in the House on a number of occasions, "You don't fix something that isn't broke." I know he meant "broken" and was just using a common colloquialism. So I will correct his grammar a bit and say that in our view the Minister of Education is fixing something that is not broken in the case of negotiations in Metropolitan Toronto and that we do not need this tampering with the existing system. So we will strenuously oppose this on every possible occasion.
Another motivation that has been suggested is the minister's desire to rein in the Toronto Board of Education. Certainly her speech has been covered rather extensively in the Toronto newspapers. One headline reads, "Minister Faces Party Split Over New Education Bill," and then the article goes on to talk about her speech to the St. David Progressive Conservative Association. It is worth noting some of the things that were said on that occasion -- or were reported to have been said, to be fair to the minister.
The article says: "The Toronto Board of Education is recklessly extravagant, more interested in politics than education and out of step with reality, Education Minister Bette Stephenson said last night. She blasted the NDP-dominated board in a speech to the St. David Progressive Conservative Association.
"Stephenson was defending proposals she has introduced in the Legislature which would centralize certain powers in the Metro school board. The proposals, which are bitterly opposed by New Democrats and teachers' unions, are necessary because of the behaviour of the Toronto board, she said.
"'In recent years, for instance, the Toronto Board of Education has discovered a bright side to deficit financing. The way it has worked is that the Toronto board accumulates a deficit and the other boards have collectively picked up the tab,' Stephenson said. Her proposals, scheduled for passage next fall, would stop that by forcing the Toronto board to pay all its own bills.
"Ann Vanstone, Toronto board vice-chairman, who also sits on the Metro board and is not part of the NDP caucus, said she flatly disagreed with Stephenson's suggestion."
We see a situation where we have the Minister of Education being very critical of the Toronto Board of Education, which has taken what I think can be safely described as some different initiatives in the field of education. There are those who would suggest that she wants to rein in that board of education by placing more powers in the metropolitan board, where the NDP influence is not so great. That is something the minister will answer to or not, but that is a feeling among some in the education community, certainly those in Metropolitan Toronto.
Some would say that she would treat it as a specific problem in a body, with surgery being performed on the Toronto Board of Education to extract that particular problem from the process so that the whole body, that is the Metropolitan school board, would then rule for the benefit of everyone.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Your analogy is lousy. Obviously you know nothing about surgery.
Mr. Bradley: That is true. The minister is correct when she says I know nothing about surgery. I hope it will not have to experience that in my lifetime. However, I will leave that behind.
Mr. Ruston: Have you diagnosed his ailment yet, Bette?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, a long time ago.
Mr. Bradley: My colleague should not ask the Minister of Education that question.
Mr. Ruston: Please tell us, Bette.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: If I were not charitable, I would call it microcephaly.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Bradley: Some people see the education bill as yet another example of the Ministry of Education attempting to centralize control of education in this province. There were some earlier this evening who said Bill 46 possibly had that effect in more minor ways than this. The minister would have heard the discussions in the back room and will hear them further in committee.
In our view, Bill 127 has introduced an element of compulsion into the negotiation process, compulsory joint bargaining by panel and compulsory regional bargaining in Metro Toronto. At the present time, through agreements and co-operation, joint panel and regional negotiations may already take place. To introduce a mandatory aspect to negotiations is repugnant, not only to the teachers themselves but to all aspects of negotiations and all those interested in good negotiations and good labour relationships in Metropolitan Toronto.
The compulsion the minister is extending to this area is repugnant to those who like to see the opportunity for individual boards of education to negotiate the important items with their teachers. If they do wish to negotiate together on a voluntary basis, that is fine and dandy, but she is compelling them to do so.
There is already evidence the introduction of Bill 127 is having a detrimental effect on teacher-board negotiations for the upcoming school year with contracts that are going to expire on August 31. Many are watching this legislation to determine just how it might affect teacher-board negotiations. There have been fears expressed by many that this is going to have that kind of detrimental affect. I have no reason to doubt the fears that have been expressed are anything other than the truth.
The provision for reducing the discretionary level for individual school boards within Metro Toronto from 1.5 mills to one mill, although she did say she made one change tonight, greatly concerns us as it reduces the opportunities for individual boards of education to meet the special needs of those people within their jurisdictions. The people within a jurisdiction at municipal election time have the opportunity to turf out trustees they feel are being extravagant with their funds.
If those people elect people who want to spend more to meet the special needs of an area in education, and if they approve of them through the electoral process, I do not know why the minister would want to become involved or interfere in this process of democracy at the local level.
There are some questions about the legal interpretation of certain language within this bill. The examples set forth are, for instance, the definition of exactly what is a financial benefit and the method by which the number of teachers to be employed by a board is determined. These are matters which I will discuss a little later on as I quote from various sources which have had something important to say on this matter.
