Journal des débats 1982-juin-28 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received from the chief election officer, and laid upon the table, the certificate of a by-election on June 17, 1982:

Electoral district of Hamilton West: R. Allen.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

This is to certify that, in view of a writ of election dated May 10, 1982, issued by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and addressed to Paul W. Drage, Esquire, returning officer for the electoral district of Hamilton West, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Hamilton West in the Legislative Assembly of this province, in the room of Stuart L. Smith, Esquire, who since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Hamilton West has resigned his seat, Richard Allen, Esquire, has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, dated June 25, 1982, which is now lodged of record in my office.

(Signed) Warren R. Bailie, chief election officer; Toronto, June 28, 1982.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Mr. Richard Allen, member-elect for the electoral district of Hamilton West, who has taken the oaths and signed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat.

Mr. Speaker: Let the honourable member take his seat.

Richard Allen, Esquire, member-elect for the electoral district of Hamilton West, having taken the oaths and subscribed the roll, took his seat.

RETIREMENT OF MRS. FRANCES NOKES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, while a new member takes his place in the House it is also, unfortunately, a day that we say goodbye to someone who has served this Legislature for a long period of time. I refer, sir, to Mrs. Frances Nokes, who has been a clerk in the Legislature since 1965. It was on July 12 that Fran began to work as a part-time secretary with a rather short-term project, the select committee on company law.

That committee has presented 10 reports to the House, and only one member of the Legislature has served through nine of those report periods; that is the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). In his length of service during all but one of those 15 years, he was, in fact --

An hon. member: The rock.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, the rock upon which the committee at times clung and at other times, I am sure, foundered. But, be that as it may, it is the clerk of the committee who has served throughout all those reports.

Mrs. Nokes was appointed as an assistant clerk of the Legislative Assembly and as clerk of the select committee on company law. She served on that committee and in that capacity from June 22, 1965, in the effective appointment of the committee, to December 15, 1981, when I, as chairman, was privileged to table the final report in the insurance area, dealing with accident and sickness insurance.

I do think it only reasonable to note that some 28 members of the House served on the committee at various times during the first five reports, and during the company law area dealing with insurance a further 28 members served, for a total of 56, of whom 25 continue as members of the Legislature. Many of us, then, have had some exposure and experience, not only to that subject but also more particularly to the activity and commitment and the warmth and ability that Fran Nokes brought to her task as committee clerk.

I want everyone to know that the birth of a new grandson, Jeremy, just a few days ago, is going to keep her even more active in the years to come.

Fran has one particular distinction, and that is that on October 2, 1973, after her appointment as assistant clerk, she became the first woman to sit at the table of the House in Ontario and, indeed, one of the very few who have sat at the table in any Canadian jurisdiction.

I am certain that all members wish Fran Nokes many happy and healthy years of active retirement. We thank her for the service that she has given not only to us as members but also to the Legislature and to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: In a very personal way, as well as on behalf of all members of the Legislature, I wish Mrs. Nokes well in the future.

2:10 p.m.

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to express the fact that I am deeply disturbed by a statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, on Friday, June 11, 1982 --

Interjections.

Mr. Shymko: It affects the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and every member in this House. The statement said it is a matter of policy to discourage and to curtail the basic freedom of association and freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. With all respect, I must point out to the honourable member that this is not a matter of privilege.

Mr. Shymko: I believe if I could --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX ON MEALS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I noticed in today's press that the government is now not going to tax university students who eat in school cafeterias. Is it true that he has withdrawn that tax?

I ask the Treasurer that question because it is unfortunate that these things have to sneak out through the press. Is that true, and has he backed off on any of the other taxes he imposed in his budget? Has he changed the regulations so that certain people will escape who previously thought they were going to be trapped in his tax net?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the word "withdrawn" is not correct, but the balance is true. Each year as a Treasurer announces certain tax measures, be they additions to or eliminations of taxes, the Ministry of Revenue, as the honourable member knows, then writes descriptive regulations.

In an attempt to make a regulation that covers what it believes to be the spirit of intent, the Ministry of Revenue normally talks to the Ministry of Treasury and Economics or, very often, to groups of people who are asking for rulings on these matters.

Sometimes, in fact almost every year, when the ruling is not clear in its meaning, it will come back with a series of questions. This is one of those kinds of questions. I suggest that it was never the spirit or intent in taxing purchased meals in a restaurant to charge people who, in effect, are in their own residences.

Mr. Peterson: I am gratified to see this major change. What is remarkable is to see this retreat without an ounce of grace attached to it. However, that is apart from the point.

Are there any other areas the Treasurer has backed off from? For example, has he backed off from meals in high school cafeterias so that young people buying lunch do not have to pay tax? Will he please now give us the regulations he is working on so we will not have to thresh old straw as we go through the committee hearings that start this afternoon?

Hon. F. S. Miller: To answer again the member's specific question as to whether I have backed off from meals in high school cafeterias, the answer is no. In that case, a meal is being purchased specifically by a person who has made that decision.

In the other case, where a student is at work or in residence and the room and board is part of the overall cost of his or her education -- for example, in many cases in a boarding school it is not broken out -- it would be, in my opinion, a charge against a person who has no option and is living at home.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer has caved in on this question, which I raised with him on June 21 and which had been referred to him by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe). He is now saying it is the Ministry of Revenue that is doing the revising. Will he back off on all his taxes that unfairly tax food in any way, shape or form?

Before the standing committee on resources development starts its hearings, will he place on the table of this Legislature and before the committee every one of the regulations governing the silly sales tax?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the committee will be dealing with Bill 115. I think some members have asked us to listen to the deputations coming in. The kind of thing the honourable member says is a withdrawal is something we have done 10 or 12 times after every budget, because there is always some difference in application between the spirit and intent and the literal translation which occurs as the ministry writes the regulation. One could document that for any year in history. There is no big deal about this. The ministry last week --

Mr. Foulds: Read your answer of June 21.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will be quite honest with the member. Until then, no one had brought it to my attention. The member performed a valuable service, because at that point the ministry had not run into it. I am sure some staff members had offered opinions. They brought those opinions to me about a week ago, and I said that was not the spirit and intent. The minister was present. We agreed.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, following the decision made with respect to residential matters, will the Treasurer also acknowledge that sales tax will not be collected on meals served in hostels such as those operated by the House of Friendship in Kitchener for otherwise homeless men, or those operations such as the Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association also provide concerning the provision of meals for those who are residents in those buildings?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I hope we will hear a number of examples in public forums and, rather than jump to a conclusion, I will be listening.

APPLICATION OF TAX

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Treasurer has again jumped to some half- baked conclusions. He has already backed off on taxing Meals on Wheels. He has backed off on camps for disadvantaged as long as they do not compete with commercial camps, but they are still taxing children who go to camp although presumably the food is included in the price of the camp.

He has backed off on church suppers after pressure from this side of the House, and now he is backing off on food for universities. The minister will understand from the question of my colleague and a variety of others that will come from this side immediately, that he is still caught up in a large number of anomalies. It is obvious that he has not thought this out. It is obvious he is just backing off as he gets pressure.

Will he grace the committee at least with a list of the areas he is going to back off from so we do not have to waste a lot of time on it? Will the Treasurer give it some serious thought in the next few hours before he comes to this committee? If not, he will be backing off a lot more.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, if my honour- able friend would go back and read the regulation which he alleges was created post-budget, he would discover there was no such thing as backing off on charitable meals for church organizations. The regulation clearly identified events up to a maximum of four and a total of $50,000 a year prior to this year's budget. The word "event" meant things like dinners, bazaars, whatever. This year we adjusted, I understand, two things: the number and the top value. Those allow for inflation and the realization that events were very loosely defined in the past in terms of counting.

Mr. Peterson: That is extraordinary. The Treasurer should be backing off, but how he can do it with a straight face and pretend he is not is absolutely beyond my ken.

I want to ask a question with respect to the budget. The Treasurer has said job creation was the top priority in his budget and he has received a letter from John Fenton, general manager, product support, of Crothers Ltd., talking about the seven per cent tax on labour. I will not read all the details, but one of his points is that he will have to lay off a number of people. He has already laid off 30 mechanics in his Concord shop alone, and he is reviewing mechanic levels in all nine of his company's branches in Ottawa, Peterborough, Timmins and other cities.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a supplementary to the main question.

Mr. Peterson: It is very much a supplementary to backing off on his budget. That is what the question is about.

Given the facts the writer raises for the Treasurer's attention, which are that his new taxes on labour will cost a substantial number of jobs, and given that the Treasurer said his priority in this budget was to create jobs, will he back off his tax on labour which, as he is going to find out in the next two weeks, is hurting a tremendous number of businesses right across the province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, part of this problem is that we do not have those regulations. I would think it would be in order for the Treasurer to table those when he goes to the committee.

Some time ago the Treasurer's government made virtually every high school kid in the rural areas of this province get on a bus early in the morning and go some distance to a secondary school. Is he now saying that the kids who have to eat their lunch in the cafeteria in the Napanee and District Secondary School will pay that tax and that other kids who go to private residential schools, such as Upper Canada College, will not pay it? How is that fair?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have lost the thread. A person who buys a meal and who is living somewhere else will pay tax. A person who buys a package which includes a number of items, such as a residence with meals, with education, with whatever, does not pay the tax.

Mr. Peterson: I ask a simple question: Before the committee starts to sit at three o'clock or 3:30 today, will the Treasurer provide a list of everything he has now exempted from taxation? Does he know what he has now exempted, and will he look at some further exemptions when we prove to him that he is unfairly taxing certain other people he has yet to exempt? Will he look at the situation from that point of view?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the regulations are written by my colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe). I think he will be the minister before the committee. I will be there for almost every session of that committee. I will be quite glad to answer spirit, intent and policy matters.

I am quite sure the member will discover that the Minister of Revenue will give him any details on existing regulations. Until he creates them or until we find an in-between area -- and there are many in-between areas: I would like him to clearly define almost anything in this life so that we do not have these overlaps, which is almost impossible -- I suggest we would be jumping to conclusions to assume we are still not listening, still not able to adjust.

WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer with respect to wage control. On January 26, the Premier was quoted in the Globe: "Premier William Davis has categorically ruled out wage controls for Ontario's public employees." That same day, in the Toronto Star, John Deverell said: "Ontario will not clamp legal controls on the wages of its 55,000 public employees, Premier William Davis says."

Given these two statements by the Premier and given some of the rumblings that have gone on in the past three or four days, is the Treasurer prepared to indicate what position the government is going to take with respect to wage control, in view of the Premier's original statements back in January?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I really could not. The issues here are, first, I do not know whether there is going to be any form of constraint, control, whatever. We are talking about something in advance of a definition by the federal government. Second, my Premier has been invited to be in Ottawa on Wednesday to talk to the Prime Minister of Canada.

I would suggest that none of us should jump to any conclusions before such time as that meeting has taken place, and before the Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada have had a chance to discuss the contents of the budget. Tonight, we will know whether the question needs to be posed at all. Until then, we should not prejudge the matter.

Mr. Martel: I am not attempting to prejudge, I am simply going by what the Premier has stated. When the Treasurer and the Premier are in Ottawa this week, will they be prepared to attempt to clear up the popular misconception, which apparently the Prime Minister of Canada suffers from also, that wage increases are the cause of inflation?

Will the Treasurer point out that wages have fallen behind the increases in inflation for the past three years and that it is senseless to put the blame on the victims without trying to resolve the real economic problems of this country?

Hon F. S. Miller: Unless I have missed an invitation, I shall not be there on Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre.

(Applause)

Mr. Breithaupt: You see how they missed you?

Ms. Copps: Did you really miss me that much?

Mr. Speaker: Was that your supplementary?

Ms. Copps: My supplementary is, why is the government stalling on the agreement between the liquor store employees and the government of Ontario if it is not waiting around for an imposition of wage controls by the federal government?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am not a party to that at all, so I cannot answer it.

Mr. Martel: If the Treasurer is not going to be in Ottawa, will he advise the Premier, who is absent today, that the last round of wage controls did nothing to curb inflation? In fact, the research director of the Anti-Inflation Board described that the last round of controls as having a relatively large impact on wages but very little impact on prices. Surely that is the position this province should be going to Ottawa with. Maybe the Treasurer is prepared to indicate to us what position the province is prepared to take if the federal government attempts to bring in wage controls on the civil service.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not think it would be wise for me to try to do that in advance of my Premier's hearing the Prime Minister's case. As in almost all negotiations, one does not exactly go to the press in advance --

Mr. Martel: Well he did; he did in January.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In January we made a series of suggestions. They were not for wage and price control, nor were they just for the public sector; they were a set of suggestions on the need for wage guidelines for the public and private sectors, if the honourable member will recall.

Mr. Martel: I hope they keep the promise they made back in January, only four or five months ago.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH REPORTS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister will recall that I asked him to table the results of a 10-hospital study with respect to the use of ethylene oxide. He indicated to me that he was not prepared to release documents that were not completed or interim reports. In a letter to me he has indicated that the report now is done but, based on the confidentiality assured the administrators of the 10 hospitals by his predecessor, he is not prepared to provide that document.

Can the minister tell me why this report is so confidential that it cannot be given to the workers who need the protection when I have learned -- through a newsletter from one his doctors, a copy of which I have and am not supposed to have -- that a presentation was made by one his doctors quoting statistics indicating that there are serious health effects to workers who are exposed to this type of gas? Why is it that the workers cannot be protected and that it is only the employers who have done the study who have the assurance of confidentiality?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, in the letter I wrote to the honourable member, while I did indicate that there had been some commitments made by my predecessor, I believe I also said I would check to see whether the hospital would consider releasing that document.

Mr. Martel: It is being quoted extensively by some of the minister's staff and states in part: "In the hospitals studied, levels of nitrous oxide were at times shown to be in excess of the TLV of 25 parts per million. Pathologists working in the morgue and histopathology, as well as laboratory technologists, have exposure to levels of formaldehyde, which especially may be in excess of the acceptable guidelines."

That was in the November table. The same article confirms that the health effects of anaesthetic gas have been shown to cause twice the miscarriage rate, twice the birth defects, twice the infertility, three times the instance of leukaemia and higher instances of liver disease.

In view of these apparently horrendous statistics which are being quoted by some of his staff, does the minister not think it is time he released these reports so the workers will know what the hell it is they are exposed to?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: As I indicated I would be doing in my letter to the member, I approached the hospital to see whether they would consent to those reports being released. I have not had a response as yet, but I would expect it should be favourable.

Mr. Martel: By using confidentiality as a reason for not giving out reports to workers, is the minister not himself contradicting his own act? Section 8 says, "Obtain information from the constructor or employer respecting the identification of potential or existing hazards of materials, processes or equipment;" and subsection 14(2), "Without limiting the strict duty imposed by subsection 1, an employer shall provide information, instruction and supervision to a worker to protect the health or safety of the worker." Section 15 is also applicable. Is the minister not violating his own act by entering into agreements which say they will not disturb the confidentiality of this, even if it proves detrimental to the workers who are being exposed to it? How can he expect anyone else to follow the act when he is not prepared to do so himself?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, when I answered the question of the honourable member in the House originally, I stated that I had no objection to the report being released. It was not until I inquired into it further that I learned there had been a commitment made by my predecessor and, therefore, I was bound to respect the decision that had been made by my predecessor.

TAX ON MEALS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the missing Treasurer. Maybe he has gone out to practise his exercises.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you could ask someone else.

