role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 27, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Apr-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Friday 27 April 2001 Vendredi 27 avril 2001

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT

(TORONTO AND WINDSOR), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE RETOUR

À L'ÉCOLE (TORONTO ET WINDSOR)

Friday 27 April 2001 Vendredi 27 avril 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT

(TORONTO AND WINDSOR), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE RETOUR

À L'ÉCOLE (TORONTO ET WINDSOR)

Mr Stockwell moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 13,

An Act to resolve labour disputes affecting the Toronto District School Board and the Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board / Projet de loi

13, Loi visant à régler les conflits de travail qui touchent les conseils scolaires de district appelés Toronto District School Board et Windsor-Essex Catholic District School

Board.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I won't take up a lot of time to begin this debate. I'll use about 15 minutes.

Let me just get off the mark by saying that it was never our intention to become involved in this particular labour dispute. I think all parties have agreed

primarily that when it comes to labour disputes in any sector, the public sector, particularly those that provide services that would be quasi-essential, it's been the history of this place that it

is with a great deal of concern before a Legislature or a party gets involved in these disputes.

There's been a situation in Windsor and Toronto where there has been a strike of many, many weeks by the support staff workers. We as a government, after

cajoling and discussing this internally and also saying very publicly that we are going to have to get involved and we don't want to get involved, tried to encourage the parties to reach what we

considered to be a mutually acceptable settlement between them. Obviously that did not occur.

What happened after is unusual in this place, from my experience and when I checked the Hansard and the records of this place. Normally, when you reach a stage

where the government has become involved in a collective bargaining process, they bring forward legislation in the four-, five- or six-week range and they ask for unanimous consent to order the

workers back to work because the schoolchildren are in jeopardy or face the potential jeopardy of losing their year.

When we did this first in Hamilton-Wentworth, we ended up being shut down for about a day before the kids could get back to school. At that time, when we voted

on the bill, only the government members in this House voted in favour of putting those kids back to school in Hamilton-Wentworth. I personally found that discouraging, because when I was part of

an opposition party, when these things happened, I co-operated, understanding that there was a broader issue here, and the issue was that the children needed to get back to school. As we say in

this House, in a wink and a nod you put them through -- 15 minutes, sometimes an hour, tops.

We are facing an awkward situation here, because we are being opposed by one of the opposition parties in putting this bill before the House and getting the kids

back to school. That's why we're here today, in the unusual circumstance of sitting on a Friday.

Let me say that I think the piece of legislation we've put forward in this House is a reasonable piece of legislation, which if adopted will solve this problem.

I ask the members of the House to read it carefully and understand that if this piece of legislation passes today, the schools can be cleaned up this weekend and probably the vast majority of

schools could be opened come Monday.

We've been drafted into this dispute. We have taken the action necessary. I understand that across the floor there were resolutions and processes put out. I can

only say to the members across the floor, when you have to order people back to work, it has to be by legislation, and "by legislation" means it has to be by binding arbitration. You have to force

the parties to a binding arbitrator. The arbitrator then has the power to make decisions, and in the ensuing days, while hearing the arguments, the schools reopen and the kids go back to

school.

So this is not an unusual approach this government has adopted. I would say that, to a person in this caucus, there is wholehearted support for this piece of

legislation before this House.

I would say to this House that it's a reasonable expectation that we should see, with some degree of certainty and speed, that this bill would be passed today,

proclaimed tonight, the schools cleaned on the weekend and opened on Monday. That's basically the thrust of the motion; that's basically the thrust of the legislation.

To answer some questions about the legislation by the third party with respect to the appointment of arbitrators, there was some question about the capabilities

of one of the arbitrators. I myself personally investigated that arbitrator, Mr Stephen Raymond. I canvassed some lawyers in the community out there, from both sides. He was appointed as a neutral

to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I asked specifically about the decisions he has taken, and there seemed a reasonable expectation he could provide a neutral, arbitrated settlement. He has

done so. He has done so in his year at the board in hearing cases. I have not received one complaint about him from management or from labour. The other gentleman, who would handle the Windsor

situation, is equally as qualified.

I don't want to prolong this day, but let me say this: I understand how this Legislature works, and I understand that the third party has decided they want to

use all the procedural wranglings and processes to hold up this bill. Whether they accept it or not, by using procedural harangues and holding up this bill, the only thing they truly are

accomplishing is keeping the kids in Toronto and Windsor out of the classroom and that, to me, seems unacceptable in today's Ontario.

I hear some cackling from the third party and I find it passing strange to hear this cackling, because I sat in opposition to this third party, and the beauty of

having sat in opposition to the third party is that each member who sits over there -- of but nine -- was part of the administration headed by Mr Bob Rae from 1990 to 1995, and some of them held

very influential cabinet positions in that government. When they were faced with the exact same situation, they acted accordingly, which is what we've done, in a very similar way, to order people

back to work.

I might add that during that administration they were faced with situations where jeopardy wasn't even declared on certain teaching unions. They acted before the

jeopardy situation was put into place, so they're claiming a moral compass on this issue. But I can only suggest to those people in the third party that it seems you find your moral compass when

you have no power to legislate the outcome. When you have legislative authority, you don't seem to have any moral compass. It seems rather convenient of you to find your conscience when it seems

most appropriate for you to find your conscience.

I find it somewhat frustrating, because in this situation when the third party was in power, their House leader came to our House leader and asked for

co-operation -- and I look to the member for Mississauga South, who was in the House at the time -- to send teachers back to school in certain boards so the kids could get back in the classroom.

They got nothing but absolute co-operation from our caucus, because at some times when we're in this place you have to allow the partisan nature of give and take to be overcome by certain

realities. Those realities are that kids going to school and losing their year are important things that should not be subject to partisan bickering.

The absolute shame of it is this: had we not had a third party that was truly asleep at the switch, if we didn't have a third party that hadn't bungled their

procedural approach yesterday, we wouldn't even be here today taking the action necessary to get kids back in the classroom; we would be having to deal with

section 69(

c) applications from the

third party that would keep them out of the classroom for two additional weeks, and it is absolutely unacceptable and shameful that they would take that position.

They argue that they take that position for the collective bargaining process and the unions. The point that has to be made is, why now have you found this

"principled" approach to dealing with collective agreements? From 1990 to 1995 you never did anything like you're doing now when it came to ordering teachers back to work. Tell me about that.

Square that circle for this House, square that circle for the people of the province. When you have the levers of power you make one decision, and when you're in the opposition you make an entirely

opposite decision. Square that circle with the people of Ontario.

If there was some sense of glee in this caucus yesterday, it's understandable. If there's some sense of glee, it's acceptable.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): What's glee?

Hon Mr Stockwell: "Glee" is a tough word, but I'll send over a definition, perhaps. If there's some sense of glee in this caucus, you're right,

because we believe it's important to act today and we are prepared to sit for as long as it takes. I say to my caucus friends that under the standing orders, the procedural rules we live by, this

third party can hold this House up for nine or 10 or some 11 hours. But I will tell that third caucus that, come the second reading vote and the third reading vote, you will find enough caucus

members sitting on this side of the House to pass this kind of good legislation for the parents and children of Windsor and Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Questions and comments?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I listened intently to the minister across the way try to talk about why this legislation is

necessary.

The reality here is that we know the parties in this particular case, in the board in Toronto and in Windsor, are trying to negotiate a settlement. What we have

is a Minister of Labour, along with the entire government caucus, saying, "Listen, we know best. We can insert ourselves into the bargaining process and try to find some kind of resolution by

forcing this type of legislation through the House," and there has been no jeopardy found, never mind that you've changed the legislation on how we define jeopardy in Ontario. In the case of the

board in Toronto, they've been out on strike for some time now, but the schools have been closed merely a week. We know they're still negotiating. We know they're close to an agreement. So why

would the Minister of Labour, knowing that the parties are close to getting a settlement in Toronto, want to force this type of process through? At the end of the day, all you're doing is kiboshing

the process, by which you may end up forcing the board away from the table.

If you're successful in passing your legislation to force the parties back into a collective agreement, you still haven't dealt with the problem, because we know

what the real problem is: it's your funding formula. It's your government who put your hands into the pockets of the taxpayers of the province of Ontario to take money out to make sure that the

boards were reduced by almost $1 billion in funding since you have come to power.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): A billion and a half.

Mr Bisson: A billion and a half, I'm told by our education critic.

Now, these boards are trying to find a way to operate, including, yes, keeping the schools clean, now that you took a billion and a half out of the school

boards. So you've created this crisis. Don't come in here and start preaching to us about the moral high ground, because, sir, what you have done is nothing but low ground when it comes to the

funding formula here in Ontario.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): First of all, I want to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Labour. He, in my opinion and in the

opinion of the rest of cabinet, which had this very difficult decision to make in the beginning, and all of caucus in the end, has been very cautious in terms of letting the natural course of

progress be made, with every opportunity, before we were forced to bring in this legislation.

There comes a point where the disruption in the lives of those families with children in elementary and secondary schools has to come to a stop, the disruption

that affects their ability to earn their living, because if they're elementary-aged students, somebody has to be at home with those families. The disruption is incredible.

What I really need to tell you is that when I came into this building this afternoon, I came in at the same time as a visitor with a pass to our public

galleries. It's such a beautiful day. I said, "Good afternoon. Isn't it a great day out there." He said, "Yes, and it'll be a great day in here when this legislation is passed." I said to him, "Are

you a parent? Is that your interest?" The fact that someone is interested in being here I found very creditable for this individual.

He said, "I'm not here as a parent. I'm here because it's time for this legislation. I happen to be a caretaker in one of our schools." I commend him for saying

that our government is doing the right thing, regardless of whether our New Democratic colleagues in opposition understand. The people who matter do understand.

Mr Colle: I know that the government party finds this to be a time for glee. I tell you, the people certainly in my riding find this a really

sad period of time, because many of them are frankly fed up. They don't care whether it's the school board or whether it's us here or the government; they are basically fed up to their eyeballs

with constant disruptions of their families' lives and the lives of their kids. This is a repeat of the same type of disruption we've had in our public schools for the last five years, over and

over again. There's always an excuse, there's always someone else to blame. They are frankly saying, "A pox on all your houses. If you can't run our basic schools and our basic hospitals, what are

you doing there?"

They say they pay through the nose in property taxation for public schools. They volunteer. Their kids are going through one change after another -- new

curriculum. The teachers are going through their own version of hell. They say, "Who really cares about us?

Yes, this legislation is supported by our caucus, but we're not happy with the fact that we're in this condition, because this condition is not just the fault of

the workers who are on strike or the school board or the third party; a lot of it lies at the feet of this government.