There are some housekeeping amendments in this bill. I know there are certain trustees who are concerned we get through the aspect that they can pay themselves and be treated as others at the Metro level, and that is fair, and that they can have a three-year term as others do, and that is fair.
There are other housekeeping items and some items that could not be classified as housekeeping, but are separate from the negotiating process which could be handled in a separate bill and need not be included in this bill. We might look at those in a different light at that time. But to include them in this bill means they are going to be held up because this bill is going to be subject to the public hearing process and the committee process of the Legislature in the month of September.
I would like to quote to the House and bring to the attention of my fellow members some important things that have been brought to our attention which I think have been very good. The Board of Education for the City of Toronto has made its submission and other boards of education have written to us about their views on this particular bill.
The teachers' federations such as the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, the Ontario Public School Men Teachers' Federation, the French teachers' association --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: And the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association.
Mr. Bradley: Yes, as the minister says, and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association; all these have expressed some concerns about this bill. All the affiliates of OTF have expressed some concerns about this bill because they see problems arising in other areas. In particular, the OSSTF has done some rather intricate research and has come to some interesting conclusions about the possibilities within this bill. I would like to quote from various sources. I am quoting now from the June 1982 memo from the president of OSSTF under the headline: "Metro legislation would change Bill 100 through the back door. Are you next?" It is presumably from Malcolm Buchanan, who is the new president of the OSSTF.
He begins by saying: "The bargaining rights of 8,400 colleagues in Metropolitan Toronto will be seriously eroded if a Pandora's box of amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act is passed in the Ontario Legislature. The new legislation would make guinea pigs of Metro teachers in a pilot project to test regional bargaining for the rest of the province.
"That is a harsh assessment -- but a fair one -- of the legislation which was introduced on Friday, May 28, by Education minister Dr. Bette Stephenson.
"The six Metro Toronto boards (city of Toronto, North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough, East York and borough of York) would bargain through a joint committee, beginning in 1983. On the other side of the table, the six OSSTF districts, representing 8,400 Metro teachers, plus two AEFO branch affiliates representing 31 teachers, would be legally required to negotiate through a similar joint committee.
"If boards and teachers representing one quarter of the province's population can be compelled to bargain regionally, logic suggests that a similar straitjacket can be imposed elsewhere -- or even lead to province-wide bargaining. If I were a teacher in the Ottawa-Canton area, in southwestern Ontario, in an area with regional government, or in many other areas where a similar pattern might be attempted, I would be listening closely to the debate on the Metro legislation. What affects Metro teachers today could affect me tomorrow.
"There has been an intense effort on the part of some ministry spokesmen to convince the public the new legislation is intended only to equalize the educational tax burden across Metro, and that local autonomy will not suffer in the slightest. (In one CBC radio interview, the Minister of Education said teachers and boards would still negotiate 98 per cent of their contracts at the local level -- something that is totally contradicted by the wording of her legislation!)
"The reassurances have not convinced many parents who foresee the loss of programs such as special education and English as a second language when their school board is no longer able to afford hiring the additional teachers to teach those programs.
"They haven't convinced the City of Toronto Board of Education which voted unanimously to oppose what it called 'punitive' and 'devastating' amendments to the new legislation.
"They haven't convinced the leaders of any teacher group in Metropolitan Toronto -- elementary, secondary or francophone -- who are unanimous in condemning the proposed amendments.
"And they certainly haven't convinced a growing number of observers who believe the Metro legislation is an oppressive act that would be condemned by anyone in the labour movement and which could be used as a negative precedent for many years throughout Ontario.
"Here are only a few of the reasons why the Metropolitan Toronto amending legislation should be scrapped." This is according to the OSSTF.
"The legislation ignores Bill 100, the legislation that governs teacher-board negotiations. After months of supposedly inviting reaction to proposed amendments to Bill 100, the government has tabled legislation affecting one quarter of the province's teachers without the same opportunity to assess and react. Yet even a brief overview of the Metro legislation reveals it erodes, limits and even contradicts Bill 100.
"The legislation cripples the ability of local boards to respond to local needs. School boards in Metropolitan Toronto have had until now the option of levying up to one and a half mills above the Metro-wide mill rate for elementary education. The new legislation would cut this by one third to one mill."
I understand some different thoughts were expressed on this tonight.
"The city of Toronto has already forecast this change will mean the loss of key programs and loss of a significant number of teachers. (A one mill discretionary levy for secondary education remains unchanged.)