Mr. Wrye: He is withdrawing another amendment. Ask the Minister of Revenue, he doesn't know anything either.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I guess I can redirect this to the Minister of Revenue. As has been indicated, there are a number of people who will not have an opportunity to appear before the committee examining Bill 115. One such woman has written to the Treasurer:

"Dear Sir:

As an employee of a high school cafeteria, I was appalled by your government's decision to tax the lunches of schoolchildren. However, my annoyance at this conscienceless act was compounded when I discovered that the food concessions of Metro Caravan are not subject to sales tax because the ostensibly charitable activities of this organization are cultural in nature.

"Perhaps you would take the time to explain to me why, when a crowd of adults eat, drink, and dance to the strains of ethnic music, it is a cultural activity, yet when young people seek to master the intricacies of mankind's culture, their nutrition is merely a commercial venture, subject to your petty whim. I await your response."

Will the Minister of Revenue, in lieu of the Treasurer, take this opportunity to respond to this woman by advising her that the taxing of schoolchildren's meals will not be part of the final draft of Bill 115? In addition, will he explain the policy-making process which took place in the minds of Treasurer and people in his own ministry that resulted in the situation described in the letter?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague the Treasurer will be responding specifically to the woman in question, since the letter was directed to him from her. In terms of the policy issue raised, the Treasurer just addressed himself to that no more than 10 minutes ago in distinguishing between residential meals and extensions of the home on a permanent basis, five days a week, seven days a week, as the case may be, versus intermittent meals, where there is a choice involved. In the case of the latter, it is taxable and in the case of the former, it is not, as being an extension of the home.

The other very important aspect the Treasurer already reiterated, and I want to further indicate, is that the whole process of the committee hearings in the next two weeks will not be nearly as positive as it should be if we try to close our minds and our eyes to the whole issue before the facts. As has been indicated on more than one occasion by both the Treasurer and me, interpretations are a normal process following a budget. That is why the regulations take some time to be prepared. I am sure we will be guided by many of the representations that come before the committee to evolve into the spirit of the legislation and into the regulations that will be forthcoming.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I wonder if, now that the Treasurer is back among us, I could direct my supplementary to him.

Mr. Speaker: Only on a redirection by the minister.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I will ask the Minister of Revenue if he would consider it then. I would direct everyone's attention to page 26 of the budget document, which sets out very plainly what the Treasurer's intentions were in taxing meals.

However, another group which will not be fully heard at the committee, a women's group, the committee of the York Women's Centre, in respect to the essentiality of items being taxed, has sent the Treasurer a telegram saying, "We ask that this sales tax be removed, i.e. on tampons, and that you write us explaining your justification for imposing such a tax."

Will the Minister of Revenue tell us, before the meeting -- never mind his open mind on other items -- that this tax will be removed because it is dealing with every essential item and it is also sexist discrimination?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the conclusion drawn by the honourable member that it is a sexist discrimination in any event. It was never intended to be and, in fact, never was and still is not. If one looks back into the life of the retail sales tax, many of the same items we are talking about today have been taxed before at some point in the sales tax history of some 21 years. Exemptions were made over the years for various reasons and the Treasurer gave considerable notice of the fact that the whole sales tax base would be examined. It was very specifically identified in the budget statement in 1981 and that review has led to some changes in this tax year.

I am sure the Treasurer, as I, will be going into the hearings with an open mind as to interpretation but the policy statement within the budget was very definitive and very clear.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Revenue said we should be going into the committee hearings with an open mind, I wonder if the minister would recommend to his House leader that the government also have an open mind and reschedule these hearings. We now have 15 groups in front of us for two hours in one evening, we have another day where we have 16 groups in front of the committee for two hours. How does the minister expect to have a reasonable set of hearings on a very important piece of legislation with so many groups in front of the committee? Why do we not have public hearings on this bill in the summer and report the bill back to the Legislature for third reading in the fall so we can have real democracy within the committee?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, real democracy, in my view, includes respecting agreements that have been entered into by various parties. In this case, an agreement was struck among the three House leaders that I think was reasonable, was responsible and is being carried forward in that vein.

I think there will be ample opportunity to hear the various points of view to be put forth. The additional time being suggested by the honourable member would only end up with a very repetitive situation that would not be conducive to a proper hearing or change the points being made; they would just be repeated.

Mr. Speaker: A new question. The member for Hamilton West.

[Applause]

Mr. T. P. Reid: Are you going to give up your seat for Bob Rae?

JOB CREATION

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, as a newcomer to this House, I would like to say thank you to all the honourable members and to yourself for the generous welcome you have accorded me.

I have a question and a message for the Treasurer of this province. Quite simply, the message is this: People in Hamilton want jobs and they say it in angry and colourful language which is not appropriate to the dignity of this House. Is the Treasurer aware -- he must be -- that since the provincial election of March 1981, unemployment in Hamilton has increased by 74 per cent? There are enough unemployed in our city to fill Ivor Wynne Stadium two times over. People in Hamilton are concerned about losing their homes and their jobs and concerned their children may not be able to find work.

2:40 p.m.

Is the Treasurer prepared to reassure the people in my riding who are saying, "It is getting really scary"? Is he prepared to assure them by announcing his intention to bring in a new budget that has job creation as its number one priority?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I welcome our friend to the House. I am sure he will add a great deal to it. I might say from our side of the House that we are glad he is there and that his leader still has to find a seat to take from someone in the front benches.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He wandered a bit in his opening comments too. Let us have a day when we can still smile in this House. Okay?

Of course we are concerned about increases in unemployment. My budget did have as its major thrust the creation of jobs. In fact, the city of Hamilton was one area that was specifically targeted, because $135 million of the tax we gave up this year basically went to the steel industry to help it reinvest and create jobs.

Mr. Allen: Apparently the Treasurer is not aware of the discrepancy between his words and the actual effect his budget is going to have on Hamilton and Hamilton West. Surely he is aware that as a result of his budget Hamilton families are being forced to pay an additional $50 million this year at a time when Hamilton is losing over $250 million because of increased unemployment.

Will the Treasurer not finally admit that his responsibility for job creation and his obligation to assist people necessitate bringing in a new budget that will redress the wrongs and shortcomings of the existing one?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Tonight, when we listen to the budget Mr. MacEachen brings forward, I hope that the honourable member will find that the small move Ontario had in its budget, wherein it refused to take the easy, political route, the route no one would have complained about at all, which would have simply paralleled the federal tax changes and picked up all that money, I hope he will find that gesture of ours where we refused to parallel what we felt were counterproductive moves at the federal level -- that those counterproductive moves will be reversed and that they have matched us, as they should do.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the question as I understand it was about job creation. The Treasurer has said that his budget was about job creation, even though evidence is coming in daily that his new sales tax measures will cost jobs. Will he now reconsider his budget in that light and eliminate some of the retail sales tax provisions that it will be proved to him are going to cost jobs right across this province, as in Crothers Ltd., for example?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there are those who have theorized in the press that somehow I had no idea that in extending the sales tax base that I would irritate people. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Peterson: You took a poll.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, even the polls would tell me that I should not do it, let me assure you. There are no polls telling me to broaden the sales tax base, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it.

Now, let me tell you this, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Peterson: Of course you did. That's why you did it, just as you took a poll on Suncor.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You just be quiet, sit there like a good boy and listen to the answer.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: They are not on the margin, they are not beyond the margin; they are well within the margin and you know it.

On the one hand we picked up something like $340 million in this tax year on sales tax changes; on the other hand we gave away $385 million in corporate tax changes. There are no votes in giving away the $385 million and there are a lot of losses on the $340 million.

The fact remains that the only part of this economy that can create jobs in a meaningful way is the private sector. The member knows that; I know that. We had the courage to do something unpopular in the belief that it would create jobs.

DISQUALIFICATION OF VOTER

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. I gave him notice of this matter last week. Perhaps he could report to the House on the complaint made by Mr. Bruce Owen, an unsuccessful candidate in the riding of Simcoe Centre in the 1981 provincial election concerning the barring of Mrs. Frances Reid from the polls on the false allegation of misrepresentation at the advance polls.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not know specifically the nature of the complaint other than that it was the view of the returning officer, according to the report I got, that Mrs. Reid had accompanied some people who were ineligible voters to an advance poll and for that reason the chief returning officer made a decision she was not to be allowed into any of the polling places during election day.

I have no information about the merit, the legitimacy and the foundation of that complaint against Mrs. Reid. As the honourable member knows, unfortunately the matter did not end there. There were allegations of threats which resulted in criminal charges and these charges, I gather, were disposed of recently.

The member was kind enough to alert me in advance of the question that there was some complaint in relation to this matter. At the moment it would appear there is the issue related to whether or not Mrs. Reid should have been prevented from entering any of the polling areas during election day. I gather some complaint in respect to that has been made to the election commission.

I do not know any of the details of that specific complaint. All I know is what happened in relation to the disposition of the criminal charges.

Mr. Nixon: The matter is rather complex and it did result in Mr. James Corneau, who was accused in the incident, being jailed. He informs us he has now spent $8,000 on legal fees and when his case finally came before the court, it was thrown out completely.

Does the Attorney General, as our chief law officer, not feel some responsibility to look into this matter to see that justice is done and perhaps even to make some recommendations to the returning officer that he might issue an apology under these circumstances since they were so disruptive at the time and have continued to be disruptive during all the time the court case was pending?

Failing that, does the minister not think the matter should be brought to the attention of the successor to the privileges and elections committee, our standing committee on procedural affairs, so it might be dealt with at that level?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member has quite properly stated that the matter is quite complex. There are a number of dimensions to it, both in relation to the election procedures and in relation to the laying and disposition of the criminal charges.

In so far as the criminal charges are concerned, if the member has some information to the effect these charges were improperly laid, I would certainly invite him to have Mr. Corneau's lawyer communicate to me the nature of his concerns.

I will attempt to learn anything further I can about the matter and I am prepared to discuss it with him further. This has a lot of dimensions to it and I just do not know perhaps all I should at this time.

MINISTER'S SPEECH

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. How does the minister justify using public funds to print and distribute political speeches? Does the minister not agree it is unbecoming for the minister to use public funds to attack political opponents? Will it now be a policy of her ministry that every time she addresses a meeting of a Progressive Conservative Party riding association, she will use taxpayers' money to pay for the dissemination of her political propaganda? In her answer, will the minister tell us how much this political propaganda costs Ontario?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in the first place it was not political propaganda; it was factual information related to a bill which was coming before the Legislature about which some concern had been expressed. There was also factual information related to another program which had been somewhat in the news.

It is not my intention ever to use any kind of forum for propagandizing. I was not doing that. I was simply attempting to provide the information which I believe all people should have in order to make appropriate judgements rather than being misled by some of the information which had been distributed by other sources.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Grande: Since the Minister of Education now has decided to use the power of her office to attack local autonomy and place impossible constriction on collective bargaining in Metropolitan Toronto, why is she so surprised that people in Metropolitan Toronto are fighting back? Would she not agree that she should start playing fair? Will she admit that Bill 127 is a total disaster that will lower the quality of education in Metropolitan Toronto? Would she not withdraw it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to all of those questions posed in the latter part of the honourable member's propagandizing statement is a resounding no. That bill is a very sensible, logical piece of legislation drafted to support the principles and objectives of the Metro governance of schools, elementary and secondary, within this area. It does not decrease local autonomy; it increases it. The employees of the boards are still the employees of the boards.

There is no Metro bargaining, as the member likes to misinform people -- -

Mr. Wildman: Wait a minute.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I guess I have to change that word -- as the honourable member tells people, I think, quite inaccurately. It does, indeed, ensure that the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto will have greater accessibility and a greater degree of responsibility demonstrated by their elected members at the school board level than is currently possible.

Mr. McClellan: How much did this cost?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I don't know; I will find out.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition would agree that the Minister of Education should have the opportunity to reply to any charges that are made against her or should be able to put her case forward in terms of her seat as an individual member in this Legislature or of being a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. However, we in the opposition feel that the use of the Ministry of Education logo is inappropriate in that there were definite partisan viewpoints contained within that statement, even though the minister does not consider them to be partisan. In view of these facts, therefore, does the minister not feel that it would be wiser for her to use the stationery that she would have as an individual member of this Legislature or of the Progressive Conservative association when putting forward a speech which clearly has partisan aspects to it and which was delivered to a Progressive Conservative association within Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have a little difficulty with the definition of partisan as expressed by the honourable member. It appears that whenever the opposition makes any statement anywhere it is nonpartisan and as soon as the government makes a statement it is partisan. I think that is an inappropriate definition of the word partisan.

If it is offensive to the members of the Legislature that the logo happens to appear on that piece of paper, I shall most certainly seriously consider removing it.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Community and Social Services has the answer to a previously asked question.

Mr. McClellan: We don't have the minister's money to do it.

Interjection.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: How do you know I didn't?

Mr. Martel: I suspect you didn't.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I did not.

Ms. Copps: We don't have the minister's budget.

Hon. Mr. Drea: She's back; she's back; she's alive.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: She must have gone into exile.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, she was not in exile; she has been hiding.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. The minister called across the floor that she has paid for it herself.

Hen. Miss Stephenson: No, I did not.

Mr. Mackenzie: You said, "How do you know I haven't?"

Mr. Speaker: Order, that is no privilege.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I think I should draw this to your attention at the most available opportunity.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), in response to a question about 10 minutes ago, said in the House that he had no polls that indicated he should have extended the sales tax to items or services currently untaxed and that he should have raised it from seven to eight per cent.

Mr. Speaker, you may recall, about three weeks ago in the House, I raised with the Treasurer the fact that a Goldfarb poll, taken in 1980 for the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, asked among other things -- this is a question on page 238 of the report, which was rather extensive and expensive. The question was asked of 794 people, "Should the government raise sales tax from seven per cent to eight per cent?" The response in the affirmative was 39.3 per cent. The next question was, "Should the government leave sales tax at seven per cent, but extend it to items or services currently untaxed?" The response there, of the total, was 53.2 per cent.

On occasion, I have talked about the government being run by public opinion polls. This time, they have been hoisted on their own petard, but I suggest most strongly that the Treasurer has misled the House, because the information is clear and in my hand.

Mr. Speaker: Interesting as that may be, it is not a point of order. I have no way of knowing any of that information and obviously it is a matter you should raise with the Treasurer at the appropriate time. The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on Friday --

Mr. Peterson: Point of order.

Mr. McClellan: The member said very clearly the Treasurer had misled the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There was not a point of order. Order.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I heard that. I am not sure whether the point he is going to raise is valid or not. I would have to look at Hansard.

Mr. Martel: I suggest you do.

Mr. Speaker: I will. The Minister for Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the member from Scarborough West --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Mr. Peterson: Now that the Treasurer is here, he has a chance to withdraw, from my recollection both of his statement and of the information that is already part of the record of this House, what was blatantly wrong in the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: As I have already pointed out --

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I think you should accord the Treasurer the opportunity to get up and say he made a mistake.

Mr. Breithaupt: He may choose to correct the record.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Maybe he would like to get up and set the record straight.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for me to make a judgement. If the Treasurer wishes to rise on a point of privilege, he may do so.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Are you asking me?

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not asking you. It was an allegation made by the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) on a point of order. If you want to rise on a point of privilege, you may do so.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard the points raised by either party, except I understand that there are allegations about a poll. I understand the poll they refer to is a 1980 poll. This is 1982.

Mr. Breithaupt: You said there were no polls.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It was for your 1981 budget.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have already disposed of that matter. I shall take the matter under consideration.

CHILDREN'S DETENTION CENTRES

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) made allegations, in particular that it is becoming a regular occasion that juveniles, especially native children, have been placed in adult lockups in various communities around the Patricia district. Furthermore, he went on to say, apparently on information from the Ontario Provincial Police, that in Pickle Lake 12 kids per year were put into the adult lockup; in Sioux Lookout, over 20 kids per year were put into the adult lockup; and in Red Lake, they would not even hazard a guess as to how many there were.