I especially feel sorry for the families of children with special needs in Toronto, 26,000 of them, who have been told to stay home. They haven't been at school

for four weeks, and their families and these children have suffered. I hope the government puts money back so there will be remedial teaching and tutoring for these special-needs kids --

Interjection.

Mr Colle: Yes, money for special-needs kids. You don't care about special-needs kids. All you care about is --

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the member's time is up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Last warning to the member for Eglinton-Lawrence. His time is up.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I find it passing strange that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Take your seat. Put the clock back two minutes.

I know we're dealing with education issues, but when you start yelling across about who started what, quite frankly, you sound like a couple of kids in

elementary school. We're not going to put up with that. Stop the yelling back and forth. I don't care whose fault it is or who started it, if you yell across like that, we're not going to be able

to continue.

We'll put the clock back two minutes for the member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: I find it passing strange that this government, which has wreaked so much havoc on the public life of this province, has us here this

afternoon talking about legislation that probably wouldn't be needed in the first place had they not decided two years ago to target the organized labour movement in this province, instead of

looking at them as the assets that they are, bringing them to the table around issues of concern to all of the people of the province and working out arrangements that are satisfactory to everybody

concerned.

It's an interesting axiom in this world that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sorry for the interruption.

Again, if you want to have these discussions across like that, it's a wide space and if you talk loud enough for the other person to hear, we can't hear anybody

else. We have two lobbies on either side. If you want to decide what schools you're going to visit together, then kindly take it out to either of the lobbies and discuss it. Don't yell across the

floor here. Or, as often happens, one of you go across to the other side and sit face to face two feet away. Then I can hear. But don't yell across, especially when I've called for order a couple

of times.

Sorry again for the interruption, member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: I think the people out there should know that the little debate going on here this afternoon is primarily between the governing party

and the Liberals. We on this side, the third party, wanted to have a serious discussion about this, a very serious issue that affects the lives of the people of this province and the people of

Toronto.

It's an interesting axiom that in this world, in my experience so far -- and I've lived about 52 years -- what goes around comes around.

Interjection.

Mr Martin: On a point of order: I would ask the member to withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: We'll stop the clock quickly. I didn't hear anything. I was listening intently to the member's comments. If any member has said it

and they wish to rise, they are certainly free to do it. I didn't hear it. As I mentioned, I was listening very intently.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I withdraw.

The Speaker: OK. Thank you for your gracious gesture.

The member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: I was of the understanding that this is a very serious issue to the folks across the way. It seems to me, from what we've seen in the

very short time we've had now, that it really isn't. It's a matter of ridicule and joking and laughing.

You created the turmoil in almost every area of public life in this province. Then when the turmoil happens and you can't control it, because you have no

relationship with the partners to the turmoil, your immediate response is knee-jerk legislation. You bring it in here, you time-allocate it and you drive it through. We won't stand for that.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'm questioning the member who has just spoken here. If the House should permit him to speak, given

that he insulted the very standing orders of this House --

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat. Order. You've done your apologies. It's the Minister of Labour's turn.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I appreciate the comments from the members opposite. There's no glee here. I don't know where the member for the Liberal Party

got "glee."

Interjection: You said it.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Listen for a moment. We were gleeful that they were asleep at the switch. That's what I said in my speech, so think it

through before you start flapping. I said we were gleeful because the kids would benefit because they were asleep at the switch and they're going to be back at school sooner. That's what we were

gleeful about.

As far as the opposition parties are concerned, the member for Timmins-James Bay, I think, says we didn't wait for jeopardy. You know, that's the problem in

dealing with this House, because you have to deal with people who have no understanding of how the system works. There is no jeopardy for support workers. There is no jeopardy. The ERC doesn't rule

jeopardy on support workers.

Mr Bisson: That's the point.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The point is you told us we didn't wait for jeopardy. We would have waited until the cows came home. There isn't a jeopardy

equation from the ERC for heaven's sake. God forbid they be in government. They'd be waiting for a jeopardy rule on support workers and there is nobody who declares jeopardy.

Honest to goodness, you want to talk about the moral high ground and you stand there talking about the collective bargaining process. You should be ashamed of

yourself. What about the social contract? And the Rae days? Where was your moral compass then? Where was the sanctity of collective agreements? You only have sanctity for a collective agreement

when you have no decision-making powers. When you've got the levers of power in your hand, your moral compass is gone. Out. You've got Rae days and social contracts.

Lecturing us on collective bargaining processes -- we waited. We wanted a deal. Four, five, six weeks, they didn't get one. You have to show some leadership.

You have to stand up and be counted. You've got to get the kids back to school. You don't need to lecture me on the social contract and the sanctity of collective agreements. We're here all night.

They're going back Monday.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): At the pleasure of the House, I'll split my time with the members for Windsor West, Windsor-St Clair,

Sarnia-Lambton and also Toronto Centre-Rosedale.

Now, I'm just going to wait a second and let the waves of sanctimoniousness pass through from the other side of the House about how they would like to cover

themselves in glory for the conditions of the schools in Toronto and Windsor, and elsewhere in the province today. To hear from the Minister of Labour, who has idly stood by, who has condoned and

recommended the kind of cuts and conditions that have prevailed on the students with whom he's charged in this Toronto system, is more than anyone on this side is going to take.

Today we're talking principally about this legislation, but this legislation was borne in the neglect and the commission of this government. We're supporting,

reluctantly, legislation that is the only option that this government knows how to consider. They only know how to use the hammer. They had in front of them all of this House, including the members

from the third party, who couldn't find a constructive solution to save their lives, apparently. What the people on the picket lines and the students in the schools -- and more importantly, the

students lately not in schools -- needed from all of us in this House were some constructive solutions. We have no business having to only resort to hammers because nobody on the government side,

and apparently elsewhere in the third party, can find a way --

The Speaker: Stop the clock. The member for Peterborough.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I take exception to the member who suggested there was doublespeak in my

world. That kind of sounds a bit like telling a lie and I take offence to it. I would --

The Speaker: Member, take a seat. I can see where both myself and the table are going to listen very carefully, and I say to the table if I

hear any out-of-order language, I'm going to jump on it very quickly.

As I said to one of the members who just went out, I'm glad we don't sit too often on Fridays because obviously the mood in here changes. I know we have a very

controversial issue. I'm going to be in the chair most of the time and I'm telling each and every side, right here, right now, if you start with the bad language in here I'm going to clamp down on

it. So for everybody in here, we're going to listen carefully. The people at the table are going to listen carefully. They're going to give me a signal if they hear it and I'm going to be up on my

feet very quickly.

The member for Parkdale-High Park.

Mr Kennedy: There's no place for any member of this House to hide today behind the interests of children or the interests of the workers out

there who may not get a fair deal as a result of this particular resolution today. There is no place. I'm sorry, but this House has become incapable of considering solutions that could actually

bring the interests of parties together. We had that responsibility. Why did we have that responsibility specifically in this case? We did because this House, this government, took $1,800 away from

each and every student in the city of Toronto in one of the boards in question and $1,100 away from each and every student in the city of Windsor in the Catholic board. That's what the members

opposite are condoning.

Less than 4% of those savings came from administration. Where did it come from? It came from the exact category that we're now debating. It's so vital that

we've got to order them back to work. It came from the people who were so-called outside the classroom. It came from the janitors, it came from the support workers, it came from those people whom

you have, all your time in government across the way, called down as less needed and less useful.

This is the result: intractable, sometimes senseless in a way, disputes taking place because the party that needs to be there won't even in a constructive way

put themselves at the table except to put their thumb on the scale to make sure things don't balance out.

They did that in three ways, which we asked the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour to consider, to put forward a constructive bill that would at

least allow a mediator to decide what would be fair rather than the conditions imposed by this government, the conditions that they wanted to have considered, which were fruitlessly unsuccessful in

the last number of weeks in giving either side the ability to come to an agreement.

What were those? The absence of money. They don't want to talk about resources. The Premier the other day sat in front of an audience and said nothing about

this government's commitment to improve education, not one dime, not one new idea, nothing that would actually advance the interests of children. That's what people need to hear today. So we're

saying that ability for the province to recognize the role it took on to fund all education should have been at that negotiating table in both cities.

As well, the government has changed the way the negotiating process works, has made sure that only the narrowest of considerations can be undertaken by

arbitrators. We're saying allow that to change, allow flexibility, allow something that's sustainable, not just for one year but on an ongoing basis. How hard would that have been? How hard would

that have been to make that possible?

There was also a need on the part of this government to say to these boards and to say to the federations involved -- the unions, in this case -- that there

was an interest in becoming the referee again, that there was a willingness to take up intractable issues that could be refereed by the province or referenced to the province. At no time did the

province express that. Their rules are their rules, their rigidity is their rigidity, and in that, they turned down the possibility we put forward for a goodwill resolution.

Why does that matter now more than ever? Because goodwill is in short supply in this school system. As much as we believe that the rights of children to go to

school have now superseded the collective bargaining interests, which we do support -- we're not the authors of the social contract, which this party also voted for. We simply would like to see

that work in a way that can be made to work.

We see a greater danger. We see a government attacking public education, using the turmoil that they have helped to create in public education to undermine it.

I would ask the members opposite to stand up and acknowledge and defend their role in creating the situation that we now have to contend with today where the parties couldn't come to an agreement

in their interests and the interests of the kids that everyone here wants to hide behind.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a few minutes available to me. I want to first of all address this immediate question of the

Minister of Labour's actions with reference specifically to my home, which is Windsor. I should declare at the outset that I have a direct interest in this. My little boy has been affected by this

strike for five weeks now. In fact, I spent the first three weeks doing my work as an MPP and also looking after a number of the kids in the neighbourhood. So I've felt the effect of this very

personally.

Let me say to the Minister of Labour, first of all, I have been in regular contact with both sides in the dispute in Windsor. I've satisfied myself that there

was no local resolution that was going to come forward. The amount of time that this community has been on strike -- and the kids have been rotated in and out over the last few weeks. We're now at

the end of our fifth week.

The government has quite correctly noted that there is no way of finding jeopardy. So I attempted to use other declarations of jeopardy as approximations to

when it would have been appropriate to do what the government has done. I think one thing we need to keep in mind is that the curriculum today is more difficult than it has been in the past.

Accordingly, each day, in my view, represented a longer period of time. It is, in my view, the appropriate time to take this step in Windsor.

I also want to say to the government that I am aware of Mr Steve Raymond, and I want to be unequivocal that I believe he will be a neutral arbitrator and is

appropriate. I'm not familiar with the arbitrator in the Windsor situation and I can't comment on that. I can tell you this: the folks in my community believe this is the appropriate step.