"The legislation limits the ability of a board to retain teachers above a central formula established by the Metro bargaining, and leaves in doubt whether these teachers would have any contract protection. The local board would be allowed to hire additional teachers within the one-mill levy, but in the event of a deficit would have to eliminate the deficit first, using leftover money to hire the teachers. The teachers would be in a form of no-man's land because, without redundancy or seniority rights, they would be vulnerable to firing whenever they could not be accommodated within the one-mill levy.
9:40 p.m.
"The legislation reduces the accountability of local trustees to their taxpayers and employees. Under the new legislation, the key items in negotiations -- salary, method of staffing and 'financial benefits' -- will be settled at the Metro level. In future, therefore, a local trustee may plead that a request from the community or from employees is impossible because of the Metro contract. 'Blame Metro -- not us.'
"The legislation dictates who will be on the Metro negotiating committee. In what labour lawyers say is an unprecedented move, the legislation spells out in kindergarten fashion the makeup of the two committees negotiating the Metro 'master agreement.' No authority to delegate is provided. The Ontario Labour Relations Board has usually ruled that such dictation should be based upon patterns that already exist.
"The legislation creates a ridiculous situation for teacher affiliate groups. Under the proposed amendments, the joint teacher bargaining committee will have one representative from each of the teacher affiliates involved. This means, to cite just one example, that three members of l'Association des enseignants française de l'Ontario would have a representative on the teacher team with the same voting power as a Toronto colleague representing 2,400 OSSTF members. Ridiculous as this is, it appears to have occurred to no one who wrote the legislation.
"The legislation's double majority provisions are a disaster waiting to happen. The proposed amendments say that a Metro agreement must be approved by a double majority -- a majority of those on both Metro committees and a majority of the groups which each committee member represents. In terms of the committees, the swing vote on the teacher committee could be the affiliate representing as few as three teachers. In terms of ratification, a vote across Metro could be determined by 2,900 out of 8,400 teachers voting to reject or accept. That is the reality of the legislation. But, again, this has not occurred to anyone writing the legislation.
"The legislation throws into the air the rights that Metro teachers already have under Bill 100. Once a Metro-wide agreement is signed on salary, staffing and 'financial benefits' (the legislation does not define what a financial benefit is) teachers are left in a confusing state. There is very little flexibility to negotiate anything locally because most of the budget has now been allocated. Moreover, the legislation says teachers and trustees must get the approval of all other boards plus the Metro board if they wish to negotiate anything that varies from the Metro master agreement. Should teachers decide to use the routes that Bill 100 now provides for arbitration or sanctions, they step into a paradise for lawyers."
My friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) would be pleased to hear that.
"Are legal sanctions possible once a Metro-wide agreement has been signed? Who, in fact, is the employer? Against whom should one file a grievance? Some observers speculate that the rights of Metro teachers to undertake sanctions of any kind all but disappear in the new legislation.
"The legislation puts local boards and their employees into a straitjacket that seriously curtails their negotiating any items that have not been agreed to at the Metro level. Anyone doubting that statement should read this part of the material that announced the new legislation: 'A board will be able to implement a term or condition of employment at variance from or inconsistent with the terms of the jointly negotiated agreement only with the agreement by resolution of each of the other boards of education and the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.' Note that the local school board must get unanimous approval in order to be flexible or different.
"The more one considers the Metropolitan Toronto legislation, the more such horrors are revealed and the more urgent it becomes that teachers and parents from all parts of the province speak up against it."
He has suggested how people in the province can speak up against this piece of legislation.
The minister would know, perhaps, if the OSSTF as well has sought a legal opinion on the matter of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, known as Bill 174. I will deal with that legal opinion at the present time. Sorry, that is Bill 127. I think Bill 174 was a famous act that is at the back of my mind. Was that not the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act where we were stuck with regional government? That is what that is.
Mr. Ruston: Yes, that's why you always remember it.
Mr. Bradley: I dream about it even.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. You are going to deal with a legal opinion and I am going to suggest, if it is a long legal opinion and you are going to read it for my benefit, would you read it slowly so at least I might follow it as well?
Mr. Bradley: I would be happy to do that. It is from Mr. Maurice A. Green of the law firm Golden, Levinson, which includes Aubrey E. Golden, who is a well-known QC, Martin L. Levinson, Maurice A. Green, Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo, James K. A. Hayes, Elizabeth J. Shilton Lennon and David K. L. Starkman. This opinion is for the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. It is dated June 7, 1982, and it is addressed to Mr. David Hughes, who is still president at the present time. Malcolm Buchanan takes over very shortly.
The Deputy Speaker: I remind you of the criticism I have often heard from all members of the House about extensive reading.
Mr. Bradley: But this is important. It is very important to elaborate on the position I am taking on this bill.