For the record, from the Ontario Provincial Police: Sioux Lookout, January 1982 to the present, six females, aged 14 to 15 years, were held overnight; all were drunk and unsuitable for any other care. In each case the verbal consent of a judge was obtained and a female matron was present at all times. In the same period, approximately 10 to 12 children were diverted to foster homes. I should point out that many observation and detention homes in other areas of the province can and do refuse juveniles who are extremely drunk.

3 p.m.

Red Lake -- this is the one where the Ontario Provincial Police cannot hazard a guess -- three runaways, aged 10 to 14, from Winnipeg turned themselves in to the police. Ear Falls, January 1982 to present, no juveniles. Pickle Lake -- where there were supposed to have been 12 -- January 1982 to present, one boy aged 14 held because of a warrant that he was a runaway from a group home in eastern Ontario, and a warrant to apprehend. Ignace, January 1982 to present, one juvenile on bail, aged 14, picked up on request of probation officer for breaches of probation. Dryden, January 1982 to present, two juveniles, one male and one female, both aged 15. The male was a passenger in a stolen car driven by an adult. After six hours of investigation he was released. The female was a runaway and detained on the request of the Winnipeg city police. She was turned over to the children's aid society to be returned to Winnipeg.

That is far from the numbers that were given on Friday.

Having set the record straight, and from the OPP whose lockups those are, it is a matter of record that for more than a year we have been working to try to obtain observation and detention services in this district. As a matter of fact, there is a line item in my budget where the money is available if we can find the appropriate people to provide us with these services.

I am relatively confident that by the end of this year we will have an observation and detention service in Red Lake, Sioux Lookout and Pickle Lake. I am not quite so optimistic about Sandy Lake but we will certainly have a service there by next year.

The method by which we will do it -- because obviously these are not very heavily populated centres for juveniles -- is to take a 365-day-a-year retainer on a bed and, in addition --

Mr. Ruston: Time.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh, no, the member had a good day on Friday. He can now listen to me.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is not a very good response either.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I think it is a magnificent response.

Each one of these single beds will cost approximately $12,000 per year, including the transportation. I would trust that sets the record straight about the holding of juveniles in the Patricia district.

Mr. McClellan: Since this matter was raised initially in 1975-76, if not before -- I was elected in 1975 -- and the promises were made in 1975 and 1976 that observation and detention facilities would be built in northern Ontario communities as quickly as humanly possible so that native children would not have to be incarcerated in the jails, why has it taken the ministry six years and the minister still does not have the facilities in place?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The problem is it is very difficult to negotiate --

Mr. Martel: All he ever did was make statements.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Does the member mean yo-yo or me?

Mr. Martel: You.

Mr. Martel: There are some yo-yos over there as well.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The ministry has for a number of years been attempting to negotiate and find people who will operate these services. It is a very difficult service to develop as an ancillary to the semi-secure facilities in Thunder Bay and in Kenora. Great progress has been made in the last year.

I want to tell the members something else. It may take a long time to get those facilities in certain places. The members know why.

DISPOSAL OF PCBS

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment about the destruction of polychlorinated biphenyls in the province. Can the minister advise this House how soon the test program using the Department of National Defence diesel unit will be implemented and where the testing will be carried out?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member is probably aware, this is a joint effort between the Ontario and federal governments. I cannot give him a precise date. All I can say is that I hope it will be rather soon and that I do not know the site at which it might take place. A number of options are being looked at. A number of municipalities are aware of this fact; in some cases we have had discussions with them and in other cases we will be having discussions with them.

As I understand it it may take some time, because I think the intention is that a mobile version of the unit is to be constructed for testing purposes, and I do not believe that has been done yet.

Mr. Elston: I understand that the testing program calls for 1,000 hours of operation and will require approximately 18,000 gallons of PCBs. Taking that into consideration, and knowing there are not that many large reservoirs of PCBs in the province, can the minister advise us whether or not the site at Smithville is one of the areas being considered; and how soon will people know when this testing will commence?

Hon. Mr. Norton: To the best of my knowledge, no particular area has been excluded from consideration at this point. As to timing, again I really cannot say. I hope the matter can be expedited. I can assure the member we would be glad to hear from any community that is willing.

I might say that in view of the available supply of PCBs in use at the present time, not in storage, there are a number of communities, including my own, that would meet the criteria.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I am sure he will recall that one year ago his position was that nothing could be done by the federal government about interest rates. Six months ago he changed his position and said interest rates should be lowered; he confirmed this four weeks ago. Approximately a week ago he indicated that the major thrust in the federal budget tonight should be to take action to build the confidence of the business community in our country and he was not sure anything could be done about interest rates.

What is the position of the Ontario government on the interest rate problem in our country and province right now? What is he recommending to Mr. MacEachen?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the first ministers met back in January and at that point most suggested that Canada should encourage lower interest rates. The opinion that we could suddenly legislate lower interest rates to some predetermined level like 15 per cent, I think, got widely about. This is not the case, because most of us realize we cannot simply unilaterally set rates without taking other steps, such as controlling the flow of money, to ensure that the rate is constant within our country.

But if we look at the events of the last six months we can see that we have not necessarily followed the United States trends at all times, that the US either stayed level or went down and we stayed level or went up at the same time. We diverged rather than came together.

If we look behind that to see why we diverged, we find we still have a run of Canadian money out of the country. The run of Canadian money touches the point I just mentioned, confidence in government. Money runs out of a country when people do not have confidence in the central government; it comes back in when they do have confidence. The more money runs out, the more the price drops, the more the interest rate has to be raised. Therefore, lack of confidence in the federal government's fiscal and monetary policies has quite directly caused an increase in Canadian interest rates.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: While the Treasurer's major concern for tonight's budget is the confidence of the business community, what about the confidence of the unemployed and the home owners in this province who are losing their homes and their jobs because of high interest rates?

Will he talk with the Premier (Mr. Davis) about taking a recommendation to Mr. Trudeau on Wednesday that the position of the Ontario government is that Mr. Bouey should be instructed to lower interest rates, and if he is not prepared to do that he should be fired and replaced?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If I have been quoted as saying it is the confidence of the business community, that certainly would not be wrong, but I must also point out I have never said exclusively the business community. In fact, I have gone on to point out the lack of confidence in the whole economy is greater with the consumers than anywhere else.

That consumer has little reason for confidence if he or she is unemployed, but in addition many people who are employed have not been making the normal purchases their present savings level or income level would justify because they do not feel confident in the future. That is also one of the problems the federal government must address.

PETITION

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition presented on behalf of some very concerned citizens from the riding of London North. They are petitioning the Lieutenant Governor and the members of the Legislative Assembly because of their concern with the burden of new taxes on the taxpayer.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, Bill 127, as most members are now aware, is intended to require joint negotiations of all the various teaching bodies and all of the school boards across Metro Toronto. I was just in the process of winding up last Thursday evening when the plug was pulled and the time was called.

Interjection.

Mr. Sweeney: I will not comment on some of the people who spoke before me. We will leave that to the history pages of Hansard.

When I opened my remarks about 10 o'clock last Thursday, I asked a basic question. The minister will remember it was why is she doing it. We had gone over some of the reasons we thought she should not be doing it and we have to keep coming back to the question: what is in the minister's mind? What is the purpose behind all this? Is there something more to it than what is contained in this piece of legislation?

We cannot help sensing there must be more behind it than this. For example, we have the strong feeling that somewhere down the line -- and we are not sure how far away, whether it is months or years -- the whole question of a single board in Metropolitan Toronto is something that has to be taken into consideration.

If we are going to have a single tax base and single negotiations all across Metro, if we are going to have a decision as to how many teachers there may be, which indirectly pretty well decides how classes are going to be arranged and what kinds of programs can be offered, if all of those things are going to happen all across Metro, we have to keep coming back and asking what is going to be done at the local board level. There is not really a lot left of real significance.

How long that turn of events is going to take, we do not know. We speak in terms of what is left of real significance. One of the questions we have to keep asking ourselves at this point is about the special needs of the various segments of the Metro educational scene.

The minister is as well aware as I am of the very special needs that are going to come from Bill 82. The minister is as aware as I am that the appropriate educational programs will be as different as the children are all across Metro.

The needs in the Jane-Finch area of North York, the needs in the downtown core of Toronto, the needs in the far reaches of suburban Scarborough or Etobicoke, are not going to be the same. Yet the amount of money that is going to be levied, the kinds of salaries that are going to be negotiated, the numbers of teachers that are going to be available, are going to have a common element all across Metro.

Therefore, we have to ask ourselves again, is it really going to be genuinely possible under this legislation to meet the individual needs of students in the various parts of Metro? Some needs will be greater than others and some will be very different. That to us is an important and key problem.

We have also asked ourselves about the whole question of financing. On Thursday night, I spoke about the deterioration of the provincial share of financing from 1975 to 1982, from 61.3 per cent across the province, on average, to 51.3 per cent; or a 10 per cent drop representing a figure of something like $534 million which would have flowed to the various school boards in Ontario had the 1975 figure been kept. Even if it had been kept at the 60 per cent to which the government had committed itself, we would still be fairly close to something like $500 million, which is an awful lot of money.

When we look at what is behind this we have to ask ourselves, where does the dollar figure come in? Where does the relationship between the province, the ministry and the local school boards come in? To what extent is this action being taken now as one of the ways in which the provincial government is getting off the hook with respect to its financial obligations to education in Ontario and, in this particular case, to education in the Metro area?

Finally, we have to ask ourselves another question that comes up from time to time and which has never been finally resolved one way or the other; it sort of sits on the back burner and comes forward every once in a while. That is the whole question of province-wide bargaining. We know that at least one of our sister provinces already has province-wide bargaining.

I am sure the minister would be one of the first to say it does not work particularly well in that other jurisdication and is not the sort of thing we would want here. But the minister would not be surprised if people, looking at what is happening in Metro and looking at the past history of what happens in Metro as eventually being translated to the rest of the province -- consolidated school boards and various forms of regional government, for example -- would not find it difficult to perceive that this could be a first step to province-wide bargaining.

I honestly do not know where the government, the ministry and this minister are heading with this legislation. We have been told on numerous occasions that it is not going to mean a really significant or fundamental change in the Metro area, that things are going to go on pretty much as they were before and children are still going to get a pretty good quality of education. We have been told that. We have been told it is not going to have any relationship to the rest of the province. Yet as we look at the implications of this legislation we cannot help but believe there is much more to this than we are seeing on the surface.

We are concerned about the whole question of autonomy of local boards. We are concerned about the whole question of financing of education not just in Metro but across the province. We are concerned about the eventual expansion of what is happening here in Metro to the other parts of the province. We are concerned about the fact that students' needs, individual needs, appropriate needs and very different needs with respect to the requirements of Bill 82, are not going to be met as well under this legislation.

Therefore, we want to state very clearly at this time -- maybe the hearings in the fall will bring some new ideas, some new principles, new thoughts to light; at this point it is difficult for us to imagine that but we will wait and see -- we are opposed to this legislation. My colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) has clearly indicated in many more specific ways why we are opposed to it.

3:20 p.m.

We shall wait until the fall. I hope over the next couple of months the minister will take the opportunity to weigh carefully the potential implications of this legislation. I hope she will take the opportunity to read once again the remarks of the Education critics of both opposition parties and the remarks of the teachers' federations, the Toronto school board and other concerned trustees in other parts of the province, as to the implication of this legislation.

I suspect this is another one of those pieces of legislation that have much more far-reaching implications than even the minister herself had thought to be the case. It is most appropriate that we are going to have this lull of approximately two months before we take this piece of legislation to committee, before we have people from across the province, particularly across Metro Toronto, coming in and speaking to the significance of this legislation.

It will give the minister an opportunity to weigh a little bit more carefully just exactly what we are getting into.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It will give you an opportunity too.

Mr. Sweeney: It will give us an opportunity as well, certainly; it is a two-way street. On the surface, at this point, no matter how we look into this legislation, no matter how we look into the implications of it, no matter how we look at the increasing complexity this legislation is going to bring to the negotiation process in Metro Toronto, a complexity and a potential area of ill will and of litigation that we certainly do not need, we have to ask ourselves why.

We have suggested some of the answers. Truly, only the minister herself and her government know for sure what the why is.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak with outrage against Bill 127, for I regard it as one of the most iniquitous pieces of legislation which has been brought before this House. In my opinion, it is the naked use of provincial legislative power to aid and abet a power grab by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.

The minister may say that a majority of the members of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board asked for this legislation, but we must remember that those who voted for it represented area municipalities which would benefit financially from the changes in the funding formula for dealing with commercial and industrial assessment. In most cases, people like to vote for improvements in the financial position of their own board.

For the city of Toronto, whose representatives mainly voted against it, there will be a loss in the resources that they have for education because of the change in the funding formula, in the apportionment formula and the recognition of the commercial and industrial assessment.

Bill 127 is a blatant example of this government's use of its legislative power to make local bodies simply administrative arms of upper-tier governments and to remove control from the people affected. It is an example of the government's obsession with bigness and uniformity. This obsession has been reflected in its regional government developments as well.

Uniformity without modifications can lead to mediocrity and reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator. That is not the kind of regional government we want, where everybody is put into a cookie-cutter mould and is required to observe the same pattern regardless of local conditions. That kind of uniformity is the enemy of the diversity and the flexibility which are necessary to meet local needs.

Bill 127 is completely unacceptable for a number of reasons. In the first place, it is a bill which will destroy local autonomy for all of the area boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto, not just for the city of Toronto. The major decisions regarding the number and allocation of teachers, the pay and benefits of teachers, capital funding and meeting the problems of declining enrolment will all be made by the upper-tier Metropolitan Toronto School Board. Local boards will be left with responsibilities for delivering quality education in their area but will have no power to meet those responsibilities.

Secondly, Bill 127 is unacceptable because it is a bill which will destroy the opportunity for parents, teachers, students and the residents of Metropolitan Toronto to have input in the kind of education system they will have in their area. It will take away from them the opportunity to shape their own local school system and to adjust it to suit local conditions and needs.

They lose this opportunity because the decisions about "the methods by which the number of teachers to be employed by a board is determined" will be given to the upper-tier board. This power can be interpreted to cover everything from the number of teachers to allocation of teachers, decisions about which new curriculum initiatives will be followed and will be staffed, and the whole question of which schools will be supplied with teachers to continue to operate.

In the past, parents and other persons in the community in the Toronto system have had considerable input on staffing and allocation. It has given them a very definite say in the nature of the educational services delivered by their local school. They have also had a significant say in curriculum development. But if all the major financial decisions are made by the non-elected upper-tier board, parents and local residents will operate with very little power.

Citizen participation in decision-making is the touchstone of democracy. Without it, the people become more and more alienated from their government and from their elected representatives. This government has been steadily eroding this basic democratic right of citizens to be heard, consulted and to have some influence over the decision-making process. This government has been eroding their rights with regard to their environment by exempting from environmental assessment more and more projects. In most cases, citizens no longer have a say in where hydro corridors will go. They have no say in where many highways will go. They have little say over where provincial parks will be developed and natural resources exploited. They have little say over the location of waste disposal sites. In fact, this government has been eroding public participation on a steadily increasing basis.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What absolute balderdash.

Mr. McClellan: You wrote the book on it, you should know. Send out some more information bulletins, Bette, on the ministry letterhead. Don't worry about the cost.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not on ministry letterhead.

Ms. Bryden: By Bill 127, it is now eroding public participation in the most vital part of their lives; namely, the educational system of their children.