The last time, interestingly enough, that back-to-work legislation was brought in, it was brought in by the New Democratic Party, in their mandate. It involved

a teachers' strike. At that time they passed the legislation before jeopardy was found. I believe it's in the interest of the kids in my community and I believe it's in the interest of families.

Families are struggling when their kids are at home. First, the kids are getting very bored right now, I can tell you that. I spend a lot of time with them. They're getting bored. It's hard to keep

kids interested when they're not in school. Second, it's a rough curriculum. My fifth grader does an hour and a half of homework every night, and he has to, as do his friends, to keep up.

I believe the collective bargaining situation in Windsor could not have found a solution to this problem, and accordingly I'm voting in favour of this

legislation. My colleagues in Toronto believe the same situation exists in Toronto.

There is a broader question about education. In my case, in the case of the Windsor board, funding has gone down an average of $1,100 per student. There will

be a big debate on that question at the appropriate time. We don't want the kids to be held hostage to this. In fact, as soon as this is done, that same board has to vote on closing yet another

seven schools in my community. I want to get back to debating those issues with the government, because we are fundamentally opposed to your agenda in education. We believe fundamentally that your

agenda for education is setting this province back, not moving it forward. But that debate ought to occur with the kids in school, and it ought to occur in the context of this Legislature, and

candidly and frankly, in the context of a general election. It's important to get our kids back to school.

In the case of Windsor, I've satisfied myself. I've been in touch with the union and I've been in touch with the board on a regular basis. There is no local

solution to be found in the Windsor situation. The arbitrator in the Toronto situation I know to be a very good arbitrator. I don't have a problem. I'm glad there's an additional seven days in the

legislation to find a solution locally. But it is essential to get the kids back to school.

I'm looking forward to the debate on education, but I want our kids in Windsor back in school. With the kids in school, we can have that debate; we can have it

here, we can have it in our communities. I look forward to having that debate in the next general election, because in my view it is your policies, the policies of the Harris government, that have

led to the chaos in this system. With the kids in school, we can debate that, and in my view that's the appropriate way to debate it.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I want to make it very clear that Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus believe that the best place

for students is in the classroom. We know that. The discussion about good education must begin with stability and peace in our schools, none of which the Harris government wants to achieve. All

we've had is six years of turmoil in the schools.

I make no bones about my own evaluation, and that is that the responsibility for that constant turmoil in our education system and the demoralization of our

educators rests solely on the shoulders of the Harris government. We are now in a lockout in Sarnia-Lambton as well. Where there was no issue before, such as extracurricular, the Harris Tories

decided to create a problem. We didn't have a problem in extracurricular in most of the school boards across this province, but no, we have to use the hammer because that's the only tool they know

how to use. Therefore, we now have a problem with extracurricular.

Good business practices mean there has to be a good relationship with the employees. This government does not understand good management, in my view, from what

we see.

From 1995 to 2001, the province has cut support for students. I believe it's almost $1,700 less per student in Toronto and about $1,146 less per student in

Windsor. I find that incredible when you've more than doubled the administrative, the running of the Tory offices, your cabinet offices. You've doubled your administrative offices for the Premier.

Yesterday I heard Ms Ecker, the Minister of Education, saying, "The boards have to stay within their budgets."

Not at all. Not the Tory cabinet offices. You can more than double them. Why? I couldn't get an answer from the Deputy Premier, no answer at all. That's OK,

because the Tories have one rule for themselves and one rule for the rest of the province. As I said, we believe that the kids should be in school. It's important that they're in school. But the

only way we're going to stop this turmoil is by getting rid of the Tories.

Applause.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I think the last comment made it hard for the ones opposite to clap.

I don't need a lot of time, Mr Speaker, to lay out the principle on which I come to the conclusion that supporting this legislation is both important and

appropriate. I do so on the basis of one thing, and it's kids. It's kids not unlike those who grace our galleries with their presence today, who in my riding are being prevented from being with

teachers, at the end of the road to class in the morning, who are willing to teach them.

The government opposite has already in this debate used words like "glee" and "congratulations." I think both of those words are inappropriate in the context

of this debate. I don't think this is a proud day in the history of this place. It is one I will remember, but it is not one that I will cherish.

I support this legislation. The third party talks about the principle involved, that this is, in a sense a capitulation, that it helps to mirror or mask the

reality behind the disarray in our education system today in Ontario. I understand that argument and I think there's much to be said for it. But the compelling messages I've heard are from the

people I represent: the kids at Jarvis Collegiate in their OAC year, who have, for their entire high school careers, known nothing but disruption, who have been prevented from fulfilling the full

extent of their high school careers by a system that does not properly work for them. It is with them in mind that I decide that it's appropriate to offer support for this legislation. It gets kids

back in the classroom with teachers who are willing to help them learn.

Many of the constituents that I'm honoured to represent, many of those kids, don't have the benefit of parents who are as able to help them with their homework

education system is an issue that we are concerned about and we look forward to that debate.

I believe the government's agenda is designed to undermine our public education system. The Common Sense Revolution has been brought home to too many of the

households in my riding, and this disarray in the public education system is one example of that. I think it's a sad note that on a day when we're having this debate, which is brought about in

large measure by an absence of adequate funding, especially in urban school boards, in the city of Toronto, because of dramatic increases in their property values, taxpayers will see an additional

tax bill of $77 million, not one penny of which will be spent in Toronto to deal with the funding inadequacies that come about and that have brought about in part this labour impasse that we are

dealing with today. That $77 million, instead of being available to deal with these challenges locally, will be sent to other places.

I stand on principle, and I'll vote in support of this legislation on the principle that kids can be back in the classrooms sooner. That's the most important

principle that is at stake, in my opinion.

The Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, questions and comments?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I have to say to the speakers on behalf of the Liberal caucus that I do find it amazing, the way in

which you want to have it both ways all the time on such important public policy issues. The fact that you can stand and rail against the government and what they're doing in the education system

and yet not only facilitate quick passage of a draconian piece of legislation but vote in favour of it totally amazes me, except that I've come to know that to be the Liberal Party of Ontario.

I read this legislation, someone who has spent time working in the area of negotiations and understanding how the role of compulsory arbitration is meant to

replace free collective bargaining and the results of free collective bargaining, and I understand when I read the way in which the government's funding formula is imposed on the arbitrator and the

arbitrator's decision-making that the workers who have been on the picket lines for the last three weeks cannot get a fair deal. Whether you think the arbitrator is benign or not, the rules that

the arbitrator is fettered by will screw the workers who have been out on those lines.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. We're not going to start with language like that. I ask the member to withdraw -- we're not going to use words

like that -- and then she may continue.

Ms Lankin: I absolutely do, Mr Speaker. I feel passionately that this legislation is legislation that is designed to oppress those workers who

are fighting for a fair deal and a fair process. The Liberal Party is facilitating that and voting for that and yet speaking against it in their speeches.

The Liberal Party, when the government passed their motion to sit today, not only was with the government, they cheered and applauded the government's

achievement. I believe that we want our children back in school. We want them in a school where they can get a good-quality education, with workers who are compensated and are treated with respect,

without a poisoned atmosphere. This bill does not accomplish that.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): A couple of points that I think are worth mentioning: The member for

Parkdale-High Park, the Liberal critic, was talking about people hiding behind or playing politics, disputes in classrooms. There have always been fights and disputes and disagreements in the

education sector, for years, under Liberal governments, under NDP governments, under previous Tory governments, because education is extremely important to everyone and people have strong

views.

The difference is that those disputes do not have to be taken into the classroom, that those disputes should not be taken into the classroom and taking

education away from our kids. So all sides of the House want a fair agreement, want a collective agreement for those members, those unionized workers, of course we do. But also, at the same time,

we have to keep in mind that there are children who are sitting there waiting to go back to school, there are parents whose lives are being seriously disrupted by this strike. Quite frankly, enough

is enough. So that's why we have moved to bring in legislation that will ensure that the children are back in school.

The Liberal Party, with all due respect, brought in a bill yesterday that they thought would be of assistance. While everyone appreciates someone trying to

help, you can't say, "Let's solve it by saying, `Let's have a mediator, let's let them all have a mediator.'" They've had that option. The Ministry of Labour has been there to support both parties,

both in Windsor and in Toronto, but those options have not been used by the board or the union.

With all due respect to the Liberal Party, passing a bill saying, "Gee, let's all sit down and be nice together," is not going to solve it. This legislation is

going to solve this dispute, and for the sake of the kids, to have them back in the classroom, it's a necessary step that we feel we have to take.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): The Minister of Education just indicated that this is just another dispute, not unlike all sorts of

other ones. My judgment, Minister, is that the education system is in serious difficulty. I believe that. If you don't believe that, then you probably don't understand what's happening out

there.

Ken Dryden, a thoughtful Ontarian who has looked often at our education system, had some good advice for us today: "It's time to bring some peace into our

schools."

You hear comments about public education. The best time in my life perhaps was high school. I had my 40th reunion of a football team. All three of my coaches

the teachers there at London Central.

The teachers today are the same as they were 40 years ago. I have spent a lot of time in schools. But we have turmoil in our schools. Even more important, the

support for public education is bound to lessen, because no one can view all of this turmoil and not begin to lose confidence.

Again, we heard a lot of rhetoric in the House today. The best solution to this particular trouble we're in right now, I happen to believe, is the legislation

before us. We can have a difference of opinion, but I would say to all of us: I am strongly of the opinion that we are doing serious damage to public education right now, and we need to address it

instantly.

Mr Marchese: Speaker, we rail against this Conservative government that has done many things that are evil, I tell you, in the education

system. The first one is that they have assaulted the teaching profession in a way that has poisoned the work environment, in a way that has affected the quality of education in the classroom, in a

way that has affected the students and their ability to learn, and I rail against this government for bringing back-to-work legislation that further poisons the environment for those non-teaching

personnel.

My rail, however, at this moment -- because I'll have plenty of time to attack the Tories -- is against the Liberals. The Liberals say, through Mr Kennedy,

"The NDP could not find a constructive solution -- too bad, so sad." What's their solution? To support the government in sending the workers back. You Liberals cannot have it every which way. I

know that you are chameleons. I know how you slither under the carpet, in between the carpets. I know how reptilian you can be, and we're going to expose you to the public, because snakes can only

go so far until they get caught by the general public. They're bad, but you are worse. You have no guts whatsoever. They have the guts to do the bad thing, and you have no guts in standing up for

the very things that you argue about: how the underfunding is a problem, how those poor workers are not getting a fair deal. What do you do? Ecker comes in with Stockwell to force these people

back, and you say, "OK, no problem."