It says: "Dear David: You requested that I provide my opinion, in writing, as regards Bill 127, after meeting with the provincial executive on Friday, June 4. In general terms, my reaction upon reviewing such proposed legislation was one of surprise, annoyance and anger.
"I was surprised because the Minister of Education had originally proposed changes to the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, RSO 1980 (Bill 100). to bring about mandatory joint bargaining in Metro Toronto. It is illogical to place such amendments subsequently in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. Such changes relate to labour relations, and properly should appear in Bill 100. I was also surprised because the substance of the proposed amendments differs greatly from those proposals released to the Ontario Teachers' Federation in January 1982 by Dr. Fisher.
"The minister's about face can only be seen as political game-playing, presumably hoping to attract little political attention from other parts of the province in relation to such amendments. If politicians and teacher groups are under the impression that the proposed amendments cannot affect them, they are sadly mistaken.
"My anger rises because the Metro bill has placed on the legislative table labour relations concepts which deviate greatly from past government policies and which, if followed across the province, would strip both teachers and boards of long-existing freedoms. Rather than create a legal and bureaucratic manure heap, the minister would have been more politically honest to have disbanded local boards of education in Metro à la Reagan and created one efficient school board.
"The concepts which I analyse in the following pages could easily be extended to any area of the province where regional government exists or is being extended. Thus there is no reason why a similar approach could not be forced upon Ottawa-Carleton, Hamilton-Wentworth or other convenient groupings. My annoyance arises simply because there are many provisions which have been badly drafted or have not been thought through. There seems to have been no reference to how Bill 100 functions.
"As you are already aware, the bill envisages mandatory Metro-wide bargaining but only for salaries, financial benefits and the method of calculating staffing numbers. Nowhere do the proposals define a financial benefit' nor what is meant by 'the method by which the number of teachers to be employed by a board is determined.' For instance, is a paid leave of absence a financial benefit? Is a sick leave gratuity a financial benefit? Does a provision limiting the number of periods which a teacher may be required to teach consecutively incur upon the method by which the number of teachers to be employed is calculated?
"The proposed amendments fail utterly to provide any forum for clarifying answers to these problems, such as access to the Education Relations Commission or the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The last thing the parties need to engage in is endless litigation over what does or does not have to be negotiated on a Metro-wide basis. This result will clearly occur unless extensive amendments are made, and one does not need to emulate the experience of Nova Scotia, British Columbia or the United States, where endless arguments continue over what is or is not negotiable, or the manner of such negotiations.
"The worst part of the envisaged scheme relates to sections 130a(2)(3), 130f(2) and 130g(3). On the assumption that salaries, financial benefits and staffing are to be negotiated in a 'master agreement,' the teachers cannot negotiate and include in such master agreement other terms and conditions of employment, which could be applied across Metro, unless all parties, including the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, agree.
"This creates a prospective bombshell, apart from being contrary to section 8 of Bill 100 in law and philosophy. Section 130f(2) gives any board or branch affiliate the power to veto any item put forward for the master agreement. When such veto results, the proposal can only be taken up at the local level pursuant to section 130g(2)(3).
9:50 p.m.
"The first problem facing a branch affiliate in this scenario is that the local school board does not have to sit down to negotiate a local agreement, for section 130g(2) states only that a board and branch affiliate 'may negotiate' an agreement that does not fall within the scope of the master agreement. Thus, after a veto power has been exercised under section 130f(2), local terms and conditions of employment could be lost entirely.
"The problem is further complicated by the fact that section 130f(2) would require unanimous consent of all parties to place an item on the negotiating table which does not fall within the master agreement, and such item, once negotiated, requires the unanimous support of all parties. However, the unanimous acceptance of such item runs contrary to the voting structure envisaged by section 130e(1)(2).
"Finally, by being able to relegate certain terms and conditions to the 'local level' the minister has placed unfettered bargaining power in the hands of the boards.
"We are all aware of the difficulty in negotiating nonmonetary items once financial matters are dealt with. Even when Metro did bargain concurrently they at least had the freedom to negotiate in the order they chose, i.e., usually nonmonetary items first. Thus, in the above scenario there is obviously far less bargaining power for an individual district when attempting to obtain local terms.
"The further unmitigated disaster in the proposed act is section 130g(3), which states that a local agreement cannot be made or renewed until the master agreement is made or renewed in accordance with the new amendments and Bill 100. Once the master agreement is made, section 53 of Bill 100 implies a no-strike, no-lockout provision in such agreement; thus, districts could not subsequently strike in order to obtain a local agreement, thus stripping away any vestige of bargaining power.