3:30 p.m.

Bill 127 is unacceptable for a third reason, which is that it will destroy the accountability of local school boards to the people who elect them. All the key decisions will be made by a small group of about 20 trustees, who are indirectly elected to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board by the area boards. These trustees are not answerable to the general electorate and not even to the board that chose them. They vote as they please and do not necessarily follow the instructions of the board that chooses them.

They are accountable to no one, as far as I can see, once they are elected. Any accountability they may have is to their area board and to the electorate that sent them to the area board but not to the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto as a whole, and yet they are making decisions that affect those citizens as a whole.

We have to recognize that under the setup of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, only a certain number of trustees from the area board go to the upper-tier board. With a ward system, it means certain wards do not have any representation on the upper board; other wards do have representatives but they are not chosen by them for their positions on the board.

Bill 127 is completely unacceptable for a fourth and very important reason. In my opinion, it will destroy a collective bargaining system for teachers that is working. It will substitute a straitjacket for the present collective bargaining system, which is flexible and has succeeded in producing successful settlements without strikes in most years. It will probably produce many tensions that are not there now and may result in more unsettled disputes and more problems in reconciling differences.

The procedure set forth in Bill 127 is completely unacceptable because it denies employees the basic democratic right to bargain with their own employer. It removes that opportunity and says they can bargain only with a remote and nonaccountable board on very rigid rules.

In the past, at the elementary level we have had 16 branch affiliates bargaining collectively with their area boards and in many cases co-operatively with all the boards together.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Did it reduce local autonomy to bargain jointly?

Ms. Bryden: Yes, because it is done by choice.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I really can't see the logic in that argument.

Mr. Grande: You rarely understand, anyway.

Ms. Bryden: We have 16 branch affiliates at the elementary level and eight at the secondary level. By giving them the flexibility, there are places where bargaining jointly is advisable, useful and will speed up matters, and the opportunity has been used in the past in most cases. However, in the present bill this flexibility will be removed and all the affiliates will have to bargain in one unit without the opportunity of flexibility.

In her speech to the St. David Progressive Conservative Association, which was so kindly printed by the ministry to be sent out for her, the minister kept trying to argue that the bulk of contract matters are still left to local bargaining. She said boards will be able to bargain on uniquely local matters that relate to working conditions.

In the first place, any matter that a particular board wants to add to the general contract signed with the Metropolitan Toronto School Board cannot be added unless all the area boards and the Metropolitan board agree to that particular condition. Any one board has a veto over any request by one of the area boards to have a condition added to the contract. That is the way I read the law. It seems quite clear that it says any addition to the areas that are prescribed in Bill 127 for bargaining by the upper tier must be agreed to by all the area boards and by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: But that is not what you said earlier.

Ms. Bryden: That is what I said; so there is a veto.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You said any item.

Mr. Grande: Why don't you just listen?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am listening. If I were not, I would not comment.

Ms. Bryden: With regard to which areas, if any, are left to the local boards, and that is still very unclear, the minister in her speech, instead of talking about the bulk of contract matters, was now using the new phrase "the thick part" of any contract and saying that is taken up with local issues. I do not think we measure contract terms by weight or by how many pages they occupy, it is the importance of the contract condition. It appears, from reading the legislation, that very little of importance will be left to the local boards for bargaining.

In the same speech last week the Minister of Education also said the bill would distribute resources so as "to provide all young people in Metropolitan Toronto with equal access and opportunity in education." In my opinion, this bill will do just the opposite.

Bill 127 will destroy the opportunity for any of the six area municipalities to provide adjustments in the system to meet the need for equal access. It will deny them the opportunity to compensate for disadvantages suffered by various kinds of students, such as immigrant students, students with learning disabilities and students who need enriched classes. These children will not have equal access and opportunity in education if the financial resources are not provided for the boards that have disproportionate numbers of these kinds of students with problems, in instances where adjustments are needed.

For example, inner-city children require smaller classes and specialized services. Certainly there are more of them in the inner city of Toronto. So under this straitjacket and the increase in apportionment that will be coming out of the commercial and industrial assessment for the city of Toronto, there will be fewer funds available to the Toronto Board of Education for meeting those local needs. There will be less opportunity for democratic choice by each community and its school board to meet local needs.

3:40 p.m.

I am not speaking only about the city of Toronto. What I am saying is that the city of Toronto has some problems that are disproportionate to the problems in the other areas, and they need funding that is not reduced, particularly in this time of restraint and cutbacks. It is very unfair to change the funding formula at this time if one is going to provide equal access and opportunity in education in the city of Toronto with respect to the other areas.

Another area where Bill 127 will restrict equality of opportunity and access is the clamp on the number of teachers who may be hired through passing this power to the upper tier. It means that if the city of Toronto decides smaller classes are an essential part of providing the additional services needed for its special programs to give equality of opportunity to its diversity of pupils, then it will not be able to hire the extra teachers who are needed.

I think we have been fortunate that in the past few years many of the teachers who were made available as a result of declining enrolment have been kept by the city of Toronto to provide the diversity of service that was needed to look after its special problem areas.

It seems to me it is more sensible to make it possible for those teachers to be used for those special needs than to simply say, "You cannot have them, or if you have them you are only allowed to charge a minimum mill rate over and above the regular mill rate applicable across the board in order to hire them."

I think a school board should be allowed to tax its residents above the minimum level if the residents are willing to pay the tax. They do have the opportunity -- in the past it has been every two years, and it will now be every three years -- to say they do not approve.

We know that when the city of Toronto decided to keep some of its teachers a couple of years ago when it had a surplus from declining enrolment, there were large numbers of people who came down to the school board and said, "We are willing for you to keep these teachers, even if it does cost us somewhat more in taxes."

The minister was going to cut down the amount she would allow a school board to charge over and above the standard mill rate by one third. This would have been another blow at the city of Toronto's opportunity to look after declining enrolment by a more imaginative approach than simply firing teachers and closing schools.

She has backed off on that proposal, but I think that this is simply a divide-and-rule proposition and that she is trying to buy off parents by saying, "We will go back to the status quo ante."

That is not good enough. It is not the status quo ante. There is going to be a very serious restriction on the use of that extra local levy for additional teachers or additional special programs, because any deficits that occur will be charged against that extra levy.

I do not object to school boards paying deficits out of their own levies if they run into them, but I do not think it should be part of the special levy that has been in effect and has been used for hiring additional teachers to meet special local needs. It should not be part of the 1.5 mills to look after deficits. If we are going to have any opportunity for school boards to hire additional teachers, we are going to have to remove the handling of deficits by that method.

In her speech, the minister made a comment that the city of Toronto had run up deficits in the past two years which the other boards had to pick up because some of them had surpluses, but she seemed to have forgotten that over the many years of metropolitan government in Toronto, the city of Toronto provided far more of the capital funding that went to build the new schools in the suburbs and was itself starved of capital funds for renewal and renovation during those years in the 1950s and 1960s when new schools were burgeoning in the suburban areas.

The shoe has been on the other foot at times, with Toronto contributing more to the other boards. Perhaps in the past year or two the other boards have been contributing more to Toronto because it has more problems of inner-city children, single-parent children and immigrant children. We all have to share in seeing there is equal educational opportunity for all those children.

I understand from this morning's paper that the minister has said she is also going to look at the question of deficits in the September hearings, but she has not made any commitment or any proposal as to how the deficits could be handled in a different way so as not to take away from the power or opportunity of area school boards to hire additional teachers.

It has been pointed out that as long as she has that deficit requirement in there, it means a school board might decide it needed to hire 20, 30 or 50 additional teachers and then, when the figures seemed to show a deficit was looming as can happen in these days of recession and cutbacks, the teachers would have to be fired before they had really started doing the jobs they were hired to do.

That is an area where we want a definite proposal from the minister as to how she is going to change it. Simply to say it will be discussed in the September hearings is not satisfactory.

I am pleased we are going to have September hearings but, as the members know, it was a battle to convince the minister the September hearings were the only appropriate time rather than July hearings, which appeared to be what she was suggesting after she had agreed to any hearings at all.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I suggested a split, but you would not agree to that.

Ms. Bryden: July hearings would not give the parents and the people who are concerned about Bill 127 an opportunity to prepare for them, and a great many of them are scattered on vacation. Hearings in July simply would have been a mockery of the democratic process.

We have succeeded at least in getting the minister to agree to this amount of public input, but the real crunch will be whether she listens to any of the arguments as to why Bill 127 is a bad bill and whether she will kill Bill 127 and start all over again with a bill that will provide true equality of educational opportunity in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: Kill the bill.

Ms. Bryden: When one has a very bad bill, it seems to me that is the only thing to do with it.

Why does this government talk about local autonomy and put in more and more centralization policies such as in Bill 127? Why does this government fear local diversity and local planning? Why does this government oppose tailoring programs to local needs and favour a cookie-cutter approach? Why does this government reject democratic control over educational decisions?

The only answer that I can find is that the government is trying to assist the Metropolitan Toronto School Board in a power play so that it will have complete control over the educational system in the Metropolitan Toronto area. I may be wrong, but the motivations of the ministry itself seem to be to reduce the pressures for additional grants or for additional programs --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As usual, you are entirely wrong.

Mr. Grande: You are not wrong at all.

Ms. Bryden: -- which ultimately will have to come out of the minister's budget.

Parents, teachers and students have indicated to us they are prepared to pay for quality education. Taxpayers generally are prepared to pay for quality education. What they are saying is: "Your priorities are all wrong. Education does deserve more funds if one is to look after all these special problems."

As yet, we have not seen how much money will be made available to put Bill 82 into effect and to provide the kind of education that every child is entitled to under that bill. This kind of legislation seems to be an attempt by the ministry to cut down the opportunity for school boards to provide the kind of programs that are needed and to put them into a straitjacket which will reduce them all to the lowest common denominator.

There is one other area in which I think this bill is a real threat to local autonomy and to decision-making by local people. That is the area of possible school closings. The local school has been a very important part of our institutions since the days of the one-room school which was set up in the early years of our history in the 1800s. It became not just a school but a community focus. The schools that have developed from it, at both the elementary and secondary levels, are far more than just an educational plant; they are a neighbourhood focus.

With declining enrolment, they could become a much greater neighbourhood resource than they are. They could become places for day care, adult education and seniors' programs. They could become the lighted school at night for all kinds of self-improvement programs and for community meetings. There are many uses to which these school buildings could be put rather than simply closing them and shutting off a neighbourhood resource.

Bill 127 will remove the opportunity for parents to develop alternative uses in schools where there is declining enrolment, because they will not have the funds or the opportunity to raise money to explore those alternatives. Instead, they will be faced with a decision from the board higher up that no staff will be provided for schools below a certain size or that the staff will be cut down so small it no longer will be a properly diversified school offering art programs and music programs as well as the other things a school should offer.

In this case we have to consider that bigness is not everything and that the local school and its presence in the community and its role in the community must be considered. I think Bill 127 is completely antithetical to the development of that kind of approach to the problems of declining school enrolments.

This bill has rather correctly been described as a Trojan horse. It is brought in, not as what it really is but is disguised, in the minister's words, as an improvement in educational equality and opportunity. When we look into the horse we find it is not what it seems to be. It is really a shift in power from the local school board to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.

We have to also look at it as a possible pilot project for similar shifts in other areas, and in particular for the shift in the collective bargaining procedure from a local school board basis to a regional basis. Even though the minister says this is not a pilot project, we have no real assurance that it will not be considered a pilot project for putting collective bargaining in a straitjacket on a regional basis, particularly in view of the kites that were being flown about amendments to Bill 100.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Bill 100 amendments will be here in the fall.

Mr. Wildman: You mean you are going to do that in the fall?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There are some amendments to Bill 100.

Mr. Grande: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Throughout the comments of the member for Beaches-Woodbine the minister has been keeping up a running commentary, as it is called. If the minister wants to stand up and make a statement with the view to saying this destructive bill will be withdrawn, I think the minister is in order at any time after the member sits down to get up and make that speech. If not, I feel strongly that the Minister of Education should be listening carefully to the criticism of this destructive legislation. She will have her opportunity at the end of the debate to sum up.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your point of order. Of course, the Speaker has no jurisdiction to command the minister necessarily to listen.

Furthermore, I point out to the member for Oakwood and to all honourable members that in all cases the Speaker has always ruled that running commentaries are not in order. Certainly, interjections are usually regulated with diligence by the Speaker, and in this case I have been listening very closely to the minister --

Mr. Grande: She has been carrying on a running commentary.

The Deputy Speaker: No. She has made interjections but it has not been a running commentary.

Ms. Bryden: I was just going to sum up. Bill 127 should be withdrawn because it is so completely unacceptable and because it is attempting to do exactly the opposite of what it purports to do. I think it is a matter of misrepresentation as to what Bill 127 is designed to do. That is the reason we really think the public hearings will demonstrate to the minister that the bill is not fair, that it is an abuse of legislative power by this government to shift power and financial control away from the people who are affected most by the decisions. This kind of legislation is undemocratic and will destroy the opportunity for people to shape their own school systems.

4 p.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: I had assumed that we would have another speaker from the other side, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, I might have been a little quick to acknowledge you.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say that the captain at the helm of our ship of education is steering us on to the rocks of destruction, and she is doing it in the middle of the day, not even in the fog or in the black of night.

On Friday, May 28, the Minister of Education introduced changes in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1982, that would seriously affect the provision of services needed to meet local educational needs and would curtail local board autonomy. The legislation would require joint bargaining for all teachers throughout Metro and would significantly reduce the number of elementary school teachers the board could employ in its schools.

The proposed changes would seriously reduce the quality and equitable availability of education programs in Toronto elementary schools and could require such moves as: (1) increasing regular school size; (2) closing neighbourhood schools; (3) eliminating the educational staff allocation provided in schools with French immersion programs; (4) reducing the availability of English as a second language for people who need this kind of help; (5) closing all-day kindergarten programs in the most inner-city schools; and (6) moving the common starting point for core French from grade 4 to grade 5 or grade 6.

All six local boards would be forced to negotiate jointly with the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. This would mean the loss of local school board autonomy and of direct accountability to the local ratepayer as well as the loss of a local board's ability to respond effectively to the needs of local schools.

I would like to run very briefly down a list of people who are against this bill. I for one do not understand how the Minister of Education could introduce such a bill; even though I must admit that in some sense I admire her occasionally when she has her eyes wide open and knows what she is doing, but not in this specific instance.

I would ask the minister, if she is listening, how she can possibly introduce a bill of this nature when the sentiment that has been established and now comes to Toronto from all over Ontario has been so overwhelmingly against the provisions of Bill 127?

For example, I know there are some other honourable members here who come from the west end of Toronto and they are well informed of the public mood in this city. Let me assure the minister that certainly the Area West Parent Association is totally and unequivocally opposed to this legislation. The Toronto Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Teachers' Federation are totally opposed -- I am sure the minister realizes this -- to these provisions of Bill 127.

I ask the minister whether she could find just one teacher in the whole of the city of Toronto who would support her in this strange persistence of hers on Bill 127?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, more than one.

Mr. Ruprecht: I would very much like to see those kinds of people. I have not received one telephone call from any of the teachers in Toronto who are supporting the minister in pushing this legislation. On the other hand, to be quite open about this, I have received hundreds of calls from teachers who are totally opposed to this legislation, never mind the parents who are very upset about this bill.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Because they have been misled.

Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to see the teachers who are supporting this Bill 127. Where are these teachers? The minister says she has some. Does she have them hidden underneath a carpet? Does she have them hidden in some closet that she will suddenly spring open and say, "Here, I have found one" -- a person who must be blind and not know what he or she is talking about?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why, so you can attack them and report them to the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation?