Yes, they cheered gleefully when a couple of us here were caught off guard and they said, "Ha, wonderful." They cheered you on. Whose side are you on, you

reptilian MPPs?

The Speaker: Response?

Mr Kennedy: Unfortunately, I think people, including some of the kids in the gallery today, are getting a lesson in the incapacity of this

House to do better than what we have in front of us today, that there isn't an ability to look at and have a regard for real solutions.

With all respect to the minister, what we said was, if you were able to make it more attractive, people would voluntarily have gone into mediation. They would

have done that. If this party over here had decided that instead of some kind of play they would be willing to assist a solution, they could have got behind that. There could have been some force

to see better things done, to see that the mediation would work, to see that other things were done.

In the interests of children, yes, but the parties in this House, including our own, have to make choices between competing goods, in this case the collective

bargaining rights of the workers and the ability of children to gain an education. We don't take any pleasure in the choice between them, and we don't pretend to have it all ways or, frankly, any

way in this particular case.

We do want to appeal to the province at large and to the members of this House for better disposition of things that are happening in education. The days

coming are a test of every member in this House as to whether, beyond their partisan and ideological constraints, they really do care about public education, or are the members opposite just

waiting to shop this in pieces to some private companies? Are these members here unable to find answers?

This is the third time we've put together constructive things. We asked each member of this House to go back to school, to spend time. I will gladly name

members in every party who did that, but many have not. We also said we could get extracurricular back in operation in the 75% of all public schools where it's vastly diminished if the members

opposite would just find their way to have their way and not hurt the kids, and compromise with the teachers of this province to make that work. They refused to do that and they refused again

yesterday, when we put our other back-to-school plan on the table.

We hope for better. We will fight for better.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Let me begin by saying that it sounds to me that more than a few people were betting on New Jersey

last night, by the sounds of comments here today.

I'm happy to say that I want to address what I think are the real issues in this dispute, and I also think they are the real issues in education across the

province. However, before I do that, I just want to point out something the Minister of Labour said.

He said that the NDP did order teachers back to work. That's true. In one case, in November 1993 in Lambton, there was a finding of jeopardy, and after the

finding of jeopardy, legislation was passed. I'm pleased to say it resulted in a collective agreement and generally both sides were happy with that collective agreement. Then, as I understand, in

Parry Sound later on that year, in October 1993, there was a finding of jeopardy and legislation was passed which resulted again in an arbitrated collective agreement. In December 1993 there was a

strike, a labour dispute in Windsor. Just so that the Minister of Labour is aware of this, yes, legislation was passed, the legislation was proclaimed, but it was never implemented because in the

meantime the parties were able to get together and negotiate a collective agreement. So in two of the cases there was jeopardy and in the third case the parties were able to negotiate a collective

agreement before a finding of jeopardy and before the implementation of the collective agreement -- just to set the Minister of Labour straight.

I said I wanted to get to the real issues. What's happening in Toronto and Windsor and what has been happening in North Bay are only symptomatic of what has

already happened with a number of other boards of education across the province and what is going to happen with a number of further boards as we move into this year. The problem is this: it is

true, and any accounting will show it, that a billion and a half dollars have been removed from school budgets across the province. Schools in Ontario are operating now with one and a half billion

dollars less in terms of operating funding than they had in 1995. The government has done this in a number of ways. The point is that because one and a half billion dollars have been removed from

school budgets, schools are continually pressed against the wall in terms of trying to find the money to finance caretaking, the duties of the secretary and maintenance and custodial staff. In many

cases they don't have the money for busing, in some cases they don't have the money for special education, in other cases they don't have the money for libraries and the list continues. Depending

upon where you are in Ontario, different boards are facing different but difficult circumstances because the government has taken so much money out of the education envelope.

Just some big figures so that we get a sense of the overall context: in 1998, after these cuts were first implemented, Ontario ranked 55th in North America in

terms of educational funding for elementary and secondary schools. We used to at one time look down at the Americans and say that they didn't value education enough. In 1998 the American average in

funding was $7,254 per pupil, versus Ontario at $4,709 per pupil. Those American states that not so many years ago we used to look at and say, "Oh, they don't value education," are now investing

far more than Ontario is in their young people and in their students. The Ontario alternative budget calculated that in order to restore Ontario to its 1994-95 ranking, funding would have to be

increased by $1,000 per pupil.

In terms of what's happening out there in schools, over 138 schools have closed or are slated to close in the next two years. Ten per cent fewer elementary

schools have full-time principals. Think about that. The principal is the person whom parents and the community and teachers and the board, and the students most of all, rely upon to provide

direction for the school, to ensure that overall management of the school is appropriate and to ensure there is responsiveness to parents and to students. We have all kinds of schools now in

Ontario which have no principal.

Forty two per cent of elementary classes have 26 or more students. What's important about that? The government said in its legislation that this shouldn't

happen. But in fact we have all kinds of elementary classrooms across Ontario now that have more students in them than the government has said in its public statements should ever be the case.

Class sizes have been increasing since 1995. For grade 2 students -- imagine this -- who are trying to master reading and literacy, who are trying to come to

grips with mathematical concepts, who are having to deal with all kinds of social challenges as well, class sizes have increased by more than 10%. When you start thinking about students, individual

children, it means you have three or four or five children in the class who are not getting the attention they need. That's what it means.

and more Ontario is becoming a multicultural society. That is particularly true in cities like Ottawa, and not just Toronto but the greater Toronto area, Hamilton, London, Windsor. Almost all of

programs across the province.

Parents may not understand how this government allocates funding for schools. You might think they allocate funding on a per student basis, but in fact that's

not the case. This government allocates funding to school boards on a per foot basis -- not per student but per foot of school space. Even in that, they didn't match the funding that their own

advisory panel told them they needed. They said, "If you're going to do this on a per foot basis, if you're going to go around and measure each school and then fund it on a per foot basis, you

should fund on the basis of $5.50 per foot." Even by their own standards, the government is underfunding at $5.20 per foot.

But the whole idea of per foot is a fallacy, because we have a lot of older schools that may have wasted space or that may have space that is not being used

now as it would have been in the past. So in effect, the funding on a per foot basis doesn't recognize the needs of students, it doesn't recognize the special circumstances of students; frankly,

it's based upon something that is really quite irrelevant in terms of students in our schools today.

Some anecdotal evidence around the province -- and I would say that what we're seeing in Toronto and what we're seeing in Windsor is not unique. Go to

Hamilton. A survey was done in Hamilton by the teachers, students and board staff about how people felt about the cleanliness of the schools. They all reported that the schools in Hamilton were not

sufficiently and appropriately clean for students to be there every day, but they don't have the money in the funding formula to do anything about it. So they addressed the government and said,

"Would you deal with this issue." The government said, "No, we're not interested in this issue. If your schools aren't clean, that's your problem." Well, it's all our problem, and this government

has to recognize that it is its problem.

On February 5 the Ontario Public School Trustees' Association wrote to the Minister of Education warning her of the funding crisis that boards are facing

because of increased fuel costs. Everybody across Ontario knows that the cost of natural gas and heating fuel has risen dramatically in the last year. In fact, there are many people across the

province who are saying, "I'm having a hard time paying my heating bill." So the trustees' association wrote to the government and said, "There is not enough money in the funding formula to pay for

something as essential as heating our schools," and they asked the Minister of Education to recognize this need.

In Toronto alone the heating costs increased by $17 million over the last year. Did the government come up with $17 million to help with something as essential

as the heating costs? No. They recognized a small portion of it and said to the schools and the boards of education, "Take the rest from somewhere else."

I said earlier that depending on where you are in the province, this problem is cropping up. Let me tell you what it's like in northern Ontario. Almost all

schools in northern Ontario have situations where they have to bus their students. In some cases they may have to bus their students 40, 50, 60 or 70 kilometres. Many northern school boards don't

have sufficient money to bus their students.

Routinely, as an MPP or a school trustee, you receive letters and phone calls from parents who are saying, "My child is only in grade 1, only in grade 2. It's

often 30 or 40 degrees below outside in the winter, but my child is having to walk this distance to school at these temperatures and I think this is unsafe." The board has to write back and say,

"I'm sorry. We recognize the safety issue. We recognize it's not a good idea to have a seven-year-old walking this distance on a road that may not have many people going up and down it, on a road

that may have logging trucks going up and down it at high speed. We recognize there is a safety issue here, but we don't have the money in the funding formula and the provincial government doesn't

recognize this as a serious issue. They will not address it and they will not help us address it."

Textbooks: go into any of our schools and see the sorry situation with respect to textbooks. The funding formula allocates $100 per year for textbooks,

computer software and library materials, but a high school student taking a full course load -- my nephew, taking a full course load -- requires more than $400 in texts and learning materials. So

there's $300 per student right there that this government refuses to fund.

Again, depending where you are in the province, this inadequacy of the funding formula expresses itself in different ways, but it's happening everywhere.

More than 65% of elementary schools report that students are now using worn, out-of-date textbooks, or they must share textbooks. How do you share textbooks in

a rural school where one student lives 40 kilometres this side of the school and the other student lives 40 kilometres in the other direction? It simply can't happen. So what you have are

situations where neither student who is supposed to be sharing the same textbook receives any justice out of the funding formula.

Then there's the very sad case of special education. Some 34,000 children in elementary schools alone are waiting for special education services, 34,000

children who need help, and this government says, "Sorry, you're not important enough. There's no money in the funding formula for that."

I want people to know what it's like in the more remote parts of Ontario. To get special education funding for your students, your child has to go through a

number of hoops put in place by this government. You have to go through a number of tests. The problem is, if you live in a rural part of Ontario, you won't have the psychologist, the psychometrist

and all the specialists at hand in order to do these tests. You actually have to fly someone into the community from Toronto, Ottawa or Hamilton. You have to pay for their expenses for a week in

order to have these tests done. The boards of education are saying, "We don't have that money. We know that by any measure these students deserve special education, but we can't afford to have the

tests done."

There are 34,000 children in Ontario now who are in that situation, and all the government has to offer is more standardized tests, which will tell you that

these students aren't performing at the level they should be. Of course they aren't. If they can't get the special education services they need, they likely never will perform at an adequate level.

More standardized tests are not going to help them. A funding formula with special education dollars would help them. But again, what's the answer of the government? The government prefers tax cuts

to the well-off more than they prefer to address these problems.