"One only has to look at an article providing job security to see what game-playing the boards could engage in. First, would such an article fall within the terms that affect the method of calculating the number of teachers to be hired? If the answer is in the affirmative, then such a provision could be lost by the double majority vote. If the answer is no, then the particular district would have to attempt to defend such article from a 'contract stripping' employer at the local level where (1) the district cannot force negotiations nor (2) go on strike.
"To provide an example of more minor drafting problems one can consider section 54 of Bill 100, which deems a collective agreement to form part of the individual teacher's contract. However, the new scheme provides for two collective agreements. Which one becomes part of the individual contract? Obviously, amendments to Bill 100 are required at the same time.
"Since section 130a foresees one master agreement between the boards acting as one party and the affiliates acting as one party, a question arises as to who would be a proper party to a grievance or arbitration hearing.
"The answer is likely similar to that of the construction industry in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector. In such sector, mandatory province-wide negotiations are required pursuant to the Ontario Labour Relations Act between employer bargaining agencies and employee bargaining agencies. Such EBAs represent employer organizations and local unions and/or a district council of local unions.
"The Ontario Labour Relations Board has held that, even though a grievance may be initiated by an individual employer or local union, once the matter proceeds to arbitration the original parties to the agreement, i.e., the EBAs, have a right to take part in the arbitration. There is thus a chance of potential complications envisaged by such scheme in relation to the administration of such agreement.
"Since the proposed act comes into effect upon the day it receives royal assent, except for section 8, the new scheme for bargaining could be in force during the currency of the present round of negotiations. The effect of this and section 130h(2) forces the parties this year to negotiate only a one-year agreement, for section 130h(2) states that any agreement entered into after September 1, 1983, is void unless made in accordance with the new negotiating procedures.
"Unfortunately, the effect of such section is also to render invalid any agreement which runs from September 1982 to August 1983, thus defeating and being contrary to section 10(3) of Bill 100. It is thus imperative that proper freeze provisions be inserted to protect the expiring collective agreement pending negotiations.
"Although section 130i may seem a logical provision for broader-based bargaining, the procedure is likely to produce endless litigation over whether a local condition is truly at variance with, or inconsistent with, the master agreement.
"Thus even if a tenure clause was maintained in a local agreement, or a provision limiting the maximum number of consecutive teaching periods, it is still open to other 'less friendly' boards to challenge such local provisions pursuant to section 130h (3) before the OLRB.
"A more sensible approach, if one has to live with the new scheme, is to allow access to the OLRB before such local conditions are finally negotiated. Why spend time and money negotiating an item which later can be attacked? Surely the local parties should be permitted to apply to the OLRB during negotiations if they have a concern over including certain terms in the local agreement."
He goes on to say: "As stated earlier, the minister has performed an about-face in relation to the recently proposed alterations to Bill 100 released as recently as January 1982 by Dr. Fisher to the OTF. In those proposals, there was no attempt at controlling how many persons would constitute the negotiating committees, nor how such committees would handle the voting structure. Similarly, there were no provisions dictating how ratification of the agreement would take place.
"The proposals set out in section 130b, c and d, represent almost the worst aspect of the bill. They are abhorrent to the concept of self-regulation and have never before been attempted when this government has enforced broader-based bargaining.
"Firstly, although section 6 of Bill 100 states that a party to negotiations shall be represented by only one group, it very properly permits such groups to increase or decrease in size, or change its composition. That is a basic concept of noninterference in the bargaining process, and if a private employer attempted to dictate to a union such matters, a successful complaint to the OLRB would surely follow.
"Secondly, even when the government introduced province-wide bargaining in the construction industry" -- the industrial, commercial and institutional sector -- "it consciously shied away from legislating the size and makeup of the EBAs' negotiating committees, and allowed each group to establish their own rules for deciding on matters during negotiations, and for ratification. In fact the bill represents the first time this government has legislated broader-based bargaining without there having been a de facto practice of the parties over some years.
"When both accreditation of employers' organizations, and province-wide designations in the construction industry were introduced it was simply a legislating of already existing patterns of negotiation in the construction industry. Given the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisprudence on appropriate bargaining units, it is highly unlikely a Metro-wide unit would be decided upon.
"Section 130d (2) (3) dictates how the negotiating committee shall be made up, but only for the purposes of negotiating the master agreement. A different composition is permitted when one district is negotiating a local agreement. As stated, this runs contrary to section 6 of Bill 100, and would exclude the right to vote in a 'takeover' situation by members of the 'takeover' team.
"Section 130e provides that for any decision- making purpose a double majority is required, i.e., a majority of the total number of the committee, representing a majority of the teachers 'employed by the board.' Presumably 'board' should be the plural 'boards,' otherwise, section 130e doesn't equate with section 130b (4), nor make sense.