Mr. Ruprecht: Find me some of those teachers. I would like to see those teachers and I would like to see from where the minister has dragged them out, from what hidden closet or hidden under what carpet that she can suddenly sweep them out. I would like to see that. I would be over to meet with them at any time. I have not received one telephone call from such a teacher.

The minister says she has some teachers. She should show them to us. Where are they? Where are these teachers? Where are those teachers in the city of Toronto?

Mr. McClellan: They are on the Rosedale Tory executive.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, they are in Toronto.

Mr. Ruprecht: We are not talking about teachers in Thunder Bay or teachers she would have to fly in from Timmins, Atikokan or from as far away as Hudson Bay. She may have to fly them down to show them to us. She will not find them here.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are in Toronto, I assure you.

Mr. Ruprecht: They are in Toronto? Why can she not produce them? Where are they? Where do they speak from? What schools do they belong to?

The minister and I both know that teachers are not an intimidated lot. Those teachers would stand behind the minister if they believed in her. I have not seen them stand behind her. I have not heard them speak. I will tell her whom I have heard speak in her support.

When the minister so courageously took a stand and walked into the middle of the Ontario Teachers' Federation meeting, which I admired, the people I saw standing behind her were not the teachers. They were all on the other side. She knows as well as I do that it is a fact that they were all on the other side. They were facing her. They were showing their signs and their frustration. They were against her at that specific meeting, and I mean all of them who were there.

There was not one person who spoke up and said: "Yea, Bette Stephenson, you are doing a good job. We are in favour of it." There was not one person in the hall or in the street, not one person that I could lay my eyes on, who was in favour. If the minister has one, or as many as she says, she should bring them out of the closet and let them see the light of day. I will guarantee that when they come out they will have their eyes opened and would vote against Bill 127 if they could be heard.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Without a doubt, you are the biggest bag of wind --

Mr. Ruprecht: The biggest bag of wind? That is a nice thing for you to say.

I would like to see the minister stand up and defend those policies again. She may have done that already, but let her show me those teachers who support her in the city of Toronto. I would like to see that. Maybe she can come up with names by September but I do not think she can find them.

Interjection.

Mr. Ruprecht: No. To set the record straight, the honourable member is not for Bill 127.

I had intended to speak on that so I might as well broach that now. Among those who are against Bill 127, we also find people who are in the government back row.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Who?

Mr. Ruprecht: We have proof here. She knows that. Why is she asking me?

4:10 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Who?

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister knows who. It is not only one person in the back row. There must be at least half a dozen in the back row. I will give her one example.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Really?

Mr. Bradley: Susan Fish.

Mr. Ruprecht: The honourable member on this side mentioned the member for St. George (Ms. Fish). I do not know for sure about the member for St. George.

Interjection.

Mr. McClellan: It's all down in black and white.

Mr. Ruprecht: No, we do not only have it as the minister says, although listen to the honourable member or members on this bill, because the minister wants her own way. Let me inform her because she does not seem to be informed on this issue.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It's not "my way."

Mr. Ruprecht: It would be excusable if she were not informed on this particular issue. With the kind of opposition she is getting, I could excuse that, but if she is telling me she does not even know the members in the inner sanctum of her own party who are against this specific bill, I think there is something missing here. Does she know what is missing? What is missing is some concern and some openness and some sensitivity to the people of Toronto and, for that matter, for her own back-benchers. That is a very sad commentary.

If the minister wants some backup on this, we have it in writing. I would think this article I have can be trusted. I will read this in case she does not believe me. It says that the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) also said he talked to the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), MPP for the Toronto riding of St. Andrew-St. Patrick, and here is the quote. Is the minister ready for this? This may be a big surprise to her.

"I tell you, Larry Grossman is on my side 100 per cent."

Does the minister believe that? Oh, suddenly nothing happens over there.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, if you believed that, there is some swamp land I'd be happy to sell you.

Mr. Ruprecht: Does the minister say this is not true? Is that what I heard her say?

Mr. McClellan: Get up and deny it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member is making a presentation.

Mr. Ruprecht: I am making my presentation.

The Acting Speaker: The back-and-forth dialogue you are requesting is not really part of the debate process.

Mr. Ruprecht: I am not asking for a back-and- forth dialogue, I am simply addressing myself to some of the comments that are coming from the Minister of Education.

The Acting Speaker: In that case, as long as you did not expect the minister to respond at this point --

Mr. Ruprecht: No, I was quite happy if she occasionally interjected. That is okay with me. I think that is her right and that is fine.

But the minister is suddenly so quiet over there. I find it very surprising. Let me continue.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am trying to restrain myself from your idiocy, that's all.

Mr. Ruprecht: Let me just quote from another idiocy, since the minister does not believe the statements in the Toronto Star on the Metro page. If she said that is an idiocy, she does not believe her own back-benchers or, in fact, her own front benchers. The Minister of Health is basically quoted in this article as saying he is against her on Bill 127. Does she call that an idiocy?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No. You have not read it, because he did not say that.

Mr. Ruprecht: She is not calling that an idiocy. Thank you very much. Let me read another piece of paper, namely a letter by an honourable member on the back benches --

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order: Just to set the record straight, I understand the minister is saying the Minister of Health is not the idiot, but the member for High Park-Swansea is.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, this is what I had understood as well.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Parkdale has the floor and I wish he would speak to the issue.

Mr. Ruprecht: I think there may be some more honourable members right in this hallowed chamber who may have understood the same thing. If we could ask them, they would probably agree on it.

Mr. McClellan: Ask the Speaker to rule who the idiot is.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I will not ask you to rule on who that person is. But, very briefly, let me set the record straight so the honourable minister will understand full well what is at stake here. I am not standing here talking for the sake of talking, but to inform her of the facts concerning some of her own people in the party, in the government.

If the minister does not believe the Toronto Star, if she thinks they are a bunch of idiots, let me assure her that I have an authenticated document, a letter written to the Howard School Association, at 30 Marmaduke Street in Toronto, dated February 8. I would like to hear the minister's response to this second document I am presenting.

This letter is written to Sandra Field, president of the Howard Home and School Association by the member for High Park-Swansea. I have mentioned this before so this is nothing new to that member; it is a matter of record. I admire the honourable member and the Minister of Health for standing up against this bill because they are from Toronto. The Toronto members in the cabinet will know what the facts are and will be against this bill. Certainly, they have put it in writing. They are quoted in the paper. I think they would have the guts and the internal fortitude to oppose this bill because we think it is wrong and it ought to be killed. There is no doubt about it.

Mr. Bradley: Susan Fish.

Mr. Ruprecht: I am not sure about the member for St. George. I have no record of her stand but, if the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) says that, then it is probably true.

Mr. Wildman: If Larry Grossman is against it, so is she.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruprecht: Did the member say if the Minister of Health is against it so is the member for St. George? That is three people already and there may be even more. We may find up to five people. I will delay no longer. For the minister's information, so she will no longer call her own members crazy --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, that's you. You are the only one who qualifies.

Mr. Ruprecht: Here is the proof so that we no longer have any attempt on the minister's behalf to whitewash this issue or other members' points of view. As long as they agree with her, she would probably say, "That's great." The minister knows this bill was written in the night and she probably got up on the wrong side of bed in the morning.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I never get up on the wrong side, not ever.

Mr. Ruprecht: Which side does the minister get out on, the left side?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Always the right side.

Mr. Ruprecht: I am sorry I asked that question.

The Acting Speaker: You really are diverting from the bill we are trying to debate.

Mr. Ruprecht: I am not varying at all. All we are saying is when this was written, something must have happened to the minister because basically everybody in Toronto opposes it.

I was about to tell the minister what is in this letter and I will not be long about it. There are just two paragraphs. It is longer, but I will spare the House the rest. I will only read the important section of this letter. As I said before, it is written to the Howard Home and School Association by the member for High Park-Swansea, and if he thinks there is something wrong with this letter I hope he will let me know.

He says, "I personally share your view that the present system of separate negotiations with the individual boards and its teachers should remain existing" --

Mr. Grande: Listen to common sense.

Mr. Bradley: I agree with Yuri.

Mr. Ruprecht: The member for High Park- Swansea has common sense. It continues, "...and I expressed this opinion in a recent meeting with ward 1 trustee, Mr. Doug Little."

The final paragraph says, "However, I can assure you that I will continue to voice my concerns, which coincide with those of your organization on this very important issue."

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I for one have no doubt that the member for High Park-Swansea will indeed voice his opinion when the time comes.

Mr. Wildman: When is that?

Mr. Bradley: Right now.

Mr. Ruprecht: Why do I say that? I say that for a very simple reason. Up until this point the honourable member could not have voiced his concern with the minister, because she says she was not even aware who in her front and back benches is against Bill 127. Consequently, I would think that in the future we on this side of the House will look forward to the day when the Conservative back and front benches will speak to the minister about these provisions; and I hope that after speaking to them, since she is not expecting or accepting any opinion but her own, she will then see the light and change these provisions of Bill 127.

In the context of my discussion I would like to continue and tell members that the trustees in the city of Toronto are united against Bill 127.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.

Mr. Ruprecht: I hear another word from the minister, who says this is not the case, either. Well, she has said no to every sentence I have uttered up until now, so why should she say yes at this particular point?

As I said earlier, if she says, no, I would simply ask her to produce those trustees or teachers in the city of Toronto, whom I am sure she will find in some backroom dustbin, who will stand with her on Bill 127 on the day of reckoning.

Mr. Bradley: From the Toronto Board of Education.

Mr. Ruprecht: Of course from Toronto. But we hear nothing from the minister; suddenly, she is not saying anything, and my words fall on deaf ears.

The parent-teacher associations from most schools I went to in Parkdale are totally opposed; in fact, they are very frustrated and upset. I must tell the minister this because she may not know it. They have signed a petition, which I will show her, especially in September when this bill comes up. It looks something like this. She will see thousands of these petitions signed. It has the minister's name on it.

The petition basically reads: "We, the undersigned, strongly urge the Minister of Education to support the present teacher-board negotiation process, and we urge that the minister should oppose the provisions of Bill 127." That is basic; there is more in it, but the minister will see thousands of these signatures when the time comes.

What concerns us here is that teachers from right across Ontario have called. They have called my office and I am informed they have called the offices of other honourable members to fight against these provisions. They are not only concerned about what happens in Toronto; they are also very much concerned that the experience in Toronto is going to be a testing ground of what might happen in other school boards and other regions.

The minister has also heard that this is an example of a fish-bowl exercise, that the minister is testing the waters to see whether she can get away with these provisions of Bill 127 in Toronto. The fear and great concern is that if these provisions are passed here without any big problems, they may then be implemented in other centres of Ontario. I think we know this could possibly be the case.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: But won't.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister says, "But won't." She has said that before, but we are not totally sure that the minister will not impose these regulations on other school boards after she gets away with it in the city of Toronto.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will not.

Mr. Ruprecht: She would not. She says she would not. Then why does she impose her will on the citizens who are taxpayers in the city of Toronto? She knows what the struggle is and what the frustrations are, and what the teachers and all of the other people are against. Why does she impose it, if this is truly --

Mr. Philip: We are all against the bill back here.

Mr. Ruprecht: There is another back-bencher.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We don't need that back-bencher. He should go back over to his own side.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that it is very important the minister said she is not going to impose these provisions on other school boards. She has given us that assurance, and again I am not totally opposed to her --

An hon. member: Why not?

Mr. Ruprecht: Because she sometimes does the right thing. She is doing the right thing right now by saying that she is not going to impose them anywhere else except in Toronto.

The question remains, then, why does she pick on this school board? Does she, like the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), want to punish them?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The five other boards want it.

Mr. Ruprecht: I listened to her when she was speaking in front of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, and I listened to every one of the people who were up on the platform. Did she have one person who was with her? No. Then why does she want to take on the Ontario Teacher's Federation and get all of the teachers personally upset with her? Why does she do that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Do you worry about my safety or something?

Mr. Ruprecht: Well, I will tell her one thing, since she is raising the point --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Runciman): Order.

Mr. Ruprecht: Since the minister is raising the point of her safety, was she afraid to be walking into that meeting? Somebody else was. Somebody was afraid for her safety; does she know that? If they were not, why did she bring in those lackeys?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I didn't bring any lackeys.

The Acting Speaker: Let us address the bill, please.

Mr. Ruprecht: Why did the minister --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Do you want that repeated?

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes, I can repeat that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Would you like your friends on other school boards to be told that you call them lackeys?

Mr. Ruprecht: I did not call her friends on the school board lackeys. No, she has some other lackeys. But since we are on the question that she thinks I meant the lackeys on the school board -- that is very interesting. Does she think of them as her lackeys, too?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I do not.

Mr. Ruprecht: Oh, she does not. Very interesting. I will tell her who else was afraid for her safety. The police who were there, who were brought in very quickly, were afraid. I must tell her that I, too, shed one little tear on her behalf when she walked into that meeting; I, too, was afraid of what might have happened to her. But no, no; stubborn, totally stubborn.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The difficulty is that I find it very hard to accept that any member of this House would suggest a group of professionals in this province, namely the teachers --

Mr. McClellan: Well, why did you need a police escort?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- would in any way suggest that the safety of the Minister of Education might be in danger at any kind of meeting. Those people are above and beyond that kind of position and attitude.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting. Does it mean that whatever meeting the minister goes to she brings along five or six police escorts? Is that what she is saying? If that is the case, she must feel threatened a great deal wherever she goes today. We are not suggesting there would have been violence, but she is suggesting she is not safe.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege again: I don't know how this man's logic works, but that is not what I was suggesting. I did not, in fact, know that there would be policemen there until I arrived at the Holiday Inn. They were there; they insisted on assuming this role. I never object to what policemen tell me I have to do as a law-abiding citizen, but I had no thought for my safety when I went there because I believe teachers are professionals; they are not violent people.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister did not inform the House that, first of all, the police did not appear on the scene until she arrived. I am not saying she brought them --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not.

Mr. Bradley: I agree with her that she was never in any danger with that particular group, though they may be adamantly opposed.

What was most annoying was the fact that the New Democratic Party critic and I both had to go downstairs to address a group and when we tried to get back upstairs they would not let us anywhere near the place. They stood there and would not let us past. We explained we were the critics and were on the stage with the minister and so on, but they were not prepared to let us by.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It had nothing to do with me.

Mr. Bradley: It is a good thing we used uncharacteristic devious means -- the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) via the elevator and me by a back staircase -- so that we were able to get upstairs. The fact was the Metropolitan Toronto police were preventing two members of the Legislature from addressing a public meeting, and that was of great concern to us.

The minister said she had nothing to do with it and I am prepared to accept her word on that.

The Acting Speaker: I hope we have that cleared up. Now can we get back to the bill, please?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was not until after those two spoke. As a matter of fact they spoke first, before I did. So they shouldn't complain about not being allowed to speak.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting. I did not know that our own members were not able to get in on the meeting.

Mr. Grande: On that point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I, like the member for St. Catharines --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): What is the point of privilege?

Mr. Grande: The point of privilege is that on Thursday of last week, while on behalf of the New Democratic Party I was down at the Holiday Inn to perform the duty --

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry. I want you to explain the point of privilege. Then I will tell you if I am going to allow it to stand.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, with due respect, I am trying to give you the point of privilege.

Mr. Philip: It was the point of privilege allowed by the other Speaker. There was a point of privilege on the floor.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I want to hear this point of privilege, but get to the point.