The government says they're now spending $1.4 billion on special education. They say it's the most that has ever been invested in special education in the

province. Let me tell you how they get at that sleight of hand. They look at what the Ministry of Education used to put into special education back in 1994, and they won't consider the money that

the boards used to put in on top of that to top it up. This government says, "That money that the boards used to put in, that doesn't matter." In fact, if you looked at the money the boards put in

on top of the money the province put in, again that's where you find the underfunding of special education today. This government has cut it. The children who need help the most, this government

has cut them. This problem is showing its ugly, awful face across the province.

Just to give you again a description of what's happening, since 1997 there has been a 30% decrease in elementary school psychologists. When children need to be

assessed, when they need that attention to discover if they have a learning difficulty, if they have some other issue that needs to be addressed, there's no psychologist there to do it.

Further, just to give you an idea, I mentioned busing. We have situations in northern and rural Ontario where students who need special education services are

being forced to travel three hours by bus to get those special education services. Imagine, a seven-year-old, an eight-year-old, having to spend three hours on a bus because the local school

doesn't have it in their budget to provide the special education services and the province says that's not important enough to address through the funding formula.

Then there's the issue of teacher cuts. People need to pay attention to what's happening. Under the Conservatives, there are about three or four teachers less

per 1,000 students than we had in 1995. There is no provision in the funding formula for specialist teachers. This government considers specialist teachers to be non-classroom spending, not to be a

priority. They forced the following cuts in elementary schools in terms of specialist teachers.

Last year, 44% had no music teacher. Educational experts and psychologists will tell you that music is important to young children. It is important in terms of

the sort of wiring of the brain and the incremental steps in learning that children must go through. But all kinds of children in this province no longer receive that music education, which is so

essential to their personal and educational development.

Now 63% have no physical education teacher. Health report after health report says that we are more and more out of shape and less and less fit, and what is

the province doing about it? They're taking the physical education teachers out of the elementary schools. Some 82% had no full-time librarian. At a time when literacy is more important than ever

before, the government continues to take the librarians out of the schools, the very specialists who know how to address the reading needs of children, the very people who know how to get people

excited about books. This government is doing away with them.

Then, for students who may not be university bound or college bound but who want to have a good technical background, a good technical level in high school,

who want to go into design or technology, they're finding that there are 48% fewer teachers there as well.

Since 1995 enrolment in Ontario has actually increased by almost 60,000 students. So there are 60,000 more students, but there are 11,399 fewer teachers. That,

again, describes the problem.

I won't go into the growing teacher shortage, I won't go into the exodus of teachers out of the province who are trying to get to other jurisdictions. But that

is a huge problem that is going to get more and more serious over the next two or three years. That's what's happening.

The problem is being manifested differently depending upon where you are in the province. Here in Toronto it is manifested now by the board of education saying

to its teachers, "We have signed a collective agreement with you after eight years without a pay increase. We've tried to give you a modest increase. If you look at it on an annual basis, you're

still behind in terms of inflation and the cost of living. We signed a collective agreement." Then they come to the caretaking staff, who are essential, the custodians, the maintenance staff, the

school secretaries who phone parents when their children are late for school or don't show up at school to make sure they know where the children are. The board has had to say, "Sorry, we know you

haven't had a raise. We also know that you're very lowly paid. But we can't afford." Why? Because the money isn't in the funding formula.

The government's answer, as these issues break out, as these issues are created in one community after another across the province, is going to continue to

blame the boards, blame the teachers, blame the staff, blame the community. Then the government's answer is going to be to bring forward legislation that is inadequate, legislation that in many

ways will make the situation worse.

The Minister of Labour said, "Why are the New Democrats standing in the way of this legislation?" I want him to know why. We wanted to find time for the board

and the union to negotiate, to find a collective agreement, because we know that the legislation the government has in mind would make the situation worse.

I have to tell you, my daughter would be affected. My daughter goes to an elementary school two blocks from here. My daughter is affected when they're not

going to school now. But my daughter would also be affected and other children would be affected by this kind of legislation, which will wreak more havoc in our schools, create more bad working

relationships in our schools. Children will be affected by that. By necessity, they'll be affected by that.

So we don't want to see a situation where the Minister of Labour could go out and appoint Stockwell Day as the arbitrator. That's what the legislation says.

The legislation says the arbitrator doesn't have to have any experience in arbitration, doesn't have to have any knowledge about arbitration, doesn't have to be credible, doesn't have to have a

reputation for being fair, doesn't have to have a reputation for being independent. Chris Stockwell, the Minister of Labour, could appoint Stockwell Day, he could appoint Mike Harris, he could

appoint his chief political hack to be the arbitrator. That's wrong. It's wrong because it's going to create a more difficult working relationship, and it's wrong because it's going to create

precedents in the school system that are simply going to create more and more difficulty down the road, and that will be bad for our children.

We wanted to find as much time as possible for the board and for the union to come to a collective agreement, to avoid this abominable, odious, ugly

legislation, which will only make matters worse, which will only create more difficult working circumstances and which will only create all the wrong precedents, all the wrong directions in terms

of working relationships in our schools.

I'm hopeful that in the time that we allowed, the time we were able to create, that the board and the union -- and we understand that they are still talking,

that the board and the union met last night, they met earlier today, at least in the case of Toronto, and they are trying to find the ground for a collective agreement. Even though they acknowledge

that the province refuses to put the money in the funding formula to deal with caretaking, refuses to put the money in the formula to deal with special education, refuses to put the money in the

formula to deal with textbooks, refuses to put the money in the formula to deal with class size, they are still, under those very difficult circumstances that this government has created, trying to

find a collective agreement. I think it is better for our schools and better for our children and better for their educational futures if we do that, rather than force on them legislation which can

only negatively affect them and negatively affect the schools.

I only want the government members to know that our members feel very strongly about this legislation. I'll give the government 10 seconds of credit. We felt

yesterday that we had put forward a procedural motion which would ensure that this legislation couldn't be debated until Monday. In that sense, we were, for about 10 seconds, a little

overconfident. You caught us and you slipped through your manoeuvre, which means that this legislation has to be debated here today. As I said yesterday, we acknowledge your nifty little move, but

you'd understand our members, members of the New Democratic caucus, feel very, very strongly about this legislation and we're very much opposed to it and the impact that it will have on our

children and our schools.

Mr Marchese: Only New Democrats.

Mr Hampton: Yes, in fact only New Democrats. One of the things that disturbed me was to watch members of the Liberal caucus yesterday. When

the government accomplished their nifty move, Liberal members jumped to their feet and cheered with the Conservative government. I thought to myself, maybe the Liberals knew something about this

move that the government was going to try, because they certainly seemed to be ready for it and certainly ready to cheer the government on.

What needs to happen in the instant situation? I think two things need to happen in the instant situation here in Toronto and the situation in Windsor. As I

said, I hope the government comes to its senses and sets this legislation aside because of all the negative aspects to it, the negative repercussions. I hope that the government recognizes -- and I

want people across the province to understand this -- since the disputes in Windsor and the disputes in Toronto happened, the government has been withholding the money for wages and salaries from

the boards. This government has actually been making money off these labour disputes. This government has pocketed $18 million that would have gone in wages and salaries to the custodians and

caretakers and school secretaries in Toronto. It has pocketed about $4 million, made $4 million, off the dispute in Windsor. This government has made money out of this.

I say to the government, put your legislation aside, take the money that you have pocketed from the Toronto board of education, give it back to the board so

they can put it back on the bargaining table, let the parties continue to talk and continue to try to find a collective agreement, and our children and our schools will be better off. I think if

you did that, we could have by tonight a collective agreement. It is your refusal to do that and your insistence on this draconian legislation that in fact is creating more difficulty.

I said that our goal here was to try to create enough time for the board of education and the union to come together. I understand that CablePulse24 is

reporting that the Toronto board of education and CUPE have agreed on a binding arbitration process, but that the government has not agreed to remove the Toronto board and the union from Bill 13.

So in other words, the board and the union have agreed on a process and they want the government to butt out, but the government doesn't want them to agree on a process.

This government insists on ramming their legislation through despite all the warnings about how draconian, how unfair, how unjust it is. This is exactly the

kind of situation we wanted to avoid, a situation where the union and the board of education can agree on a process, but the government is going to get in their way and inflict its unbalanced,

unworkable, unfair legislation on them.

I hope that as we are here this afternoon, and who knows, perhaps into the evening and into the night, the government will start to reflect on the position as

it now stands, where you have the board and the union in an agreement, where they have agreed on the process they want to go forward with. I hope the government will take the time to reconsider and

that the government will at some point this afternoon or tonight reconsider its position and agree to back off and let the union and the board of education find a settlement they can live with, one

they can reach by mutual consent. That to me seems to be the wise course.

Why impose your direction when the board and the union have already come to an agreement on process? If I listened to the Minister of Labour earlier, he said,

I think, that that's what he wanted, that he wanted the board and the union to find their own process and to come to an agreement. It would seem that's where we are now, and by the minister's own

words I think the minister should now step back and say, "We're prepared to cease and desist. We're prepared to stand off. We're prepared to let the board and the union go forward with the process

they have worked out and conclude a collective agreement they can mutually live with." That's what we are hoping will happen here today.

I want to point out something else about the legislation the government has put forward. I've raised all the issues to deal with the funding formula. I've

pointed out how inadequate the funding formula is, virtually across the province, how it is resulting in difficulty after difficulty for virtually every board of education and in every school.

One of the other odious parts of this legislation is that instead of recognizing that there's a problem with the funding formula, instead of recognizing that

there's a problem that needs to be addressed, this legislation says that no matter how inadequate the funding formula is, no matter how much hardship it results in, any agreement has to live within

that funding formula. So this legislation essentially continues the wrong-headed road the government is on of not providing enough money for special education, of not providing enough funding for

textbooks, of not providing enough funding for busing, of not providing enough funding to deal with class size.

The legislation as put forward by the government essentially continues that straitjacket that is causing so many problems from community to community across

the province. I just say to the government again, you can't continue to do this. You can't continue to force boards of education into more desperate circumstances, unless the real goal of this

government is to so undermine our public education system, to so undermine our public schools, that more and more parents, recognizing that the school is underfunded, recognizing there's not enough

money for textbooks, recognizing there's not enough money for school librarians, for music teachers, for physical education programs, seeing that, start to withdraw their children from public

schools and put them in private schools, unless that is the true agenda of the government. If that is the true agenda of the government -- and I have to say I believe it is.

This government said five years ago that it intended to create a crisis in education. That's what the Minister of Education said. I believe, as I watch this

unfolding, as I see this draconian legislation force the union back to work and as I see the general direction, I have to conclude that the real goal of the government is to so completely undermine

our public schools that parents more and more start to withdraw their children from public schools.