"More importantly, section 130e (2) (3) refers to a 'decision' of the negotiating committee. This broad terminology would require branch affiliate ratification for a coffee break! More seriously, how can it be intended to require a double majority on every single decision that a committee has to make throughout negotiations?
"Such concepts are offensive to the philosophy of free collective bargaining.
"When one couples all of the above problems with the amendments proposed in section 130j, it is questionable as to why one needs local boards of education. In addition, since section 130j drastically limits local boards from hiring additional teachers, it is difficult to see how boards will be able to carry out their obligations pursuant to Bill 82, once proper guidelines are developed.
"Special education classes particularly seem to be vulnerable to vagaries of collective bargaining, something I presume the minister did not intend.
10 p.m.
"Finally, since the bill envisages two collective agreements, it is difficult to see how the parties are going to be able to comply with section 63(c)(d) of Bill 100, i.e. two agreements, one last offer, how many matters remaining in dispute?
"I find it especially disconcerting that the minister would invite a reasonable degree of consultation when amendments to Bill 100 were being considered, but totally bypass such a process when a far more serious piece of legislation is drafted, one that could set a dangerous precedent for the remainder of the province.
"I am sure there are other minor concerns that exist with the legislation; however, the above represents the most serious complaints I could detect. If you have any questions in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to call.
"I certainly have no objection to you utilizing this opinion beyond the confines of the provincial executive and will be glad to field questions in relation to the same."
This is presented by the law firm of Golden, Levinson and I believe it was produced by Maurice A. Green.
This is rather extensive, but I must say he did take the opportunity, at the request of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, to discuss this particular bill in great detail. The minister may disagree with some of the opinions that have been rendered by Mr. Green --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: And with some of the so-called facts.
Mr. Bradley: -- and the minister may disagree with some of the conclusions he has reached; nevertheless, I think it is an excellent comment on this legislation. There have been other comments of which I know members of this House would want to be aware.
The next thing I will share with members of this Legislature is a letter from Duncan Jewell, president of the Ontario Public School Men Teachers' Federation, to the minister. I know all members of the House would want to avail themselves of the information contained in this.
The member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) will recall this particular statement being bandied about or discussed and compliments flying about it. I think it was the minister's opening statement in which she said, "Let us never lose sight of the fact that the child as the learner is not only the centre of the school system but the only reason for its existence." I think the minister included that in her initial remarks during her spending estimates.
Mr. Jewell says in his letter:
"Dear Madam Minister:
"I am sure you are very familiar with Dr. Robert Jackson's final recommendation in the report from the commission on declining enrolments in Ontario.
"Trustees in this province have always endeavoured to keep budget cuts away from kids but they won't be able to if Bill 127 passes. The legislation will require the boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto to sacrifice programs and teachers to accommodate budget deficits -- no other recourse will be available.
"The dismissal of teachers is virtually inevitable if the legislation receives royal assent.
"I implore you, Madam Minister, to withdraw this legislation to protect the integrity of the educational system in Metropolitan Toronto. Under this legislation, it is conceivable that no local board could spend its tax money in innovative ways that improve education, reduce class size or provide for the special needs of children. School boards do not need to be placed in the position where they will be forced to apply the bill's new tax formula like a strait-jacket.
"I draw your attention to the last sentence of the Toronto Star editorial of June 21, 1982, which says, 'Bureaucratic efficiency and administrative simplicity are no reason to weaken a community's control over the schools its taxes support.'
"Help protect local autonomy now -- withdraw Bill 127."
He attached a press release that expressed some of the concerns he had.
I know the minister mentioned the fact that the North York Board of Education generally supports the legislation she has put forward; therefore, I would share with members of the Legislature a letter I received signed by Mavis Simons, president, North York Women Teachers' Association; David Kendall, president, Ontario Public School Men Teachers' Federation, North York; Pierre Nadeau, president, l'Association des enseignants franco-ontariens, North York (Elementary Division). It reads as follows:
"Dear Mr. Bradley:
"As teachers within North York, we would like to raise a series of concerns that we have relating to Bill 127, the amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
"We would hope that as a member of the Legislature, you would share our concerns on some or all of the following issues:
"(a) Should the voting and representation mechanism of the teams be specified in the act? L'Association des enseignants franco-ontariens, elementary, in North York will have one representative for 10 teachers while the Ontario Public School Men Teachers' Federation and the Women Teachers' Association of North York will have a total of two representatives for 2,250 teachers.
"(b) How can the board continue to maintain programs for special needs in North York if these continue to involve additional staff as they do now?
"(c) What is the status of members who hold centrally employed positions? Will they continue to be counted outside the Metro staffing formula, or will they be moved inside the formula?
"(d) When will one resolve local issues? Once the central agreement is settled, what motivation is there on either side to discuss local matters?