Mr. Grande: The Minister of Education stood in her place and said her point of privilege was that she was not escorted by policemen at the meeting at the Holiday Inn the other night when the Ontario Teachers' Federation and other teachers across Metro Toronto --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was not at my request.

Mr. Grande: That is right. Therefore, I am getting up on that point of privilege of the minister to have a point of privilege of my own, if I may, which is that in that same meeting to which the Minister of Education refers I was prevented from doing my duty as the Education critic for the New Democratic Party --

The Acting Speaker: We are in the House, the Ontario Legislature. That is not a point of privilege as it affects the operation and procedures of the House or your personal privileges here.

Does any other member wish to participate in this debate?

Mr. Ruprecht: I am not yet finished.

The Acting Speaker: Please proceed. We are on the motion for second reading of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If my colleague's point of privilege is out of order and it was based on a previously recognized point of privilege by the minister, then are you ruling that the point of privilege granted by the previous Speaker is out of order? Is that your position?

The Acting Speaker: No. I am just saying that from where I sat it was not an acceptable point of privilege.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, earlier we heard something about a lack of understanding and logic in my discussion. I want to indicate simply and briefly in my remarks that it is obvious when a Minister of Education goes to different meetings and when she is accompanied to one meeting by a police escort and she brought along local Metropolitan Toronto trustees -- whom, I want to make the record very clear, I did not indicate were lackeys, I did not say the Metropolitan Toronto School Board trustees were lackeys.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member to speak to the bill.

Mr. Ruprecht: It is to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Then speak to it.

Mr. Ruprecht: That is precisely the point of my remarks. That is the first point of my remarks since I stood here. My second point is that it is very logical that people would assume her safety was at stake if the police decide to walk into that meeting.

The Acting Speaker: The member is not referring to the bill. I would draw his attention to the bill at hand, which is Bill 127. Please speak to it.

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course. I do not know why you are being so tough in your rulings, especially with the points of order that were raised. But we have to take it in stride since you, as a member of the government side --

The Acting Speaker: I would beware of that kind of referral. I am trying to be fair to all sides. I am asking the member to speak to the bill and not to draw any inferences to any other factor. I want to see this process continue in the right way. I am asking the member to speak to Bill 127.

Mr. Ruprecht: Are you saying the minister can get up on a point of privilege and make her remarks and no one else is permitted, according to your ruling, to say anything about her remarks?

The Acting Speaker: What you are saying should refer to Bill 127. Refer to that and I will be pleased to listen.

Mr. Ruprecht: Okay, Mr. Speaker, since we have all this straightened out about the logic, about the safety and the police escort and so on, let me get to my next point.

The next point is that if the Minister of Education gets her way, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board would be given the power to negotiate the previous issues I have mentioned with the teachers as a single bargaining unit, and the local school boards would be left out of the picture.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not true.

Mr. Ruprecht: It is true, and this probably is one of the central points of the arguments that were raised in every one of the members' rebuttals to this particular legislation. I mean every one. The minister assures us this is not the case. That is great.

She says this bill will not destroy local autonomy. That is very interesting. I thought I did not hear correctly when I heard that. What will it do? It will impose a ruling on the local school boards. That ruling has been made at another level altogether. If the minister does not think this is restricting and restrictive of the local autonomy and of the local board then I do not know what is. She is right that I do not understand her logic. Maybe I never will.

But that point surely has to be clear: when decisions are being made by one level of government and superimposed on another level of government, that certainly must be a restriction in terms of local autonomy. If it is not, then I do not understand it. I do not even understand the argument and logic of the minister.

Combined with its control over local school board budgets, which the Metropolitan Toronto School Board now has, these new powers would effectively turn the Metro board into the sole governing body of education in Metro Toronto.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.

Mr. Ruprecht: If the minister says no and she does not believe what I have to say, then let me assure her again that I am not the only person who thinks that. There are literally thousands of teachers, the school boards, the Toronto Star and other newspapers that are totally in agreement with my remarks. The minister says no. That can only indicate that whatever she has done in terms of explaining this bill was not done properly. There is a real lack of trying to be sensitive to the community and trying to impart to the rest of Toronto what this bill is about.

4:40 p.m.

Maybe the minister is right. Maybe I and a lot of other honourable members simply do not understand the intentions of this bill. If we do not understand the intentions of this bill and if everyone is upset for nothing, then why does she not simply do us a favour and withdraw and kill Bill 127? Nobody seems to understand it, and when I listen to some of the minister's comments I doubt very much that she herself understands the bill. It is very strange.

Further, this bill undoubtedly would have serious implications. Let us look at some of them. Conditions across a municipality the size of Metro Toronto are not all the same. Everyone would agree with that. For example, the needs of the Etobicoke school board may be for additional special education teachers, while the Scarborough board's needs may be for more intensive English language classes; but with one all-encompassing bargaining unit dealing with six boards there is the danger that individual needs will not always be taken into account. That could only weaken the quality of the educational system.

Another troublesome aspect of this bill concerns the right of local school boards to raise additional funds for their own special projects. At the moment they are allowed to do this by levying an extra 1.5 mills over and above the regular school tax for elementary schools and one extra mill for secondary schools. Bill 127 would standardize the levy at one mill for both elementary and secondary schools. On the surface this may not seem a large amount, but in Toronto it would translate into a loss of approximately $1.5 million.

This legislation is ill-conceived since what it does, basically, is destroy the autonomy of the local school boards. I say this being fully aware that the minister will argue against this fact.

To sum up my remarks, the officials in the Education ministry claim -- I have phoned some of them personally and that is why I am not saying it is the minister who so claims -- that the basic intent of Bill 127 is to streamline Metro's education bureaucracy to make bargaining easier, and -- here is the next biggie -- to rationalize school costs across the Metro area.

Streamlining and rationalizing; think about that: to rationalize and to streamline at what cost? At the cost of getting everyone in Toronto upset: every teacher, every local trustee, every parent-teacher organization, the Ontario Teachers' Federation and other organizations, including the Organization of Parents of Black Children. Every major organization in the educational field across Ontario comes out strongly against Bill 127; and this minister and her officials are moving towards the curtailment of educational opportunities for our children in Toronto, because that is what the end result of this bill will be.

The major reason for my objections is that what is happening here is basically for bureaucratic ends and for bureaucratic means. For reasons of the bureaucracy, this minister stands against every major educational group in the city of Toronto and right across this province for purposes of rationalizing and speeding up the process in the city of Toronto.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You are absolutely, totally and unequivocally wrong.

Mr. Ruprecht: If this is wrong, and we have every member speak on this issue, then why does this minister not have the courage now that she has shown so ably in the past to say that bureaucracy and big government are not going to control the people of Metropolitan Toronto, that the local school boards will control them, that there will be access to education through the local trustees and, furthermore, there will be some remnant of control left? By whom? By the parents of the children who are going to school, some remnant of control should be left to them.

Why does the minister not show her courage at this point and admit that streamlining and rationalizing are not the reasons this bill has been introduced, that the reasons are for bureaucratic means and for the bureaucracy. Bureaucratic rationalizing should not be the means and should not be the rule of why this bill should be introduced. It should be left to some local autonomy. That seems to be the basic reason that comes out of the Ministry of Education and that reason is totally wrong.

For those reasons, is the minister making the children in the education system of Toronto suffer for her streamlining and rationalizing? Those are not the right reasons. Those should never be the right reasons for a sensitive government. If those are the reasons, and the minister said they are, then let me point the finger and say --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Do not point your finger at me.

Mr. Ruprecht: -- that this captain of our educational ship is taking us to destruction in terms of educational policy. I do not need to point my finger. The facts will remain the same.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that in your own riding you must have had some people call up and say, "Withdraw Bill 127." I think there is enough opposition out there in the whole province that everyone has received some phone calls opposed to the bill.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. You are being very provocative.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I had two and they didn't tell me why.

Mr. Ruprecht: Is the member telling me he has never received any phone calls? Is he saying that? He has never received any phone calls?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: No. I have had two people talk to me about it and they didn't tell me why they were objecting.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Will the member for Parkdale please proceed with his presentation?

Mr. Ruprecht: I am wrapping up right now. The basic point which really concerns me very much is that the Minister of Education, who should work hand-in-hand in a co-operative fashion with the school board, with the trustees, with the people of Toronto, does the exact opposite.

Why is that? The reasons are even more disturbing. It is not only because she may want her own will imposed, but because, as I said before, of reasons that are of a bureaucratic nature. That is why this party is totally against Bill 127; it shows lack of sensitivity.

The minister is walking out right now because she knows she cannot take it any more. For once she knows what is at stake here.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I'm just going to make a telephone call.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Don't get personal.

Mr. Ruprecht: What is at stake is that the bureaucracy is going to rule this government. It is the bureaucracy that is doing it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Come on, while she is out of the room.

Mr. Ruprecht: I am not saying that may happen in his department. I have not checked that out, but in this specific case with this specific minister, it is very clear who rules what.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is right.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: There you are, Mr. Speaker. You just heard what the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) said. He admitted that the bureaucracy is ruling this government. I was witness to it and I heard it. We heard it and that is what is going to take this government and dig it into its grave, because the bureaucracy was never intended to rule. The bureaucracy should be but one function and one aspect and those people should listen to what the minister says, not the opposite way around.

If that is taking place, that the bureaucracy is taking charge and controlling the government, then I say it is time for change and I think the people of Ontario will know it is time for change. Just try one more election and they will find out where the residents and the citizens in not only Toronto but in other places will vote. They will vote against them just as they will vote against Bill 127. This bill has to be killed.

Finally, let me simply say -- without being interrupted by the Minister of the Environment, who has already admitted that the bureaucracy is in control, because the minister cannot be in control --

Hon. Mr. Norton: Get back on track.

Mr. Ruprecht: I am getting back on track. I would say if the Minister of the Environment, representing the Minister of Education -- which he has indicated at this point -- says to this House that indeed the bureaucracy is in charge and the minister is not in charge, then let us have a look at his own department and let us see who is in charge in his own department.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege: I would not accuse the honourable member of misleading the House or the public in Ontario, but I must say he is grossly distorting the facts.

I indicated to him, and I think the Speaker heard what I said quite clearly, that the Minister of Education was not a bureaucratic individual, that she was in control of her ministry. Other members of this cabinet are in the same situation. The bureaucracy does not rule and the member is deliberately distorting what I said.

Mr. Ruprecht: Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? Did you not hear what he said?

The Acting Speaker: Is this a point of order or a point of privilege?

Mr. Di Santo: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker; I think it is quite unfair for the minister to accuse the member for Parkdale of distorting --

Mr. Wildman: Grossly distorting.

Mr. Di Santo: -- grossly distorting, because if the member said that --

The Acting Speaker: The minister did not make an accusation. He gave a warning to that effect, but he did not accuse.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I want to say is if that was the perception that the member for Parkdale projected to us, I want to say he never expresses his opinions without having consulted the constituents. Even if that is not his personal conviction, for sure he really feels that information from the constituents that --

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. It might be a good point, but it is not a point of order.

The Minister of the Environment, what is your point?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Just pursuant to the earlier point --

The Acting Speaker: No, no; order, order. Points of view do not count. The member for Parkdale has the floor and his point of view is what counts.

The member for Oakwood seems to be standing in his place. Is this a point of order, a point of privilege or a point of view?

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order. I do believe that the Minister of the Environment did say that somebody in this Legislature distorted the facts. I understand that word should be withdrawn from the record.

The Acting Speaker: No. I did not hear the Minister of the Environment declare that. In case there is some doubt, which there obviously is in the mind of the member for Oakwood, perhaps the minister could clarify and remove any doubt he has cast any aspersions.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, in case anyone might have misunderstood and been offended by what they thought they heard me say, I would perhaps state it more or less innocuously this way. Simply, the member for Parkdale has failed to demonstrate either an understanding of what it is he is saying or what it is he hears others say.

The Acting Speaker: I trust the member for Oakwood accepts that. I ask the member for Parkdale to please speak to the issue. We are now in the process of debating Bill 127.

Mr. Ruprecht: I rise on a point of personal privilege --

The Acting Speaker: You have the floor so you have the full privileges of the House.

Mr. Ruprecht: I am sure the record will show -- you can check Hansard -- that when I said the Minister of Education had let the boat of education drift on to the rocks, or something to that effect, and that the bureaucracy was in charge of that ministry, I distinctly heard the Minister of the Environment say yes. I heard that and I am sure some honourable members heard that as well. That is why --

The Acting Speaker: Will the honourable member return to the bill?

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes, I will, in one second. That is why I said to him that if he thinks the Minister of Education let the ship drift and the bureaucracy take over, then we should have a look at his department. That is all I said.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the honour- able member to please --

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, could I just say that is not factually correct. What the honourable member heard me say, when he made that scurrilous allegation about the Minister of Education, was: "That is not true. She is the least bureaucratic minister in the government." That was not to imply that any of us are bureaucratic.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We are reviewing a bill, and the member for Parkdale has the floor on Bill 127. That is why you have the floor.

Mr. Ruprecht: Let me continue then, and I will put this into context while I am speaking here.

Basically, what has happened is simply this. My constituents and the teachers of Ontario, through the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the trustees and a lot of other people have heard, either through the grapevine -- although everything is denied now by the government -- or through the ministry, or even through my own discussions with Ministry of Education personnel, that one of the basic reasons Bill 127 was introduced is to streamline Metro's educational bureaucracy. Furthermore, it is to rationalize school costs across the Metro area. That is the basic reason people are reacting to it.

If the basic reason this decision was made was to have the bureaucracy or the streamlining process get into better shape, that was the wrong reason to run a board of education. That is not denied by the Minister of the Environment or by the Minister of Education. I say, somewhere and somehow, somebody must have got to the minister and said, "Listen, we need to streamline this process." The question was not, "How much money do you need to serve the people of Toronto?" The question was, "How do you streamline the process?" If that is the question, and that is very central here, if we want to streamline the educational bureaucracy and if we want to rationalize this system, that is a very cold statement for the minister to make.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have never made it.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister says she never made it. Then let me ask one simple question. I am trying to understand -- I mean this in all sincerity -- why it is that every person out there thinks one reason she is introducing this bill is because she wants to streamline and rationalize?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That's what you were telling them, and I suppose they might listen to you at their peril.

Mr. Ruprecht: Why is it that the Ontario Teachers' Federation has that idea? Why is it that her own ministry staff told me that personally on the telephone?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, they did not. I know to whom you spoke and they did not say that.

Mr. Ruprecht: They did not, she says. If they did not, why is it that the Toronto Star has the same impression? Its editorial board checks things out. Does the minister not think so? Does it not have its facts straight?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is leading the minister into the position where she feels she has to respond in the middle of your speech.

Mr. Ruprecht: Who can lead this minister? Even the Ontario Teachers' Federation cannot lead this minister. If the school board trustees cannot lead this minister, I do not think I can lead the minister.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Right and truth and justice.

The Acting Speaker: I suggest that the honourable minister store up her responses for her final reply.

5 p.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: The only thing I would like to lead the minister in, and I have already told her that I sometimes like her courage, is to lead her into withdrawing and killing Bill 127. The question is, will she do that? I do not hear a thing from the minister.

The Acting Speaker: As long as the member for Parkdale discusses the principle of the bill --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: For a change.

The Acting Speaker: -- we will be pleased to hear from him.

Mr. Rnprecht: All right, Mr. Speaker. I really was, before I was very rudely interrupted.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: You keep asking her to respond.

Mr. Ruprecht: No. Why does the Provincial Secretary for Justice not wait until I am finished?

Mr. Mitchell: This isn't question period. Sit down and let her respond.