I just want to say a word about that, a word about where that leads and what it means. As a society, we can organize our lives such that almost everything we

do is dominated by private corporations. Private corporations can provide health care, but the lesson from the United States is that when they provide health care it costs more money and those

people who have modest or lower incomes and a lot of families who have middle incomes get left out. We could deal with education privately. We could have a series of private schools, but the

reality of that, the reality of those private schools, is that, again, lower-income families, modest-income families and a lot of middle-income families simply would not be able to afford the

resources that their children would need to get a good education.

The most efficient way and the most effective way to pay for and to provide education is through a public system where we all contribute. When we all

contribute, we're able to build up the resources and we're able to build up the infrastructure, to train teachers, the special education classes that now allow us to meet the needs of our children.

But those very things that we need are the things that this government is now cutting because of the inadequacy of the funding formula. I think, as I say, the real goal is to drive us to more and

more private schools.

I have to ask people, would that be in the interest of the majority of citizens of Ontario? Thinking longer term, is it in the interest of our economic future

if we have more and more people in a privatized education system whose parents don't have the money to finance their education and therefore they get an inadequate education? Is that in all of our

long-term best interests when you have a privatized education system and more and more people can't get the educational resources, the educational training and experience they need and therefore

cannot perform up to the level that they otherwise could in our economy, cannot be as productive as they otherwise would, cannot make the contribution that they otherwise would? I think anyone who

reflects on that says, "No, that's not the way we want to go." But it's pretty clear, if you follow this government and what they're doing, that's where it's headed.

The Premier recently said in the throne speech that they're in favour of more school choice. I want people out there to understand how loaded that term is. I

invite people, for example, to go to Edmonton. In Edmonton you can send your child to any school within the urban district, within the boundary of the school board. They also dramatically reduced

the funding formula. So what's happening is that you have lower- and modest-income neighbourhoods where parents aren't able to do the kind of fundraising -- you don't have any Imperial Oil

executives there or Petro-Canada executives living in the neighbourhood, so parents can't do that kind of fundraising for their school. In other well-to-do neighbourhoods they're able to fundraise

to a large extent, and so you have a real imbalance developing in the schools. You have parents trying to get their kids out of the school in a modest-income neighbourhood and into a school in a

high-income neighbourhood. Virtually everybody is kicking down and kissing up. That's the phenomenon.

You have to ask yourself when you see this, people trying to move their kids out of a modest-income neighbourhood into a higher-income neighbourhood, who's

benefiting from this? Who's benefiting when a whole

section of schools is literally being written off, when they're not being adequately funded?

This government says that it favours school choice, and actually the Liberals say this too. That's another area where the Liberals and the Conservatives agree.

They agree on this draconian force-them-back-to-work legislation and they agree on what I think is a loaded term: school choice.

If you look at Edmonton and a lot of American cities, school choice means that some schools are literally allowed to diminish, and other schools are able to do

all kinds of private fundraising and therefore have all kinds of programs and assets. You have people leaving certain parts of the city, trying to move to other parts of the city, and in the end no

one benefits from this, no one is better off. I suggest that's really where the government is headed.

The next stage after school choice is, of course, school vouchers, which means that the money follows the student, and if the parents take the child out of

their modest or middle-income neighbourhood and move them into the higher-income neighbourhood, then the funding formula follows as well. Then you're really on a ladder where some people are moving

up and a lot of people are being forced down. At the end of the day, this is not beneficial. This does not give us, as a society, the level of educational ability, the level of educational

achievement we want and need to have.

If you follow what this government has done with the funding formula, if you follow their newly found fascination with the loaded term "choice," and then you

follow some of the spokespersons within the Conservative Party who say school vouchers is where we ought to go, I think you can see where this leads: more and more privatization of education, and

less and less attention being paid to those children who need extra help, to those children who need access to the textbooks and the training, and we end up with a more and more divided society,

one where I think, at the end of the day, all of us are no better off.

I see that the Minister of Labour is here. Now that he is here, I want to say again that if the reports on CablePulse24 are true -- and I think they are --

that the board and CUPE have agreed on a binding arbitration process, then if the minister is true to his word, as he indicated here earlier today, he should withdraw this legislation. I think that

if he's true to the words he uttered here earlier, he should stand on his feet and say, "We are not interested in proceeding with this legislation insofar as it concerns the Toronto board of

education. They have come up with their own process, and that was the goal here all along." So I'm hopeful that sometime this afternoon, sometime this evening, sometime tonight, the minister will

actually come to that conclusion and will actually make that statement.

I could go on. In fact, part of me wants to speak further, but I know I have a number of colleagues here who also want to speak, so I will only proceed for a

few more minutes and then allow my colleagues their opportunity.

I mentioned that the number of private schools and the number of students going to private schools has been increasing under this government. It's actually

quite astonishing. In 1994-95 there were 551 private schools in the province and 75,000 students were attending private schools. Last year, in 1999-2000, the number of private schools had jumped to

722 and the number of students in private schools had jumped to 102,970. This represents an increase of 24% in the number of private schools and 27% in private school enrolment under the

Conservative government.

Therefore, as I say, as to the real agenda of the government, as they underfund the school system, as they underfund special education, as they underfund

student transportation, as they underfund textbooks, as they underfund caretaking and the secretarial, maintenance and custodial work in the schools, as they underfund all these things, I think

their real goal is to drive more and more parents into a private education system. If you look at the numbers, that certainly appears to be what's happened.

The final point I want to put forward is, since this legislation is so draconian and since we disagree with it so fundamentally, we have to point out to the

government that we intend to put forward some amendments. We wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't try to take the worst elements out of this bill. Our amendments will do the following:

Our amendments would ensure that if the parties cannot reach a negotiated settlement in the narrow time frame allowed, the dispute will be resolved by a

recognized arbitrator -- not Stockwell Day, not some other person who has no experience and no credibility in arbitration, whom the minister could appoint under his legislation -- who enjoys the

respect and the confidence of both the school boards and the unions. This will be done by amending the bill to allow the parties to select an arbitrator agreeable to both sides.

Second, we think there should be an amendment which would require the minister to choose from a list of recognized arbitrators in the province of Ontario.

Third, we believe that the stipulation allowing the minister to impose an arbitrator with absolutely no experience whatsoever in resolving labour disputes

should be removed. We would untie the hands of the arbitrator and allow for a genuine solution by removing the absolute bar against an award which imposes even a temporary deficit on either school

board. We would give the arbitrator the flexibility needed to fashion a meaningful settlement by removing the unnecessary requirement that they must show in writing how the boards would meet the

costs of the award without incurring a deficit.

As I say, if the Minister of Labour would simply be true to the words which he uttered here earlier today when he said that he wanted to see the parties reach

their own agreement, if he would only be true to those words and recognize that the board and the union have reached a process of binding arbitration which they are both in agreement with, then the

minister should withdraw the application of this bill, at least with respect to Toronto.

Many of my colleagues, I know, want to speak and so after I've made this last point I'm going to allow them to do it. There are two more odious and awful

sections of the bill and, for government members, who probably haven't read it, I want them to know what they are. There's a clause dealing with the appointment and proceedings of a

mediator-arbitrator not subject to review. It says, "If a person has been appointed as a mediator-arbitrator by or under this act" -- by the Minister of Labour -- "it shall be presumed conclusively

that the appointment was properly made under this act and no application shall be made to question the appointment or to prohibit or restrain any of the mediator-arbitrator's proceedings."

Let's assume that the government arbitrator makes a complete mess of the arbitration. Let's assume that the person whom the government appoints makes a

complete mess such that any reasonable person in Ontario would say, "You can't let this happen, this is absurd." Under the ordinary rules of justice in this province and in every other province,

the parties, or one of them, would be able to make an application for judicial review. That is, the superior courts would be able to look at the decision and say, "This thing is so absurd, it is so

unreasonable, it is so completely ridiculous that we cannot let it stand." That's the kind of administrative law protection that we have to ensure that bad decisions aren't made.

This

section that I just read would allow that kind of absurd decision to stand. It doesn't even allow the courts to step in and say, "The arbitrator was

completely outside of his jurisdiction, the arbitrator has completely done this wrong and therefore it cannot stand."

This government is so stuck on their way and their way only that they won't even let our courts, our judges -- who are independently appointed and who are, to

all intents and purposes from all perspectives, independent and neutral -- supervise this arbitration.

Then the final section,

section 13, says, "While this act is in force, the parties shall not appoint an arbitrator, mediator or mediator-arbitrator to settle

matters in dispute between them relating to a bargaining unit otherwise than under this act, and anything done by a person so appointed has no effect."

A really ugly, awful, odious section; the government is saying that even though the Toronto board and the union now have found an arbitrator and have agreed on

the process, the government would completely wipe that out. The government would completely wipe out something that the board and the union have agreed to. When you read this, you have to ask

yourself, "Is the government trying to get the children back in the classroom? Are they trying to achieve an agreement, or are they actually trying to create a more destructive situation?" I think

any reasonable person who reads this would conclude the latter. This is just absurd. This is wrong. This should not be allowed to stand.

I challenge the Minister of Labour to live up to the comments he made here earlier today, to recognize that the Toronto board and the union have now come

together on a binding arbitration process, to simply say, "This legislation will not apply." That's what he ought to do, given the statements he made here himself earlier, so I challenge him to do

that.

I've given all of my reasons why I think these kinds of controversies and disputes are going to happen on a continuing basis in our schools across the

province. I've pointed out the inadequacy of the funding formula and how that inadequacy manifests itself in so many different ways depending upon where people live in this province.

I have pointed out that if you compare Ontario to other jurisdictions, we are lagging far, far behind in our investments in education. I have pointed out that

this draconian legislation which has been put forward simply furthers that direction, creates an even more unfair, unbalanced playing field.

I've pointed out, as the news media is now pointing out, that the parties have actually come together and have agreed on a binding arbitration process and

therefore there is no need for this legislation.

I have pointed out that in terms of the working environment, this legislation will lead to a more difficult work environment; indeed, it may poison the work

environment. I don't think anybody would want their children going to school in the kind of difficult working environment that this legislation would create.

For all those reasons, the government should withdraw it and, certainly in the case of the Toronto board and the CUPE local union, allow them to proceed on

their own binding arbitration process that the Minister of Labour spoke of so glowingly only a few minutes ago in this House.

With that, I'm going to conclude my remarks, because I know many of my colleagues have comments that they want to make as well.