"(e) Why is it necessary to reduce the option for local levies? If a board and the local taxpayers are prepared to fund special programs, why should the option be limited?
"(f) Who will determine the scope of issues that will be the responsibility of the Metro school board? What is 'at variance' going to mean? Can a system administer locally programs and terms decided at Metro?
"(g) How will parents affect education and program in North York if all the dollar decisions are made by representatives appointed' to the Metro board?
"(h) Who will be the employer of North York teachers? North York or Metro?
"(i) How sensitive will other Metro board representatives be to issues and concerns North York has raised and resolved. Many local arrangements will now require approval from all Metro boards prior to implementation.
"Our major concerns relate to the confusion this legislation promotes. Many of our questions cannot be answered. It appears that an attempt to resolve differences among the boards is producing legislation that will be punitive to the teachers, students and programs in North York.
"We believe that bigger is not necessarily better.
"If the approximately 9,500 elementary teachers in Metropolitan Toronto are forced to negotiate together, there will be a wider range of demands and the negotiation process will take much longer to complete.
"We would be pleased to discuss these concerns with" [any members of the Legislature].
Then the Toronto Board of Education expresses its concerns in a series of resolutions passed.
I know the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) is very concerned about this bill as is his colleague in the Conservative caucus, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman). They both are very concerned about this bill and I understand the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) also is concerned about the provisions of this bill. The only debate that takes place obviously will not take place openly in this Legislature, but we welcome your support when you are fighting within your caucus for those things in which you believe.
We hope the member for High Park-Swansea, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) and other members from the city of Toronto who sit on the government side will be prepared to break ranks on this bill if they feel very strongly about the items contained in it, and that they will implore the minister to change her mind on very serious matters that arise from the debate that takes place.
Giving some of the reasons for doing it, the Toronto Board of Education, to which you would pay a good deal of attention, had these resolutions adopted at a special meeting held on Monday, May 31, 1982, regarding Bill 127. They are as follows:
"(a) That the Toronto Board of Education communicate immediately to the Minister of Education its shock at the devastating assault on local autonomy of the six area boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto which would be made through the enactment of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1982, which will result in some or all of these boards being unable to meet their obligations to their students or meet the legal requirements of provincial legislation and related regulations.
"(b) That the chairman of the board immediately request a meeting between the board and the Minister of Education to consider the board's concerns about this proposed legislation, particularly its retroactive aspects.
"(c) That should the proposed legislation be referred to committee for study, the chairman and vice-chairman and director of education be authorized to make a presentation to the committee on behalf of the board.
"(d) That the director of education report to the board as soon as possible on appropriate actions which will be taken in light of the punitive legislation. Such actions could include some of the following:
10:10 p.m.
"(1) Advising the Minister of Education that if the legislation is enacted the board will be unable to meet its obligation as outlined in assessment of needs and special education, present and projected, without seriously reducing the quality and equitable availability of its educational programs in elementary schools by such moves as (a) increasing regular class size, (b) closing neighbourhood schools, (c) removing the staff allocation provided in schools with French immersion programs to balance regular class size in the English language and French language programs, (d) reducing the availability of English as a second language program for pupils who need this kind of help, (e) closing all day senior kindergarten programs in its most inner city schools, and (f) moving the common starting point for core French from grade 4 to grade 5 or grade 6.
"(2) Advising parents of pupils being admitted to elementary schools' self-contained special education programs after September 1982 that the board cannot assure integration into regular classroom programs beyond June 30, 1983.
"(3) Requiring all small school review committees to meet once the September 30, 1982, enrolments are known, since the proposed legislation could require the closing of a significant number of small neighbourhood schools.
"(4) Advising all elementary school teachers on staff September 1, 1982, that the legislation will require the termination of the contracts of approximately 50 teachers, effective August 31, 1983, and that, as required by existing legislation, the Minister of Labour be so advised.
"(5) Advising all nonteaching unions and associations this proposed legislation will affect the continued or proposed employment of a significant number of nonteaching employees and that, in accordance with existing legislation, the Minister of Labour be advised of the possibility of layoffs of this magnitude.
"(6) Ensuring that, when the board is considering any expenditure which could produce a deficit and which could not reasonably have been foreseen, the board seek a ruling from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board confirming that such an expenditure is an acceptable deficit.
"(7) That all members of the board take every possible step to make the parents and other members of the public aware that this legislation will take away virtually the last vestige of direct accountability from local board trustees since the process of determining the amount of money they can spend and the number of teachers they can employ will be enshrined in provincial legislation and left in the hands of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.