Mr. Ruprecht: Before I was interrupted -- not by her, because I like her interjections --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have asked the honourable member. I am beginning to lose some patience on this matter, because we are in the process of trying to debate Bill 127.

Mr. Ruprecht: You are losing patience?

The Acting Speaker: I have asked you now very formally to speak to the bill.

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes. The problem with you is that you are always losing patience with the opposition. Did you know that?

The Acting Speaker: I am saying the honour- able member had better be careful.

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes, I am very careful.

The Acting Speaker: This chair is trying to be fair to all sides --

Mr. Ruprecht: You are not.

The Acting Speaker: I am saying this chair is trying to be fair to all sides. Are you calling the chair into question? Is that what you are doing?

Mr. Ruprecht: No, I do not think so at this point. Let me just --

The Acting Speaker: Do you withdraw those remarks?

Mr. Ruprecht: If you can tell me what I said, I would consider --

The Acting Speaker: I am asking you to withdraw the remarks calling the intentions of the chair into question, because this chair is trying in every way to be fair to all sides. I caution you. I have asked you many times to speak to the bill. You are failing to do so, and failing to do so on a continuing basis will cause me to make a decision.

I ask you first of all to withdraw your remarks about unfairness by the chair.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, let me just make a preliminary comment then.

The Acting Speaker: I ask you to withdraw.

Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to make a comment on that.

The Acting Speaker: I have asked the honourable member to withdraw before he can continue.

Mr. Ruprecht: Can I not make a comment on that?

The Acting Speaker: I asked you to withdraw. I asked the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr. Ruprecht: I withdraw it.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, on that point --

Mr. McClellan: I bet you don't know what you withdrew.

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes, I do. This is a very important point. Mr. Speaker, since you are in the chair, I will raise this point. We have heard from the Minister of Education and then from the Minister of the Environment. You permit them to make their points. But when you hear from other people, from the opposition and from the third party, you suddenly say your patience grows short.

The Acting Speaker: I draw to the attention of all honourable members in this House that we are in the process of debating a motion for second reading of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. I ask the honourable member to speak to that bill, to the principle of the bill and those things that are pertinent to it. In that respect, he has the floor.

Mr. Ruprecht: Okay, Mr. Speaker. I will continue my remarks very briefly, since I am now wrapping up on Bill 127. Let me just continue without addressing myself to the former point.

What seems to be evident now is that the Minister of Education is in the process of shoring up some support for Bill 127. As I said earlier, that was evident in bringing the Metropolitan Toronto trustees to a meeting with the Ontario Teachers' Federation. Apparently we have some other letters from the boards of education for the city of North York and the borough of Etobicoke, basically as last resorts, which indicates to us that some attempt is being made to get some support for this very strangely and inconsistently produced Bill 127. There is some attempt being made to get some support because there is so much opposition to it.

I am mentioning that for a very simple reason, which is that the majority of the people we speak to and the majority of the people, including the organizations I listed before, are very much opposed to it. That is why the intention now is to shore up some support for Bill 127.

Finally, I want to indicate that the reasons this bill is being introduced -- the official reasons that I have heard and that have been given to us -- are certainly not right for Toronto. The basic point is being missed. The basic point is that bureaucratic efficiency and administrative simplicity are not the right or the real reasons to weaken a community's control over the schools that the taxes support. That is my final comment.

Local autonomy and local school boards must be left in a position to make these basic decisions. If that decision-making process is taken away for some artificial reason of bureaucratic efficiency or rationalization, then I say to the minister: "Withdraw Bill 127. Please kill this bill because if you do not, we are going to have a lot of problems in the city of Toronto."

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, some may wonder why a member from northern Ontario is standing to participate in the debate on Bill 127. I have never felt that Toronto is more parochial than any other part of the province and for that reason I have what I hope is something of worth to offer in this debate.

I have received a lot of calls from teachers in my riding regarding Bill 127. Obviously they are not directly and immediately affected by this legislation. This legislation deals with Metropolitan Toronto. One might wonder why teachers in the Algoma district are concerned about a piece of legislation which the minister maintains deals only with Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Boudria: For the time being.

Mr. Wildman: That is exactly the point. One of these teachers is from the North Shore Board of Education, another is from the Central Algoma Board of Education, a third is from the Michipicoten Board of Education and a fourth is from the Hornepayne Board of Education. They have all contacted me because of what they fear is represented by the principle of Bill 127. They understand Bill 127 to be a bill instituting regional bargaining in Metropolitan Toronto. They see this as the beginning of a trend which, if it is accepted in this region, will be extended to other regions of the province.

I suppose their concern is that it will be translated immediately to other regional government areas of the province, such as Ottawa- Carleton and Hamilton-Wentworth, then to the restructured counties and eventually to the point where we may see this principle of regional bargaining extended to northern Ontario and specifically to the Algoma district.

Obviously I rise to oppose the principle of regional bargaining.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You have regional bargaining in regions now.

Mr. Wildman: The minister says we have regional bargaining. I suppose we do in the sense that our district school boards have regional bargaining. I am not one who is opposed to district school boards having regional bargaining, but if the minister says that is the equivalent of what she is doing in Bill 127 in Metropolitan Toronto --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, that is joint bargaining.

Mr. Wildman: Well, what is the minister saying?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: This is joint bargaining by six boards.

Mr. Wildman: Exactly.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: But we are not talking about regional bargaining --

The Acting Speaker: The minister will have an opportunity to respond, and the member will have a chance to read the minister's remarks on the bill. The member for Algoma has the floor.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Sorry, Mr. Speaker; my apologies.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand corrected. We are talking about joint bargaining by six school boards.

The teachers who contacted me are concerned about the possibility that this principle of joint bargaining by school boards might be extended to other regions of the province and become the norm so that we would have the situation where, I suppose, the Sault Ste. Marie Board of Education would be bargaining jointly with the Central Algoma Board of Education and the Michipicoten Board of Education. If that principle were extended, it is obvious that difficulties would be experienced in other regions of this province.

We have seen the objections to this principle expressed in Metropolitan Toronto. Here, in an area that is much bigger in population but more restricted in geography, we have individuals, whether they be teachers, parents or school trustees from the Toronto Board of Education. who have said they fear the loss of local autonomy; they fear that the decisions which will be made by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board will not take local circumstances sufficiently into account so that an individual board of the six that are bargaining jointly will not be able to provide the special services and curricula the board feels are necessary to serve the students and the community at a local level.

If that is a possibility and a problem here, imagine the difficulties dealing with joint bargaining in an area like mine, where we would have a large metropolitan centre, such as Sault Ste. Marie, bargaining jointly with a board of education set up in a rural area, such as the central Algoma board, and perhaps even with a board of education serving two or three northern mining and logging communities, such as the Michipicoten Board of Education. None of those three boards of education have anything in common except the one thing that they are generally educating students; but the communities they serve are very, very different.

I suppose the minister would argue that somehow the school trustees in the Metropolitan Toronto area can take the diversity into account in making those decisions. If that is the case, then why are the teachers, the parents and the Toronto board so opposed to this? If the minister is right, why has she got so many people against her?

The minister reminds me of King Canute out there on his throne in the waves trying to hold back the water: he is the only one who knows what is right and he is going to stand against the flood. You know, we have had situations before where individuals have said, "Everyone is out of step but me."

Mr. McClellan: We actually planted her in your caucus.

Mr. Wildman: I would never suggest that the minister is an agent provocateur in the Tory party, but if the minister is sensitive, if she takes seriously her position as the person responsible for determining education policy in this province and if she is concerned about the views of others, about the people she serves or is supposed to serve, then how can she just sit there and say, "They are all wrong but me"?

How can she say that the people who are opposed to this bill just do not understand it, that they have not read it well enough or that they are reading too much into it? How can she say that the teachers who contacted me are reading too much into this bill when they see it as the thin edge of the wedge, the beginning of a trend towards joint bargaining in regions outside Metro Toronto? I suppose the final step would be towards joint bargaining on a provincial scale, so that we would have one provincial bargaining system, something like they have in Quebec.

I received a letter from a Mr. Jordison of Hornepayne, Ontario. I will read briefly from it:

"Dear Mr. Wildman:

"I am a teacher at the Hornepayne public school. I am concerned about the recently introduced legislation, Bill 127. I believe that it will take away local autonomy and reverse the progress that has been made with Bill 100. As a teacher and one of your constituents, I am requesting that you do everything in your power and political persuasion to have this legislation withdrawn or defeated. I will be waiting to hear from you and your progress in this matter. Thank you very much.

"Yours truly, G. L. Jordison."

Mr. Piché: You won't have to reply to him. I received the same letter, and I will be replying to it.

Mr. Boudria: We are waiting for your speech.

Mr. Piché: I am just going to reply to him by telling him the facts and that your reply will not have the facts.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché). He is a very likeable fellow, and I am sure he works very hard for his constituents. We all on this side of the House realize that we have to make time for his interjections and to allow them to be put on the record, simply because he never gets up to speak on his own. He never gets up to express an opinion, either pro or con, on government legislation in this House. The only time he speaks is when he is interjecting. I really regret that the member, who has such potential, who showed himself to be such a strong municipal politician, has not taken the opportunity to express the views of his constituents in this House.

Mr. Piché: I object to that. When I say something, it means something. When you say something, it means nothing. You are always upset. Every time you get up you are upset. It means nothing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Algoma will speak now to Bill 127.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I was welcoming his interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I ask the honourable member to speak to Bill 127 and to disregard those interjections.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I realize that my interjection in my own speech was not as orderly as the interjection of the member for Cochrane North in my speech.

As I was saying, it seems to me that if this minister's view of this bill is correct, she has not expressed it very well to the teachers of this province. They obviously do not understand what the bill is about, or at least what the minister feels it is about. I suppose, with the new pamphlet she has had printed, she feels she is going to be able to rectify that situation. She will be able to explain exactly what this bill means to Metropolitan Toronto and, beyond that, to the other regions of the province and to the whole province.

I really wonder, though, if a minister who can sit there with the attitude she seems to demonstrate towards the views sincerely expressed on this side of the House is really willing to listen.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You have got to be kidding.

Mr. Wildman: You see, Mr. Speaker, the minister never really does believe that anyone could sincerely disagree with her.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You do not believe what I say either; why should I believe what you say?

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, the minister misunderstands.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I do not.

Mr. Wildman: I really do believe she actually does believe in what she is saying. I have never suggested, in regard to this bill at least, that the minister is not sincere in what she is saying. I think what she is saying is basically that six boards want it, one does not, and so she is going to do what the majority wants. I think that is how she views it. Just because she is sincere, though, does not mean that she is right.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The obverse is also correct.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: Obviously; but I do not think the minister really listens to what the opposition is saying.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: How could I avoid it? You have been saying the same thing over and over again for three days.

Mr. Wildman: It is not only the members of the opposition who are saying the same thing over and over again. As a matter of fact, the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) is one of those people who is saying the same thing over and over again. Unfortunately, the member has not had the opportunity as yet to get up and express his views in the House.

I think all of us on this side of the House would be quite willing to yield the floor to that member because I have heard that member speak before, both in English and in French, and he is a very capable speaker. I would welcome his intervention in this debate if he could somehow persuade this minister that her views are incorrect.

I do not really expect that the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) will get up and speak against this bill -- after all, there is cabinet solidarity -- or, for that matter, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). However, the member for High Park-Swansea is not bound by cabinet solidarity. He can speak directly for his constituents and for their concerns in the House. If he was willing to do that, perhaps the minister would not be able to think it is just the opposition which is playing or being opportunistic in opposing this. There are people in her own party and there are people throughout this city who are opposed to this bill.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am happy that during this debate references are constantly being made to me and that correspondence is being read. I would like to point out that I will decide whether or not, and when, I shall participate in this debate.

I would like to point out that members are aware of my concerns and any concerns I may have expressed publicly. We have a caucus in which we are not imprisoned by any shackles or straitjackets where these opinions are expressed. That is the forum many of us use, as does the honourable member. I will participate whenever I feel like participating at the appropriate time. I do not want in any way to be tempted by the member to take part at an inappropriate time.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Now that we have all had a chance to bash each other, let us get back to the bill.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I was not bashing the member for High Park-Swansea. I was simply encouraging that member to get up and speak in this House on behalf of his constituents. Surely, that is not bashing, that is encouraging the parliamentary process.

I respect the views of the member. I respect the fact he will decide when and if he wants to participate in a debate. I also respect the fact he has publicly expressed his views in correspondence and has been quoted in the newspapers.

Mr. McClellan: And Larry Grossman's views.

Mr. Wildman: For that matter, the Minister of Health also has been quoted in the newspapers. I respect the fact that member has expressed his views publicly and I am in no way trying to tempt him away from the straight and narrow, which he seems to think I am trying to do. I am just encouraging him to participate in a debate.

However, I will say in a friendly way that perhaps he should follow the example of his colleague the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) when he was on that back bench. When the cabinet started to bash his riding and decided to close a hospital against the wishes of his constituents, that member got up and spoke against it; he fought against it and won. Where is he now? He is in the cabinet. I suggest the member for High Park-Swansea might follow that example and he might find himself in the cabinet one day.

The Deputy Speaker: Back to the bill.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, back to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, because I want to give the members on the other side of the House an opportunity to speak, I will conclude by saying that I want the minister to consider very carefully the views that have been expressed by parents' groups, by teachers' groups in this city and by the Toronto Board of Education; and also to take very carefully into account the views of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, of local teachers throughout the province and of members of the opposition not only from Metropolitan Toronto but from different parts of the province.

The minister should also very carefully consider the views that have been expressed in her caucus by members from this city who, it has been indicated in this debate, have spoken against this bill. She should very carefully take into account the views expressed by those of her cabinet colleagues who are opposed to this bill. We do not wish to see this kind of legislation forced on the people of this province or the people of this city and she could act in a very magnanimous way and say: "We understand now that what was suggested in this bill is not acceptable, that it is not going to achieve what we had hoped it would achieve. We are determined to maintain local autonomy in the education system, not only in Metropolitan Toronto but throughout Ontario, and in order to do so we will withdraw this legislation."

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was a little reluctant to speak on this bill, because I figured that probably some of the Conservative members wanted to do so, and I would gladly yield the floor to them if they expressed such a wish.

Mr. Ruston: They have not got any ambition.

Mr. Boudria: But since I do not see it coming, Mr. Speaker, I will make a small contribution towards the debate on this very important bill.

I have received a number of telephone calls and some letters on this topic, as have many other members also, of course. In the beginning I did not think this issue would concern very many of my constituents, because, as members know, my constituency is quite a distance from this city. But there are many people in this province, and I am beginning to be one of them, who fear that what will be created in this bill will be used as a precedent and its provisions will eventually apply to other areas of the province and possibly, as the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and many other members have said, all across the province sooner or later.

One such group expressing this concern is a group from Ottawa-Carleton. I will read a very short letter to the members, but since it is different in context from some of the other documentation that has been brought forward in this debate, I will be very brief and just go over it. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will permit me to quote from this short letter; at least I hope you will.

Cette lettre, Monsieur le Président, vient de l'Association des Enseignants Franco-Ontariens au niveau secondaire, dans Carleton et la lettre m'est adressée; elle se lit comme suit:

"Au nom des enseignants, membres de l'AEFO-Carleton secondaire, je vous écris afin de vous inviter à vous opposer fermement au changement législatif qui propose des négociations régionales et conjointes obligatoires dans le Toronto métropolitain.

"M. George Meek, président de la Fédération des enseignants de l'Ontario, vous a déjà écrit pour vous exprimer l'opposition et les réticences de la FEO face à cette législation. Dans sa lettre, il explique très clairement la position de la FEO et je n'ai donc pas l'intention de vous réitérer son argumentation.