The Speaker: There is some time. I don't know if you want to share it. If you do, you know you can't speak again. OK, no one wants to share

the time. The leader indicated that he was sharing it. He didn't say anybody specific.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am certainly pleased to rise with respect to the debate this afternoon.

I have to point out very clearly that what the member opposite has been speaking about is a process that is applying to the Toronto situation. We never heard

him talk at all about what is happening in Windsor in terms of the situation there, which is just as serious, just as important and obviously has significant ramifications for the school system

down there. He's not addressing that, and maybe he doesn't care. I don't know. That's for him to say.

But the bottom line is, when you read this legislation, it says very clearly that once this piece of legislation is put in place, the parties have seven days

to have the matter resolved. That's the process: seven days before the government process kicks in.

They have been at these negotiations for a long time. It's a very serious situation when you consider to go out on strike. That's not something that would

happen willy-nilly. The Minister of Labour, in the processes that are available -- conciliation, mediation -- has used all the methods possible to end this strike. It's up to the parties, when they

make that decision with respect to a strike, to consciously consider the ramifications. They have been out now for far too long. It's time for the kids to get back to school. This process allows

them to make a deal. This process allows us to have the kids back in school. Quite frankly, what the member opposite is offering is very little in this process.

Mr Colle: Given the fact that we're dealing, certainly in the Toronto situation, with 300,000 students in the mega school board and their

families, hundreds of thousands of family members have been affected by this unfortunate strike. We are dealing with a very serious matter, because parents, relatives are staying home, have not

gone to work in some cases to stay home with children. As I mentioned before in my other comments, I have been especially affected by the heartfelt tales of parents with special-needs children who

have had to bear enormous emotional costs as a result of this strike. In fact, a lot of these children were told to stay at home from day one. They've been at home for four weeks. It's an impact of

enormous proportion.

I think our party is saying we want to do something here that will once and for all get the children back to school and the families stabilized again. We want

to do it in a very forthright way that basically ends the turmoil that has gone on for too long. That is the bottom line here: to end the turmoil, to do it properly, and that's why we've supported

this legislation.

Under the legislation of this government, money saved in salaries goes back under the control of the provincial Minister of Education. We want to make sure

that every cent that is saved from the strike goes back into the schools.

I know the third party has made a laughingstock of themselves on this issue. It's time to be serious. Support the children and the families and forget about

your petty politics for once.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): We know where the government and the Conservative Party stand on back-to-work legislation. Heck, they

presented the legislation. They believe in forcing workers back to work and denying those workers, in this case, the thousands of incredibly hard-working women and men at the Toronto District

School Board, many of whom I've had a chance to know and meet -- and these are good people, these are hard-working people, these are committed people. They also happen to be, unfortunately for

them, in the eyes of this government, trade unionists. This government doesn't believe in free collective bargaining. That's obvious.

We also know now very clearly where Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party of Ontario stand. They don't believe in free collective bargaining either, because

they're supporting this same legislation with the same vigour and enthusiasm and haste as their Conservative friends sitting in government, their bed partners. If the Liberals want to crawl into

bed with the Tories in a very concentrated attack on working women and men and on free collective bargaining, God bless, but it ain't going to be a ménage à trois, because, I tell you,

you don't know where New Democrats stand. We're standing with those working women and men at the Toronto District School Board. We're going to oppose this legislation. We've done everything we

could to make sure that those workers have had the opportunity to effect a negotiated settlement before this incredibly vicious alternative is imposed upon them by this government.

The Liberals don't even have the good sense to oppose this legislation on what it does to the very fundamentals and foundations of arbitration law in this

province. The Liberals are supporting the imposition of a named arbitrator. The Liberals are supporting the clause that prevents judicial review as to issues of bias or the gross impropriety of

that decision. The Liberals support the incredibly restrictive mandate of that arbitrator. The Liberals are with the Tories against the workers; we're with the workers against this government.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): It's a pleasure to speak on Bill 13 this afternoon. I want to echo some of the comments made by

my colleagues from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and Eglinton-Lawrence. I think this strike has been going on for a long period of time. The leader of the third party talks about

section 12 of the bill.

He's a lawyer; I'm not. Read it. There's an opportunity for both sides to negotiate an agreement prior to this act coming into being.

You can talk about all the labour agreements, but just remember a number of years ago when you brought in the social contract, and you talk about negotiating

in good faith. Who started the whole process? It's funny, when we're sitting on this side of the House, how all of a sudden we can be critical of the other side.

I would like to point out that within my own riding of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex the students of Lambton-Kent have been locked out for the past couple days

because there is a disagreement between the board and the teachers. I agree that whether you're union or non-union, profit, no profit, whatever it is, everybody works hard in this province and

everybody earns their dollars. When I buy something, I don't ask whether it's union-dollar-made or whether it was made by a non-union person.

The thing is, we have to look at what is for the common good of the students. Today is April 27. Two months from now the kids will be out of school. Now, you

want to wait for another month for this agreement to be reached? Come on, give your head a shake. Let's do what is good for the students once and for all. Because you're on that side of the House,

the oxygen level may be a bit lower, but I'm sure it is the same level of oxygen that we have here. So let's do the right thing for the students and let's pass this bill.

The Speaker: Response?

Mr Hampton: I guess I have to quote the government members' own bill back to them. In

section 12 it says, "If an arbitrator was appointed to

settle matters in dispute between the parties relating to a bargaining unit before this act comes into force, on and after that day anything done by a person so appointed has no effect." In fact, I

have the letter from the Toronto District School Board and from CUPE to the Minister of Labour that says, "We enclose the order of mediator Mort Mitchnick, which order constitutes the settlement of

the parties in respect of the renewal of the collective agreement between CUPE local 4400 and the Toronto District School Board. This order provides for the termination of the strike and the return

of employees to work on or after April 30. We respectfully request that the Toronto District School Board and CUPE local 4400 be exempted from the provisions of Bill 13 currently before the

Legislative Assembly. We know that the government would have preferred that the parties reach their own resolution of their own disputes," and they have done so.

All I'm pointing out to the Minister of Labour and the government members is, according to the minister's own words that we heard him say here earlier today,

why, Minister, won't you now at least take the Toronto board out of this legislation and let them proceed with their own? As far as your

section 12, you know that it essentially would wipe out this

agreement. So why are you implementing your destructive process for one the parties have already agreed to themselves? Follow your own words here earlier today and allow the parties to follow their

own process which they've agreed to. That seems to me the more just way and it seems to be what you stated you wanted to do here earlier today.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Lankin: I appreciate having the opportunity, although it's unfortunate that we're here to deal with this today, particularly now with

respect to the Toronto board, when the parties have arrived at an agreement. I guess from here on in what we'll be doing is talking to you and hopefully providing now, not the parties with the time

to reach an agreement but providing the government with the time to see the wisdom of allowing the locally negotiated arbitration process to go forward.

Because I think the whole process of arbitration in this legislation can become quite complicated, I want to set out my firm understanding of the legislation

in front of us and of the agreement that has been arrived at between the parties and the relationship between the two, and what needs to occur to allow in the case of Toronto the locally negotiated

agreement to proceed at this point in time.

Before doing that I want to say, with respect to the Windsor board of education and the Service Employees International Union local there, we recently received

a phone call indicating they are currently seeking the opportunity to speak to each other about a potentially similar agreement. I can't tell you that will unfold, but I can tell you that the time

we are dedicating to this discussion here in this House is productive time that is allowing local parties to try and fashion agreements that meet their local needs and allow them to come through a

very difficult process with respect for each other and return to the workplace without the effects of a draconian piece of legislation and the poisoned workplace that would result from that.

It was our goal and our intent as the New Democratic Party caucus, as my leader, Howard Hampton, has said, to provide the parties with that opportunity, and

the parties have seized the opportunity in the case of Toronto and have arrived at a successful conclusion to that. In the case of Windsor, we wish them our best and hope they too are able to do

that.

I want to explain the procedure in this legislation as it is set out with respect to anything the parties might agree to locally now that we're into the final

debate of the bill.

The member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford a few moments ago made reference to

section 11 of this bill and indicated that the parties still have a number of days

set out in the legislation, seven more days, in which they could arrive at a collective agreement. There's no reason for us to have regard to the agreement the Toronto Board of Education and the

union representing the educational support workers for the Toronto Board of Education have arrived at because they've got seven days. So nothing needs to be done; nothing needs to be changed in

this legislation. But it is very important that you go from

section 11 -- and I understand the member's point about a negotiated collective agreement -- to

section 12, which deals with the events

as we've seen them unfold today. It deals specifically with the events of the two parties agreeing to a binding arbitration process and to an arbitrator before the passage of this legislation.

At some time in the morning hours of today the parties signed an agreement to a process for binding arbitration. They agreed and named an arbitrator, and the

agreement makes reference to the back-to-work protocol, how to facilitate getting the schools cleaned, getting the children back, which is their interest too; it's set out in the agreement.

However, if this legislation is passed as is without amendment sometime in the evening hours of today,

section 12 becomes applicable, and it reads, "If an arbitrator was appointed" -- by the

parties; that's happened -- "to settle matters in dispute between the parties relating to" one of the bargaining units named in this bill -- that's the Toronto board -- "before this act comes into

force" -- what happened this morning; the act isn't in force until it has passed third reading and then proclaimed later tonight -- then "anything done by" that person, the arbitrator, "has no

effect."

If I may put that into layman's terms, what it says is, if we pass this legislation without amending it, the fact that the Toronto Board of Education and the

union representing the educational support workers for the Toronto Board of Education have agreed to a process and an arbitrator to resolve their disputes, a process and an arbitrator that are

mutually agreeable to both parties, the fact that they've agreed to that will have no force and effect. Once this bill is proclaimed, that and the order of the mediator working with them that sets

out the agreement of the process and the naming of the arbitrator, become null and void. What it means is that upon passage of this legislation, upon proclamation of this legislation tonight, the

range of other things that are not mutually agreeable to the local parties, is what will prevail. The government's centralized, imposed solution is what will prevail.

In the throne speech I heard the government say they didn't think the education system could be controlled from Queen's Park. I heard the minister on many

occasions, including today in his opening remarks, say very clearly that they didn't want to become embroiled in this; they found they'd reached the point where they decided that course of action

was necessary for them to take, but that they preferred that the parties arrive at a local agreement. Well, the parties have done that, OK? They've said, "Here is the process of arbitration; here

is the arbitrator; here is a back-to-work protocol; here are some interim steps while the arbitrator is considering the whole range of issues." It's a very comprehensive agreement that both parties

have signed and that the mediator, the qualified and well-respected mediator working with them, has written up and placed in an order and signed and so ordered, on behalf of the very process set

out and overseen by the Minister of Labour's own ministry.