"(8) That the director of education be authorized to support reasonable requests from parents' groups regarding responses to Bill 127; that members of the board meet with their local MPPs" -- including the Conservative MPPs in this House -- to familiarize them with the implications of Bill 127 in the Toronto school system; and that the chairman of the board be requested to arrange a special meeting of the four area parents' councils as soon as possible to discuss the proposed bill and decide on appropriate actions."
From these various resolutions everyone in the House will agree that the Toronto Board of Education is extremely concerned about the provisions of this bill, and is looking forward to the members who represent city of Toronto ridings supporting the Toronto Board of Education, which I understand unanimously rejected the minister's Bill 127, even those members who are not New Democrats, and whom the minister seems to have a great fear of, because of the kind of initiatives they are taking in education.
There is also a letter, which I will not read, including many of the same arguments, from the Work Group of Metro Parents and the area council's co-ordinating committee on staffing and Bill 127. I will just take out a very small part of this, their comments on Bill 127 itself. They are rather critical and written in some inflammatory language to the minister, but I will confine my quotes to Bill 127 itself.
"Parents demanded that Bill 127 should be scrapped for the following reasons: decisions affecting parents, children and taxpayers would be made by trustees not elected by them; local autonomy would be seriously eroded; equality would mean offering kids the fewest programs equally -- uniform mediocrity," as they call it; "teachers would lose such fundamental rights as the right to bargain with their employer; the local levy ceiling would be reduced causing the firing of 40 to 50 teachers in one board alone."
They are quite adamant on public hearings on Bill 127, and perhaps will not be able to have their requests met, but they have asked the following: "We need the public hearings" --
Mr. Speaker: It being 10:15 p.m., I call the member to order and ask him to adjourn the debate.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, if you will give me one minute I will complete my remarks. Otherwise I will go at some length.
lnterjections.
Mr. Bradley: Okay, that's fine.
Mr. Speaker: Would you move the adjournment of the debate, please?
On motion by Mr. Bradley, the debate was adjourned.
10:27 p.m.
CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Speaker: We are voting on a motion by Mr. Ashe for second reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.
The House divided on Hon. Mr. Ashe's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bernier, Birch, Bradley, Brandt, Breithaupt, Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eakins, Eaton, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Haggerty, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McGuigan, McLean, McMurtry, Miller, F. S., Miller, G. I., Mitchell;
Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Piché, Ramsay, Reid, T. P., Riddell, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Ruston, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Welch, Williams, Wiseman, Wrye.
Nays
Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Di Santo, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Renwick, Samis, Swart, Wildman.
[Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: I caution our visitors in the public galleries that there will not be any demonstrations of any kind.
Ayes 79; nays 17.
Ordered for third reading.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Speaker: We will now vote on a motion by Miss Stephenson for second reading of Bill 46.
Mr. Nixon: We will accept the same vote, Mr. Speaker.
An hon. member: Never.
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise.
Some hon. members: Same vote.
Mr. Speaker: I heard somebody say that the same vote would not be accepted. Is it the wish of the House that the same vote be accepted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The House divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion, which was agreed to on the same vote as on the previous bill.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
Mr. Martel: Just wait until we get to Bill 127.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Before the adjournment of the House, if we can quiet the animals down, I would like to indicate the business of the House tomorrow.
The orders of the day for tomorrow are committee of the whole House, Bill 135, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act, Mr. McMurtry; Bill 26, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, Mr. Snow; and Bill 84, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, Mr. Snow.
The next item will be resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, Miss Stephenson, with committee of the whole House as required.
Mr. Cooke: Are you going to have a quorum tomorrow, Bud?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: In the committee of the whole House, Bill 46, An Act to amend the Education Act, Miss Stephenson; second reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Municipal Act, Mr. Bennett, with committee of the whole House as required; second reading of Bill 13, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, Mr. Bennett, with committee of the whole House as required; and second reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend certain acts respecting Regional Municipalities, Mr. Bennett, with committee of the whole House as required.
I would like to inform the House that we will sit from 10 a.m. until one o'clock and will resume at two o'clock and continue until six o'clock. We will resume again at eight o'clock and will sit until 10:30 p.m. That will be accompanied by the usual motions by the retard from Windsor for amendments, quorum calls and so on.
Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. it is very difficult to hear what is going on.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I listened and you listened carefully to some of the remarks made by my friend. I want to tell you that if he thinks he is going to get any legislation with that kind of comment, he will be lucky if he gets two bills all day tomorrow.
Mr. Nixon: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Nixon: I am not worried so much about the bills tomorrow, but if the acting government House leader would just consider some of his adjectives and withdraw them, it might be helpful. I do not really believe they were appropriate. He cannot call a member a retard.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I do withdraw those adjectives, Mr. Speaker.
The House adjourned at 10:36 p.m.