"J'attire toutefois votre attention sur le fait que toute loi obligeant les partis à une négociation conjointe et régionale serait au détriment des petits conseils et des filiales minoritaires.

"En tant que représentant d'un groupe francophone, l'AEFO se trouve souvent en minorité à la table de négociations. Dans une négociation conjointe et régionale obligatoire, nous serions nettement défavorisés, perdant tout levier qui nous permettrait de revendiquer les droits et les besoins éducatifs spécifiques du groupe minoritaire.

"Depuis 1975, les négociations entre les enseignants et les conseils scolaires sont régies par la loi intitulée "School Boards and Teachers Collective Negociations Act". La section 4 de cette loi fut élaborée afin de permettre la flexibilité en négociations. Inhérente à cette provision est la reconnaissance de l'autonomie de chaque conseil scolaire et la reconnaissance du droit de chaque enseignant, par l'entremise de sa filiale, de négocier collectivement avec son employeur. Nous considérons que cette loi a bien desservi la population de l'Ontario et le milieu éducatif en particulier.

"Nous croyons donc impératif de nous opposer à toute législation qui irait à l'encontre de cette reconnaissance.

"Nous vous invitons à considérer sérieusement la position exprimée par M. George Meek dans sa lettre et nous espérons que vous serez convaincu que toute négociation conjointe ou régionale au Toronto métropolitain se doit d'être optionnelle et non obligatoire.

"Veuillez, Monsieur Boudria, agréer mes sentiments distingués."

C'est signé par Monsieur Raymond Jubainville, président de l'Association des Enseignants Franco-Ontariens, section de Carleton.

5:30 p.m.

The reason I have read this short letter into Hansard is to illustrate that there is increasing concern across the province about this legislation. This group from Ottawa-Carleton fears the position of minorities on the boards will be further watered down by the process which is espoused in Bill 127. This group and many others have sent a considerable amount of documentation to all members of the Legislature. We have spoken at length on the topic and I do not intend to take very long.

In concluding, I want to add that I and the other members of our caucus will be opposing this bill, as has already been made clear. I invite members on the government side to make their position quite clear. I am not advocating anyone in particular; all members on the government side should express their views on this legislation.

It is fine for us to say things outside this Legislature and then to say, "That is not quite what I said," or "That is not what I meant;" or things of this nature. It is imperative that each of us make a contribution on this very important bill, to speak loudly and clearly and to go on record as to what our personal positions are on Bill 127. Members on the government side have been quoted in the media and elsewhere but the only place that counts is here in the Legislature. It is very important for members of all parties, not just of the opposition, to make their contributions to this bill.

I need not remind the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché), who has not yet spoken on this or on several other bills and who represents a large francophone constituency, that he should rise and speak. I have expressed through this letter that the Association of Franco-Ontarian Teachers is very concerned about this bill. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) has said in this House that he considered the member for Cochrane North to be, I believe his words were, "an excellent spokeman" on francophone issues. It would be only logical, therefore, in fact it would be incumbent upon the member for Cochrane North, who is seen by other members of his caucus as being an important spokesman on francophone issues, to stand in his place and tell us exactly what his position is, as "representative of the francophone community," concerning the effects of this bill on his constituents and also to see how this particular association, the same association, the Association of Franco-Ontarian Teachers in his riding feel about this legislation.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a few minutes on the various principles that are included in Bill 127, which is before the assembly. Over the years I have tried to avoid participating in anything having to do with the educational system and the relationships amongst its various components, because of the jargon with which those who are knowledgeable about the questions always confuse me; I have never been able to understand that jargon. I trust that in the few remarks I will make tonight I can avoid my own particular version of jargon.

I have no problem with two or three areas in the bill, and if the bill had simply restricted itself to those purposes there would have been no problem with it. Specifically, I have no difficulty with the provision of the bill relating to the quorum voting at the school board hearings and meetings. I have no problem with the conformity of the election of members of the school boards to the same term of office as is provided for members of municipal councils; and I believe the adequate provision of remuneration for members of school boards has been long overdue and a process should be developed. Those sections of the bill and those principles of the bill have my support.

There are two major areas in the bill which cause me concern: One is the introduction into the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act of provisions related to collective bargaining. If one were to accept that there are differences of opinion with respect to the way in which collective bargaining should be conducted between teachers and school boards, then it is my submission to the minister that we should have adhered to the provisions set out in what is now chapter 464 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario related to teacher bargaining, which occupied so much of the time of the House some years ago; commonly known, as it was then, as Bill 100.

I say that because until this bill, which has come before us disguised as a Metropolitan Toronto bill, but in reality in one of its major provisions is dealing with the collective bargaining process, it was intended by this Legislature, and we had assumed that whenever the government in good faith wanted to deal with the question of teacher collective bargaining it would have done so under the omnibus bill which came before the assembly some years ago and which is now known as the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

I would remind the House that bill speaks very clearly and in very concise language about the purpose of the bill: "The purpose of this act is the furthering of harmonious relations between boards and teachers by providing for the making and renewing of agreements and by providing for the relations between boards and teachers in collective agreements."

It goes on: "This act applies to all collective negotiations between boards and teachers in respect of any term or condition of employment put forward by either party for the purpose of making or renewing an agreement." It provides further: "Negotiations shall be carried out in respect of any term or condition of employment put forward by either party."

It is a comprehensive and complete code for the purpose of collective bargaining negotiations between boards on the one hand and those representing the teachers on the other hand.

5:40 p.m.

It has worked tolerably well in the atmosphere of the province and we are now being asked by the minister to accept the provisions referred to in the bill as section 130a, an insertion in the Metropolitan Toronto act which goes a long way to destroy the import and purpose of the act to which I have referred, chapter 464 of the Statutes of Ontario.

I want to say to the minister that if she wishes to deal with that question she should have dealt with it within the principles that were established in that bill. I make that as a submission as a legislator, not just as a member sitting for a city of Toronto riding. When one fragments, as the minister is about to do, the collective bargaining process in Metropolitan Toronto related to the relationship among the school boards and the teachers, it illustrates to me that her tenure as Minister of Labour left her with little if any knowledge of the collective bargaining process.

I want to say to the minister that anyone who has sat through negotiating processes understands there is no way in which one can clearly and concisely define the financial benefits of teachers as distinct from many other areas in a collective agreement. There is certainly no way the minister can provide that other working conditions will be subject on a permissive basis or to a secondary form of collective bargaining between the area board and the particular group.

I want the minister and the House to note that there is no obligation to bargain about those so-called other working conditions. There is absolutely no compulsion of any kind to make certain that those questions will ever become a matter of negotiation, whereas under the teachers' collective bargaining act to which I have referred and which is the law of the province, all of the conditions are on the table that either party wants to put on the table and it is a comprehensive and complete negotiation process.

I am surprised that a former Minister of Labour is not aware of that. I am not surprised that other members of the Conservative Party are not perhaps aware of the intricacies and the delicacies involved in the collective bargaining process, but surely the minister should have been aware of that as a result of her tenure as Minister of Labour.

I am quite certain that when the bill goes out to committee, and I understand it will be before the committee, a number of the difficult questions related to the fragmenting of the collective bargaining process will be brought to the attention of the committee. I would hope that in time good sense would prevail to persuade the minister that the purpose she intends to achieve is a purpose which is a disservice not only to the city of Toronto but to the Metropolitan Toronto area.

It is very significant that both in the Barry Lowes report that was prepared some years ago, and subsequently in the royal commission report about Metropolitan Toronto where the problem of diverse possibilities of negotiations between teachers and school boards are fully and clearly set out nevertheless, the conclusion of the royal commission, the Robarts commission, was that the best way to achieve the kind of autonomy that is reflected in all aspects of the relationship between the board to the community it serves and to the teachers who serve that board, is through an enhancement of local autonomy and the phasing out over a period of time of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.

We should not lose sight of the fact that was the solution to the various aspects of the problem which the Robarts commission decided would be by far the best method of ensuring local autonomy, ensuring local accountability, ensuring a close relationship between the board of education of each of the area municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto and the communities they respectively serve. No one can read either of the two reports and not come to the conclusion that the Robarts solution to the problem, which is so long overdue in being implemented by this government in any real sense, is the best solution that could be devised for the Metropolitan Toronto area.

I do not intend to go on at any greater length about that question. I have tried to avoid the lifting of the threshold of the debate to the shrillness the minister believes will allow her to bulldoze this assembly into passing the bill. The vendetta she has waged against the Toronto board, the one and only reason this bill is before the assembly, is unbecoming to the minister and shows a total lack of understanding of the vitality and the growth of the Metropolitan Toronto system. It has grown through tolerance and diversity and through change and development among all of its integral parts, and it is not going to be throttled by the imposition of the fiat of the minister upon the system.

The minister has to understand that. The minister has to understand that, whatever her views from suburbia may be, the view from urbia is that the best interests of the whole community will be served only if the minister will desist from the course on which she has embarked. She spends her time in her own very caustic and unbecoming way in attacking the Toronto board as being some kind of an aberrant faction that has taken control of the educational system in the city of Toronto. The minister, in true schoolmaster style, is going to punish that board for the innovative and imaginative changes it has brought about in the educational system.

If I may turn to the other part of the bill that bothers me a great deal, and that is the strange statement by the minister that in some way this faction, which controls the board of education in Toronto, has discovered the bright side of deficit financing and that the Toronto board accumulates the deficit and the other boards have collectively picked up the tab. Frankly, I do not understand it. The minister may be far ahead of me in her understanding of the system.

I do not pretend to understand how the formulas are worked that the Metropolitan Toronto board and the Ministry of Education over the years have devised for the purpose of allocating the provincial grants among the various parts of the Metropolitan system. I understand that very few people can understand them. I certainly do not intend to waste my time trying to understand them, but I do want to suggest that perhaps the minister in her reply would assist me, to the extent that it is possible to assist me on this kind of question, to answer the kind of problem that appears to me to be raised by the Robarts report and that I have never quite understood.

I quote from page 317 of the Robarts report in which the role and function of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board is analysed, both with respect to its advantages and its disadvantages. The report states: "It is generally conceded that the main advantage of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board is that it achieves a degree of equalization in educational expenditures and in educational taxation within Metropolitan Toronto.

"With control over the distribution of provincial grants and the proceeds of the Metro-wide mill rate, the Metro board has developed a highly complex set of formulas designed to achieve equity in the distribution of these funds. On the taxation side, the local costs of education in Metro are distributed among the municipalities of the entire area on the basis of their share of assessment. Upon this equalization arrangement the city of Toronto, with 39 per cent of the area's assessment, makes a substantial contribution to the educational revenue needed by the other boards of education."

5:50 p.m.

I would appreciate it if the minister in response would tell me what has happened since the Robarts report came out to make that statement inaccurate and to support the proposition that the minister would have us believe is the way in which the financing of the school board now comes forward.

If I can find the appropriate section I will then refer to the question of the disadvantages of the board. It refers very clearly on page 323 of the Robarts report to the problem that exists and that the minister has drawn attention to as the reason she is introducing this bill. It is also suggested "that the present structure provides a strong incentive to area boards to make expenditures beyond the level required by realistic service needs." It goes on to explain the very point the minister has made on a number of occasions, and it tries to assess the way in which this kind of question could be dealt with in a revised and improved system.

I have referred only in part to the sections dealing with the advantages and disadvantages of the Metro board. It then goes on to say what the effect would be on the financial resources of the area boards, the effect being an abolition of the Metro-wide mill rate by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board:

"Therefore, it is assumed that each area board would receive the provincial grants to which it is entitled and would make up the remainder of its revenues from a local levy on its own ratepayers. This proposal must be considered in relation to five key questions." I refer to only one of them.

"The commission asked the Ministry of Education to estimate the amount of provincial grants that would be payable in each of the area boards in 1976 had there been no Metro board. The results, which include adjustments to remove the financial effects of the teachers' strike in that year, are presented in a table which is attached to the report. It simply stressed that the strong financial position of the city of Toronto resulted in a net transfer of funds from that board to the other boards in Metro. This would also have occurred if provincial grants had been payable directly to the area boards. In effect, Toronto would have been required to give up funds to the province in some categories to satisfy the provincial equalization formula."

Probably time has passed those comments by, and the minister will be able to answer the question I raised about her response that somehow or other the deficit financing of the Toronto board is being covered by an added cost to the other boards in the area.

I therefore wish to reserve my opinion on the question of the provisions set forth in subsections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the proposed section 6 of the bill, which are amendments to section 127 of the act. I frankly do not understand how the minister can say that somehow or other the Toronto board has been milking the system in the light of my understanding, on a very cursory and superficial basis, of what the Robarts report was stating.

I would appreciate it if the minister, speaking on behalf of the government she represents, will in a forthright way tell us in detail the reasons they have rejected the Robarts evolutionary solution over a period of time, which would have preserved local autonomy, preserved the independence of each of the school boards, made each of the school boards accountable to its own ratepayers for the funds it received, and enhanced the educational system in the closeness of the relationship between the area board and the community it serves.

I would like to refer to another matter, because it is related whether we think it is related or not. I speak as a member for a Toronto area covering a substantial part of ward 8 and about one third of ward 7 in the city. The heritage languages question, which again causes the minister so much trouble, is an essential ingredient to preserving the society that is developing in Riverdale and in other parts of the province which is so important to the society in which we live.

I believe the minister was at the dinner the other evening when the Premier (Mr. Davis) was speaking about the unique contribution of Ontario in the field of human rights and the nature of the society we have. He stated, in a way that few of us could express so accurately, his sense of the kind of province we have, let alone the kind of country we are endeavouring to develop.

I quote from the Premier's remarks that night, "Today's Ontario, while rooted in a magnificent history that goes back hundreds of years to the original French, English, Scottish and Irish settlers, and before that to the heritage of our native people, today embraces a reality that is multifaceted, multicoloured, multiracial and multicultural."

He goes on further in his remarks: "I happen to believe that the Canadian experience is something very special. I happen to believe that, whether one is of Hungarian or German or Italian or Jewish or Chinese or East Asian or West Indian background, sustaining that background in Canada means something different from sustaining that background in any other country."

He proceeds to talk further about the reality of the Canadian identity and then has this to say, "Pluralism, tolerance, diversity and understanding are not burdens upon the shoulders of this country or upon the shoulders of Canadians; they are a part of what being a Canadian is all about."

When I assess the comments the Minister of Education has made in the area of heritage languages and her denial of a reasonable request by the Toronto board for assistance in the promotion of a program with respect to heritage languages that has been the result of an immense community effort under the leadership and guidance of the board of education for the city of Toronto, I find it difficult to understand how she reconciles her views with those of her Premier.

I know the minister looks at me because she works in watertight compartments. She thinks it is quite appropriate and proper to use that language in the Ontario Human Rights Code, but that it is quite inappropriate and improper to use it in any area of the educational system.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with Bill 127.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, under the impetus of the minister, even I have strayed a little from the strict principles of the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: I have recognized your seniority in this assembly.

Mr. Renwick: I do appreciate that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is that why he is allowed to do it?

Mr. Renwick: The minister must not pursue this bill on the question that somehow or other the educational experience of children in this province, which is unrelated to the collective bargaining process and to the provision and distribution of the funds available from taxation both at the provincial and municipal level, will be denied. It will be denied because the minister does not understand the comprehensive, harmonious way in which the relationships between the various parts of the educational system as it has developed in Toronto has worked to the benefit of the pupils and the citizens of this province, in a way which will not be accomplished by this bill.

The Deputy Speaker : Before leaving for the dinner hour, may I, as Deputy Speaker, officially welcome the new member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen).

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

28 juin 1982