How is it, then, that there could be any debate of whether or not the government would agree to move a simple amendment to exempt the Toronto Board of

Education and the union representing the workers who have been on strike from the implementation and the effects of this legislation? I see one member of cabinet shaking his head. I don't

understand why, when the agreement has been arrived at. Why is your arbitration process better than the one the parties have agreed to? There is no difference in terms of when the children would be

back in school.

Mr Beaubien: What's the guarantee for the kids in your agreement?

Ms Lankin: What guarantees? The member across said there is no guarantee for the kids. If I may, the member says, "Tell us about the guarantee

for the kids in this agreement." In fact, your legislation makes no reference to when employees would be taken back into the schools to begin the cleaning process. Your legislation doesn't give a

guarantee of what day the schools will be open and clean and meet health and safety standards to proceed.

The agreement that the parties have arrived at sets out the back-to-work protocol that gets the workers in as soon as possible to clean the schools and to get

started. So there is a guarantee for the kids in their agreement, where there isn't in your legislation.

OK, there's one argument. Please, give me another argument, given all the words of the minister that you wanted a locally negotiated settlement, why it's

better, now that it's there and you could go with it, for you to impose your solution, one which, by the way, is objected to by both parties. As we speak, the Toronto Board of Education is holding

a press conference, urging the minister to please allow the agreement they arrived at with their own employees to go forward. Why do you feel capable of imposing, or that it is warranted for you to

impose, your solution over that of the employer in this situation, your solution over a solution that has been agreed to by the employer and the workers in a very difficult set of

circumstances?

We could see the Minister of Labour come into this House and indicate his willingness with an amendment to the bill to allow the locally negotiated agreement

to proceed unaffected by his legislation. In fact, if you gave it a little bit of time, we suspect the Windsor board could be in the same situation. He could come in and tell us that. We can, with

co-operation and agreement, move quickly to pass that amendment and see the hard work of the parties given the respect of this Legislature and the respect of this government, and see them allowed

to proceed through the process of arriving at a collective agreement.

I had wanted originally to spend some time talking about the legislation itself and my concerns about it. You've heard many of the members refer to previous

occasions in the House, under governments of all political stripes, where back-to-work legislation in the education sector has been presented and has been passed. Those comments have been put

forward in such a way as to suggest, "A bill is a bill is a bill. A law is a law is a law. They're all the same. You give it a title and if it sounds the same -- back to work -- it is the same."

Well, this bill is fundamentally different.

I remember the time in this province when compulsory arbitration was structured in a way as to be a fair alternative to free-market collective bargaining. What

I mean by "fair alternative" is that it was designed to replicate the result of free-market collective bargaining in terms of terms, conditions, salaries and benefits. The belief was that those

people who either do not have the right to strike or who work in the public sector, where after a period of time government and the public expect an alternative resolution mechanism than a strike,

should not be in a situation where the workers are expected by virtue of government funding decisions to subsidize the delivery of public services.

There have been some astounding arbitration awards written over the years that go into detail, explaining how unfair it would be if simply, external to the

bargaining table as we have in this situation -- the government of Ontario is not a party at the bargaining table -- and by virtue of decisions they make on funding and then try to impose in the

legislation, the workers themselves are expected to subsidize the delivery of that public service through substandard wages that don't replicate what's going on in the free-market collective

bargaining world.

Surely there should be fairness. If you take away the market forces of strike and lockout, the quid pro quo is that the process that replaces it fairly attempt

to replicate what would have happened in that private free-market collective bargaining situation.

This legislation is one of a number of pieces of legislation this government has brought forward that takes the guts out of a fair arbitration process as an

alternative dispute resolution mechanism to strikes and lockouts. This piece of legislation sets out incredible restrictions on the arbitrator and what the arbitrator can consider. It doesn't say,

as with agreements people have arrived at, "Take a look at all the conditions facing the employer and the employees and the policy issues, but you can look at other things as well." In the parties'

case, they know they need to be competitive. They know that to maintain a high-quality, good workforce they have to be competitive in their wages with the board next door or with the municipality

down the street or with the factory down the street in terms of what the rates are for maintenance workers and other categories that might be similar job classifications. They know that. They want

the arbitrator to be able to look at that.

The government is saying no on a whole series of fronts on the mechanisms that have traditionally been built into back-to-work legislation to allow for fair

arbitration. This government has ripped those out of the bill and then stands here and says, "It's just back-to-work legislation like every other one that's been passed and therefore you should all

accept it. You should be consistent in your position and accept this too."

If it were consistent with the previous bills, there might be another debate going on in this House, but it is not. It is draconian legislation. As my leader,

Howard Hampton, said, it is legislation that will leave us worse off in the conditions in our schools, in the working relationships in our schools, which affect our children's education. So please

don't tell me, as some members have, that my comments don't have at their heart an understanding of the importance of getting our children back into school -- but into a school where they can have

a quality education.

I find myself really -- I was going to say "puzzled" but, you know, in a sense I'm not. In a sense I should just accept it. But it is beyond common sense that

at this point in time, when we can respect a locally negotiated solution, we have a government that is saying, "No, we know better. No, tut-tut-tut, that silly board, those silly workers. Their

agreement isn't relevant. We're going to impose our own centrally designed solution on the parties."

The minister said to me, "Oh well, you know it's complicated. It's an 11-page agreement. It's pretty complicated." Well, it's the local agreement. He should

have a blind eye to what's contained in it, although I'll tell you, it names an arbitrator, it sets out the dates of arbitration, it facilitates getting the workers back to work quicker to clean

the schools to get the kids back in quicker than your legislation would. It sets out ranges of salaries, of interim steps that can be taken that the parties had agreed on. There's a whole range of

things that are very good and would give a sense of closure to the dispute that has gone on, that the parties have worked hard at to arrive at a resolution.

Why is there no respect from the government for the hard work of the parties and the solution they arrived at? Why would you impose your solution? Why would

you not respect this at this point in time? It can be done easily and I would hope that the members don't say too much more about why they're not going to do it, because the minister's in the

backroom taking a look at this. We're engaged, we hope, in an exercise of convincing you to take another look at this because it really is the best solution. Our kids will be back in school;

they'll be back in school earlier under this agreement than under your legislation. It sets out the time frame for people to go back into the school as soon as possible to start cleaning. That's

not in your legislation. Your legislation doesn't accomplish that.

What is your problem with a local solution? Have you read it?

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

Ms Lankin: Do you agree with it? Do you have a problem? What is the nature of your problem? Let's have a debate about why your solution is

better than what the employer and the workers have agreed to. You are not the employer. Although you're the funder, you're the ghost at the bargaining table, you are not the employer in this

situation, the Toronto school board is. The employer has signed this agreement. The union has signed this agreement. You have, I believe, no right to impose your solution when there is a local

negotiated settlement. But your legislation, if you pass it as it is, will do that.

Mr Beaubien: Why was it signed today?

Ms Lankin: I believe that the extra time that the parties were given over the last two days that afforded them the opportunity to speak to

each other, both of whom wanted to avoid your legislation. The conditions helped them arrive at this agreement. The agreement's been arrived at. Why would you impose --

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): It's not an agreement.

Ms Lankin: I'm hearing a member say it's not an agreement. It is an agreement to arbitration, with a named arbitrator and a back-to-work

schedule and whole range of other things. It is much more so an agreement through the parties than a piece of legislation which imposes a totally different set of terms, where you dictate how long

the collective agreement will be, you dictate what the arbitrator will look like, you dictate who the arbitrator is, you dictate, if that arbitrator can't do it, who you will appoint. You take all

of the control away from the parties.

Why would you defend it at this point in time? What is this sort of dig-in mentality? I implore members of the government. I hope the minister is reviewing

this as we speak. We'll continue to speak to you this afternoon to give you the time to reflect upon this. The local process should be respected. You've said that. They've now got a resolution. The

local resolution should be respected. Anything else sets out that your agenda always was to impose your view of what a solution is, your funding formula as a solution, and not respect local

parties. It will further poison the workplace. It will not be good for our children's education. I implore you to reconsider.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Arnott) : Questions and comments?

Mrs Marland: I have a great deal of regard for the previous speaker, the member for Beaches-East York, but it's unfortunate that on this

subject today I have to suggest that her caucus does not have this right. They still don't understand that these children, these young people, including elementary and secondary-school-aged

children, have already been out of school for four weeks.

The two parties, the two sides, have already had four weeks to go through the negotiated settlements, all the alternatives. What we're saying simply by passing

this legislation today is, "Enough is enough," and it doesn't prohibit the process from continuing. What it does is, it gets the children back into school on Monday. It gets normality back to those

families' lives that have been so adversely affected by this disruption.

In terms of this member saying we should allow extra time for the agreement, my goodness, we have sat back for four weeks and allowed the parties to go through

due process. This bill doesn't stop that, and frankly, when the leader of the New Democratic Party talks about the funding formula being at the base of this problem, he doesn't get that either. The

funding formula was one of the many things that this government has done for the future of education and the young people in this province by guaranteeing that every student in this province, no

matter where they live, is eligible to have the same amount of money spent on them, not like $8,000 per pupil at Ottawa-Carleton while Peel would have $4,800 per pupil.

We are acting in the best interests of the families and children in this board at this time, the Toronto board and the Windsor board. Let's look forward to the

rest of the process evolving and a successful solution.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): We believe that the right thing to do is to get the kids back into the classroom. We believe that is where they

belong. That is why some time ago our leader, Dalton McGuinty, put out a wonderful, acceptable-to-both-sides, so-called peace plan. There was a proposal, there was a policy put out by the Liberal

Party, by our leader, Dalton McGuinty, and indeed it was acceptable to both, to see the working-class people, the working-class kids back in school where they belong. That is the first

priority.

Of course the unions have a role, of course the workers are underpaid, and they deserve reasonable, equitable compensation. But our priority is to have the

kids back in the classroom where they belong. That is why we proposed to the government a long time ago to accept that particular plan. We can't let the government go scot-free; we are here today

because of the position the government has taken over the past several years. Had the government accepted Mr McGuinty's proposal, we wouldn't be here today discussing this issue on a Friday

afternoon and evening. We wouldn't have to have created this massive disturbance in our education system, creating chaos in so many working families' lives. The odd family can afford it; that's

fine, they can afford it. But I think we have created huge chaos in working-class families.

For us, it is important that we get the kids back into the classroom. Three weeks is long enough. Three weeks have caused enoug